Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes or as much time as I might need to discuss an important energy issue.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my esteemed colleague from Texas, and I want to share my agreement with the important points he made so well.

(The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2823 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

I come to the floor to offer a compromise on the LNG export issue. I will put up my first chart. I think this is both a solution and a compromise to LNG exporting.

The reality is we need to be able to construct LNG export facilities. There has been debate in this body as to how that approval process should work. Some want to take the Department of Energy completely out of the process and just allow companies to build LNG facilities--let the market work--and that is actually an approach I advocate and I have joined with others on that type of legislation. That legislation has bipartisan support. I think we could get it to the floor and we would have more than the 60 votes it needs to pass. Others have advocated a more cautious approach, which is essentially continuing the current state of play wherein DOE can take years before they make a decision on these LNG export terminals. So what I offer today is the LNG Certainty Act, which I believe is a compromise between those two points of view. It would provide for an expedited process but would do it in a way where we keep the Department of Energy in the equation.

Why is it so important that we act now? This is a bill that is very much about jobs. Right now we are on a motion to go to a bill that purportedly would create jobs. I don't think that bill will create jobs; I think it will create more regulation and more costs for companies that are trying to create jobs. So instead why don't we bring up some of these energy bills that will not only create jobs but accomplish much more as well, such as economic growth--economic growth that will generate revenues to reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes or increasing regulatory burdens? Why not pass some of these energy bills that will provide better environmental stewardship? LNG production certainly would provide job growth, economic growth but also better environmental stewardship, and it will also help provide national security--national security for us and for our allies. That is a very big reason it is so important that we act now.

We have a President who is talking about what Vladimir Putin and Russia should do and what they shouldn't do. He is talking about it, but we need to go beyond talk to action. What is that action? We need to impose stronger sanctions on Russia. I think there is broad bipartisan support in this Senate to impose stronger sanctions on Russia, but for those sanctions to be truly effective, we need the European Union to join with us in imposing those sanctions. We can have a meaningful impact on what Putin and Russia do, but we have to act and we have to get the European Union to act with us.

So why aren't they acting with us? The reality is Vladimir Putin has them over a barrel--literally. European countries are dependent on Russia for their energy. So they are very reluctant to impose sanctions when they have to get their energy from Russia.

Here is a graph that shows how much all of these different European countries get in terms of their energy, their natural gas from Europe. We can see in some cases it is 100 percent, 60 percent, 50 percent. For some obviously it is less. But for many European countries, they are dependent on Russia for this natural gas.

Here is the pipeline network coming in from Russia. Here we see Russia and all of these pipelines coming into Europe through the Ukraine supplying natural gas. Obviously, these countries are very worried about imposing sanctions which, of course, would create difficulty for them from an economic perspective as well as Russia, but they are very concerned about energy supply. That is why we have to act and we have to act now to make sure they have another supply of energy so they can join with us in meaningful sanctions against Russia.

So how does the LNG Certainty Act work? Quite simply, it provides that the Department of Energy must make a decision on whether to approve an LNG export application within 45 days of that company completing its preliminary application to the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. So understand, right now companies have to apply to both the Department of Energy and to the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They have to apply to both in order to get approval to build an LNG facility.

When we talk to these companies we learn that the FERC has a fairly rational process that they know they can step through in an orderly fashion. It is pretty dependable, pretty certain. It takes a certain amount of time, covers all the bases, but they know they can get through it. The DOE--the Department of Energy--on the other hand, doesn't have any specific timeframes or criteria on how or whether they will give approval to these companies, so it creates uncertainty and it creates real delay.

As I said, some people want to take the Department of Energy out of the equation completely; others want to continue just as it is. That is why this act truly is a compromise in that we keep the Department of Energy in the mix, but we require that within 45 days after the preliminary application to the FERC is approved, which takes about 6 months, up to as much as 1 year--within 45 days after that preliminary application is filed with the FERC, the DOE then has 45 days to make a decision. So we still have whatever safeguards some people feel need to be in there, as far as the DOE. The DOE is still in there. They still have that safeguard, but we have a reasonably expedited process and a reasonably certain process for these companies that are applying to try to get approval.

Right now we have on the order of 13 different companies--1 has conditional approval but 13 different companies--

seeking approval to build LNG facilities. Many of these companies have been waiting for over 1 year--some 1 to 2 years--and they are not even through the Department of Energy process yet. So while we need to start moving natural gas to Europe, since Europe needs that source of supply so they can stand with us in sanctions against Russia, these applications continue to sit in limbo. How does that possibly make sense? Why aren't we acting? Why is it adequate or satisfactory for the President to just talk about what should be done instead of doing something? This is action we can and must take.

I will give my colleagues an example of a project showing what we are talking about. I am showing my colleagues 13 different projects that are in limbo.

Here is one right here where we take a specific example. This is the Golden Pass project. It is a project ExxonMobil wants to build. They are ready to invest $10 billion--$10 billion--today and save these taxes to build an export facility that will move liquefied natural gas from this country to Europe. Why would we want to sit and hold them up?

Here you see a timeline. They have been in this process already for more than 1 year. It looks to me as though they do not even figure they are halfway done yet, and there is no certainty from the Department of Energy when they will be done. Yet here is a $10 billion project that is sponsored by a company--ExxonMobil--that certainly has the ability to build it, that will take LNG, liquefied natural gas, to Europe.

What is the rationale for holding them up, for just making them wait? Aren't we moving to a so-called jobs bill? How many jobs do you think will be created in building a $10 billion facility? A lot of jobs.

This is just 1 example of the more than 13 I just showed that are sitting in limbo.

That is exactly why I have joined with Senator McCain, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Barrasso and we proposed the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. The whole focus of this act was to streamline oil and gas production, to build the gathering systems we need, move it to these LNG facilities, and give companies the approval and the authority to build those LNG facilities so they can move that gas to our allies.

All of these steps create jobs. They all create jobs. We create jobs in all of these steps: producing more gas, building the gathering systems, and building the LNG facilities. But instead of doing this--in this picture we have an oil well, which is flaring off gas, meaning burning it off. This picture is an example in my State of North Dakota where we are flaring off $1.5 million worth of gas a day. So instead of just burning up that gas, we would actually have a market for it, so we can capture it, move it to the LNG facilities, and export it to our allies, not only strengthening our national security and their national security but creating a market for our gas.

Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of gas a year in this country, and we use 26 trillion. So gas is flared off instead of captured and sent to market.

If we want to talk about job creation, if we want to talk about economic growth, if we want to talk about environmental stewardship, if we want to talk about working with our allies to actually do something in response to Russian aggression, do we want to actually do something or just keep talking about it?

