North American Energy Infrastructure Act

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am very pleased to join with a number of colleagues today representing all of those in our conference who are deeply concerned about the mound of debt that students incur when they are doing the right thing.

We say: Go to college, work hard, get skills for this new economy, come out so you can be successful. Having done that, too many of them are coming out with mounds of debt--crushing debt--that is stopping them from buying a house, starting a business, and moving forward with their future. There is something that can be done about that, and that is what we are here to talk about and invite our Republican colleagues to join us.

There was a filibuster a number of weeks ago against our student loan debt bill, the bank on students bill. We have an opportunity today to come together, rather than seeing a Republican filibuster, to join in a bipartisan way to provide incredibly important relief to millions of not only young people but older people across the country who are still struggling with student loan debt.

In every generation there are young Americans from middle-class families who have the grades to go to college but not the financial resources. They take out student loans because they know that before they can get the job they want to be able to get a fair shot at the American dream, they have got to have a degree, and that is what they are taught. That is what we all tell our children. That is what I was told as well. What they are looking for is a degree, not debt. Unfortunately, by the time students graduate, they are in fact saddled in today's world with mounds of debt.

To address this problem, Senator Warren, Senator Franken, and I and many Democratic colleagues have joined to introduce the bank on students emergency loan bill. It would allow responsible borrowers to refinance their loans at lower rates, the rates from last year, the lowest possible rates in place. These are rates that are currently only available to new borrowers. We think everyone ought to have an opportunity to do that. In fact, with lower interest rates, we have seen so many people, including many of us, refinancing their homes, taking advantage of lower interest rates, being able to use lower interest rates in other ways. But students have been prohibited--anyone with a student loan has been prohibited from refinancing. That is plain wrong, and our bill addresses that.

Passing this bill would help more than 25 million Americans. I cannot think of any one single thing we could do that would immediately help 25 million people, including 1 million hard-working people in the State of Michigan.

A mother named Frances from Macomb County outside of Detroit wrote to me on September 6, and she talked about her children. She has two children. Both of them chose jobs that serve the public. One is a teacher and one is a nurse. Because of the loans they took out when they were working hard to get their way through college, their student loan debt now is nearly $100,000--$100,000.

In Michigan, 62 percent of college students have debt when they graduate. The average is about $29,000, although I have talked to people with not only the $100,000 debt I just mentioned but young professionals with $185,000 or $200,000 debt if they have gone to graduate school or medical school or law school, and it can be even higher.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are some Americans who worked all their adult lives and are now retired, and in fact they are on Medicare and they are still paying student loan debt. This is wrong. We need to act to change this.

The total student loan debt in this country right now is $1.2 trillion. That is more than credit card debt--more than credit card debt, $1.2 trillion. If you put it another way, after every one of the 7.2 billion people--men, women, and children in the world--if everybody in the world donated $165 to pay off America's student loan debt, it still wouldn't be quite enough.

This is something with a great sense of urgency to it. This bill needs to pass. We need to pass it now. If this passes, it means parents can save for their children's education, for a home, can start a business, can afford their car, can begin saving for their own retirement instead of just paying off student loan debt. These aren't luxuries, these are basics, basics of the American dream.

Everyone in this Chamber can agree that America isn't strong without a vibrant middle class, and, frankly, it is outrageous that we have allowed this situation to go on where the only way to do the right thing, to get the skills needed to get ahead, is to put yourself in such jeopardy with student loan debt. We can do better than that.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in helping millions of American workers to manage their student loan debt more effectively, saving thousands--tens of thousands--of dollars in interest payments. We can help right now.

This is something where we could jump-start the economy, as the Federal Reserve Chairman said--jump-start the economy right now by passing this bill and being able to lower the cost of student loans.

It is now my great pleasure to turn to a champion not only on this issue but on the broader question of making sure that every American has a fair shot to make it so that we have a strong middle class in this country.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.

Mr. President, it is now my great pleasure to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I have to say that Senator Shaheen's voice has been strong and clear. She has been one of our strongest advocates as far as what we need to do on student loan debt and also making sure middle-class families have a shot to get ahead. We are very pleased to have the Senator from New Hampshire, and I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, and as one of the lead sponsors of this bill, I thank Senator Franken for his passion and fight not only for people in Minnesota but for the 25 million people across the country who will benefit from the opportunity to be able to afford to go to college.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York, who not only is a leader on this issue and so many other issues but is the author of a major tax credit in our Tax Code that allows middle-class families to be able to get help for college. There is not a bigger champion for middle-class families than the senior Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New York, who has been so passionate on the broad question of how do we have a fair shot as Americans to get ahead and particularly as it relates to affordability and college loan debt.

We are so pleased to have another champion with us from the great State of Maryland. I yield now to Senator Cardin from Maryland.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Let me stress what I think Senator Cardin said so eloquently. We have the opportunity to vote today on a fair shot for everybody to go to college, so we will ask our colleagues to join us. The rules of the Senate are such that even though we have a majority--because our caucus is all supporting this effort we have a majority to get this done--if there is an objection, we go into filibuster mode, which takes a supermajority. It is the way the rules are. We know we have a majority to pass this bill. If our colleagues don't want to vote for it, that is fine, but what we ought to be doing is having the vote.

