Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak with regard to ObamaCare. The good Senator from Wyoming made compelling points, as did the Senator from Indiana before him.

What I would like to do is to start for a minute by reading from some letters I have received from constituents in my State with regard to ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. These are from hard-working people who are trying to figure out what to do about their health insurance with ObamaCare in place. I think really those are the voices that speak louder than any others--the voices of people from across this great country who live in all of our States--and they are writing to Members of this body and say: Hey, here is what I am experiencing. So this is not just coming down and expressing an opinion on the Affordable Care Act. This is what people are saying. This is what they are telling us. I think it is very important we take the time to listen and to understand the very real difficulties they are having with something that is so vitally important to all of us, and that is health insurance.

I would like to start by reading some of these letters. The first one is from somebody who lives in the Fargo area. They start out:

I live in West Fargo and my Employer is based out of South

Dakota.

In 2011 I obtained my own Family Health Care Insurance due

to a job change and my new employer's Health Care coverage

seemed excessive. In doing this I found coverage as follows:

So they signed up for a policy that is an 80/20 copay, with a $1,000 deductible, with a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum, with monthly premiums of just over $800--$809. That was provided through Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The individual goes on to write:

At the time this was more than $300 less costly than my new

employer's monthly premium for similar coverage.

I recently received a notice from [Blue Cross Blue Shield]

that my coverage will be discontinued on May 1st, 2014 due to

the Affordable Care Act.

So they received a notice that their insurance is being discontinued due to the Affordable Care Act.

Listed below are the options which are most similar to my

current coverage:

Now, instead of an 80/20 copay, it is a 70/30 copay, so the copay is higher. There is a $2,000 deductible. So instead of a $1,000 deductible, that doubled. Now it is a $2,000 deductible. There is a $9,000 out-of-pocket maximum, compared to what this individual had before, which was a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum. So it more than doubled the out-of-pocket maximum. There is a monthly premium of $1,625. That is compared to an $809 premium. So the premium doubled. So for a higher copay, for a higher deductible, for a higher out-of-pocket maximum, they are paying double the premium. If they wanted to go to another policy, it was an even higher deductible.

The individual goes on to say:

We are NOT eligible for Tax Credits because my employer

offers affordable health coverage.

So because the employer offers a policy, this individual is not eligible for any tax credits.

At this point my best option is to obtain my employer's

health coverage. However Open enrollment is not until August

2014.

So the individual has to wait until August.

My HR department along with my current Insurance Specialist

has contacted [Blue Cross Blue Shield] and asked that this be

considered a ``Life Changing Event'' so I can join the

employer plan by the May 1st deadline. They will not classify

it as such. I asked if I could pay some type of early sign on

fee. They indicated that is not an option.

So if I cannot join my employer's plan, my BEST options for

coverage are those options listed above--

The ones I just read--

which are at best a 37% increase--

``[A]t best a 37% increase''--

in monthly premium with a 110% or more increase in deductible

and out of pocket max.

So let me say that one more time. This individual's best options now with the Affordable Care Act are a 37-percent increase in the monthly premium, with a 110-percent or more increase in the deductible and the out-of-pocket maximum.

Then the individual finishes:

Do you see my frustration?

This is just one of the letters we have received, but it is representative of so many others.

How can that be an affordable care act? How is that affordable care?

Here is another one.

My insurance premium tripled for less coverage. I thought

our insurance was supposed to stay the same if we had it. . .

. Please put a stop to it! It isn't right to make people pay

for something they may not be able to afford. I already had

health insurance! I also send money to my sister to help with

her baby. Now I won't be able to do that.

That is another letter--a real person, a real situation.

Here is one:

To Our Elected Representatives; We petition you not as

Democrats, Republicans, Independents or members of any

special interest group, but as concerned taxpayers. We urge

of all of our elected representatives to vote against this

administration's health care plan. The nonpartisan

Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost will

be more than $1 trillion over 10 years and we know from

experience that it will cost far more than any government

estimate.