So while we are considering jobs bills, why don't we consider this jobs bill? Why don't we consider the LNG Certainty Act. The reason I have introduced this compromise bill is so we can do this: move natural gas from the United States, through facilities, to our allies to deter Russian aggression. It is that simple. That is what it is all about.

That is why, again, I joined with Senators McCain, Murkowski, and Barrasso to introduce the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. But if that is too heavy a lift--if that is too heavy a lift--then let's take up the LNG Certainty Act and just approve the ability to build these facilities. Let's at least take that first step.

There are other bills we can take up as well that are true job creators, real job creators, where we empower companies across this great Nation, large and small, to create jobs, to create more energy, to create better environmental stewardship, and to strengthen national security--energy bills that myself and others have introduced: the LNG Certainty Act which I am talking about right now, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act which I have referenced as well, Keystone--the Keystone XL Pipeline. Why aren't we building that right now to make sure, with Canada, we produce more oil than we consume so we can tell the Middle East we do not need any oil, we have it covered or the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which is a whole series of bills that have been passed in the House that I have introduced in the Senate that would cut the regulatory burden, increase the amount of energy we produce in this country both onshore and offshore or the Empower States Act, where we give States the ability to take a primary role in regulating hydraulic fracturing so we have the certainty to continue the investment that is producing an energy renaissance in this country.

All of these acts have been filed. All of these acts create jobs. Why are they being held up so we can consider a bill that increases regulation, increases taxes on companies in the country, and will have the impact of reducing jobs and reducing economic growth rather than accomplishing all of the things we are talking about--not just jobs, not just economic growth but national security and actually working with our allies to accomplish something instead of just talking about it, making Putin tow the line rather than just telling him he should.

With that, I know my colleagues are here to propose additional job- creating ideas as well, and at this time I yield for the outstanding Senator from the State of Georgia.

Yes, sir.

I thank the good Senator and I appreciate it very much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to start with my support of the comments of the Senator from Oregon. We need to get a highway bill done this week, and I look forward to working with him, particularly on a long-term plan with some of the concepts he has put forward. We need it for our infrastructure across this great Nation. Again, I look forward to working with the Senator in that endeavor and express my thanks.

I rise to speak on the issue of Ukraine and the need to address that situation and address it with a long-term strategy.

Last week Russian separatists shot down a Malaysian airliner with 298 souls on board. Innocent people were killed because Russia wants to control Ukraine--if not all of Ukraine, certainly Eastern Ukraine.

The Obama administration is struggling to respond. President Obama talks about the need for Vladimir Putin and Russia to be accountable. Meanwhile, Russia continues to deny what is going on. Putin continues to arm Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine, separatists led by Russian special forces, military operatives armed and directed by Moscow.

We need to respond. Our country needs to respond, and we need to respond with a long-term strategy and not just talk and not a short- term strategy, and that is something we can do. We can respond, and we need to respond with a long-term strategy.

We can lead with strong sanctions against Russia--sanctions that would truly affect the banking sector and other sectors of their economy in a meaningful way. We can help Europe follow us with these same sanctions. We can help them by providing energy to the European Union.

Europe is dependent on Russia for its energy. I brought some charts to depict the situation. The first chart shows countries in Europe and how many of them get all or a very large share of their natural gas from Russia. So they are dependent on Russia for their energy, and that is an incredible source of strength for the Putin regime.

Here we see--I know it is somewhat difficult--all of these pipelines coming out of Russia through Ukraine and into the European Union, supplying all of that energy to these European countries. Because of that, we see all of these countries that are dependent on Russia. That is an incredible source of strength and power for Russia, and it is holding up Europe from engaging in the kinds of sanctions that could really stop Russia--stop the Russian economy and stop President Putin in his tracks.

We can break that trend and we can break that stranglehold by allowing more LNG--liquefied natural gas--exports from our country. We have the companies right now, today, that want to build LNG export facilities, but they are being held up from doing so.

I wish to go to my third chart. This isn't all of them, but right here there are 16 companies--13 on our coast, 3 in Canada--and 1 of these actually has received conditional approval. But here are 13 applications for companies that want to build LNG facilities to export natural gas, and they are being held up. All of these have been held up somewhere between 1 and 2 years. They can't even get permitted or approved by the Department of Energy to build those facilities.

What are we talking about? Let me give a specific example of one of them--a company my colleagues have probably heard of--ExxonMobil. They want to build a $10 billion facility at Sabine Pass in Texas. I just pointed this one out on this chart right here, in this area on the gulf. They are ready to go right now. They have been in the application process for maybe 1 or 2 years, and they think they are maybe halfway through it. So they have another year or 2 years before they can build a $10 billion facility that will move natural gas. They will bring it right into the UK, right into Europe. Why aren't we green-lighting this right now, today? Why do we continue to hold this up?

Some critics say it is going to take them some time to build it. Well, of course it is going to take some time to build, but the faster we get these projects permitted, the sooner they are going to get built. The reality is they will not only have an impact as they are able to move gas into the market, they will have an impact today because those European countries will know these other sources of supply are coming.

Also, Vladimir Putin knows we are serious about providing alternative energy to Europe, and I think that will make a big difference in terms of strengthening the European countries' readiness to join us with the kinds of sanctions we need to truly make a difference.

Two weeks ago I introduced legislation to do exactly what I am talking about--the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. The cosponsors include Senator McCain, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the energy committee. Senator Barrasso worked to put a lot of the legislation together. Senator McCain has always been very active in the Ukrainian situation. Together we put together this bill with a lot of pieces of this legislation that have already been passed in the House--already passed the House. Quite simply, it will enable us to produce more natural gas, move it to market, and export it to our allies. It increases onshore production of natural gas. It allows us to gather it and move it to market, and it allows it to be exported.

Quite simply, what does that enable us to do? Well, States such as mine today are flaring off, burning off $1.5 million a day of natural gas because we don't have a market for it. So we just burn it. We just burn it because we can't get the kind of legislation we have developed passed. We can't get it to the floor for a vote. So instead of taking that natural gas--millions of dollars a day--that is going up in smoke and moving it down to these facilities and over to our allies, we are burning it.

It would be better for our economy. It would create jobs. It would be better for our environment. It would create jobs. It would certainly be better for our economic growth. It would create revenues to deal with the debt and deficit without raising taxes--just through economic growth. It would make a big difference for the national security of our country and our allies. It is common sense. What are we waiting for? Let's get beyond just talking about what needs to be done in Ukraine and let's get going. Let's get going with a long-term strategy.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed for the next 30 minutes to engage in a colloquy between myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Barrasso.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

We are here today to talk about energy--energy for our country but also energy for our allies. This is a discussion not just about energy, it is about jobs, good-paying jobs. It is also about economic growth. It is about generating tax revenues to help reduce the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. It is about national security--not only our national security but also working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, as well as our allies in Europe, the European Union, and working to help countries such as the Ukraine that very much need energy supply from sources other than Russia.