If somebody wants to stand and say this is not important, it is not a priority to make sure everyone has a fair shot to be able to go to college and not be buried in student loan debt, if they want to say they would rather protect those we are asking to help chip in to pay for this, which are millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their fair share in taxes right now as middle-class families are asked to do--we are paying for this refinancing by closing a loophole that, as Warren Buffett said, shouldn't be there when he as a billionaire has a lower tax rate than his secretary. So we are saying join us to close that loophole. Take those dollars and help 25 million people--25 million people--be able to cut thousands of dollars off of their payments. For me, I am laser focused on the 1 million people in Michigan this would help.

Let me share a few of those stories. Nathan Collison and his wife live in Saginaw. They are young professionals. They have a combined student loan debt of $185,000. They have a 3-year-old little girl. I will never forget Nathan saying to me: When she is ready to go to college, I am still going to be paying off our student loan debt, and I can't afford to put money aside for my little girl to be able to go to college. That is not right. He and his wife both work and right now they are talking about $600 a month on student loan debts. As Nathan pointed out to me, that is a house payment. That is a good house in Saginaw at $600 a month. Yet it is only a fraction of the interest on Nathan's loans, which means his debt is going to keep growing and growing and growing. Just to make his debt stop growing, he would have to be paying $2,200 a month. So if he was going to be paying the full amount and not deferring part of it, it would be $2,200 a month, which is a very nice house in Michigan. He would like the ability to do more than just have a nice house. Nathan and his wife would like to put money aside for their little girl to be able to go to college and to be able to invest in their future.

So this legislation wouldn't automatically make Nathan's debt go away, but it would make it a whole lot easier. If we look at $185,000 over a 20-year period, we are talking about tens of thousands--$100,000 in savings.

So this is very much about having a vote today, the opportunity to vote. Our colleagues don't have to vote yes. They don't have to vote yes. We are confident we have enough votes to pass this. We just need to get through the procedural hurdle, the objections that trigger a filibuster. That is all we are asking for. I think the 1 million families and the 1 million people in Michigan and their families, the 25 million people across the country who are buried in student loan debt deserve a vote. They deserve a vote today.

We also talk about a young woman from Lambertville, MI. She went to my alma mater, Michigan State University. She graduated in 2008 and was on the Dean's list.

Of course, 2008 was a disastrous year for the economy, nationally and certainly in Michigan, as we saw what happened to auto manufacturing. It was especially brutal for young people looking for work.

Even though she graduated among the top in her class, it ended up taking her 4 years to find a job in her field. Today she is only making slightly more than minimum wage and trying to figure out how in the world she is going to pay off her student loan debt, let alone proceed with her dreams for the future.

Last week I heard from a young man who was originally from Union City, MI. He was working in North Carolina when his father was diagnosed with a terminal illness--brain cancer. He came home--as I'm sure his family appreciated--to help care for his father. He was showing the right kind of family values to come home and help care for his dad.

During the recession he lost his job in Michigan and was out of work for 2 years, which is why he ended up in North Carolina and ended up in a low-wage job with no benefits. Now he is back trying to figure out how he can help take care of his dad, figure out a job, and not be totally buried in the debt that he already has.

His debt has been turned over to a collection agency and, counting the fees, he now owes $90,000 and counting. He tried to do the right thing not only by going to college but for his family.

I think about how things have changed over the years--the kind of support we used to give. One of the great American strengths has been creating opportunity for people to be successful. A lot of that opportunity has been in relation to going to college and getting an education.

I remember growing up in Clare. When I was going to high school my dad was very ill. We didn't have any money for me to go to school. I worked very hard. I was at the top of my small class of 93 people, and I was in a position to get a tuition and fee scholarship that allowed me to go to college.

Somebody somewhere thought at that time it was important for some redheaded freckle-faced kid they did not know had a shot to make it. That has been what is best about America. Now we have tried. We have increased Pell grants, but certainly they need to be increased much more.

We have focused on other areas, and we certainly need to do more. What we have seen over time is that more of what students have had to do is take student loans. There have been less opportunities for scholarships and less opportunities for grants.

I am very sorry to say my home State has cut K-12 and higher education. On higher education--and more

than in most States--it is in the top ten in student-loan debt and certainly not something I am proud to see happen in my home State of Michigan because of what I think have been upside-down values.

What we have seen over time is that as the economy is changing, we are telling people who are going back to school who lost their job: You need to go back and get the education, the tools, and the skills for the jobs that are available in today's economy.

We have new opportunities and a new economy, but it means we have to have new skills. We have to have an education, so students are doing that. They are doing the right thing. They are doing what they have been told to do. Then they turn around and their only option is loans.

