Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here this morning to once again talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline, the legislation we will be voting on next week. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to proceed to the legislation. Then, hopefully, we will be debating that bill and offering amendments, which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing in this Chamber.

On Thursday, yesterday, we had a hearing on the bill. In that hearing we brought the bill forward. It is a bill I have authored. Joe Manchin is the lead Democratic cosponsor. We have 60 cosponsors on the bill. So we have strong bipartisan support. It is the Keystone approval bill. Essentially, what it does is under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, which authorizes Congress to oversee trade with foreign countries, we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline crossing the border from Canada into the United States.

A lot of people do not realize the pipeline carries domestic oil from places such as North Dakota and Montana--the Bakken region of our country--to refineries, and it carries both

Canadian and domestic crude. But part of the approval requires approval for crossing the border from Canada into the United States. Typically, that is done by a national interest determination by the President of the United States. But the President has been unwilling to do that now for more than 6 years.

The company that is trying to build this pipeline, TransCanada, applied for approval to build this project pursuant to other pipelines it had already built. The original Keystone had already been built. This is the Keystone XL sister pipeline. But in September 2008 they applied for approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline and to get a cross-border permit determination by the President that, in fact, this vital energy infrastructure is in the national interest.

Well, more than 6 years have elapsed, obviously, since September 2008. The President has still not rendered a final decision, arguing that somehow the process has not been completed after more than 6 years. Of course, America was able to fight and win World War II in less than 6 years. But our President feels that somehow that process still has not been completed after more than 6 years on this project.

So, of course, the purpose of the bill is, in essence, to say: All right, Mr. President, if you will not approve this project, Congress will--under the commerce clause of the Constitution--which we have the authority to do. Earlier we passed legislation. As a matter of fact, I had written a bill in 2011, which we passed in 2012. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday, a bill that got 73 votes, as I recall, which required the President to make a decision. At that time the decision he made was no, on the basis of the route in Nebraska.

So what happened then in 2012 is that the good citizens of Nebraska went to work on a new route in Nebraska. The legislature, the Governor dealt with that new route, came up with a new route, and approved it overwhelmingly.

It was then subsequently challenged by opponents of the project. Some of the extreme environmentalists have continued to oppose the project, and so that decision went to the supreme court.

We learned today the supreme court has now decided in favor of TransCanada. The news came out this morning that yet another obstacle, after more than 6 years of obstacles, today has been taken care of. The problem is solved.

The Nebraska State Legislature ruled in favor of the Governor-- Governor Dave Heineman, whom I know very well, the former Governor of Nebraska--and the legislature, and it said the way they sited this pipeline is, in fact, proper and upheld their decision. I will talk about that decision in a few minutes.

But the other thing I wish to talk about in terms of the Keystone Pipeline is the discussion we had yesterday in the energy committee because it was an opportunity to begin the debate we are going to have on the floor next week. The proponents had an opportunity to state their positions and why, and the opponents had their opportunity to state their positions and why. So for several hours we began that debate. We then voted on the legislation and moved it out, without amendment, on a 13-to-9 vote. It was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 9, and we will have that bill for a vote on the floor Monday.

I wish to address some of the arguments the opponents put forward in opposition to this project. I will start with the Nebraska court decision because that was one of the issues brought up at our energy hearing yesterday. Some of the opponents of the project said: Well, you know what. The process hasn't been concluded--even though it has been going on for more than 6 years. I will put a diagram up here that shows the route of the pipeline.

As I mentioned, the original Keystone pipeline has already been built. That is the red. That has already been built. It was permitted. It took 2 years to permit and 2 years to build. I was actually Governor of North Dakota at that time. We can see it goes right through our State.

It seems to me that application was submitted by TransCanada in 2006. It was during the Bush administration, obviously. It was approved within 2 years, and the project was constructed within 2 years.

So from start to conclusion, 4 years to build this pipeline, which I think carries about 640,000 barrels of oil a day. It brings it down to Cushing so that oil can go into our oil refineries in the gulf. It also goes over here to Patoka, IL, so it can go to our refineries in the East.

Based on that project, there are 640,000 barrels a day. TransCanada wanted to build a second pipeline. This one is 830,000 barrels a day. I think it is about a $7.9 billion project in all.

Not only does this project carry crude from Canada, our closest friend and ally, but it also brings oil out of this Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana. We put oil on it as well. So both Canadian and domestic crude are going to our refineries.

Again, it is just basic infrastructure that we need to move energy from where we produce it to where we refine it and consume it. We can't build an energy plan for this country without the necessary infrastructure. We have to have pipelines, roads, rail, and electric transmission lines to move electricity.

We cannot build what we want, which is either--some people refer to it as energy independence. I call it energy security. But, net, we produce more energy than we consume.

When we produce more energy than we consume, we get jobs, we get economic growth, we get national security because we don't have to depend on places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or Russia--as does so much of Europe. Western Europe and Eastern Europe is dependent on Russia for their oil and gas. What a terrible situation for them. The people of this country don't want to depend on OPEC for their oil.

So we produce it here. We are doing that. You know what else. We are working with our closest friend and ally Canada, and already that is happening. We are already moving toward a situation--we already produce more natural gas, but soon, if we keep it up, we will produce more oil. Working together with Canada, we will get a little bit from Mexico, and we will produce more oil and gas than we consume.

Some call it energy independence--not really, because it is a global market for energy. But it is certainly energy security. We don't have to depend on anyone else for our energy because we have it right here.

Not only does that create jobs directly, but energy is a foundational industry for all of the other industry sectors. Think about it. If you are in manufacturing, high-tech--just name it--or if you are in farming, agriculture, you depend on energy. If you have lower costs and abundant, available energy, you are more competitive in the global economy, aren't you? So it is a foundational industry as well, and that is why we have to have this vital infrastructure as part of the energy building plan for our country.

It is working. Don't take my word for it. Drive to the gas station. Go on over there. Fill up your car. Look at the bill when you are done. It is a lot lower than it was a few years ago, right? Check it out.

Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. Small businesses are benefiting across the board. All the industry sectors benefit from lower oil and gas prices.

Why did that happen? OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present; is that what it is? I don't think so.

Russia decided: Oh, gee, to our friends in America, we better send them some oil to reduce the price at the pump. I don't think so.

It is because we are producing so much more oil and gas--not only in the Bakken and in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, which are shale, clays for oil, but also natural gas in the Marcellus, other areas of our country--in the eastern part--and by working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. We are getting millions of barrels of oil from Canada.

So the oil we produce at home and the oil we get from Canada we don't have to get from Venezuela, we don't have to get from OPEC, we don't have to get from Russia, and we don't have to get from countries in Africa. When we send those dollars over to other countries, how are they using those dollars? Look at what is going on in Paris today.

How many of those petro dollars fund terrorist activities? Isn't it better, if

we are not going to produce that energy at home, that we get it from Canada? And isn't it better that we produce that energy at home?

How are we going to produce that energy at home if we don't have the infrastructure to move it from where it is produced to where it is consumed? Gee, then somebody will say: Well, yeah, that is just common sense, of course, right?

I mean, that is just basic common sense. Why aren't we doing it? Yet here we are in a process for more than 6 years still waiting to produce it because the extreme environmental interests have decided: Well, we just don't want to produce more oil. We don't want more oil produced in this country, and we don't want more oil produced in Canada.

Of course, you say: Well, then what? We keep buying it from Russia or we keep buying it from OPEC? Oh, no, no, no, we will just keep developing all these alternatives. I am all for developing all kinds of energy. I would say go ahead. Let's do it.

We worked hard in our State. We have not only oil and gas--we are now the second largest oil-producing State, second only to Texas, but we also produce natural gas. We have coal fired, we have solar, we have wind, we have biofuels. We have all of them. I am for all of them.

What I don't understand is how developing our oil and gas resources, building the vital infrastructure--how does that prevent us from developing any other type of energy? How does it prevent that? It doesn't.

It just makes sure that as we work on anything else, we don't have to continue to be dependent on OPEC or somebody else for our oil and gas. That is all we are doing.

So let's not sit here and pick winners and losers and do that kind of thing. Let's create the best business climate we can. Let's develop the vital infrastructure we need to move energy around our country, and let's truly become energy secure. That is what this project represents.

Make no mistake. At the end of the day, that is what this project is about. It has been held up for more than 6 years with hurdle after hurdle. Somebody says: Oh, well, gee, that is TransCanada. That is one company. Who cares about that?

Think about it. If you are going to build a pipeline or move energy around this country, if you are going to try to develop oil and gas-- whether it is for Canada or anyone else--and you see a company that wants to build a simple pipeline--something that has been done, I think, 19 times before--and they have to spend billions of dollars and take years and years and years, and they still don't have it, are you still going to rush out and do that? Are you going to rush out and build a lot more infrastructure? Probably not.

So isn't this really about trying to shut her down? Isn't this the opponent saying: No, we are going to shut down developing the energy resources in this country. We are not going to work with Canada to do it.

And then what do we end up doing? We say: Well, we will have all these other things.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't or maybe we will go right back to what has been happening--history tends to repeats itself--and we will go back to remaining dependent on OPEC oil, back to remaining dependent on OPEC. It has to be music to these guys' ears.

I wish to take a couple of minutes--I know the chairman of our energy committee will be coming to the floor and speaking on this issue as well--and work to rebut some of the other arguments that have been brought up on this issue, and some of these were brought up yesterday at our energy committee.

The first one, as I say, was: Well, look, the process isn't done because the decision in Nebraska hasn't been made.

Well, in fact, the decision in Nebraska has been made several times. Now the Nebraska Supreme Court put out a ruling today saying that it is fine. All the work the legislature in Nebraska did, all the work the Governor in Nebraska did--the rerouting in Nebraska is upheld.

That is done. That excuse is gone. As the House works to pass this bill today, and as we work to pass it next week, that argument is off the table. That has been taken care of.