With the current events going on in the Ukraine, it is very clear that we need to play a long-term game, a long-term strategy--deploy a long-term strategy when it comes to helping our allies, not only in terms of our national security but working with our allies to make them stronger, their strength, their national security. The national security of allies also contributes to our strength and our security here at home. So that is what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, legislation we are introducing today--myself, Senator Barrasso, Senator McCain, and Senator Murkowski.

I am going to take a few minutes to talk about energy production, transportation, and export in terms of building our energy future in this country and working with our allies. Senator Barrasso is here, and he will be talking about the specific legislation. Senator McCain will join us as well to talk about the national security issues and implications.

I will start with the first chart.

Very simply, what we want to do is continue to produce more energy in our Nation, in the heartland of our Nation and throughout our country. We want to transport that increased production to market. That includes not only markets domestically but also markets where we can export it to our friends and allies in the European Union, to the Ukraine, and to Japan. That is the simple equation we are working on. Again, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about a growing economy. It is very much about national security.

That gas is produced throughout our country, more and more all the time. Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We only use 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, so we are already producing more than we consume, and that number is growing.

What happens when you produce more than you consume and you do not have a market for that gas? In places such as North Dakota, we are flaring off that gas. Right now, just in my State alone, we flare $1.5 million a day of natural gas--$1.5 million a day. That is natural gas that we need to capture, that we need to get in gathering systems, that we need to transport to markets, and we need markets for that gas. This is just common sense.

How do we move gas from North Dakota to places such as Ukraine, where there is much need for a market? Well, we need both interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. On this chart, you can see that the purple is the interstate. That is how we move gas across State lines. But we also need intrastate gathering systems. A lot of oil wells produce natural gas as a byproduct; other wells are just gas wells. But you need gathering systems, the blue systems that go to all those wells so that gas can be gathered, put in the interstate system, and moved to markets--markets throughout the United States and markets overseas.

As I said a minute ago, we produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, States such as North Dakota, Wyoming, and many others. That number is growing. We produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, but we only consume 26 trillion, so we are flaring off that gas.

We need markets. As we work to build those gathering systems and those interstate pipelines, how do we get markets? Well, we move that product to overseas as liquefied natural gas, LNG. It is cooled and condensed, put on ships, and moved to other markets--the European Union, Ukraine, Japan--by ship. But we need the LNG facilities to do it. We do not have them. So that is a problem, right? Well, it is, except we have many companies that are not only ready and willing but anxious to build the facilities. Here are 16 right here, 16 applications.

Of the 26 applications that are pending, many of them have been pending for over a year waiting to get approval from the Department of Energy and from the FERC. So here we are flaring off natural gas, as I showed a minute ago--$1.5 million a day in my State--flaring it off because we produce more than we consume. We need markets. These applications are just sitting there and have been for more than a year.

If they get approved, what happens? Let's take an example. Here is one by a company everybody has heard of--Exxon. Exxon has an application. As you can see here, they have had an application in for over a year waiting to get approved at Sabine Pass, TX, which is right down in that gulf area. They are ready, willing, and able to spend $10 billion right now, today, to build that facility.

Where are they going to move the gas? They are going to move it to the United Kingdom so it can go right into the European system. We will touch on that European system and how it gets to places such as the Ukraine in a minute. But if they can get approval--

I have already talked to their CEO, Mr. Rex Tillerson. He indicates that within 36 to 40 months of approval, they can be moving gas into the European markets. Does that sound realistic? It certainly does. Obviously that is a very large company with the capabilities to do what they say they are willing and want to do.

Here is another example. Here is Cheniere. Same place--Sabine Pass. This is one that did get approved. This is one that did get approval. They intend to be delivering gas into the European market by the middle of next year--middle of next year. So this is not something that is going to take forever to happen.

We not only have the fact that we can start moving natural gas over here in a very reasonable amount of time, but think of the impact on the markets in Europe and the impact on Russia and gas prices when they know it is coming.

I am going to ask Senator McCain to step in here. I mentioned a minute ago that application I showed you that is pending from Exxon. They want to move that natural gas to market right here in the UK.

What this chart shows is the pipeline network throughout Europe that will enable them to move that product throughout Europe and even into Eastern Europe, including places such as Ukraine.

Right now where is all that gas coming from? Russia, Gazprom. All these pipelines are coming down from Russia and providing that gas to the European countries, to the European Union, and to the Ukraine. Of course, that makes them dependent on Russia and that enables Russia to engage in the kind of activity we have seen and we can't always be reacting short term. We need a long-term strategy to break that hold.

Here are some of the numbers. This shows not only Ukraine but look at the impact on other NATO countries, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, 100 percent of their gas coming from Russia. Think of the leverage that gives Russia in this situation.

The last chart is the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. Quite simply, we are going to cut the redtape that is holding up production and infrastructure, we are going to reduce flaring, and we are going to expedite LNG to our friends and allies, to countries such as the European Union, to Ukraine, to Japan. We reduce the redtape that is holding up production. We are producing 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and we can produce a lot more, but we have to cut through the redtape. We also enhance and expand our ability to build the gathering systems that move that natural gas to market, and we allow export.

We have an expedited process so we can export that gas to the markets we need, to our friends, and to our allies. Again, this is about energy, but it is about creating jobs, it is about growing our economy, it is about the national security of our country and our allies, and it is about having a long-term strategy that works, not going from crisis to crisis.

With that, I turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, to comment on some of the national security implications.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments, his leadership, and for his willingness to work on this vitally important issue.

In terms of responding to his question: OK. What needs to happen--I wish to take a minute to give an overview of the legislation and then ask the Senator from Wyoming to comment in more detail.

As I said at the outset, and I actually have said several times, this is about more energy, it is about job creation, it is about growing the economy, and it is about national security.

It is also very much about environmental benefits. I showed you gas being flared off a well. This gas is just being flared.

Not only is that wasting a natural resource which we can capture and get value for, but when we capture that, we also create environmental benefits.

Nationally, we flare or vent, burn off, 212 billion cubic feet of gas a year--212 billion cubic feet of gas a year now being burned off.

Oh, boy. To convert it, it is billions, right, it is in the billions of dollars. I don't have the exact number, but it is a huge amount. It is $1.5 million a day in my State alone so the Senator can see we are talking billions of dollars. There are also tremendous environmental benefits as well.

But let's go to the legislation for a minute because I think this is responsive to the question asked by the Senator from Arizona about: OK. How do we make it happen?

The reality is we are producing the energy now, we can produce more, and this doesn't cost taxpayer money.

This creates revenues without raising taxes. This is going to create revenues to help address the debt and the deficit. This is enabling and empowering the private companies to make investments to create jobs, make investments to produce the energy.