Well, these stories go on, and I know I have colleagues who are waiting to speak, as well, during this time slot. So rather than continue to go through these letters--and I have many more; I brought more than I anticipated reading today--I will come back again and read some more of these.

But I want to conclude with what I believe is the right approach, and I think it is something Republicans are talking about and have been talking about and will continue to talk about. So when we come down and say the Affordable Care Act is not working, do not just take our word for it. Listen to the people from across this country who are writing to us and telling us their very real stories. Sometimes you hear: Well, but you don't have a solution. That is wrong. We do. We absolutely have a solution, and we have talked about it over and over on this floor and in every other venue where someone is willing to listen.

We need to implement a comprehensive approach, and we need to do it on a step-by-step basis so people understand it and know exactly what we are putting in place. It needs to be an approach that empowers people to make their own choices--their own choices--about their health care insurance and their health care providers. Again, I want to repeat that: They choose their own policy and their health care providers.

It includes market-based reforms that promote competition, that will help increase choice, not reduce choice, and competition that will help bring prices down, not see them continue to spike higher. It includes aspects such as tort reform, to reduce the cost of health care. It includes allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. It includes expanding health savings accounts, so individuals can combine high-deductible health care policies with a tax-deductible savings account. It includes reform of Medicare and Medicaid, to give States more control and to encourage the kind of reforms that will improve service, improve outcomes, and reduce costs.

That is the kind of approach that truly serves the American public. That

is the kind of approach we will continue to work, on behalf of the citizens of our respective States in this great Nation, to put in place.

With that, I see my esteemed colleague from the great State of Mississippi is in the Chamber. I yield for the good Senator.

Madam President, I yield back time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2280 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I filed an updated bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That bill is at the desk. What this legislation does is it approves the project congressionally, which is authorized under the Constitution of the United States. Section 8 of article 1 of our Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the determination we are looking for here from the President on this pipeline project. The decision is simply: Is the project in the national interest or is it not?

The President and his administration have been considering this project, and

this decision--is it in the national interest or not--for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year. It was our expectation the process would be completed on or about the first week in May. The final environmental impact statement came out at the end of January and, as the prior environmental impact statements had determined, this environmental impact statement said there is no significant environmental impact caused by the project. This is a study done over years by this administration's Department of State. For the fourth time the report came out with no significant environmental impact created by this project. So as I say, it was the expectation of this Senate and really of Americans across the country that sometime in May the President would make a decision because all along he said he was following the process, and once the process was completed he would make a decision. A little over a week ago, on the afternoon of Good Friday-- a time that I believe was selected in order to minimize the news coverage--the President or the administration made the announcement they would now delay this project indefinitely--indefinitely. Not a statement of: We are just going to follow the process, which is what had been said before. Even though the President, in a meeting with me and our conference, came out and said we would have a decision before the end of 2013. That is what he told us. That didn't happen because then he changed it to: We are going to follow the process. Now it is not even going to follow the process. He is just going to delay a decision indefinitely.

The rationale for that is that there is litigation in Nebraska as to whether the public service commission in the State of Nebraska has the right to determine the route of the pipeline through Nebraska or whether in fact the legislature does.

Some time ago, right at the beginning of 2012, we had passed legislation in this body, which I sponsored, that required the President to make a decision on the project within 90 days. We passed that bill and, in fact, he then made a decision to decline the project based on the route in Nebraska. So Nebraska went through the work of rerouting the pipeline in the State, and that new route was approved by the legislature and it was approved by the Governor. But opponents of the project decided to sue on the basis that, no, the PSC should make a decision as to the route in Nebraska.

So be it. That can be adjudicated in Nebraska, as can any other issue that somebody may choose to file a lawsuit over. But that really has nothing to do with the decision the President needs to make. The decision the President needs to make is a very simple decision: Is this pipeline project in the interest of the United States or is it not? This is after his State Department has said there is no significant environmental impact created by the project not once, not twice, but four times. So it is a simple decision.