They take a look at the fact that somehow student loans are treated differently than student loan debt. You cannot get the lowest interest rates and refinance if you are in the unfortunate situation of going into bankruptcy and can't discharge those loans in bankruptcy such as you can other kinds of debt.

I don't understand how we got into a place where somehow student loan debt is with you forever and ever. We don't have the same ability to allow people to manage that debt as they do other kinds of debt. But that is where we are in this country. There are cuts at the State level and tuition goes up.

We then see a situation where more and more people have to turn to student loans.

We can do something about that today. There is a lot we can do. I support doing all that will allow us to get us back to right-size the situation in terms of our values and supporting opportunity for education in our country.

One thing we can do right now is to have a vote on this bill. We could immediately see change happen. Put more money back into the pockets of folks across our great country who have been doing the right thing and want a fair shot to make it and the opportunity to have some kind of help as they are paying off their student loans.

I am so pleased to see our leader and the main author of this legislation join us on the floor. She understands, as we all do, and is someone that has been dedicated to education and higher education her whole life, advocating for an opportunity for people to be successful and have a fair shot.

It is my pleasure at this point to turn to the distinguished Senator, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and support her request as she moves forward this afternoon.

I yield for the Senator.

Out of respect to my colleague, I realize we are going into the next hour that is controlled by the Republicans. But I did want to take 1 minute to wrap up, if that is acceptable to my colleague.

I just wanted to go on record to say there are thousands of excuses always on everything for reasons not to do things. We are talking about a very specific bill, a very specific vote that would put money in the pockets of 25 million Americans. We could do that right now. People can have lots of reasons. It reminds me a lot of hearing that my kids have hundreds of excuses about why they cannot do something, whether it is because of somebody else or this, that, and the other.

I think the American people just want us to get stuff done. We want to get things done. The motion that Senator Warren put forward is about getting things done. A vast majority--58 Senators--has already said yes, they want to move forward. Yes, they will vote yes. We need to get this piece done to help 25 million people and then move on and work with each other across the aisle to do other work.

I greatly regret the objection and indicate that we will be back and back and back until we get the American people the relief they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to present the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that I think is very important to helping our country build the infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy self-sufficient--energy secure, if you will.

This is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that has already passed the House. It was sponsored in the House by Representative Fred Upton, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was cosponsored on the Democratic side by Gene Green, a Congressman from Texas. I have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the Senate as well--on the Republican side, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the energy committee; and then I have two other members of the energy committee who are Democrats cosponsoring this legislation as well, Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Certainly Senator Manchin is recognized as one of the leaders in the Senate on important energy issues. I am very appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. I am introducing this legislation now.

This is the sixth anniversary of the application by TransCanada for a permit to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. They applied for approval of a pipeline project--the Keystone XL Pipeline project--6 years ago as of Friday of this week. Can you imagine that? Americans fought and won World War II in less time than this application has been pending before the President of the United States, yet still no decision from this administration after 6 years.

This is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country energy secure. Working with Canada, we can truly produce more energy than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it without the necessary infrastructure--the roads, the pipelines, the rail, the transmission lines--the energy infrastructure we need to get energy from where it is produced, places such as my State of North Dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this country, second only to Texas. We produce more than 1 million barrels a day of oil, but we have to get it to market. It is getting loaded and overloaded on rail. We have tremendous congestion on rail. Our farmers cannot get their ag products to market anymore because we

have so much congestion on the rail. Yet here we have an application that has been held for 6 years by the President of the United States without a decision. That is after last year when he came to the Republican caucus and told us point blank that he would have a decision before the end of 2013. No decision. Here we are in 2014, the sixth anniversary.

Well, look, we cannot continue to have that problem.

We have to find a way to build this infrastructure. Even though we are working on Keystone on a separate track--and I believe we will have the votes next year to pass it. We will have the 60 votes in the Senate we need to pass it. We are at 57 right now. We are very close. I think by next year we will have those 60 votes to pass Keystone, and we will work to do that and attach it to legislation the President will not veto. So we will continue to work on Keystone on that track, but at the same time we have to avoid this problem in the future with oil pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines.

We have to be able to build that infrastructure not only in this country, but we have to be able to cross the border with Canada. Canada is a huge producer of energy. So working together, we have this incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it. It is not just for fossil fuels. It is not just for oil. It is not just for gas. It is for renewables as well. Canada produces an incredible amount of hydro, which, of course, is electricity. We need transmission lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border.

So this is about all forms of energy, and this is about working with our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. It is a job-creation issue. It is a national security issue.

What does this legislation do, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act? What it does is it expedites, streamlines the approval process for cross-border construction of oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines.

How does it work? First, oil pipelines. Right now, a Presidential national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to build an oil pipeline across the Canadian border. Of course, that is the problem we see with Keystone. That has been held up now for 6 years. So this changes that process for future projects. As I said, it has already passed the House overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. I think it had pretty much all of the Republican votes and I think more than 50 votes on the Democratic side. They had very strong bipartisan support in the House.