Going back to this chart, Exxon wants to invest $10 billion today, creating thousands of jobs and a tremendous amount of revenue for the Federal Government to reduce the deficit and debt. It doesn't cost a penny. That is not what it is about. It is about streamlining the regulation, cutting the redtape. That means making sure we streamline and expedite the process to get wells approved. That is the first area of legislation that increases our production onshore. We can do it offshore as well. But we are talking about more production. As I say, we are already producing more than we consume.

Second, it is about building those gathering systems. It requires permits and approvals to build gathering systems, so we are not able to build those gathering systems. If you can't build a gathering system, what happens? You burn off the gas because you can't get it to market. So that process is being held up. Again, it is about cutting through the redtape, reducing the regulation and bureaucracy. It doesn't cost anything.

The final piece, the same thing--getting approval to export LNG. Right now there is one that has final approval from the DOE and FERC. There are 26 applications pending. One has final approval from the DOE--Department of Energy--and the FERC. Six have conditional approval and 26 are pending. It is as simple as getting the approvals and cutting through that redtape. This is not about spending taxpayer dollars; it is about generating revenues.

I would respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona and then turn to the Senator from Wyoming on that issue as well for more detail on the legislation. He has tremendous expertise in this area and has been working on it for a long time.

Clearly, it is a double win because not only are we no longer burning off or flaring that natural gas, but we are using natural gas, which is a very clean resource, for a whole range of energy uses, whether it is powering homes or many other uses. So it is a huge environmental win.

Absolutely an environmental win.

Madam President, I turn to the good Senator from Arizona for any final comments. Seeing that he doesn't have any, I thank him.

I also thank the good Senator from Wyoming and ask if there are any final comments he might have on the legislation. He has been an author of much of this legislation. I thank him for that tremendous work and for being part of this effort.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming.

We are here today to talk about energy--energy for our country but also energy for our allies. This is a discussion not just about energy, it is about jobs, good-paying jobs. It is also about economic growth. It is about generating tax revenues to help reduce the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. It is about national security--not only our national security but also working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, as well as our allies in Europe, the European Union, and working to help countries such as the Ukraine that very much need energy supply from sources other than Russia.

With the current events going on in the Ukraine, it is very clear that we need to play a long-term game, a long-term strategy--deploy a long-term strategy when it comes to helping our allies, not only in terms of our national security but working with our allies to make them stronger, their strength, their national security. The national security of allies also contributes to our strength and our security here at home. So that is what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, legislation we are introducing today--myself, Senator Barrasso, Senator McCain, and Senator Murkowski.

I am going to take a few minutes to talk about energy production, transportation, and export in terms of building our energy future in this country and working with our allies. Senator Barrasso is here, and he will be talking about the specific legislation. Senator McCain will join us as well to talk about the national security issues and implications.

I will start with the first chart.

Very simply, what we want to do is continue to produce more energy in our Nation, in the heartland of our Nation and throughout our country. We want to transport that increased production to market. That includes not only markets domestically but also markets where we can export it to our friends and allies in the European Union, to the Ukraine, and to Japan. That is the simple equation we are working on. Again, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about a growing economy. It is very much about national security.

That gas is produced throughout our country, more and more all the time. Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We only use 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, so we are already producing more than we consume, and that number is growing.

What happens when you produce more than you consume and you do not have a market for that gas? In places such as North Dakota, we are flaring off that gas. Right now, just in my State alone, we flare $1.5 million a day of natural gas--$1.5 million a day. That is natural gas that we need to capture, that we need to get in gathering systems, that we need to transport to markets, and we need markets for that gas. This is just common sense.

How do we move gas from North Dakota to places such as Ukraine, where there is much need for a market? Well, we need both interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. On this chart, you can see that the purple is the interstate. That is how we move gas across State lines. But we also need intrastate gathering systems. A lot of oil wells produce natural gas as a byproduct; other wells are just gas wells. But you need gathering systems, the blue systems that go to all those wells so that gas can be gathered, put in the interstate system, and moved to markets--markets throughout the United States and markets overseas.

As I said a minute ago, we produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, States such as North Dakota, Wyoming, and many others. That number is growing. We produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, but we only consume 26 trillion, so we are flaring off that gas.

We need markets. As we work to build those gathering systems and those interstate pipelines, how do we get markets? Well, we move that product to overseas as liquefied natural gas, LNG. It is cooled and condensed, put on ships, and moved to other markets--the European Union, Ukraine, Japan--by ship. But we need the LNG facilities to do it. We do not have them. So that is a problem, right? Well, it is, except we have many companies that are not only ready and willing but anxious to build the facilities. Here are 16 right here, 16 applications.

Of the 26 applications that are pending, many of them have been pending for over a year waiting to get approval from the Department of Energy and from the FERC. So here we are flaring off natural gas, as I showed a minute ago--$1.5 million a day in my State--flaring it off because we produce more than we consume. We need markets. These applications are just sitting there and have been for more than a year.

If they get approved, what happens? Let's take an example. Here is one by a company everybody has heard of--Exxon. Exxon has an application. As you can see here, they have had an application in for over a year waiting to get approved at Sabine Pass, TX, which is right down in that gulf area. They are ready, willing, and able to spend $10 billion right now, today, to build that facility.

Where are they going to move the gas? They are going to move it to the United Kingdom so it can go right into the European system. We will touch on that European system and how it gets to places such as the Ukraine in a minute. But if they can get approval--

I have already talked to their CEO, Mr. Rex Tillerson. He indicates that within 36 to 40 months of approval, they can be moving gas into the European markets. Does that sound realistic? It certainly does. Obviously that is a very large company with the capabilities to do what they say they are willing and want to do.

Here is another example. Here is Cheniere. Same place--Sabine Pass. This is one that did get approved. This is one that did get approval. They intend to be delivering gas into the European market by the middle of next year--middle of next year. So this is not something that is going to take forever to happen.

We not only have the fact that we can start moving natural gas over here in a very reasonable amount of time, but think of the impact on the markets in Europe and the impact on Russia and gas prices when they know it is coming.

I am going to ask Senator McCain to step in here. I mentioned a minute ago that application I showed you that is pending from Exxon. They want to move that natural gas to market right here in the UK.

What this chart shows is the pipeline network throughout Europe that will enable them to move that product throughout Europe and even into Eastern Europe, including places such as Ukraine.

Right now where is all that gas coming from? Russia, Gazprom. All these pipelines are coming down from Russia and providing that gas to the European countries, to the European Union, and to the Ukraine. Of course, that makes them dependent on Russia and that enables Russia to engage in the kind of activity we have seen and we can't always be reacting short term. We need a long-term strategy to break that hold.

Here are some of the numbers. This shows not only Ukraine but look at the impact on other NATO countries, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, 100 percent of their gas coming from Russia. Think of the leverage that gives Russia in this situation.