The biggest argument is the environmental argument. The opponents say: Oh, well, it will produce greenhouse gas emissions. They are opposed to oil development because it produces greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet the environmental impact statement--I should say the multiple environmental impact statements done by the State Department--this is what they say. Understand there have been five different reports--three draft reports and two final reports--over a 6-year timeframe. The State Department has done this not once, not twice, but three times in draft form and two times in final form. They have gone in, and they have analyzed the environmental impact of this project.

When you read the report, do you know what it says? ``No significant environmental impact'' is what it says. That is the Obama administration's State Department environmental impact statement, after 6 years of study--not once, not twice, but five times between three draft statements and two final statements--``No significant environmental impact.'' That is what it says.

It just stands to reason because if we don't build the pipeline, they pointed out, then what happens? Well, if you don't have this pipeline, the environmental impact statement pointed out that it will take 1,400 railcars a day to move that oil. So instead of moving that oil from Canada, not even counting--I mean, we have to move our oil too. If we don't have the pipeline to move that oil in the safest, most cost- effective and efficient way, then it has to be moved by rail. If you don't have a pipeline, you have to move it by rail. Now you have 1,400 railcars a day creating congestion on the rail.

That creates more greenhouse gas, that creates more congestion, more difficulty in moving our ag products and other products.

We are already seeing that. We already have congestion on our rail that is backing up the shipment of other goods. We had a tremendous problem moving our ag goods this year. So are we going to have another 1,400 railcars on a railroad system that is already overloaded? It doesn't make much sense.

You know what. It creates more greenhouse gas. So by not having the pipeline, you increase the greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose Canada could say--although it is unlikely because they are already moving it by rail.

In my home State of North Dakota we are already moving 700,000 barrels a day by railcar because we can't get enough pipeline, and we are producing more oil. We are up to 1.2 million barrels a day, moving 700,000 barrels by railcars because we can't move it by pipeline, benefiting the rest of our country--light, sweet Bakken crude.

The other thing with Canada is they say: If we can't bring the pipeline down and work with our closest friend and ally, the United States, if they would rather work with--I don't know--OPEC than Canada--we can't figure that one out. I am sure Prime Minister Harper is saying: Oh, boy, that is unbelievable. But OK, then I guess what we will have to do is we will build these pipelines--and they are already in the process of doing so--to the west coast of Canada. We will load that oil on tankers, and we will send it all to China because China wants it. They are not only willing to buy the oil, but they are trying to buy the source of the oil.

So then it gets on the pipeline, and then it goes on tankers over to China. Well, those tankers produce greenhouse gas emissions as they haul that oil to China. In China the refineries have much higher greenhouse gas emissions. They are much less efficient. They are much less environmentally sound than our refineries in this country. So what do we end up with? We end up with much higher greenhouse gas emissions because we didn't have the pipeline.

Oh, and by the way, instead of us then refining it, tankers have to bring that petroleum to us from OPEC, from Russia, heavy crude from Venezuela, creating some more greenhouse gas. So the net effect is we have increased the environmental impacts by not allowing the pipeline. It increases it. It doesn't reduce it, it increases it.

Furthermore, Canada's laws, in terms of environmental stewardship, are tougher than ours, but they are continuing to move to what is called in situ development in the oil sands. What

is in situ development? In situ development is drilling and then the use of steam to bring up the oil rather than excavating, which is the traditional way they produce oil up here. So the greenhouse gas footprint is very similar to drilling in the United States. In fact, it has a lower footprint than the heavy crude that comes out of California--a very environmentally conscious State.

Again, when we talk about the environmental impact, let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about reality, and those are the facts. That is what it is truly about.

Safety is another thing they brought up. Something could happen with the pipeline. That is true, and we always have to work on safety. It is very important we always address safety in whatever we do. The best way to have a safe infrastructure system to move energy around this country is to have the right mix of pipelines and roads and rail--the right mix along with transmission lines--so we move all types of energy as safely and as effectively as possible.

This graph reflects the pipeline system in our country. Oil and gas are moving through millions and millions of miles of pipelines in our country. This pipeline is going to be the newest, with the latest and the best technology. Oh, by the way, if we don't have the pipeline, as I mentioned just a minute ago, we are adding 1,400 railcars a day. Everyone can do their own calculation, but do we think we are safer and more likely to have less accidents with another pipeline--with the latest, greatest technologies and safeguards--or would we rather have 1,400 railcars a day going through our communities loaded with oil? Common sense again, and the statistics support it.

There is more. They brought up more concerns, but I am nearing the end of my time, in terms of floor time right now, and I know our chairman is coming down, so I will have to wrap this up. I went a little longer on some of these issues they brought up, and they brought up others, but here is the good news. We are going to vote on a cloture motion to proceed to the bill on Monday. I am hopeful, with our 60 sponsors on this legislation--we will have 60, maybe 63 votes based on what people have indicated to me as to how they will vote right now-- that after the vote on Monday we will be on the bill.

Unlike the past several years in the Senate, once we are on the bill, we will be open for business, and we are welcoming amendments. We are saying to Republicans and Democrats alike: Bring them on. Bring on your amendments. If you have a good idea, come on down. If you have a good idea, come on down and let's talk about your amendment. Let's debate your amendment, and you know what. You are going to get a vote, and if you get 60 votes in support of your amendment, then we will make it part of this legislation.

We are hopeful that in allowing amendments, we can improve the legislation, we can make it more bipartisan, and we can get more supporters, so if in fact the President does decide to veto it, we will have 67 votes instead of 60 or 63 votes. That is how the process is supposed to work. We are supposed to be able to have that debate, offer those amendments, and produce the best product we can. That is what we are hoping to do with this legislation.

We are also hoping that will not only generate more bipartisan support on this issue, on this legislation, but on other energy legislation and other legislation of all types so we can get the important work of the American people done in this body. That is what it is all about: finding a way to get things done--get the job done for the American people.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to engage in a colloquy until 3:15 p.m.

Mr. President, along with Senator Joe Manchin--and actually a total of 60 sponsors--I have filed S. 1, which is the Keystone approval bill. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. This is legislation we have seen before in this body. What it does, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, is authorize Congress to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

I have this map in the Chamber to show you the project. It runs from Hardisty in Alberta, Canada, all the way down to our refineries in Texas along the gulf coast.

This project will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Some of that will be oil from Canada. Some of that will be domestic oil from the Bakken region in Montana and North Dakota.

This is part of building the infrastructure so we can build a comprehensive energy plan for our country. We are producing more and more oil and gas in our country from shale from places such as the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, the Eagle Ford in Texas, natural gas from places such as the Barnett and the Marcellus in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

What we are working toward is--some people refer to it as energy independence, but really energy security for our country.

What does that mean? It means we produce more energy than we consume. Obviously, energy has a global market. The market for energy is a global market. We know that. The market for oil and gas is a global market.

But the point is, working together with our closest friend and ally, Canada, we can have North American energy security where we produce more energy than we consume.

Why is that important? That is important because it is about creating jobs. It is important because it is about economic growth. It is important because it is a national security issue.

Why do we continue to rely on oil from the Middle East? Why are we continuing to send dollars to the Middle East where you have--look at what happened in Paris today with an attack by Islamic extremists. One of the ways we fight back, one of the ways we push back is we take control of our own energy destiny. We can do it. We are doing it. Why are gas prices lower today at the pump? Is it because OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present? I do not think so. It is because we are producing far more energy than we ever have before. But to continue to produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move that energy from where it is produced to were it is consumed. That means pipelines. That means roads. That means rail. For electricity, that means transmission. But we cannot have an energy plan for this country that really works without the infrastructure to move that energy safely and effectively. That is what this project is all about.

So why are we here talking about it today? It seems like a pretty straightforward proposition. After all, I think there are something like 19 different pipelines that cross the border. In fact, there are millions of miles of pipelines in this country. Here is a map I have in the Chamber of just some of them. We have millions of miles of pipeline in this country. A lot of them, as you can see, cross the border.

So why are we standing here today talking about another pipeline project? Because for the past 6 years--for the past 6 years--the administration has held this project up. They keep saying: There is a process. As a matter of fact, Josh Earnest, just yesterday, said: Oh, we have a process. Congress should not intervene in the Keystone XL Pipeline approval issue because there is a process. Really, Mr. President, there is a process? Let's see. The TransCanada company filed application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline in September of 2008-- September 2008. If you do the math, that is more than 6 years ago. And there is a process somehow to get to a conclusion?

So that company, which has invested hundreds of millions already, wants to build, ultimately, an $8.9 million project that will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day. And here they are 6 years later still waiting for approval. That is why today we are asking Congress to step forward and do what the American people want.

Keystone is not a new issue. The American people understand this issue. Poll after poll shows the American people, by a margin of about 70 percent to 20-some percent, support this project. Whom do we work for? We work for the people of this great country, and 70 percent of the people of this great country say: Approve the project. After 6 long years, where all of the requirements have been met, approve the project.

But the President, of course, continues to hold it up, and even yesterday issued a veto threat. Why? Why is he wanting to threaten a veto on a project that 70 percent of the American people support? It is really hard to understand, isn't it? Because every time an objection comes up, we have worked to address that objection.

When there was an objection on the route, the company rerouted. So the President says: Well, it is an environmental concern. He says: Well, it is an environmental concern. Really? An environmental concern?

This is what his own study found. After 6 years of study, the State Department, in multiple environmental impact statements--three draft statements and two final environmental impact statements--this is what they found: no significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. State Department environmental impact statements.

That is not something I did. That is not something the company did. That is something the Obama administration did--repeatedly--and came to the same conclusion: no significant environmental impact. In fact, if you do not build the pipeline, you have to move that oil with 1,400 railcars a day.