What it does is it changes that approval process for crossing the border with an oil pipeline, moving it to the State Department. So the State Department will make that determination approving a cross-border transfer. It will still be subject to the NEPA process. You will still have to do an environmental impact statement. But the focus of that EIS--environmental impact statement--or the NEPA process, will be on the border section, not on the entire length of the project throughout all the States that pipeline may cross. It will focus on the border section. And the State Department has to come up with reasonable rules to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border with Canada.

Then the rest of the NEPA process will continue just as it does today for any other project that does not come across the border. Right now States have their jurisdiction in some cases and the Federal Government has its jurisdiction in some cases, depending on whether it is private land or it is public land or Federal land. Maybe it is a body of water. Whatever. So the NEPA process continues as before, driven by the States or the Federal Government depending on what particular part of the country or the type of land or the body of water you are crossing.

I think that is why it garnered such strong bipartisan support. We continue that process and those protections, but we do not allow the determination on the cross-border process or the cross-border piece to be held up by all of the NEPA process and all of the sitings that may be covered in all the respective States that pipeline crosses. Those processes are already in place. Do not use crossing the border as an excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the authority of the States that are affected by that project.

I think it is a very reasonable process, and it is one that I think we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way to say: It is open. It is fair. That is why we have bipartisan support in the sponsorship--Senator Donnelly, Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski, myself, all people who work on energy--because we have struck that balance. It is about creating a good business climate that will encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need to move the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed in the safest way possible--in the safest way possible--in the most economic way possible.

That is what it is about, the best environmental stewardship. Isn't that what we all want? Obviously it is. But if we don't do this, where are we? Well, right now we are waiting 6 years for a determination on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Here is another example I will give, the Bakken North pipeline, a pipeline that goes from North Dakota to Cushing, and they have been waiting for 1\1/2\ years on an ownership name change from the Department of State, 1\1/2\ years to change the name. Really? Does that make sense to anybody? If it takes that long for something that simple, what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that is so important to the energy future of our country?

What about gas pipelines? Gas pipelines will be covered by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What we say is: Look, they will go through the NEPA process too. Just as we describe with the Department of State on an oil pipeline, they will take that cross- border piece and do the same thing, do a NEPA process so you have an environmental impact statement and cover all the bases. But then 30 days after, they have to make a decision. They can't just sit on it, and the rest of the NEPA process continues as we described on an oil pipeline. Again, very simple, very straightforward, and it comports with the free trade agreements we have with Canada and with Mexico.

On the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be overseen by the Department of Energy. We simply streamline the process. Right now there are two permits required, one that is driven by the administration, one that is congressionally driven. We combine those and make it one process; again, cover all the bases, as I have described, with an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, but we make it one process instead of a duplicative process.

When we look at what is going on in the world today, we see why this legislation is so important. Look at ISIL. Look at ISIL in the Middle East and what is happening there. We are right now confronting how we need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work with allies in the region to take out ISIL. Do we really want to continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East? I think we could ask every single American that question and the answer would be a resounding no. There is no way we want to have to get oil from the Middle East. But we still are today. Yet we can produce more oil and gas in this country, particularly with Canada, than we can consume.

Why would we continue to want to be dependent on the Middle East or Venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile toward our interests? We don't. This is a national security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a job creation issue. It is an economic growth issue. And it is for darned sure a national security issue. Which is why every time we ask the public about it, more than two-thirds say: Yes, build that infrastructure. Build that Keystone Pipeline. Let's work with Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, to get our energy.

Look what is going on in Europe. Look what is going on with Russia and Ukraine. Look at the situation a country such as Ukraine or the European Union is in because of Russian aggression. Where do they get their energy? Where does Ukraine get its energy? Where does the European Union get their energy? They get a third or more--from? Russia. Russia, the same

country that is invading Ukraine, the same country occupying Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine.

Then when we try to get the European Union to join with us to push back, what do they say? Geez, I don't know. We can't, because Russia is going to cut off the gas and it is fall and it is getting colder.

Does that make sense to anybody? Is that the situation we want to be in? I think it is pretty compelling. Do we want to be in a situation where we have to try to get oil out of the Middle East with ISIL over there operating the way they are? I don't think so.

These issues are all interrelated, and they are not short-term issues. We can't start building that infrastructure today and have it done tomorrow. These are billion-dollar investments. They don't cost the government a single penny, but they are billion-dollar investments that private enterprise is willing to make and put people to work, provide that energy more safely, more securely, with better environmental stewardship, and address our national security challenges. That type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this country, and it is one we need to start now.

For six years we have been waiting for a decision from the President on a multibillion dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil from Canada to the United States but will move 100,000 barrels a day of oil from my home State to refineries in this country, that by the State Department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create energy security for our country, that will allow us to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, rather than telling them: No, we are not going to work with you. Send that oil to China. It is something the American people overwhelmingly want by about 70 percent in most of the polls that I guess is being held up by special interest groups.

This is about how we run this country. This is about who we work for. This is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy future for America that I believe the American people very much want.