The last chart is the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. Quite simply, we are going to cut the redtape that is holding up production and infrastructure, we are going to reduce flaring, and we are going to expedite LNG to our friends and allies, to countries such as the European Union, to Ukraine, to Japan. We reduce the redtape that is holding up production. We are producing 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and we can produce a lot more, but we have to cut through the redtape. We also enhance and expand our ability to build the gathering systems that move that natural gas to market, and we allow export.

We have an expedited process so we can export that gas to the markets we need, to our friends, and to our allies. Again, this is about energy, but it is about creating jobs, it is about growing our economy, it is about the national security of our country and our allies, and it is about having a long-term strategy that works, not going from crisis to crisis.

With that, I turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, to comment on some of the national security implications.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments, his leadership, and for his willingness to work on this vitally important issue.

In terms of responding to his question: OK. What needs to happen--I wish to take a minute to give an overview of the legislation and then ask the Senator from Wyoming to comment in more detail.

As I said at the outset, and I actually have said several times, this is about more energy, it is about job creation, it is about growing the economy, and it is about national security.

It is also very much about environmental benefits. I showed you gas being flared off a well. This gas is just being flared.

Not only is that wasting a natural resource which we can capture and get value for, but when we capture that, we also create environmental benefits.

Nationally, we flare or vent, burn off, 212 billion cubic feet of gas a year--212 billion cubic feet of gas a year now being burned off.

Oh, boy. To convert it, it is billions, right, it is in the billions of dollars. I don't have the exact number, but it is a huge amount. It is $1.5 million a day in my State alone so the Senator can see we are talking billions of dollars. There are also tremendous environmental benefits as well.

But let's go to the legislation for a minute because I think this is responsive to the question asked by the Senator from Arizona about: OK. How do we make it happen?

The reality is we are producing the energy now, we can produce more, and this doesn't cost taxpayer money.

This creates revenues without raising taxes. This is going to create revenues to help address the debt and the deficit. This is enabling and empowering the private companies to make investments to create jobs, make investments to produce the energy.

Going back to this chart, Exxon wants to invest $10 billion today, creating thousands of jobs and a tremendous amount of revenue for the Federal Government to reduce the deficit and debt. It doesn't cost a penny. That is not what it is about. It is about streamlining the regulation, cutting the redtape. That means making sure we streamline and expedite the process to get wells approved. That is the first area of legislation that increases our production onshore. We can do it offshore as well. But we are talking about more production. As I say, we are already producing more than we consume.

Second, it is about building those gathering systems. It requires permits and approvals to build gathering systems, so we are not able to build those gathering systems. If you can't build a gathering system, what happens? You burn off the gas because you can't get it to market. So that process is being held up. Again, it is about cutting through the redtape, reducing the regulation and bureaucracy. It doesn't cost anything.

The final piece, the same thing--getting approval to export LNG. Right now there is one that has final approval from the DOE and FERC. There are 26 applications pending. One has final approval from the DOE--Department of Energy--and the FERC. Six have conditional approval and 26 are pending. It is as simple as getting the approvals and cutting through that redtape. This is not about spending taxpayer dollars; it is about generating revenues.

I would respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona and then turn to the Senator from Wyoming on that issue as well for more detail on the legislation. He has tremendous expertise in this area and has been working on it for a long time.

Clearly, it is a double win because not only are we no longer burning off or flaring that natural gas, but we are using natural gas, which is a very clean resource, for a whole range of energy uses, whether it is powering homes or many other uses. So it is a huge environmental win.

Absolutely an environmental win.

Madam President, I turn to the good Senator from Arizona for any final comments. Seeing that he doesn't have any, I thank him.

I also thank the good Senator from Wyoming and ask if there are any final comments he might have on the legislation. He has been an author of much of this legislation. I thank him for that tremendous work and for being part of this effort.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in a very important discussion with regard to the waters of the United States and the proposed rule by the EPA.

The good Senator from Missouri, I, a Senator from Wyoming and--as has been already said on the floor--about 30 of us in total are proposing an amendment to the sportsmen's bill which is currently under consideration on the floor--an amendment that would address the regulatory overreach by the EPA and, specifically, their proposed waters of the U.S. regulation.

The amendment we have is very simple, very straightforward. It is relevant to the legislation that is currently on the floor and should be brought forward for a vote. It is amendment No. 3453, and as I said it deals with the waters of the United States.

I am going to take just a minute to read it because it is very simple and very straightforward and could be dealt with in a very expeditious way. Obviously with 29 Senators supporting it, it is an amendment that we should be voting on. This is a clear example of an amendment where this body needs to take a stand, and it is one that should receive a vote as part of this sportsmen's legislation.

So I will read from the amendment:

In General. Neither the Secretary of the Army nor the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--

(1) finalize the proposed rule entitled ``Definition of

'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act'';

(2) use the proposed rule described in paragraph (1), or

any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as a

basis for any rulemaking or any decision regarding the scope

of the enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act.

(b) RULES. The use of the proposed rule described in

subsection (a)(1), or any substantially similar proposed rule

or guidance, as the basis for any rulemaking or any

decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act shall be grounds for vacation

of the final rule, decision, or enforcement action.

So very simply, what we provide is that the EPA cannot move forward with the proposed waters of the U.S. rule. It is appropriate because in essence, as my colleague from Missouri very accurately described, the EPA has gone way beyond its jurisdiction on this rule.

EPA alleges that it is responding to confusion in regard to the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule that it is getting from farmers and ranchers across our country. The fact is that is not the case. What EPA is doing is they are expanding their jurisdiction dramatically under an argument that the Supreme Court did not make, but an argument, rather, that the EPA is making that under what they call ``significant nexus'' they are empowered to regulate waters far beyond navigable bodies of water.

This is something I think affects almost every industry sector, but I am going to bring it back to a discussion of our farmers and ranchers and private property rights, which are, in fact, impacted by this proposed rule to talk about why it is so important that we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment and to defeat the proposed rule.

America's farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs go to work every day to build a stronger Nation. Thanks to these hardworking men and women, we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery store and where a dynamic private sector offers Americans the opportunity to achieve a brighter future. In these difficult economic times the Federal Government should be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and create jobs. Yet instead regulators are stifling growth with burdensome regulations which generate costs and uncertainty.

The proposed rule by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the waters of the United States is exactly the type of regulation that I am talking about. The waters of the United States rule greatly expands the scope of the Clean Water Act with regulations over America's streams and wetlands.

If we look at the chart I brought, we can see it is not just affecting our farmers and ranchers, it goes far beyond that. For example, it affects the power industry, the oil and gas industry, the construction industry, and the manufacturing industry. Almost anything you can think of is impacted by this regulatory overreach. It is clearly a power grab by the EPA, and it needs to be checked.