Now, Canada is going to produce the energy. North Dakota, Montana, other States, are going to continue to produce the energy. So that energy is going to move. The question is, how and where? If we cannot build the pipeline, then it has to go by railcar. So do we really want 1,400 railcars a day moving that product around or do we want it to move more safely, more cost-effectively, with better environmental stewardship through a pipeline? Common sense.

Then there is this idea somehow: Well, Canada is not going to produce that oil if they do not have a pipeline. Wrong. They will move it by rail, and they will build other pipelines. Here are several that are already in the planning stages, as shown on this map. They will move it to the East Coast to refineries they have there or they will send it west and it will go to China.

Now, does that make sense? It does not make sense to the American public, which is why the American public wants to work with Canada as well as produce energy in our country to become energy secure. The idea that we would say no to our closest friend and ally, Canada: We are not going to work with you, we are going to continue to buy oil from the Middle East, and we are going to have you send your oil to China, makes no sense to the American people. And it should not. It should not. That is why they overwhelmingly support this project.

So here we are. We are starting the new Congress. I think, very clearly, in the last election, the people said: We support this project. You saw it time after time with candidate after candidate who supported this project who won their election. But on an even bigger issue, an even bigger message, the people of this great country said: We want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to get things done. We

want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to get things done.

So here we have legislation that has passed the House repeatedly with a bipartisan majority. Here we have legislation that has bipartisan support in this body. Here we have legislation that the American people overwhelmingly support, after clearly giving the message in the last election that they want us working together to get work done, and the President issues a veto message right out of the gates. Why? For whom? Whom is he working for?

So it is incumbent upon us to work together in a bipartisan way to get this legislation passed. The way we are approaching it--and I see my good friend and colleague from the great State of West Virginia is here. I want to thank him and turn to him, but I want to do it in the form of a question.

It was my very clear sense from the last election--and I think the very clear sense that we all got from the last election--that they want to see Congress working together in a bipartisan way, in an open process to get the important work of this country done.

So with this legislation, it is not just that it is about important energy infrastructure. It is also that we want to return to regular order in this body, offer an open amendment process, allow people to bring forward their amendments, offer those amendments, debate them, and get a vote on those amendments. If they have amendments that can add to and improve this legislation, great, let's have that process. Let's have that debate. Let's have those votes. Let's make this bill as good as we can possibly make it. Then the President needs to work with us. The President needs to meet us halfway and get this done for the American people.

So I would like to turn to my good colleague from the great State of West Virginia and say: Aren't we doing all we can here to try to make sure we are approaching this in a bipartisan way with an open, transparent process to try to build support for this legislation?

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from West Virginia not only for his support on this project but for his willingness to work hard, to work together to find bipartisan solutions, whether it is this legislation or other legislation. That is what it is incumbent upon us to do. It is not easy, but we have to be willing to engage in the hard work it takes to get to this legislation, to get these solutions in place for the American people.

I again thank the Senator for his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with the Senator and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come to good solutions. That is what this effort is all about.

I want to turn to the Senator from the State of Montana. The pipeline project goes right through his State. Here is somebody who has dealt with the issue on the House side of Congress and who has the project in his home State. So he is talking on behalf of people where the pipeline is right there.

I would like to turn to him and ask: What are the people in Montana saying? It is fine for somebody far removed from a project to say I am OK or I am not OK with it, but how about the people who are right there on the site? They are directly affected. Tell us what is the sense in the Senator's home State? What is the Senator hearing when he talks to people?

I would like to thank the Senator from Montana again. We are hearing from somebody who is there, who is talking to people, where this project is going to be located, one of the States it would pass through. I thank the Senator for his perspective and for his hard work and commend him for being here and for his continued efforts not only to work with our caucus but to reach out to the Democratic caucus as well and find common ground on this important issue--something the Senator from West Virginia said a minute ago; that is, let's focus on the facts. I think the more understanding we create as to what the facts are, the more this gets done on the merits.

I turn to the Senator from Wyoming--somebody who has long experience with energy, somebody who comes from an energy State, a State that produces a variety of sources of energy, and pose the same question to him. In terms of focusing on the facts, whether it is the environmental aspect, whether it is the jobs, whether it is making our country energy secure, talk to us a little bit about the importance of this kind of vital infrastructure--projects such as Keystone--for our country.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments today and for his continued hard work in support of the issue. I look forward to working with him again to get this done for the American people.

I turn to our leader on the energy committee, the chairman of the energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, who understands energy. She is from another State that produces a huge amount of energy for this country, wants to produce more, and can produce more but only with the infrastructure to do it. Isn't that what we are talking about here today? This country can have more jobs, more economic growth, and more energy that we produce right here at home. But, Senator, don't we need the infrastructure to move that energy as safely and as cost- effectively as possible?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her leadership on the Energy Committee and also for her willingness to work in an open way on these important issues.

Across this body, on both sides of the aisle, there should be a deep appreciation for her willingness to bring these bills forward so we can debate them and we can offer amendments and we can build the kind of energy future for this country our people so very much want to have.

The Senator from Alaska is somebody who lives and breathes this topic when we talk energy--somebody who is truly committed to it but truly committed to an open dialogue on all types of energy, giving everybody an opportunity to weigh in and build the best energy plan for our country that we possibly can.

So I extend my thanks to her and also my appreciation, and likewise say I look forward to working with her on this issue and on so many important energy issues.

I wish to turn to my colleague from the State of North Dakota and ask her for her perspective on why this project is so important for our country and for the energy future of our country.

I ask unanimous consent to exceed for 5 minutes to wrap up the colloquy.

I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for speaking on the important points she made, and that is that the energy we are producing in this country is helping consumers at the pump by bringing down prices.

I want to turn to my colleague from Kansas who wants to close this colloquy and address the very point that we need this infrastructure to keep doing that, to benefit our consumers at the pump.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas, and with that we will wrap up the colloquy. I would like to thank my colleagues, and we will be back.

Again, we are looking to work with all of our colleagues here in an open process to offer amendments and pass legislation that is important for the American people.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and with that I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to talk about the Tax Increase Prevention Act. I have been speaking on this issue and I intend to speak on it until we get this legislation passed. I am hopeful that we will get this legislation moved tonight or maybe even tomorrow. But in any event, we need to get this very important legislation passed this week to make sure that taxes don't go up on our small businesses, farmers, and the hard-working citizens of this country. That is why I have been down talking about the legislation and its importance, and I have also been presenting and reading letters and emails from my constituents who have been contacting me about the importance of getting this done. I want them to be heard because they know very well how heavy their tax burden is and why we need to make sure they get relief for their families and for their businesses. I am talking about family farmers, men and women who work long hours and long days on the farm. I am talking about small business owners, manufacturers, shopkeepers, the whole gamut of small businesses across this great country, your neighbors and mine.

First I am going to talk about some of the provisions in the legislation. I am going to start with one that is incredibly important for farmers in my State but really for small businesses across the country, as I said earlier. That is the section 179 small business expensing and depreciation provision.

The section 179 small business expensing limitation and phaseout amounts in effect from 2010 to 2013 through 2015: Taxpayers can expense up to $500,000 of acquired business property, rather than the current level of expensing $25,000 and $200,000 respectively. The $200,000 is on the depreciation.

The section 179 expensing and depreciation provision is very important for small businesses. It is very important that we get it in place now because they are doing their year-end planning, and they are doing their tax planning. They need to know the rules of the road. They need to know what they can expense and what they can depreciate and how much. It is not just an issue of preparing their tax returns; it is also very much an issue in terms of their planning for next year. What equipment do they buy? If you are a farmer, what ag equipment do you buy? If you are a small manufacturer, what manufacturing equipment do you buy? What repairs do you do? Can you expense those repairs or do you have to go through an elaborate process of setting up a depreciation schedule and then depreciate that repair over a long period of time?

These are things that make it very difficult to do business for small businesses and also impede their willingness and their ability to go out and buy equipment and to make those needed repairs to keep their operation running. That hurts our economy. That hurts job creation in our country. It is very important. The section 179 provision is incredibly important to our farmers and small businesses throughout the country.

Also, another very important provision is the bonus depreciation for property that is placed in service during 2014 or, in some cases, 2015 for property with a longer production period. If we are not allowed to take that depreciation, you may not buy that new equipment. If you don't buy that new equipment, obviously that has ramifications all the way through our economy.

There are eight provisions in the legislation for individuals, including the deductibility of State and local sales tax, the deduction of certain expenses for elementary and secondary schoolteachers, the extension of the above-the-line-deduction for qualified tuition, and the extension of tax redistributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.

Also included in the legislation are a total of 30 business-related provisions in addition to section 179 and the bonus depreciation. They are very important and make a big difference in terms of the taxes our businesses will be required to pay.

The legislation includes the research and development tax credit that allows companies a 20-percent credit for incremental qualified research expenses or a 14-percent alternative simplified credit for R&D performed in the United States. I will use an example. We have a large Microsoft location in my State, in Fargo. They employ more than 1,700 people at their campus in Fargo.

I am going to use Microsoft as an example. Microsoft is on a pace to spend over $12 billion on research and development this year, primarily on U.S. jobs. Other countries are competing for the same R&D investment from Microsoft and other companies. Many of them have lower corporate income tax rates, they have stable R&D incentives, and plenty of research and development talent. A consistent and stable U.S. R&D tax credit gives businesses such as Microsoft an incentive to invest and do that research and development in the United States versus some other country.

Again, we are talking about not only economic activity and jobs in our country, but we are talking about innovation right in our country that drives job creation and economic growth. As I said, the real key, I believe, is the impact this legislation has on small business across this country. Small business is the backbone of our economy.

I want to take a few minutes to read some more of the letters and emails I have been receiving on the importance of passing this legislation and putting in place the section 179 expensing and depreciation for our small businesses.

The first letter I am going to read is from Wayne Hauge, a CPA from Ray, ND, a small town in North Dakota. He is speaking on behalf of many of his clients. He writes:

Senator Hoeven, what about the IRC Section 179? $25,000 is

far too low of a limit, and should be eliminated if that is

all that can be expensed in a year. Far better would be

reinstating prior limits and making such a change permanent.