Let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to present the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that I think is very important to helping our country build the infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy self-sufficient--energy secure, if you will.

This is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that has already passed the House. It was sponsored in the House by Representative Fred Upton, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was cosponsored on the Democratic side by Gene Green, a Congressman from Texas. I have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the Senate as well--on the Republican side, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the energy committee; and then I have two other members of the energy committee who are Democrats cosponsoring this legislation as well, Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Certainly Senator Manchin is recognized as one of the leaders in the Senate on important energy issues. I am very appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. I am introducing this legislation now.

This is the sixth anniversary of the application by TransCanada for a permit to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. They applied for approval of a pipeline project--the Keystone XL Pipeline project--6 years ago as of Friday of this week. Can you imagine that? Americans fought and won World War II in less time than this application has been pending before the President of the United States, yet still no decision from this administration after 6 years.

This is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country energy secure. Working with Canada, we can truly produce more energy than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it without the necessary infrastructure--the roads, the pipelines, the rail, the transmission lines--the energy infrastructure we need to get energy from where it is produced, places such as my State of North Dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this country, second only to Texas. We produce more than 1 million barrels a day of oil, but we have to get it to market. It is getting loaded and overloaded on rail. We have tremendous congestion on rail. Our farmers cannot get their ag products to market anymore because we

have so much congestion on the rail. Yet here we have an application that has been held for 6 years by the President of the United States without a decision. That is after last year when he came to the Republican caucus and told us point blank that he would have a decision before the end of 2013. No decision. Here we are in 2014, the sixth anniversary.

Well, look, we cannot continue to have that problem.

We have to find a way to build this infrastructure. Even though we are working on Keystone on a separate track--and I believe we will have the votes next year to pass it. We will have the 60 votes in the Senate we need to pass it. We are at 57 right now. We are very close. I think by next year we will have those 60 votes to pass Keystone, and we will work to do that and attach it to legislation the President will not veto. So we will continue to work on Keystone on that track, but at the same time we have to avoid this problem in the future with oil pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines.

We have to be able to build that infrastructure not only in this country, but we have to be able to cross the border with Canada. Canada is a huge producer of energy. So working together, we have this incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it. It is not just for fossil fuels. It is not just for oil. It is not just for gas. It is for renewables as well. Canada produces an incredible amount of hydro, which, of course, is electricity. We need transmission lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border.

So this is about all forms of energy, and this is about working with our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. It is a job-creation issue. It is a national security issue.

What does this legislation do, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act? What it does is it expedites, streamlines the approval process for cross-border construction of oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines.

How does it work? First, oil pipelines. Right now, a Presidential national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to build an oil pipeline across the Canadian border. Of course, that is the problem we see with Keystone. That has been held up now for 6 years. So this changes that process for future projects. As I said, it has already passed the House overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. I think it had pretty much all of the Republican votes and I think more than 50 votes on the Democratic side. They had very strong bipartisan support in the House.

What it does is it changes that approval process for crossing the border with an oil pipeline, moving it to the State Department. So the State Department will make that determination approving a cross-border transfer. It will still be subject to the NEPA process. You will still have to do an environmental impact statement. But the focus of that EIS--environmental impact statement--or the NEPA process, will be on the border section, not on the entire length of the project throughout all the States that pipeline may cross. It will focus on the border section. And the State Department has to come up with reasonable rules to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border with Canada.

Then the rest of the NEPA process will continue just as it does today for any other project that does not come across the border. Right now States have their jurisdiction in some cases and the Federal Government has its jurisdiction in some cases, depending on whether it is private land or it is public land or Federal land. Maybe it is a body of water. Whatever. So the NEPA process continues as before, driven by the States or the Federal Government depending on what particular part of the country or the type of land or the body of water you are crossing.

I think that is why it garnered such strong bipartisan support. We continue that process and those protections, but we do not allow the determination on the cross-border process or the cross-border piece to be held up by all of the NEPA process and all of the sitings that may be covered in all the respective States that pipeline crosses. Those processes are already in place. Do not use crossing the border as an excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the authority of the States that are affected by that project.

I think it is a very reasonable process, and it is one that I think we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way to say: It is open. It is fair. That is why we have bipartisan support in the sponsorship--Senator Donnelly, Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski, myself, all people who work on energy--because we have struck that balance. It is about creating a good business climate that will encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need to move the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed in the safest way possible--in the safest way possible--in the most economic way possible.

That is what it is about, the best environmental stewardship. Isn't that what we all want? Obviously it is. But if we don't do this, where are we? Well, right now we are waiting 6 years for a determination on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Here is another example I will give, the Bakken North pipeline, a pipeline that goes from North Dakota to Cushing, and they have been waiting for 1\1/2\ years on an ownership name change from the Department of State, 1\1/2\ years to change the name. Really? Does that make sense to anybody? If it takes that long for something that simple, what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that is so important to the energy future of our country?