The Supreme Court has found that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to navigable waters. We are not arguing with the EPA's ability to regulate something like the Missouri River or a lake that is a navigable body of water, but the Supreme Court has also made it clear that not all bodies of water are navigable or under the EPA's jurisdiction.

What has our farmers and ranchers so concerned is that the Corps and the EPA went far beyond lakes and rivers. This new proposed rule would bring EPA permitting, reporting, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen lawsuits to ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams are really dry land most of the time. To a farmer, an ephemeral stream is simply a low area across the field. It brings tributaries into it--tributaries which are all ditches that carry any amount of water that eventually flows into a navigable body of water. Think about that. Ditches. All waters that are deemed adjacent to other jurisdictional waters, including dry ditches and ephemerals, plus any other waters that the EPA has determined to have a significant nexus. In real-world terms, these categories could bring burdensome regulations to a vast number of small, isolated wetlands and ponds. It is hard to see, but that is what we tried to depict on this chart. It is almost any type of water anywhere you find it.

For those of you who have not had the opportunity to visit with a farmer from my State of North Dakota, know that dealing with excess water is a common issue, to say the least, particularly in recent years. Most farmers could tell you that just because there is water in a ditch or a field one week doesn't mean there is going to be water in that field or ditch the next week. It certainly doesn't make that water worthy of being treated the same as a navigable river or lake. It defies common sense. A field with a low spot that has standing water during a rainy week and happens to be located near a ditch does not warrant Clean Water Act regulation from a legal or, as I have said, commonsense perspective.

The Corps and the EPA have responded to these concerns by saying they are going to exempt dozens of conservation practices, but these exemptions are extremely limited and they do not cover many Clean Water Act rights. For example, the farmer with a low spot in his field next to the ditch described above--as I just explained--may now be sued under the Clean Water Act's section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Think about that. Now the farmer faces the risk of litigation and litigation costs for using everyday weed control or fertilizer applications among other basic and essential farming activities.

Let me get this right. The EPA is saying: We are doing this because this is going to help farmers somehow understand what they have to do.

So the EPA goes beyond navigable bodies of water--let's take a State such as Ohio, for example. They are going to go beyond the Great Lakes and beyond the Ohio River, and the EPA is now going to extend their regulatory jurisdiction to water wherever they find it--in a ditch or on a farm--and they are going to regulate that, and they might give that farmer or rancher an exemption, and somehow they are helping and clarifying things for that farmer or rancher? It defies common sense.

Farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and markets to ensure that America is food secure, and they do an amazing job of it. They are the best in the world. Sixteen million people in this country are either directly involved in agriculture or indirectly involved in agriculture. We have a positive balance of payments in agriculture. We have the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the world. Now the EPA by its own volition is going to go out and make it harder and more expensive and more difficult for our farmers and ranchers to do what they do better than anyone in the world. Farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and markets to ensure that we have food security. They don't need the burden of additional regulations and litigation,

and they certainly don't need that burden under the auspices of the EPA saying that somehow this is going to help. Well, that is not the case.

I offered a very similar amendment in the Appropriations Committee in the energy and water section. The night before we were to have our full Appropriations Committee meeting, at 7:30 that night, that bill, the Energy and Water bill, got pulled, so we didn't have our appropriations vote the next morning.

The amendment I had prepared simply would have defunded this proposed regulation, but because there was bipartisan support for this amendment, we are not going to get a chance to vote on it.

Twenty-eight other Senators and I have been here on the floor this afternoon. The Senator from Missouri was just here. The Senator from Wyoming was here earlier. Others have been here. I am here now. There will be more. So here we stand. We are on a sportsmen's bill, this is a relevant amendment, and the question is, Why aren't we voting on it? It has bipartisan support and 29 cosponsors. It is something that is clearly important not just to our farmers and ranchers but really to businesses and industry across this great country. So why aren't we voting on it? If somebody wants to come down and make an argument that they are for it, they can do so. But when all is said and done, the way this body works is by voting and determining where the majority falls.

I ask my colleagues, why in the world are we not voting on this amendment that is incredibly important to our farmers and ranchers and to businesses and to industry and to the people of this country? As I said, we didn't get a chance to vote on it in committee, and here we are on a bill where it is relevant. Are we going to get a chance to vote on it now? And if not now, when?

The majority rules, so let's have a vote. Let's give everybody a chance to stand and be counted. Let's have our vote, and let's stand up for the American people and make sure we strike down this proposed waters of the United States regulation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed until 10:28 a.m. for the purposes of the colloquy.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here this morning with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, as well as the esteemed Senators from both Kansas and Wyoming, to talk about this regulation that is clearly an overreach by the EPA. It needs to be addressed. We have measures to address it.

As the Senator from South Dakota said so well, this is a regulation that is a huge problem for our farmers and ranchers, but really, as he said, we have been hearing from almost every industry sector that this is a big-time problem that needs to be addressed, and needs to be addressed now.

So, as I said, we have legislation both in committee--I have legislation in the Appropriations Committee, in the Energy and Water Subcommittee, that would address it--and the good Senator from Wyoming has legislation that he has filed, and he is requesting a floor vote.

But in both cases, whether it is in committee or here on the floor, what we are saying is give us a chance to vote on this issue. This is an important issue for the American people and Senators need to indicate where they stand. I do not know why everybody should not be proud to do that--to vote on this regulatory overreach and to address this challenge for the American people. It is a very straightforward issue.

That is what we are here to discuss and debate this morning, and we sincerely hope, as we continue to highlight this very important problem, the leadership of this body is going to step up on behalf of the American people and allow--allow--the Senate to address it through its rightful duty, which is to vote on issues important to the American people.

To continue this important dialog, I turn to the Senator from Kansas and ask for his comments on behalf of his constituents in his State in terms of what he is hearing and the problems this waters of the U.S. proposed regulation put forward by the EPA creates in the great State of Kansas.

Mr. President, I would like to thank, again, the Senator from Kansas. He is somebody who has been involved in agriculture for-- well, he is still a very young man--he is somebody who has been involved in agriculture for a long time and certainly understands what goes into farming.

Think about it. Farmers and ranchers work the land, but that is also their home. Who knows the land better? Who knows the streams and the potholes and the ditches and the roads, who knows their land better than a farmer or a rancher? And who is more concerned about it? Really. Who is more concerned about it? That farmer or somebody who works at the EPA here in Washington, DC? That is important to think about as we look at this kind of regulatory overreach that goes to the very private property rights that are the foundation of this country.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership and for the legislation he has put together that he has filed and that we should be voting on right now that I am very pleased to cosponsor.

I would ask the Senator from Wyoming for his comments on this issue and his legislation.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership on this important issue and pick up on a point he just expressed: Why are we not demanding in this body that we vote on legislation to address this proposed regulation?