It is a decision of whether we should have more energy that we produce in our country and that is produced in Canada, our closest friend and ally, or whether we should keep getting energy from the Middle East. It is a decision about whether we should have more jobs. The State Department says 42,000 jobs are created in constructing the pipeline. It is a decision about economic activity. This creates economic activity, with hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and debt without spending one penny of Federal money.

That is the decision before the President. But he refuses to make it. So it is long past time--long past time, as we are now in year 6--for this body to step forward and make the decision. As I said just a minute ago, we have the authority to make the decision. Section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. So we need to make the decision. The time is long past when we can continue to wait.

How can we continue to wait when the President says it will be an indefinite time period before he will even consider making a decision?

So the bill we have put forward is a very simple, straightforward bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to take a couple minutes and read it because it is three pages. It is an updated bill to a bill I provided on a bipartisan basis earlier. We had 27 cosponsors of the earlier legislation. We now have 56 Republicans and Democrats on this bill, and we are working very hard to get 60 so there is no procedural way to stop this legislation, but I will take just a minute and read it because it is self-explanatory, it is simple, it is straightforward, and it is common sense.

A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. President, today I filed an updated bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That bill is at the desk. What this legislation does is it approves the project congressionally, which is authorized under the Constitution of the United States. Section 8 of article 1 of our Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the determination we are looking for here from the President on this pipeline project. The decision is simply: Is the project in the national interest or is it not?

The President and his administration have been considering this project, and

this decision--is it in the national interest or not--for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year. It was our expectation the process would be completed on or about the first week in May. The final environmental impact statement came out at the end of January and, as the prior environmental impact statements had determined, this environmental impact statement said there is no significant environmental impact caused by the project. This is a study done over years by this administration's Department of State. For the fourth time the report came out with no significant environmental impact created by this project. So as I say, it was the expectation of this Senate and really of Americans across the country that sometime in May the President would make a decision because all along he said he was following the process, and once the process was completed he would make a decision. A little over a week ago, on the afternoon of Good Friday-- a time that I believe was selected in order to minimize the news coverage--the President or the administration made the announcement they would now delay this project indefinitely--indefinitely. Not a statement of: We are just going to follow the process, which is what had been said before. Even though the President, in a meeting with me and our conference, came out and said we would have a decision before the end of 2013. That is what he told us. That didn't happen because then he changed it to: We are going to follow the process. Now it is not even going to follow the process. He is just going to delay a decision indefinitely.

The rationale for that is that there is litigation in Nebraska as to whether the public service commission in the State of Nebraska has the right to determine the route of the pipeline through Nebraska or whether in fact the legislature does.

Some time ago, right at the beginning of 2012, we had passed legislation in this body, which I sponsored, that required the President to make a decision on the project within 90 days. We passed that bill and, in fact, he then made a decision to decline the project based on the route in Nebraska. So Nebraska went through the work of rerouting the pipeline in the State, and that new route was approved by the legislature and it was approved by the Governor. But opponents of the project decided to sue on the basis that, no, the PSC should make a decision as to the route in Nebraska.

So be it. That can be adjudicated in Nebraska, as can any other issue that somebody may choose to file a lawsuit over. But that really has nothing to do with the decision the President needs to make. The decision the President needs to make is a very simple decision: Is this pipeline project in the interest of the United States or is it not? This is after his State Department has said there is no significant environmental impact created by the project not once, not twice, but four times. So it is a simple decision.

It is a decision of whether we should have more energy that we produce in our country and that is produced in Canada, our closest friend and ally, or whether we should keep getting energy from the Middle East. It is a decision about whether we should have more jobs. The State Department says 42,000 jobs are created in constructing the pipeline. It is a decision about economic activity. This creates economic activity, with hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and debt without spending one penny of Federal money.