A farmer does not plan a crop after you've harvested it.

You plan it a year in advance. Income tax planning is the

same. It is an extremely poor financial planner who decides

to buy something based on an ever-changing tax policy, and

after the fact.

I realize the political system in this country is

stagnated, with refusals by both parties to agree on

anything. But the time is now to put some semblance of future

planning back on the table and help us to stay on top of the

game, rather than whining about what should have been done.

We owe it to Wayne and his clients to get this bill done before we leave.

Here is another one. This one is from Mike Van Gorkom with Titan Machinery in Wishek, ND. Titan Machinery is a dealer for Case IH, Case Construction, New Holland, and New Holland Construction. Titan Machinery also represents Titan Rentals, Titan Aggregate, and a varied list of short-line equipment to meet specialized customer demand and niche product needs.

I was just wondering if anyone can tell me when to expect a

vote on extending Section 179 tax deductions. I have been

following this bill along with many of my customers. Many

farmers are waiting to purchase equipment from me until they

find out if they can use it for this year's deductions or

wait until next year. Thank you and have a nice day.

Lawrence D. Stockert, a small business owner in Bismarck, ND, wants to purchase new equipment this year, but he is not certain he can because we have yet to pass the tax extender package. He writes:

I would like to know if there is a possibility for the

Senate to pass the increases in the Section 179 depreciation

rules. The previous year's provision enabled me to buy new

equipment. Can you take this bill to the Senate and get it

passed? I would like to purchase additional equipment this

year as well.

Then from Stephen Stafki, vice president of service, General Equipment & Supplies in Fargo, ND. He is concerned about the bonus depreciation provision in the extender package. The Tax Increase Prevention Act extends the 50-percent bonus depreciation to property acquired and placed in service during 2014 or 2015 for certain property with a longer production period. He writes:

Senator Hoeven, I am writing to you to express my support

for passing bonus depreciation before the end of 2014. As a

small business owner this legislation is crucial to us and

our customer base. I truly hope you will fight to push this

legislation through Congress and garner enough support to be

able to override any Presidential veto.

The last letter I would like to read today comes from Jay Hansen of Fargo, ND. It is especially telling, because like the earlier letter I read from a CPA, he is also a CPA. Essentially he is speaking for the 1,000 farmers whom he does work for.

My name is Jay Hansen. I am a CPA working for Iver Eliason

CPA PC in Minot, ND. We have approximately 1,000 farm clients

who rely heavily on depreciating farm machinery as part of

their overall tax planning strategy. With the discussion

regarding the tax extender bill being on the agenda before

the end of the year, we are curious to know if you have any

insight on what we can expect and when we can expect it. Any

information you can provide me regarding the Section 179

expense deduction would be greatly appreciated.

So time is of the essence. We are days from the end of the tax year, days away from the holidays. Millions of Americans are depending on us to spare them a burden that will hurt their businesses and hurt their families. If we do not act, taxes will go up on hard-working Americans, on small businesses across this country, on farmers. So we need to act. We need to make sure that does not happen. We need to pass the legislation we have here on the floor. We need to get it done now.

So I urge my colleagues to join together in bipartisan fashion and get this done. Let's pass the Tax Increase Prevention Act and make sure we do not see a tax increase on our small businesses and the hard- working taxpayers of this great Nation.

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

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

Mr. President, I am here today to discuss the Tax Increase Prevention Act. We are now getting down to the end of the year. It is important that we get our work done. An important part of that work is passing the Tax Increase Prevention Act. It is often referred to as the tax extenders package. What it really does is it extends tax credits and deductions used

by small businesses across this country. The Tax Increase Prevention Act will extend for 1 year 55 different tax credits and deductions that expired either at the end of 2013 or during 2014.

This is a bill that has already passed the House, and it passed with a huge margin, with a bipartisan vote of 378 to 46.

One of the most important provisions in the act is the section 179 depreciation and expensing provision for small businesses. That is the provision I particularly want to focus on today and talk about and discuss why it is so important for our small businesses and for our entire country.

Section 179 allows farmers and other small businesses to expense and depreciate property they have purchased or repaired for their operations. That is important to them so that they don't see a tax increase, but it also keeps our economy going. Without it, small business will buy and repair less equipment, slowing down our manufacturing base and slowing down our economy. Quite simply, that means fewer jobs. It is not only because small business's costs are increased, but it is also because of the uncertainty that is created when they don't know the rules of the road. That is why this fix needs to be done on a permanent basis.

I think it could have been done on a permanent basis this year. We were working on a deal until the President threatened to veto that legislation. So now we have a 1-year fix, but we have broad support in this Chamber for the 1-year fix. We need to pass it now and then go back to work on a permanent fix next year.

I was home for the weekend about a week ago, and I was talking to some of the farmers in our State. They told me what they have been telling me for some time now; that is, they need the section 179 expensing and depreciation, they need to know the rules of the road, and they need to know it now.

We are at year-end. They are doing their year-end planning. They are doing their tax work. Some are still negotiating on buying equipment for next year. The depreciation and expensing rules affect the decisions they make. They will also affect the number of jobs in our economy. Agriculture alone is responsible for 16 million direct and indirect jobs in our economy. Ag is also a sector of our economy that produces a positive balance of trade. American agriculture provides the highest quality and lowest cost food supply in the world. It is something that benefits every single American every day.

Section 179 expensing and depreciation is important for other small businesses as well. And it is not just small businesses, it helps keep our large industries going too. For example, Case New Holland and John Deere have manufacturing plants in my home State. They produce tractors, balers, and other equipment. In addition, they also make industrial equipment. When farmers and other small businesses slow down their purchase of equipment, these manufacturing facilities slow down as well. It means less business, fewer workers needed, and fewer jobs. That is how it works. It is that simple. The truth is that small business is the backbone of our economy in this country.

The hallmark of America is that it has historically been the best place in the world to do business. It is where everybody has always come to do business. We have always had the best legal, tax, and regulatory business climate. We provided the certainty businesses need to invest, to hire people, to create jobs, and to grow the economy. That is the rising tide that lifts all boats--a higher standard of living for our people and revenue from economic growth, not higher taxes, to reduce our debt and deficit to get them under control as well.

Let's create that certainty for our farmers and small businesses across this great Nation. Let's make sure their taxes don't go up. Let's start by passing the Tax Increase Prevention Act and section 179 expensing and depreciation now.

I would like to close by reading from some of the letters I have received from some of my constituents. I think so often that the hard- working taxpayers of North Dakota, the small business people there who are getting it done every day, say it best.

The first one is from Dick Hedahl, owner of Bismarck-based Hedahls Auto Plus. He said: Without section 179 and the bonus depreciation, Hedahls Auto Plus would really have felt the pinch last year when we purchased equipment to service diesel powered trucks and heavy equipment.

Since the growth in the Bakken, his services have been especially important because he can save clients thousands of dollars by refurbishing worn diesel engine blocks. What makes the refurbishing possible is the 100 percent American-made equipment Hedahl bought in 2012 and 2013 for $450,000. At a 34-percent tax rate, he says he would not have been able to make those equipment purchases work, but with section 179 expensing and depreciation, he was able to make those things work. As a result, he is providing jobs in the western part of our State. Hedahls Auto Plus employs more than 200 people.

Another constituent wrote in. Leann Slaubaugh of Rolette writes:

I am concerned about Section 179 and what this is doing to

the agricultural sector in North Dakota. Farm equipment is

not being sold, as the farmers are concerned about the amount

they will have to pay taxes on. I farm with my husband and

work at a small town farm supply. Farmers have quit spending

due to low commodity prices and Section 179. I am concerned

with the effect on our small town economy if Section 179 is

not revised. After meeting with our tax consultant, we are

concerned with the possible tax liability we are facing and

what this means to the future of our family farm. Please push

for revision of Section 179.

Dennis Miller, who grew up in Stark County and worked for an ag equipment dealership for 28 years, is similarly concerned. I am going to paraphrase from his letter. Four years ago he started his own business, Southwest AG Repair, Inc. He sells new McCormick tractors and repairs all brands of farm equipment. He has six employees.

Mr. Miller wrote to me earlier this year, anxious about the expiration of section 179:

It is going to cut sales of farm equipment drastically if

the farmers don't get a tax incentive to purchase equipment.

The loss of sales will create backlash in the economy

throughout the State and the country. There has to be a

better way to create the tax revenue.

Mr. Miller, there is. You create tax revenue with economic growth, not higher taxes, just like you create jobs, create economic activity, getting that rising tide that lifts all boats--that is when it enables us to invest in the future of our country, the roads and bridges, our schools, and all of the things people want for this great Nation. But it comes from a growing economy. Of course, that is what creates the jobs we need for our families across America.

So when we talk about the Tax Increase Prevention Act, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about making sure here at the end of the year that taxes don't go up on hard-working taxpayers across this country, that taxes don't go up on our small businesses across the country, and that we understand that is truly the backbone of our economy, that all those people and all those small businesses are the ones who make our economy go every minute of every day.

It is time to act. The time is here. The votes are here on a bipartisan basis in this body to get it done. Let's get it done. Our American citizens, our hard-working taxpayers have waited long enough.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Alaska for her leadership of our energy committee on this and many other important energy issues. I want to follow along with much of what she just covered and why it is important.

In this legislation, which is sponsored by Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen, there are a number of energy efficiency measures. But the one she emphasized and the one which I want to emphasize is the water heater efficiency provision. This is a commonsense provision. It is very important for people in rural areas across the country.

The rural electric cooperatives have been very strong on working to get this legislation passed. They have gotten it passed in the House on behalf of all of those people out there in rural America where this can make a real difference in terms of quality of life, but at the same time save energy and save money. So it is one of those measures where everyone wins all the way around.