As he said so clearly and eloquently, this is an issue this Congress rejected. So now when one of the agencies, the EPA, goes around Congress to set up a proposed regulation that does something the Congress expressly rejected, why in the world are we not voting? It is our responsibility and our right to do so.

America's farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs go to work every day to build a stronger nation. Thanks to those hard-working men and women, we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery store, where a dynamic private sector offers Americans the opportunity to achieve a brighter future. In these difficult economic times, the Federal Government should be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and those who create jobs. Yet instead regulators are stifling growth with burdensome regulations that generate cost and uncertainty.

Look at the economic data, as the Senator from Wyoming said, that came out this morning. What are we doing stifling that entrepreneurial activity, that entrepreneurship, that creativity that makes the American economy go? This proposed regulation is an example of that. It touches almost every industry.

We are talking about our farmers and ranchers, but it goes across all industry sectors. The proposed rule by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the waters of the United States is exactly the type of regulation that is hurting our economy, hurting our entrepreneurs, hurting our farmers, and our ranchers.

The waters of the United States rule greatly expands the scope of the Clean Water Act, regulations over America's streams and wetlands. If we take a look at a chart I brought, I know it is a little hard to see, but it demonstrates the incredible reach of this proposed regulation.

If we look at the chart, we can see it is a real power grab that will enable the EPA to stretch its tentacles far into the countryside and far beyond.

It is not just our farmers and ranchers and water in a ditch or water in a field that is there for maybe 1 week when it rains and the rest of the time it is dry, it affects construction, it affects powerplants, it affects stormwater drainage. I cannot think of anything it is not going to affect.

Is that how our country works now? Instead of the people who are duly elected to pass laws for this country, we stand here and we do not get to vote on any of these issues we were elected to vote on, and someone who is not elected at the EPA or the Corps, they put regulations in place that affect virtually every single American. Is that how this works now? Is that what it has come to?

Because that is exactly what is happening. That is exactly what is going on. The Supreme Court has found that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to navigable waters. I do not think anyone is arguing about the EPA's ability to regulate the Missouri River or other navigable bodies of water--rivers, lakes--but the Supreme Court also made clear that not all bodies of water are under the EPA's jurisdiction.

So under a significant nexus determination, the EPA has decided: We do not care what the Supreme Court said. We are going to make sure they are all under our jurisdiction, not pursuant to any law. We are going to put a regulation in place that enables us to do whatever we want with any body of water, not just navigable bodies of water.

Again, that is what I have tried to show on this chart. Ephemeral streams, tributaries, all waters deemed adjacent to any navigable body, including dry ditches, including water in fields that may be there for a short period of time, runoff from storm sewers, you name it.

That is not the intent of the law. That is not the intent of the Supreme Court ruling. That is why it is so important that we address it. That is what we propose to do. In the legislation we put forward, both on the floor, in the bill filed by the Senator from Wyoming, the legislation I have offered in Energy and Water, we straightforwardly, we simply and straightforwardly address this regulation.

How much time is remaining?

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, that is our point. We understand that people bring different points of view to this deliberative body, but the point is this: This is an important issue that affects virtually all Americans, that affects our economy, that affects our farmers, our ranchers, our businesses, the energy sector. You name it.

When we have something of this importance, we have an absolute responsibility to the people of this country to show where we stand on the issue, meaning we have a responsibility to vote on this and the other important issues before this body. That is what we are asking for.

We are saying everybody has a right to bring their point of view and their opinion, but we all have a right and a responsibility to vote on these important issues. That is what we are asking for, a vote on this important issue for the benefit of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

I would ask, would the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Rhode Island for coming to the floor and making exactly the type of point I am making.

Thank you for being here. This is the debate we should have, and it should be vigorous, as it is. We should have all Members, whether they are from a coastal State or an inland State, and we should debate every aspect of this proposed rule. This is important to them. This is something that affects American people regardless of what State they live in. We should have this debate, and then we should vote on this issue.

My question to you is, very simply, first, EPA, in order to provide exemptions, has to maintain that they have jurisdiction in all these areas. That is the very point I am making to the point made by the Senator from Maryland. EPA is now deciding where they have jurisdiction and where they don't. We are not. And they are doing it far beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's rule.

So my question is, If they can decide where they are going to give exemptions, how can you say they are not exerting jurisdiction?

To the good Senator from Rhode Island, every downstream State can allege the issue you made in your earlier point. I understand that. But to both of you, my point is, let's have this debate and then let's vote on behalf of the American people. Would the Senators agree that is what we should be doing in this body?

Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Wyoming not only for being here today to talk about this important issue but for his tremendous leadership on energy issues.

Wyoming produces an incredible amount of energy for this country, and the Senator from Wyoming well knows that you not only have to produce that energy, you have to get it to market, and you need pipelines to move oil and gas to market. We move some by truck, some by train. But we can't move everything by truck and by train. We have to have pipelines, and that is what this is all about.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is the latest, greatest technology that is the most efficient and the safest way to move this product to market. It will actually result in less greenhouse gas than if we don't build the pipeline, as was determined by the administration's own environmental impact statement produced by the Department of State.

I have some additional comments I wish to make on this important issue, but first I would turn to the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma and ask that he provide some of his comments and insights from a State that produces an incredible amount of energy, and where actually hydraulic fracturing started in this country and has been done safely since I think the 1950s; somebody who understands not only that we have to produce energy so we can get to energy independence, but that we have to have the infrastructure to move that product safely to market.

With that, I turn to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and ask his thoughts on this important issue as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; that there will be up to 4 hours of debate and that the Senate then proceed to vote on passage.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on behalf of our veterans. I am here to speak about both challenge and opportunity. The challenge is the problems we face with our Veterans' Administration, which is that we are not getting the care for our veterans that they need and that we all want them to have and that they so very much deserve.

We also have a real opportunity because we have been working on legislation. We have legislation on the Republican side in the Senate and on the Democratic side, and now we are working to bring those two pieces of legislation together. So I think this creates a real opportunity, and it is a vitally important opportunity--one that we grab and that we address on behalf of our veterans. We need to make sure we come together on bipartisan legislation that fixes the Veterans' Administration health care system, and it takes care of our veterans.

I believe the solution, the real key to solving the problem, is choice--or another way to put it might be access to health care. I think that not only solves the problems we have seen with the wait lists but also the problem of distance, which is also an issue, and it is a challenge we see in States such as my own. For example, in our State the issue truly is distance. In other places it is access to health care. We know, for example, in places such as Phoenix, veterans were put on wait lists and in that way denied access to care. That is absolutely unacceptable--absolutely unacceptable.