What about gas pipelines? Gas pipelines will be covered by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What we say is: Look, they will go through the NEPA process too. Just as we describe with the Department of State on an oil pipeline, they will take that cross- border piece and do the same thing, do a NEPA process so you have an environmental impact statement and cover all the bases. But then 30 days after, they have to make a decision. They can't just sit on it, and the rest of the NEPA process continues as we described on an oil pipeline. Again, very simple, very straightforward, and it comports with the free trade agreements we have with Canada and with Mexico.

On the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be overseen by the Department of Energy. We simply streamline the process. Right now there are two permits required, one that is driven by the administration, one that is congressionally driven. We combine those and make it one process; again, cover all the bases, as I have described, with an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, but we make it one process instead of a duplicative process.

When we look at what is going on in the world today, we see why this legislation is so important. Look at ISIL. Look at ISIL in the Middle East and what is happening there. We are right now confronting how we need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work with allies in the region to take out ISIL. Do we really want to continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East? I think we could ask every single American that question and the answer would be a resounding no. There is no way we want to have to get oil from the Middle East. But we still are today. Yet we can produce more oil and gas in this country, particularly with Canada, than we can consume.

Why would we continue to want to be dependent on the Middle East or Venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile toward our interests? We don't. This is a national security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a job creation issue. It is an economic growth issue. And it is for darned sure a national security issue. Which is why every time we ask the public about it, more than two-thirds say: Yes, build that infrastructure. Build that Keystone Pipeline. Let's work with Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, to get our energy.

Look what is going on in Europe. Look what is going on with Russia and Ukraine. Look at the situation a country such as Ukraine or the European Union is in because of Russian aggression. Where do they get their energy? Where does Ukraine get its energy? Where does the European Union get their energy? They get a third or more--from? Russia. Russia, the same

country that is invading Ukraine, the same country occupying Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine.

Then when we try to get the European Union to join with us to push back, what do they say? Geez, I don't know. We can't, because Russia is going to cut off the gas and it is fall and it is getting colder.

Does that make sense to anybody? Is that the situation we want to be in? I think it is pretty compelling. Do we want to be in a situation where we have to try to get oil out of the Middle East with ISIL over there operating the way they are? I don't think so.

These issues are all interrelated, and they are not short-term issues. We can't start building that infrastructure today and have it done tomorrow. These are billion-dollar investments. They don't cost the government a single penny, but they are billion-dollar investments that private enterprise is willing to make and put people to work, provide that energy more safely, more securely, with better environmental stewardship, and address our national security challenges. That type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this country, and it is one we need to start now.

For six years we have been waiting for a decision from the President on a multibillion dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil from Canada to the United States but will move 100,000 barrels a day of oil from my home State to refineries in this country, that by the State Department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create energy security for our country, that will allow us to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, rather than telling them: No, we are not going to work with you. Send that oil to China. It is something the American people overwhelmingly want by about 70 percent in most of the polls that I guess is being held up by special interest groups.

This is about how we run this country. This is about who we work for. This is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy future for America that I believe the American people very much want.

Let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the NLRB Reform Act with Senator McConnell. Our legislation is very simple. It will change the NLRB from an advocate to an umpire. That is the role the National Labor Relations Board was always supposed to have. The Board was created 79 years ago to act as an impartial umpire in labor disputes that threaten the free flow of commerce. The Board's decisions affect millions of private sector workers. But over time the Board has become an advocate for one interest group or the other, changing positions with each new administration.

There are three significant problems the Board faces today:

No. 1, the biggest problem is partisan advocacy. Today the majority of the five-member Board is made up of appointees who follow President Obama's political leanings. President Obama has appointed three labor union leaders to the Board.

No. 2, the Board also has a freewheeling advocate for its general counsel. The Board's most recent general counsels have been exceeding their statutory authority and bringing questionable cases that threaten American jobs and threaten sending overseas manufacturing jobs that we need to keep here.

No. 3, the National Labor Relations Board has been slow to resolve disputes. Last year 109 cases--that is 30 percent of the Board's caseload--were pending for more than a year.

Occasionally someone will say to me: If Republicans were to win the Senate, what would Republicans do?

What we would do is try to come up with sensible proposals that lead us in the right direction, proposals that have so much commonsense that they attract the support of enough Democrats and the House of Representatives and the President to become law. This is one such proposal.

Our bill provides three solutions to the problems I identified:

No. 1, it would end partisan advocacy on the National Labor Relations Board. The Board would become a six-member board of three Republicans and three Democrats, and a required majority of four will force both sides to find a middle ground.

No. 2, it reins in the general counsel. Businesses and unions would be able to challenge complaints filed by the general counsel by taking them to the Federal district court, and they will have greater transparency about the basis and legal reasoning for the charges brought by the general counsel.

No. 3, our legislation would encourage timely decisions. First, either party in a case before the Board may appeal to a Federal court of appeals if the Board fails to reach a decision in 1 year. Second, funding for the entire NLRB would be reduced by 20 percent if the Board is not able to decide 90 percent of its cases within 1 year over the first 2-year period following reform.