We have sponsored this in a number of different forms. We have not been able to move it through the Senate yet. We will, I am convinced, move it through next year. But as the good Senator from Alaska said, there are some timelines here that make it very important that we get the measure passed.

Essentially what we are dealing with is in 2010, the Department of Energy issued a rule on water heaters that will effectively ban the manufacture of large electric water heaters beginning in 2015--so next year--which could greatly affect consumers in rural areas and hurt the effectiveness of some of our demand-response rural programs.

Many of our rural areas are not serviced by natural gas, and geothermal water heaters can cost many thousands of dollars. So this is a practical win-win amendment that improves the efficiency of electric water heaters but still lets our rural areas have access to affordable, efficient water heaters that can supplement renewable energy.

Electric cooperatives and other utilities have voluntary demand- response programs that use electric water heaters to more effectively manage power supply and demand. In those areas where renewables are part of the electric generation system, those water heaters facilitate the integration of renewable energy that can be stored for use during peak hours, like wind and solar energy.

So this provision would allow the continued manufacture of large grid-enabled electric resistance water heaters only for use in electric thermal storage or demand-response programs, meaning you are using offpeak load. So you are using lower cost energy, energy that otherwise would be lost. So, again, it really is a win for everybody involved.

This provision would require grid-enabled water heaters to have a volume of more than 75 gallons, be energy efficient, and work on grids that have a demand-response program. It is that simple. It is that straightforward. It is that commonsense.

But it affects a tremendous number of people across rural America, people in States such as Indiana, North Dakota, Ohio, across the country. I am convinced we are going to get this. The issue is when. We are facing this timeline, as I say, in 2015.

I will conclude with some of the organizations that support this legislation. I do not know of anyone opposing it. We have got a tremendous number of organizations that support it, including the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, the General Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Resource Defense Council, the Northwest Energy Alliance.

The bill saves money, it saves energy, it benefits the environment, it benefits consumers. Look, we need to get it passed. This bill on the floor easily gets more than enough to pass on a bipartisan basis with flying colors.

I would certainly yield the floor to our leader on this important issue, the good Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, in the new Congress we will welcome 12 new Republican Senators, and that is wonderful. They are great people. They are excited. They are enthusiastic. I think they are going to do wonderful things. So there are 12 new Republican Members coming into the new Senate, and I am looking and we are going to lose 3 of our Republican colleagues. I am thinking, maybe that is about the right ratio; it is about 4 to 1.

But these are three individuals who are unbelievable in what they have been able to do in the relationships they built, the friendships, and the work they have done on behalf of the American people. So I am looking at that statistic and I am thinking: Wow, these are three great people who have done the work of many, and I think they have laid the foundation in many ways for us to get to a majority: Senator Johanns, Senator Coburn, and Senator Chambliss. I think they have done a lot of that work required for us to get to majority.

We have heard about the great Senator from Georgia. But I think the things I am going to talk about for a minute in regard to Saxby Chambliss apply to the two individuals sitting here with him. They are cut from the same cloth: Senator Coburn, Senator Johanns, true public servants. People who ran for the right reason; people who serve for the right reason. I think we could ask anybody in this body on either side of the aisle, and they would tell us that these three individuals served for the right reasons, and served to the very best of their ability the American people--not just the people of their State, but the American people. They will be remembered long after they are gone. They will be remembered because of the great, wonderful people they are, for the relationships they have built, and for that service. So I echo Senator Ayotte's comments.

Senator Coburn touched on it, too. One of the first people I looked to as a mentor when I came here 4 years ago was Saxby Chambliss. Now, that doesn't seem intuitively like something I would do--I am from North Dakota, he is from Georgia. Mike Johanns has been a mentor of mine since Governor days, so for more than a decade. But one of the first people I looked to as a mentor was Saxby Chambliss, and I don't even know why. It was one of those things that immediately you like the guy. But as you listened to him a little bit, you respected the guy. You thought: This guy has something to say. He knows what he is doing. But then, it is that relationship thing--that thing where he goes out of his way to work with you, to help you, to understand what you are trying to do in a friendly way, with great humor, and he does it naturally. It is just who he is. It is automatic. I think Senator Isakson really put his finger on it: It is just the way he is. You are naturally drawn to him.

I think we could talk to any of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and they would tell you the same thing: integrity, honesty, intelligence; somebody you can work with, somebody who cares, somebody who always has the best interests of the American people at heart.

I had the opportunity to work with him on the farm bill, and I was counting on Senator Coburn to kind of jump in there and do it with him, but that didn't happen right away. I am kidding a little bit. But we couldn't have had a farm bill without Senator Chambliss.

When I think how difficult it is to move legislation like that, particularly over the course of the past year, and realize that a farm bill really isn't so much Republican/Democratic--it really isn't. If you look at how a farm bill works, that is not the makeup. It comes down to people who know and understand agriculture, who understand the importance of a good farm bill for our farmers and ranchers, but understand also that our farmers and ranchers across the country create the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. It is not perfect, but every American benefits every day from the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.

So when I think of my State of North Dakota, or Senator Coburn's great State of Oklahoma, or Senator Johanns' State of Nebraska--we all produce all of these different ag products. We raise all these crops, we raise all these animals. And there are so many people out there, so many farmers and ranchers--they don't know Saxby Chambliss. But I will tell you what: They owe him a great big thank you. They really do, because without him we wouldn't have a good farm plan for this country.

The reality is it is not just the farmers and ranchers. It is true for so many people across this country: They may not know Saxby Chambliss, but they owe him a lot. He is somebody who epitomizes the very best of this institution.

I know his wife Julianne is here. I have to admit, when I first met her I thought it was his daughter because she is so young and beautiful. I am teasing him a little. But she is fantastic. And the same thing--she was immediately a friend and a mentor to my wife Mikey.

When we talk about Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Mike Johanns, it doesn't get any better than that. We will miss them a lot.

I wish all three of them Godspeed, and may God bless you in your next career.

Mr. President, I rise to also express my appreciation for Senator Mike Johanns and for his wife Stephanie.

I first met Mike shortly after I was elected Governor of my State. At that time Mike was serving as Governor of Nebraska. Right away when I went and visited with Mike I could tell this was somebody who was not only somebody we could count on but who had the right motivation in public service, had great ideas, and was somebody I could look to as a mentor, and I have ever since.

From his experience at the local level as commissioner, then as mayor, then as Governor, then as Secretary of Agriculture, and then as a Senator, Mike has been somebody all of us have counted on and somebody whose advice we have sought when we wrestled with tough decisions.

So I just want to add my voice as well to the others who have expressed our appreciation for Senator Mike Johanns and for Stephanie and to say how much we are going to miss him. We are going to miss him not only on a personal level--because he is a great guy and a great friend and somebody we can count on--but we are going to miss his advice, his counsel, his participation in this process on behalf of the American people.

I think Mike epitomizes the kind of approach we need to have in this body to get work done--to listen, to think carefully, and to remember always that we work for the American people, and he has a long and distinguished career doing that.

He is somebody who will be truly missed, and I think he is somebody who exemplifies the very best of this body and of public service on behalf of our great Nation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Today we vote on S. 2280, introduced by myself and Senator Landrieu. There are actually 54 sponsors on the legislation with us. So we have a total of 56 sponsors of this bipartisan bill. That is the same bill that has been passed in the House of Representatives. That was passed on Friday--the same version. The prime sponsor in the House was Representative Cassidy.

The bill we vote on today, S. 2280, is approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have actually passed legislation on the Keystone XL Pipeline before. This is not the first bill. In 2012, we passed legislation that required the President to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned down the pipeline project.

So today we have submitted a number of different pieces of legislation, but this legislation actually has Congress approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

When the President turned down the project, what we did was we went back and we did the research.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to oversee commerce with foreign powers, with other countries.

So in this situation, Congress has the authority to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline crossing the border from Canada into the United States, and that is

what we crafted in this legislation. So rather than the President making a national interest determination, which he seems to be unwilling to do--and I say that based on his actions--we have now been at this for about 4 years in this Senate trying to get approval. But this project has been in the application process for 6 years.

I was Governor of North Dakota in September of 2008 when the TransCanada Corporation applied for a permit to get approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. They had already built the Keystone pipeline, so they were applying for approval to build the sister pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline. It started in September of 2008, and 2 years went by. We started actually working on it in about 2011 in the Senate, as I say, and we passed legislation, trying to get the President to approve it. But it has now been--and I can show a chart with the time line, but it is a little hard to see--6 years in the permitting process.

The time has come to act. The time has come to act, and that is what this legislation is all about. It provides approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline so they can move forward and it can be constructed.

We have debated this issue in the Chamber for almost 4 years. So we have gone through all of the merits, and we will do that again today. We have not only come to an agreement on getting a vote, but we have also come to an agreement on the parameters for the debate. It is 6 hours of debate, with 3 hours for the proponents and 3 hours for the opponents.

On the Republican side of the aisle we are taking 2 hours solely on the proponent side because all 45 Republican Senators are in support of the project, will be voting for the project, and will be making the case for the project. On the majority side there will be 3 hours for opponents of the project making their case and 1 hour for the proponents making their case, and we will alternate throughout this debate.

We will be having this debate today and we will make our case. I will continue with my colleagues to make the case for the pipeline. There will be Members of the majority party that will make that case and there will be some Members, obviously, in opposition.

So I will reserve some of my time to speak later, but the point I want to make at the outset is this is really about the American people making this case. When we look at this project, it is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth. It creates tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and the debt. It doesn't cost 1 penny of Federal money or government money. It is privately funded, and it is about national security. It is about national security by helping us build energy security in this country with our closest friend and ally, Canada, working together with Canada so that we don't have to get energy from Venezuela or from the Middle East or from other parts of the world, and so we can produce at home.