I think the Veterans Choice Act, which I am pleased to cosponsor with a number of my fellow colleagues, solves that problem, and it solves not only the access and the wait list problem but also, as I have said, the distance problem essentially by providing choice, meaning that if a vet can't get access to a veterans health care facility, then the veteran can go to another health care provider. I believe that works for the vet and it works for the health care provider. The veteran can go to a hospital or a clinic that has the service he or she needs if he can't get into the VA facility in a timely way, and then that hospital or clinic is reimbursed just as if it were for a Medicare patient. Clearly, our health care system has the facilities in place, the resources to handle that type of reimbursement just as they do for Medicare patients.

Now I wish to speak about the distance issue for just a minute because in North Dakota the distance issue is the one we face. For example, in North Dakota it is about 800 miles round trip from Williston to the VA health care system in Fargo. Some services, as we all know, are provided by CBOCs--community-based operating clinics--and we have those around the State. But where we don't have CBOCs or where they are not able to get the service they need from that CBOC or walk- in clinic, then it can be an 800-mile trip to get services.

Not too long ago I held an open forum in Williston, ND, which, as many people know, is the site of an incredible energy boon, the Williston Basin. Now in North Dakota we produce about 1 million barrels of oil a day--second only to the State of Texas. So we have a tremendous number of people moving into this region. We are the fastest growing State in the Nation. We have veterans there who are driving long distances to get medical services. So this is a different challenge than we faced in some of the centers such as Phoenix where they were waiting to get patient care. In our case they are having to drive long distances--as I said, 800 miles round trip to Williston; 400 miles to Fargo and then 400 miles back.

I recently held a forum up in Williston to discuss this issue and look for solutions on behalf of our veterans. I met with our veterans, I met with veterans service officers, as well as health care providers from the region. I talked to two vets who told me their story about trying to get health care. We have a walk-in clinic, a CBOC--community- based operating clinic--in Williston. There were two cases where veterans needed some health care services. In one case, because they couldn't--the first veteran couldn't get it at the local CBOC, that individual took a day to drive to Fargo, which is 400 miles, stayed in a hotel, the next day went in and got those services, stayed in a hotel that night, and then drove back the third day. So he had to take 3 days off of work to get services. He had to drive 800 miles round trip. He had to be put up in a hotel for 2 nights. Now, all of that is reimbursed, as far as the travel in the State, by the VA. So for a relatively straightforward procedure, the VA paid a lot more and inconvenienced that veteran terribly and cost him money because that individual had to take 3 days off from work. That doesn't make any sense.

In the second case, a veteran in a similar situation wanted to get the service at the local CBOC, wasn't able to do that, but instead of driving all the way to Fargo and doing what the first veteran did, the second individual just went into the local clinic or hospital in Williston and got the service that afternoon. Unfortunately, the second veteran is still trying to get reimbursement out of the VA for that procedure.

The individual in the second case did not have to take 3 days off from work, which is smart and, frankly, saved the VA a lot of money because it was not a case where you had to drive down, get reimbursed for that stay with over two

nights in a hotel, and then drive back. So it actually saved the VA money. But still they have not gotten a reimbursement for the cost of that medical treatment because the VA does provide that service in Fargo. But again, in that situation, unless that veteran is reimbursed, you are not truly serving the veteran and, frankly, not doing the sensible thing to save the taxpayer money.

That is why the Veterans Choice Act that I am cosponsoring with others, again, is the solution because we provide choice, we provide access. If the veteran cannot get that service in a timely way in the local community, then the veteran can access another health care facility. That is why the legislation works.

So what I have offered--and, of course, now we are working on bringing two bills together: the Veterans Choice Act, but then also legislation offered by Senator Bernie Sanders; and that legislation is the Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act.

I think we can bring them together, and I think we can get a good solution that serves everybody, most importantly that serves our veterans. But we need to serve all of our veterans--all of our veterans--regardless of where they live. That is why I have offered simple, clarifying language--this is a technical fix--that would clarify and ensure that if a veteran cannot get service in a CBOC, then that veteran can go to a local health care provider on the same basis as an individual who lives more than 40 miles away from the walk-in clinic.

This legislation, this clarification is important to ensure that a veteran is not in any way actually disadvantaged by having a walk-in clinic in the local community, and that all vets can access services on the same basis. Again, it is because of the way this legislation is coming together that requires that if you are within 40 miles of a walk-in clinic or you have to wait more than 14 days, then you can go to another health care provider. But if either one of those criteria apply--you are within the 40-mile radius and you can get an appointment within 14 days to see a doctor--then you have to go to the VA. That works, and that is consistent only if you applied both criteria to the same clinic, to the same health care center.

What I mean is this. Remember the example I gave just a minute ago: Williston, ND, and Fargo, ND. In Williston you have a walk-in clinic. In Fargo you have a full hospital--a full VA medical center. Take the test we are applying in this legislation: If you are within 40 miles, you have to go to the VA facility, as long as you can get in within 14 days. But that 14 days has to also apply to the facility that is within that 40-mile radius; otherwise, you get an inconsistent, unfair result and actually disadvantage somebody who is within 40 miles of a walk-in clinic versus somebody who is outside that radius.

Let me give two examples to illuminate what I am saying.

You have a vet. He lives in Williston, ND. He is within 40 miles of that facility. He goes in, and he gets his shots or whatever it is in that facility--no problem. But what happens if he cannot, if that walk- in clinic does not supply the service? What does he do? Well, if the 14-day rule applies to the Fargo VA hospital, even though he is within 40 miles of the CBOC, if the CBOC--the walk-in clinic--does not provide that service, he still has to drive 800 miles roundtrip for that shot I just talked about a minute ago or that service--the two veterans I described a minute ago. So he still has to travel 800 miles to get service.

Take another individual. He lives 41 miles from that walk-in clinic. Even if the Fargo VA can take him within 14 days, he can still go get local service in Williston, can't he? Why? Because he is 41 miles away. So ask yourself, the veteran who lives within 39 miles of that walk-in clinic, he might have to drive 800 miles roundtrip to get a service that the individual who is 41 miles from that facility can go get in the local community.

Does that make sense? That is the kind of thing we have to make sure we get right so that all veterans, regardless of where they live, get the same fair and consistent treatment. That is why I am saying, as we put this legislation together, we have to be careful to make sure we get that kind of fair and consistent result so this legislation serves all of our veterans and takes care of all of our veterans, and they truly all have that access. Whether the problem is a wait list or long distances, let's make sure this works for all of them.

Believe me, they are out there. Every one of them has put their life on the line and stepped up. All of them have done that for us. Let's make sure, as we work through and file this legislation--something I know we can do; on a bipartisan basis we can get this done--let's make sure it works for all of our veterans and it works well and it works consistently and it truly solves the problem; that is, we make sure they get the health care they deserve.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

With that, I yield the floor.