That is the decision before the President. But he refuses to make it. So it is long past time--long past time, as we are now in year 6--for this body to step forward and make the decision. As I said just a minute ago, we have the authority to make the decision. Section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. So we need to make the decision. The time is long past when we can continue to wait.

How can we continue to wait when the President says it will be an indefinite time period before he will even consider making a decision?

So the bill we have put forward is a very simple, straightforward bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to take a couple minutes and read it because it is three pages. It is an updated bill to a bill I provided on a bipartisan basis earlier. We had 27 cosponsors of the earlier legislation. We now have 56 Republicans and Democrats on this bill, and we are working very hard to get 60 so there is no procedural way to stop this legislation, but I will take just a minute and read it because it is self-explanatory, it is simple, it is straightforward, and it is common sense.

A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I rise to discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I will be joined by a number of my colleagues, whom I will thank at the beginning for joining me. They will come today with the same message that I have; that is, the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the project that has now been under review by this administration for more than 5 years--we are now in year 6. We are on the floor of the Senate asking for, quite simply, a vote to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I have put legislation in on a number of occasions. In 2012 we approved a time limit for the President to make a decision. I believe that bill got on the order of 73 votes--strong bipartisan support. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday, and it said that the President had to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 90 days. He did. He turned it down, and he turned it down on the basis of the routing in Nebraska.

So not only did the State of Nebraska go through an incredible amount of work, but the State Department and others went back to work, did a whole new environmental impact statement after Nebraska had rerouted the pipeline, which was approved by both its legislature and its Governor, and came forward with a new route and a new environmental impact statement. That was right at the beginning of 2012.

So we set a timeline for the President to make a decision. He made the decision and he turned down the project, but we addressed the concerns he raised. They were fully addressed.

Then later we also offered a resolution of support putting the Senate on record in support of the project. That was attached to the budget resolution at the beginning of 2013. We came back the next year, and on that occasion the Senate, with 62 votes, said: Hey, we support the project. Here is a resolution in support of the project stating that it is, in fact, in the national interest and ought to be approved.

Since then the President has done nothing. Well, that is not quite right. Not only has he not made a decision now--and we are in the sixth year after four environmental impact statements, all of which said there is no significant environmental impact created by the project-- not only has the President not made a decision, with Congress on record supporting the project, but, in fact, a little over 1 week ago on Good Friday, on the afternoon of Good Friday, when he figured nobody was paying any attention, the President came out and basically put out a statement and said that not only has he not made a decision but he is not going to make a decision, that on the basis of litigation he is going to postpone the decision indefinitely.

So we are in year 6, having met all of the requirements on numerous occasions on a project that will provide energy and jobs, that will help with national security by reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East, a project that his own Department of State, after environmental impact statement after environmental impact statement, has come back and said will create no significant environmental impact, will create 42,000 jobs, and will help us get energy and not only move energy from States such as North Dakota and Montana in our country to the refineries safely but also bring in oil from Canada to our country so we don't have to import it from the Middle East.

The President says: Well, we are in year 6, but I am going to postpone this decision indefinitely.

Here we are. We have a bill I introduced some time ago. We have 27 cosponsors on the bill, both parties. What the bill does, it approves the Keystone XL Pipeline project congressionally. Instead of continuing to wait after 6 years and now the President's announcement that he is going to delay the decision indefinitely, passing this bill would approve the project congressionally.

The way that works is that under the foreign commerce clause in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to approve this project. They have that authority under Congress's ability to oversee foreign commerce, commerce with other nations. We know that because we took time to research it. We had the Congressional Research Service do the research for us, and they say this is a constitutional authority of the Congress.

We have provided that bill. The bill has been filed. As I said, we have 27 sponsors, and now it is time to vote.

We have been holding off on having a vote because the President said: You know, we are going to go through the process--or he is going to go through the process and he is going to honor the process.

The environmental--actually, the fourth and supposedly final environmental impact statement came out at the end of January. There was a 90-day comment period after that, which was to expire the first part of May. The expectation was that now that the process at that point--once the process was exhausted, the President would, in fact, render the long-awaited decision.