Our bill would offer these solutions without taking away one single right, one single remedy from any employee, business, or union.

With each new administration, the pendulum at the NLRB has swung further from the middle, further away from being an umpire. The result is that labor policy whipsaws back and forth, taking employees and employers for a wild ride. This has happened under most administrations, but it has been worse under the current administration. The minority leader mentioned several of those examples.

Under the partisan advocacy of today's National Labor Relations Board, workers are losing their right to privacy. The Board is embarking on a regulatory effort to expand requirements that employers give employees' names and addresses to union organizers. The Board wants more personal information about these employees to be given to the organizing union, including telephone numbers, email addresses, the employee's work location, the employee's shift, the job classifications. They propose doing everything but attaching a GPS to the lapel of each employee.

In my State of Tennessee, for example, we have had an ongoing organizing effort in the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga. In a secret ballot election last February, employees at the Volkswagen plant said: We don't want a union; we don't need a union. So 712 to 626 they rejected the United Auto Workers' bid to unionize the plant. Imagine if you were one of those 712 employees who voted against unionizing. Now organizers can get your private email address and all of this other personal information.

Here is another example. Factions of employees within single stores now have a path to forming their own unions. In 2011 the Board suddenly adopted a new way to define what makes a local union bargaining unit. The Board changed the law so that any group of employees with an overwhelming community of interest could become a bargaining unit and therefore a union. At the same time, the Board is moving a regulation to limit the employer's ability to question which employees should be in a bargaining unit. This allows a union to cherry-pick employees who will be most likely to support forming a union.

How has this worked in the real world? Here is an example. The Board just approved a bargaining unit for cosmetic and fragrance employees in a Macy's department store--not the shoe salespeople, not the lady's fashion employees, not the junior's department, just cosmetic and fragrance. Imagine if every department of Macy's decided to form a union. The employer would have dozens of different groups to negotiate with, and the different unions would be fighting each other over who got the better raises and break rooms in terms of employment.

During this administration the NLRB has ruled that common employment policies are unfair labor practices, such as--and Senator Scott brought this up at a hearing the other day--the NLRB has said that an employer may not have a policy that requires employees to be courteous to customers and fellow employees, or prohibiting employees from making negative comments about the business that employs them on social media or selecting arbitration for employment disputes.

Our solution: Senator McConnell and I would solve this by requiring a six-member board of three Republicans and three Democrats. Like the Federal Election Commission, a majority of four will require both sides to find a middle ground.

Here is the second problem. The Board's general counsel is acting like a freewheeling advocate, stretching labor law to its limits and sometimes beyond its limits. For example, in 2011 the general counsel moved to stop Boeing from building new airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina. The general counsel to the NLRB jeopardized a $1 billion factory and hundreds of jobs with this move, but even worse, he tried to make the case that a unionized American company can't expand its operations into one of the 24 States, such as Tennessee, with right-to-work laws which protect a worker's right to join or not to join a union. The general counsel eventually withdrew this outrageous complaint against Boeing, but if it had set a precedent, jobs would have fled overseas as manufacturers look to find a competitive environment in which to make and sell cars around the world.

We want to make sure manufacturers such as Boeing, Nissan, and General Motors can have a competitive environment in the United States in which they can make airplanes and cars and other goods and sell them around the world. We do not want them making them in Mexico or Japan or Europe or somewhere else because we have undermined right-to-work laws. Our solution would allow employers and unions to challenge complaints filed against them by the general counsel in Federal court and give employers and unions new rights to learn the basis and legal reasoning of charges filed against them by the general counsel.

Finally, the NLRB is taking too long to resolve cases. For example, one case has been pending at the Board for more than 7 years. The case involves the question of whether an employer has to allow labor union organizers access to private property.

Our solution--Senator McConnell and I encourage a timely resolution of

cases, first, by allowing either party to appeal to a Federal court of appeals for a de novo, or fresh, review if the Board fails to reach a decision on the case within 1 year. To further incentivize timely resolution, we include the threat of a 20-percent budget cut with the Board if 90 percent of the cases are not decided within a year.

In conclusion, while the increasing partisanship of the Board has appeared in Republican administrations as well as Democratic administrations, it has reached a climax in this administration. Three of this President's recent nominees came from major labor unions' leadership. One law professor at a major university said she can't use the most recent labor law textbook. The decisions changing the law are coming out so rapidly and the NLRB is venturing into new territory with these efforts at rulemaking. This is no way to maintain a national labor law policy.

Our plan, the NLRB Reform Act, will, first, end partisan advocacy; second, rein in the general counsel; third, it will encourage timely decisions. Our bill would offer these solutions without taking away one right or one remedy from one employee, one business, or one union. I hope my colleagues will carefully review this proposal and consider cosponsoring the NLRB Reform Act.

Mr. President, I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, it is truly a great honor to stand with my colleague from Kansas as we are on the cusp of actually passing legislation that has consequences for a lot of our American citizens and especially our Native American citizens. I will tell you as someone who represents Indian Country in my State, this is the number one priority for our tribes.