That is not only a vitally important issue in terms of our economy and being competitive in a global economy because energy is truly a foundational sector for all the other industry sectors. When we have low-cost dependable energy, we are more competitive as a country, but it really is a national security issue.

I see the good Senator from Vermont is on the floor. He has a bill that deals with how we handle surveillance and covert information, given the terrorist threat we face. It is important that we do that well.

But one of the ways to truly strengthen our country is to make sure we are energy secure, to make sure we don't have to get oil from the Middle East, to help our friends and allies in Europe so they are not dependent on Russia for energy when Putin engages in the kind of aggression he has. So when we talk about this energy issue, it is not just jobs, it is not just the energy we get that makes us stronger in a competitive global economy, it really is a national security issue, and it is long past time to act. It has been 6 years.

Today we will have that debate again, and I hope at the end of the day we will have the 60 votes that we need. We will find out this evening when we vote.

Again, it comes back to what do the American people want. We are here representing the American people. Overwhelmingly, in poll after poll when they have been asked, 60 percent, sometimes 70 percent or more say: Build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is whom we work for.

I hope today, at the end of the day, that is the work we will get done for the American people.

I see my cosponsor on the floor, and I would turn to the good Senator from Louisiana.

I would respond to the question of the Senator from Louisiana. My understanding is we were targeting to maybe have the vote at 5:30. I would be certainly pleased to work through that with the Senator and Senator Boxer, finishing up, maybe with me at 5:45 or whatever we work out within that timing.

Mr. President, that seems to be the right way to go. I have no objection.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take 5 minutes to respond to some of the comments the Senator from California made in regard to the environmental impacts.

First, if we look at the environmental impact statements--actually, there were five environmental impact statements done. And what they found and said very clearly is that the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant environmental impact. Let me repeat that--no significant environmental impact. That is from the environmental study done by the Obama administration.

Again, that is not me saying it. That is the State Department for the Obama administration saying no significant environmental impact, according to the environmental impact statement.

In addition, I would point out that if we don't build the Keystone XL Pipeline, this 830,000 barrels of oil a day moves by railroad. Now think of that.

What is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions? Moving all this oil by rail--which by the way takes 1,400 railcars a day--or moving it in tankers across the ocean to China where it will be refined in refineries that have much higher emissions or you putting it in the pipeline? So again, just common sense, what is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions, having the pipeline or 1,400 railcars per day or sending it in tankers to China to be refined in their refineries that have much higher emissions? Not to mention the fact that what are Americans going to think about that we are going to make Canada send their oil to China so we in America can import oil from the Middle East. That is a pretty tough sell. Again, with the pipeline you have lower greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the heavy crude we import from Venezuela now has higher emissions than the oil that will be provided by the Keystone. I am not even including the fact that it is not just Canadian crude that comes in. It is also light sweet Bakken crude from my home State of North Dakota and our neighbor to the west, Montana. We are not just moving Canadian. We our moving our own crude, and if we don't, we are going to continue to get that oil from Venezuela, which has as high or higher greenhouse gas emissions. As a matter of fact, the heavy crude in California, the good Senator's own State, has greenhouse gas emissions that are equal to or higher than the crude that would come through the pipeline. That is produced in California.

The final point I would like to make on the environmental aspects is that 80 percent of the new production in Canada--in the Canadian oil sands--80 percent of the new production is being done by what they call in situ drilling. So instead of excavating, which is what is being done now with much of the production at the oil sands, they are drilling. They would drill down similarly to the way they would drill for oil with conventional drilling and then put steam down in the hole and have that bring up the oil. So the carbon footprint is reduced using this in situ method, and 80 percent of the production in Canada will be with this in situ method. That will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and the footprint, similar to conventional drilling in the United States.

When you look at the environmental track record in Canada, the Canadians care about their environment too. We all want to find ways to produce energy and do it with good environmental stewardship. I submit to you that the way to do that is to empower and enable the deployment of new technologies that not only produce that energy more cost- effectively, more independently but also do it with better environmental stewardship because you are using the latest, greatest technologies. Instead of moving the product through railcars, you are moving it through the latest pipeline with the latest safeguards. So I wanted to take 5 minutes to respond to some of those environmental issues, and I thank the Senator from California and turn the floor now back to her.

Madam President, I would inquire as to the remaining time.

I would inquire of the Senator from Louisiana if she would like to use her 3 minutes in addition to the agreement for the final 8? Would the Senator from Louisiana like to use her 3 minutes at this time?

Would the Senator from Louisiana like to do that now? Then she would still have 2 minutes to use after I finish as well. I am trying to find out how the Senator would like to use her remaining time.

Sure. That is fine.

Madam President, I am going to go through a series of charts here. They are actually getting a little worn because I have used them now for a number of years. I am very hopeful that after today, or certainly after the first part of the next year, I can retire these charts, because it is long past time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This is an effort that started in September of 2008. The TransCanada company applied for a Keystone XL Pipeline permit. They started this process in September of 2008. I wasn't in the Senate then. I was Governor of North Dakota at that time. I worked on it for 2 years as Governor, and now I have worked on it for almost 4 years here in the Senate--not building the project, but trying to get approval for this project. The irony is--one of the many ironies--is that the TransCanada company actually built the Keystone Pipeline. A lot of people say, what? What do you mean? I thought that is what we are talking about. No, what we are talking about is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline has already been built.

In 2006, the company applied for a permit to build a pipeline from Hardisty, which is in Alberta, down to Patoka, IL, for the Keystone Pipeline. They applied in 2006. They were granted a permit in 2008. By 2010 they had the pipeline built and operating, bringing about 640,000 barrels a day, going down from Canada, through my State, through South Dakota, through Nebraska, and over to Patoka, IL. Permitted in 2 years, built it in 2 years, and 4 years from start to finish, all done. That is the Keystone Pipeline.

What we are talking about here now is the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is a sister project, and the company has been trying for 6 years to get a permit.

Here we see the route. It is very similar, but it also goes down to Cushing and to the Gulf of Mexico. It is hard to believe it has been 6 years in the making.

We passed legislation to try to get a decision out of the administration. Not only is this not the first pipeline, which is the Keystone XL Pipeline, after we already built the Keystone Pipeline, but this is not the first bill to approve it. In fact, we have passed other bills to approve it.

As a matter of fact, in 2011 I introduced a bill which we passed in 2012 attached to the payroll tax holiday so the President wouldn't veto it, and what that bill said is: Mr. President, you need to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. If we are going to have an energy plan for this country, if we are going to make this country energy secure, energy independent, we have to have the infrastructure to move that energy to market. We have to have this vital infrastructure. So all that bill said in 2012 is: Mr. President, make a decision. It has been years in the permitting process. Make a decision. And he did. He turned it down. He turned it down because he didn't like the route in Nebraska. So what did we do? We went to work with the good people of Nebraska and set up a different route. We addressed the concerns the President said he had. We rerouted the pipeline and we came back. Still no decision. Still no decision, making it very clear--the President won't turn down the project. We have to ask, why isn't he turning it down? Because it is about jobs and energy and economic growth. It is about energy security, therefore national security, and the American people overwhelmingly want this project--60, 70 percent every time it is polled. That is why he doesn't want to turn it down, because the American people want it but he won't approve it. So what is his strategy? His strategy is defeat through delay. Defeat through delay. Don't take my word for it. Actions speak louder than words. We are now in year 6 of the permitting process.

What does this bill do, Senate bill 2280? We have 56 sponsors on this bill--56. It is a bipartisan bill. We already have a majority of the Senate. Now we just need to get to 60. What does it do? If the President won't make a decision, then Congress needs to. What this bill does is that under the commerce clause

of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to oversee trade with foreign powers. We have the authority and the responsibility to oversee trade with foreign countries. So we have the authority to approve the cross-border approval for this pipeline. We have that authority under the commerce clause. So this bill simply says, all right, Congress approves the cross-border authority for this pipeline. That is it. The States still have their right to the route and the oversight in their respective States. We honor, we respect, and we protect. We protect property rights. We are just saying under the commerce clause of the Constitution that we can bring this pipeline across the border, just like the many other pipelines that have come across the border. This pipeline will have the latest, greatest technology, and it will be part of the more than--the millions of miles of pipelines that we already have, except this one will be newer with safety features the other ones don't even have.

That is what this bill is about, and that is what we are working on today. It really comes down to a very simple decision. Do we make a decision for the American people, or do we make a decision for special interest groups that oppose the project?

I wish to thank my colleagues for this very vigorous debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline today. It is very appropriate that we debate it. And it is very appropriate that we vote on it. I had not anticipated getting to a vote until the new Congress, but I am pleased to get a vote today. It is certainly past time that we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline--as I say, 6 years. Six years in the permitting process. How in the world are we going to build an energy plan for this country that truly makes us energy secure and energy independent if we can't build the infrastructure to move that energy around the country--to move the energy we produce and that our closest friend and ally Canada produces from where we produce it to the refineries and to the markets around the country? We can't build an energy plan for this country if we don't approve and build the infrastructure to make it work.

A lot has been written and a lot has been said over these 6 years. But I go back to the most important point, and that is let's make this decision on the merits and let's make this decision on the facts. It is about energy, jobs, and economic growth, and it is about national security through energy security.

On the environmental issues, after five environmental impact statements, the Department of State says there is no significant environmental impact. Look, this isn't me saying it. Read the environmental impact statement. It is not as though we just did it once. It is not as though we just did it twice or even three times. Five of them. Five environmental impact statements. Think about it. Where is the common sense here? Five environmental impact statements. Verdict: No significant environmental impact.

On the jobs issues, the Department of State, again, in the environmental impact statement, says 42,000 jobs. Some say, those aren't good jobs, those are construction jobs. Really? If they are not good jobs, why are all the major national unions strongly supporting the project? Ask them if these are good jobs.

Furthermore, energy is a foundational industry. Low-cost, dependable energy helps all of the other industry sectors in our economy go and makes us more competitive in a global economy.