It is interesting because a lot of people would look at this and say: Why this issue? I think it goes to the heart of Native American sovereignty. What has been happening, as it relates to 1099s and the potential of taxing services provided by tribal governments, basically begs the question: Do we really understand or do we really appreciate that these are sovereign governments--the same way the States are sovereign and the same way the counties and cities would be sovereign?

I think in many ways it has very real economic consequences, but a great value in this legislation is in the symbolic consequences of having this body recognize the importance of recognizing these treaty rights, recognizing the value of treaties and trust responsibilities. As a former attorney general and as a lawyer, I view treaty rights and trust responsibilities like a contract between the United States and our Native American tribes. As a U.S. citizen, I view these treaties as sacred obligations.

We have not done a good enough job living up to our commitments to tribal nations. As a consequence tribal governments have been forced to supplement services that the Federal Government promised to provide. Yet for years the IRS has audited Indian tribes for providing health care, education or housing assistance for those in need.

Here are just some of the stories I have heard from Native Americans in North Dakota and across the country. I have heard about the IRS wanting the tribes to issue 1099s--basically saying you have something of taxable value--to tribal elders who received blankets as honoraria for performing traditional ceremonies.

I heard about the IRS questioning a tribal government's provision providing backpacks and school supplies to elementary school children as a taxable benefit to the families of the children.

I have heard about the IRS imposing a tax on the value of a handicap ramp--a value of $2,000--erected by the tribal government to help a tribal elder access her home.

The stories go on. The status quo isn't fair and it isn't right. This practice certainly does not fully respect that tribes are governments. That is why I joined with Senator Moran to introduce the bipartisan Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act last year.

The bill would fully recognize that Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, are responsible for making certain government programs and services best fit the needs of their citizens. Just as State and local governments are determined to decide what is in the best interest of their citizens, such as scholarships, elder or child care or housing assistance, we have to recognize that tribal governments have the right to make those decisions without tax consequences.

With this bill, we are supporting tribal self-determination and taking a step towards living up to our trust and treaty obligations. Indian tribes and their members should not be subject to heightened IRS scrutiny.

I think Senator Moran outlined that issue so well because some people may see that what we are doing here is carving out an exception, creating an extra benefit for tribal members that is not enjoyed by the entire citizenry of this country.

Nothing could be further than the truth. In fact, we are leveling the playing field. The Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act will bring parity in the tax treatment of Indian governments. It will recognize the unique relationship with tribal governments that they have with their citizens and allow them the opportunity to craft programs which best fit their community need.

I want to take a moment and suggest to all of you that if you spent time in Indian Country and if you have looked at the benefits that tribal governments provide and you think about the resources of the IRS and where you might go to actually collect dollars that would enhance revenue, the last place you should look in this country is in Indian Country.

I would like to address a few other really important reasons why this bill is so critical. The IRS recently issued helpful guidance, and we are very appreciative of that work. With that being said, we also must make sure that parity provided by that guidance is in statutory language. That way, we weighed in. There is certainty that no one can do a look-back and no one can change it without that change coming to this body and coming to the House of Representatives and being enacted into law.

In addition, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act includes two items that are critical to the advancement of a better relationship between tribal governments and the Federal Government.

First as a training requirement, we must make sure that IRS field agents are well versed in Federal Indian law and unique treaty and trust relationships that the Federal Government has with their tribes.

Second, as the training is taking place, our bill also suspends all audits of examination of tribal governments for one year to allow this education to take place.

It isn't rare for Congress to pass legislation that supports guidance issued by the Federal agencies to give more weight to the issues and make sure that there is no potential misinterpretation.

That is what we are doing this week with the help of a lot of our colleagues who believe in this legislation as well. We want to supplement the IRS guidance to expand rather than restrict the safe harbor provisions.

When I joined the Senate, I promised to be a partner--to honor and respect the sovereign rights of Native Americans just as I always have. This bill is a step in the right direction. I fully anticipate that as we move forward this week, we will, in fact, enact this legislation. I fully anticipate that we will

send the right message to tribal governments that we see you the way you are.

You are a sovereign government entitled to make the decisions that you need to make to the benefit of your citizens without undue and irrational interference from the IRS.

I think the bipartisan nature of this bill is a tribute to my friend from Kansas who understands completely what we are attempting to do. It is one of those rare moments that I have had since I have been in the Senate, where you see a good bill being debated--a good bill being discussed--and then having an opportunity to actually do the right thing. I thank my friend from Kansas for the opportunity to join with him as a cosponsor of this legislation.

It is critically important that this message get sent and that we have an opportunity in the future to continue to work with tribal governments to act in the best interests of tribal citizens and provide the services that are essential for a growing population of Native American citizens but also of a population that lives in a great deal of poverty.

I thank my friend from Kansas. I look forward to seeing this bill signed into law--which I think will happen. I think that the stars are aligning. It will be a great day and a very important step in securing a better relationship of all governments with the Native American people.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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