On the export issue, I think we have heard our President say, oh, it is just all going to be exported. Well, that is interesting, because his Department of Energy says otherwise. If we look at the report from the Department of Energy, it says we are going to use that oil here in the United States. We are going to refine it and use it here in the United States. Interestingly enough, in order for the oil to be exported, we have to get approval from the Department of Commerce--from the Obama administration's Department of Commerce.

One other interesting point: It is not just oil from Canada, it is oil from my great State of North Dakota and oil from Montana--light, sweet Bakken crude that we have to find a way to get to our refineries in the United States. Right now North Dakota produces almost 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, and it is going up. The only State that produces more oil than North Dakota is Texas. Of that almost 1.2 million barrels of oil a day that we produce, 700,000 right now is moving on rail--700,000 barrels a day. That is a problem. This pipeline alone will take 1,400 railcars of oil--1,400 railcars to move that amount of oil. So if we don't have Keystone, we are going to have 1,400 railcars a day moving that product. We already have a problem. We already have our agriculture products backlogged in the Midwest because we are trying to move all of this oil.

Look, we need infrastructure in the right balance. We need pipelines, we need rail, and we need roads. Without it, we have more congestion on the rail as well as more risks for accidents.

For all these reasons and more, as I said a minute ago, the American people have spoken clearly. They have said that it is time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I hope that today that is exactly what we do.

We are here now, and we agreed to have a vote at 5:45 p.m. I know that my colleagues from Louisiana----

I have 2 minutes remaining to start the final portion of the debate prior to the vote. So without objection----

So I turn to my colleague from California and my colleague from Louisiana. The time has come to vote. We have had the vigorous debate. I would go back to what I said on this floor repeatedly and will continue to say until we get this project approved. This is about what the American people want. We work for the American people.

I have gone through the merits. I have gone through the arguments. I laid out how the bill works. I talked about the history. But at the end of the day, this is about our job representing the people of this great country and listening to them and doing what they want us to do. The American people overwhelmingly support this project and want it approved. So I ask for an affirmative vote today to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the minority leader, but I ask him to repeat his question.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to the minority leader. That has been the case, that we have worked for some time to get a vote on this important issue. We actually had passed a measure back in 2012 attached to a payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline project on the basis of the route in Nebraska. So that work has been done. It has been rerouted.

Some time ago, we put together a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I drafted and wrote. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana agreed to cosponsor it. We have all 45 Republicans on the bill, and we have 11 Democrats. We have 56 cosponsors on the legislation, but we have not been able to bring the bill to the floor. So I really had anticipated that we would have to wait until the new Congress in order to get a vote on the bill, because as the minority leader said, the American voters spoke. And particularly with the new Members we have coming, we will have more than 60 Senators who support the legislation. So I had anticipated that we would have to go into the new Congress to get a vote on the bill.

However, the cosponsor on the bill, Senator Landrieu, yesterday requested that we call the bill up, and she worked on her side and we have worked on our side to get unanimous consent to get a vote on the bill. So we are certainly happy to vote on this important issue for the American people. We will have a vote in the House on the very same bill. They now have taken up the very same bill. I believe it will pass easily tomorrow in the House. And then on Tuesday, we will have a vote on our bill here, S. 2280. We will have 45 Republicans, and we hope to have 15 Democrats. And if we do, we will pass the bill and send it to the President for signature.

If we don't get to the 60 votes, I believe we will still be able to bring the bill back in the new Congress and have the 60 votes. So I believe we will now be able to advance this bill to the President. The question is, What will the President do? The indication was from one of his spokespersons traveling with him yesterday that he may well veto the legislation. If that happens, I still think, again, based on the fact that the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation, that we will be able to come back, work with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis and perhaps make this legislation part of a broader energy bill, or attach it to an appropriations measure. But I think we will be able to find other legislation that we can attach approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline--this bill--to. That makes it very likely that we could either override a veto or maybe the President wouldn't veto it. Because at the end of the day, what this is all about is more energy for this country, produced here and working with our closest friend and ally, Canada.

This is about jobs. By the State Department's own environmental impact statement, 42,000 jobs. So it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about the infrastructure we need to build the right kind of energy plan for our country. Whether one comes from North Dakota or Kentucky or Texas or Louisiana or wherever, we have to have infrastructure as part of our energy plan.

It is also about national security. Americans do not want to have to depend on getting oil from the Middle East. They want to produce it here at home, and they want to work with our closest ally, Canada, and we want the jobs and the economic activity that come with it.

So that is where we are. That is the game plan, to get this important legislation passed, and that is what this is all about. This is about moving forward on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. When asked, the American people in the polling showed anywhere from 65 up to about 75 percent overwhelmingly support it. So that is what this issue is all about.

Now is our chance to show that we can move forward, and in a bipartisan way, and get this done for the people of this great Nation. We are hopeful that we can get it in the lameduck. That is great. We have cleared the way to get a vote, and if we can't, then we will be right back to work on it in the new Congress.

Mr. President, there have been a whole range of numbers offered. But I think to cut through to a number that people should be able to accept and to agree on is to take the number the State Department has put forward in the environmental impact statement. As a matter of fact, I think there have been either four or five environmental impact statements done on this project over a 6-year period, going all the way back to starting in September 2008 when TransCanada initially applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is the sister pipeline to the Keystone Pipeline, which was already built--permitted in 2 years and built in 2 years--and that happened when I was Governor. I actually started working with this project when I was Governor and it continued when I came to the Senate. But TransCanada originally applied for their permit back in September of 2008. So for 6 years this has been going on, and in the final environmental impact statement, which stated the project will have no significant environmental impact--it stated that very clearly--they also said it will create about 42,000 jobs. And these are good-paying jobs, construction jobs and other types of jobs that are good-paying jobs.

So here is a project, when we include Canada, about $7.9 billion. It is not going to cost the government one penny--not one penny. By the State Department's own admission, it will create 42,000 jobs. It will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help the States and help with our deficit and debt, and it is to move oil not only from Canada, but from my State of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in Texas and Louisiana and other places that need the crude, and right now that crude is coming from places such as Venezuela or the Middle East.

It is a job creator, and there are all of these other benefits. Again, it is an excellent example of the kind of infrastructure we need to build the energy plan this country needs.

I ask the minority leader if I have answered his question adequately.

Madam President, I would like to thank the minority leader. I would like to thank all the Members of our caucus for joining on this bipartisan legislation. You know, we are continuing to work across the aisle to get 60 votes. At the end of the day, you have got to go back to what this is all about. This is about building an ``all of the above'' energy plan for this Nation. You cannot build an ``all of the above'' energy plan for the Nation if you do not have the infrastructure to move that energy around the country. We are seeing what is happening. Because we have been blocked on building these pipelines, now we are not able to move our grain to market, because there are so many rail cars now trying to move crude oil--700,000 barrels a day out of our State alone, and it is growing.

Keystone alone will replace 1,400 rail cars a day that are now carrying oil. That is 10-unit trains. So, you see, this is about so many aspects of our economy, strengthening our economy and creating good-paying jobs that people want. That is why the American people--and that is who we work for, that is who we represent. That is what this is about. That is what we heard loud and clear in the election, is that the American people want us to work together. They want us to get jobs going,

get this economy going, build the right kind of energy future, get our budget deficit under control.

That means we have to do the fundamentals. When we talk about building infrastructure, we are talking about the fundamentals. That is what is going on here. This has been 6 years. We need to get this economy going. That starts with common sense. This is common sense. This is common sense because it is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about growing the economy, it is about national security, it is about not having to get oil from the Middle East, and it is about doing what the American people overwhelmingly time and again have told us they want us to do.

Again, I want to thank the minority leader. I will turn to him and again say: You know, I believe we can find a way, either in this lameduck or in the next Congress--and I would ask the leader--in the next Congress, and I believe it to be true, as the majority leader, he will make this a priority as part of an energy plan for this country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 35 minutes for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with my colleagues on the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Mr. President, tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Six years. Six years ago, September 19, 2008, the TransCanada company applied for a permit for approval to cross the Canadian border to build the Keystone XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Canada, down to Cushing and ultimately the gulf coast, to provide not only oil from Canada but to move oil from States such as my State of North Dakota, of light, sweet Bakken crude, oil from Montana, to our refineries here in the United States. Six years ago, that application was filed, effective tomorrow. So we are here today to talk about the need not only for a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline but for approval of this vitally important project.

The reality is we can make this country energy secure, energy independent, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. But to do it we not only need to develop all of our resources, our energy resources in this country, and work with Canada as they develop their energy resources, but we need the infrastructure to safely, effectively, efficiently, dependably move that energy to where it is needed, to our consumers.

That is what the Keystone XL Pipeline project is all about. This is truly about building the roads, the rails, the pipelines, the transmission, the energy infrastructure we need as a vital part of our energy plan for this country. We have bipartisan support. We have 57 Senators who support this legislation--57. The reality is I think by next year we will have 60.

So while we sit here and wait--now for 6 years, effective tomorrow 6 years, waiting for a decision from the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline--ultimately I believe this decision will be made by the American people, as it always is and as it always should be. Because I believe that after these elections in November as we go into next year we will not only have 57 Senators who support this project, we will have over 60.

Then Congress will pass legislation, a bill that we have submitted, a bipartisan bill we have pending before this body right now. We will pass it. We will attach it to something the President will not veto. The House has already passed this legislation. Because over 70 percent, I think in the most recent poll, of the American people want this project. They want this project approved.

So here after 6 years--we are going to talk about some of the history of this and all of the work we have done. But before I do that, I want to turn to my colleague from Wyoming, somebody who is incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to energy, somebody who has worked on energy in all different aspects, somebody who truly understands that, look, for the benefit of the American people to build our energy future we not only need to produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to transport it safely, effectively, and well.

I wish to call on the Senator from Wyoming for his remarks on this sixth anniversary of the application, waiting for approval, waiting for a decision from the administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline, for his thoughts and for his comments. I turn to the good Senator from Wyoming.

Can the Senator give us his thoughts as to why this project is still awaiting a decision from the administration, after the President told us, told our caucus last year, at a caucus we had here in an adjacent room, that we would have a decision by the end of 2013, why we are here still awaiting a decision on behalf of the American people?

I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his diligence and for his work. This is a bipartisan issue. We have legislation now with 57 supporters that is pending before this body. In fact, we have passed this legislation. We actually had passed very similar legislation, different only in the respect that it called on the President to make a decision--this was back in 2012. I think we had 73 votes on this issue. The difference is, the pending bill we have provides congressional approval because the President once again delayed the decision when we passed legislation calling on him to make the decision earlier. So now we have come back with binding legislation, after doing congressional research. This bill makes the decision congressionally under the commerce clause that gives Congress the ability to oversee commerce with foreign nations.

Simply what this does is we say to our closest friend and ally, Canada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--that: Yes, you can cross the border with this pipeline, which is the latest, greatest technology we have for pipeline transport.

Let me show one other chart here, so people understand. When we are talking about pipelines, oil and gas pipelines in this country, this gives you a little sense of the pipelines we have--thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of pipelines that move oil and gas around the country, from where it is produced to the consumers who very much need it. So that gives you a sense of all of the pipelines we have.

Now we are talking about one that has the latest and greatest technology that we are seeking to get approved. To put this into some context, the project we are seeking to have approved is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The reason XL is because the Keystone Pipeline is this pipeline here, which goes from Hardisty up in Alberta down to the Patoka, IL, area as well as Cushing. That is the Keystone Pipeline. So I want to make sure there is no confusion. That is the Keystone Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years and built in 2 years.

So in 2006 the TransCanada company--I was Governor of North Dakota at that time. You can see it runs right through North Dakota. Obviously these things are immensely important. We are now the second largest oil-producing State in the Nation. We produce over 1 million barrels of oil a day--light sweet crude, second only to Texas. We have to get that to our markets and to refineries.

I started working on these projects when I was Governor. In 2006, TransCanada applied for approval of the Keystone Pipeline. Originally that was supposed to carry 640,000 barrels a day. I think it now carries 750,000 barrels a day. That application was applied for in 2006. It was approved in 2008. The pipeline was built and came online 2 years later. So 2 years to permit, and 2 years to build--4 years total.

When TransCanada applied for a second permit in 2008 for a sister pipeline, Keystone XL, it seemed pretty logical that it was going to be approved, particularly when the initial project had been approved in 2 years, built in 2 years. This is the actual pipeline infrastructure we have. When they wanted to build the sister pipeline, 830,000 barrels a day, it seemed kind of pretty logical they would go through the process and get it approved.

On September 19, 2008, they applied for that approval to move oil from Hardisty, pick up additional oil in North Dakota, Montana, take it down to Cushing and down to the refineries in the gulf, and get oil over to the refineries in Louisiana. September, 19, 2008. Tomorrow is September 19, 2014. Six years later, no decision.

I wish to turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Oklahoma. Cushing is a hub for oil from all over the country. It is vital that we are able to move oil in and out of there, because that is a huge transition point between where we produce oil, including our region, but from all over the country and Canada and move it to refineries where it is distributed throughout the country. So we need to be able to move product in and out of Cushing, which is truly a hub for the Nation. That is exactly what this pipeline does.

I would turn to the senior Senator from Oklahoma. I would ask him: Why in the world, given what I have described here--we have thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of these pipelines. We have to get product from where it is produced to refineries and to our consumers. We cannot put it all on rail or you create incredible congestion that leads to accidents and backlogs in shipping of other products. This is the latest, greatest technology for pipelines, for the transport of oil.

Why in the world--what rationale would there be not to approve this pipeline?

I would like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma and pick up on a point he made very well. He made of number of points that are extremely compelling, but one of the points he made is that overall, since about 2008, 2009, that area, our oil production in America is up 40 percent. So people say: Well, we are producing 40 percent more oil than we did in 2008, the end of 2008, so that is good. That is reducing the amount of oil we have to import into this country. We were below 50 percent. Now we are closing in on 60 percent and more oil that we produce. Together with Canada and Mexico, we are up over 75 percent, in terms of the oil that we consume, we produce in this country or get, as I say, from our closest allies and working on getting to 80 percent.

Well, people would say that is very good, but the Senator from Oklahoma made a very important point. Understand that is because we are up 60 percent in oil production on private land--on private land. We are actually down in terms of our production on public land; we are down between 6 and 7 percent. So when you net the two, we are up about 40 percent, but that is because we are up about 60 percent on private land.

I will give an example of how that works on the ground. In North Dakota 90 percent of the land is privately owned, so our oil production is growing tremendously. As I said, we are at about 1.1 million barrels a day and on our way to 1.4 million barrels a day in a few more years.

In Alaska, on the other hand, production is going down because their land is 90 percent public land and a very small percentage is private land. They can't get the permits and they can't build the infrastructure, so the amount of oil they produce is declining. The Alaskan pipeline can carry 2 million barrels of oil a day. It is down to less than 600,000 and declining. This is at a time when we are still getting oil from the Middle East and we are dealing with entities like ISIL, with terrorism, and with instability. How can we continue to be dependent on getting oil from the Middle East when we can produce that oil right here in our country and in Canada? I would ask the good Senator from Oklahoma to comment for a moment on the technology that is enabling us to do so.

Hydraulic fracturing--I think the first well hydraulically fractured in this country was in about the 1950s in Oklahoma.

So I ask my friend from Oklahoma to talk for a minute about the technology and what that means for the future of this country and energy security.

I again thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Since 1948, with the first well hydraulically fractured--there have been no cases of contamination since 1948. We are now using this hydraulic fracturing with the latest new greatest technology where, on one pad, on one what we call eco-pad, we will now drill down as many as 18 wells. These wells will have--we go 2 miles underground, and then we drill laterals 3 miles long. Eighteen wells all on one site. Think of how much we have reduced the environmental footprint with that technology. Think of how much less ground disturbance there is. You are covering 1,280 acres. In the old days--and again maybe my friend from Oklahoma would like to think of how many wells they would have had to drill and how much infrastructure and well derricks and pumpers they would have to have all over the landscape, and now we do it on one pad covering 1,280 acres going out 3 miles in all directions from one eco- pad. So it is not just about energy,

I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, it is also better environmental stewardship.

I have one more question for my friend from Oklahoma before I turn to my good friend from the State of Georgia.

Answer, please, if you would. As we produce this energy domestically--so we are producing energy here, we are creating jobs, we are creating economic activity, we are creating revenue without raising taxes from a growing economy. We are helping national security because we are not getting oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or places that are hostile to our interests. Now we are talking about environmental stewardship. We are talking about minimizing the footprint with these new technologies. Why would we not want to move that product as safely as possible, with the latest, greatest type of pipeline, with the best technology and the most safeguards? Why isn't that an environmentally sound decision as well?

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been a leader in energy for so many years.

This morning we were addressed by the President of Ukraine. Look at their situation. Because they haven't developed their own energy resources and because they don't have their own infrastructure, they are now dependent--Ukraine is dependent, along with most of the European Union, on Russia for their energy.

They get more than one-third of their energy from Russia. So at the same time that Russia is invading Ukraine, the European Union is reluctant to stand with the United States and our other allies on strong sanctions to prevent that type of aggression. Why? Because they get their energy from Russia.

So when we talk about building the infrastructure we need in this country to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, to make sure we are energy secure and that we do not need to get energy from places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or other places that may have interests that are antithetical to ours, think about how important it is for the security of our country with what is going on in the Middle East with ISIL, and see what is going on in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and Russian aggression.

So I turn to our colleague from Georgia, who has also been a staunch supporter of this project, and ask him what is going on in terms of national security, the situation we face today, and why in the world would we not be building--not only producing our energy resources in this country but deploying these new technologies we are talking about that produce energy with better environmental stewardship and building the infrastructure to move it to our refineries and move it to our consumers.

Why are we waiting 6 years for a decision that would enable us to do that very thing on behalf of the American people?

I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his strong support and his clear understanding of why we need this project and for putting the focus on national security.

In poll after poll two-thirds of Americans support this project. I think in the final analysis the American people will make a decision here. If the President after 6 years refuses to make a decision, clearly his strategy is to defeat this project with endless delays, just defeat by delay. So here we are in year 6 of the application process.

I would turn to my colleague from Georgia and ask his thoughts on this body's ability to step up and make the decision and approve this project on behalf of the American people. What does the Senator foresee? We have 57 who have signed on now. I believe we will get to 60. What is the Senator's sense of our ability to get this done for the American people?

That is absolutely correct. We have the dates of the approval of five different environmental impact statements right here, all finding no significant environmental impact.

That is correct.

That is correct.

I thank the good Senator from Georgia.

I understand that our time has expired. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to wrap up this colloquy.

On the facts and on the merits--which is how we have to make decisions for the American people--this is a project about energy, producing energy here at home so we don't have to get it from the Middle East. We know what is going on with the Middle East with ISIL and other organizations that are creating huge problems and that are a danger not only to this country but to the world.

It is about energy here at home and working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. It is about jobs. The State Department itself says more than 40,000 jobs are created with this project. It is about economic activity, a $5.3 billion project and not one penny of Federal spending, just private investment. It is about national security, as we have talked about.

But it is also about congestion on our rails. It is about making sure we don't try to move all this oil on rail so we have so much congestion, we have accidents, and we have seen that happen. It is about harvest and moving ag products from the heartland throughout the country. It is about using the latest, greatest technology to make sure we produce more energy more dependably and with better environmental stewardship than without the project.

Six years. It is time for this body to step forward on behalf of the American people.

I yield the floor.