But, as I say, on Good Friday, a little over 1 week ago, he came out and said:

No, no decision. Furthermore, he is not going to make a decision, and that delay is indefinite. So clearly the administration opposes the project and they are going to defeat it with delay. They are going to defeat it with endless delays. There is no amount of process that will ever be adequate for the administration. They will continue to delay this decision, thinking that at some point it will go away, and so they defeat the project through one delay after another. That is why it is time to vote.

In a recent poll that was released last week, 70 percent of the American people want this project approved--70 percent. That was a Rasmussen poll.

The President is trying to defeat the project through delays in order to appease special interest groups while the American people very much want this project approved. It is Congress's responsibility to take a stand. It is long past time to vote.

At this point, I am making some revisions to the legislation to update it for the final environmental impact statement. We are working to get every single Republican Member of this body on board, which I believe we will do, and as many Democratic Members as possible. We are pushing as hard as we can to get a vote. It is time for the Senate to stand, exercise its responsibility, and vote.

Now the Senate majority leader is looking at moving to energy legislation, energy efficiency legislation. That is good. Let's go there. Let's have the debate. Let's offer amendments. Let's have votes. Let's do the work of the people that this body is elected to do.

As part of that, we are going to require a vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, a vote to approve it congressionally, and everybody can decide where they stand. But this is a project which is long overdue. It is time to vote, and it is time to vote on congressional approval. That is our message today, and that is going to continue to be our message as we work on energy legislation.

I am very pleased to have other Members who have agreed to come join this discussion. I turn to the good Senator from Kansas, the senior Senator from Kansas, somebody who has been in this body for a long time, who has seen these issues, and who understands the responsibility we have to vote on behalf of these issues, to take a stand for the American people.

I yield to the senior Senator from Kansas, a State through which this pipeline passes, and ask him does he perceive that this project is in the national interest.

I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his words today and for his support of this important project.

I would also like to turn to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, somebody who truly believes we should have an ``all of the above'' energy approach but one that means actually doing--not only producing from our traditional sources of fossil fuels but also our renewable sources. He is someone who also understands that if we are truly going to have an ``all of the above'' energy plan in this country and do it, not just talk about it, we need the infrastructure to make it happen.

So I turn to the good Senator from Iowa and ask him: Isn't this the vital infrastructure this country needs in order to truly have an ``all of the above'' energy plan that works?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, who has made the case so well, and I look to his experience on energy issues and ag issues and his understanding of what it takes to truly have an all-of-the-above energy policy. As he said so well, it is not only needed infrastructure but it is jobs.

Here we are, talking about getting the economy going and getting people back to work. This doesn't cost one penny of Federal spending, and it puts people to work and creates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to help reduce our deficit and our debt.

So we are talking about putting people back to work, we are talking about energy for this country, we are talking about revenues to reduce the debt, and the administration refuses to make a decision. It is almost beyond belief.

I turn next to the Senator from Alabama, the ranking member on the Budget Committee. He speaks eloquently and often on the need to balance our budget, on the need to reduce the deficit and the debt and to get our spending under control.

So here we have a project that, without spending one penny, will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues to help reduce the deficit and debt while we put people to work.

Those statistics are provided by this administration's State Department. Those aren't our statistics. Those statistics come out of the environmental impact statement put together by the State Department of this administration.

So I turn to the Senator from Alabama, somebody who has led on the need to get this economy going, to create good, quality jobs and to reduce the deficit and debt. I ask the good the Senator from Alabama: Won't this project help do all of those things?

Mr. President, Prime Minister Harper of Canada has said on a number of occasions how important this project is to Canada. The Ambassador of Canada to the United States is Gary Doer, somebody who was formerly the Premier of Manitoba and somebody I worked with when I was Governor of North Dakota. We worked together for about a decade on all kinds of issues. As the Senator said, Canada is our closest friend and ally, and they are a huge energy producer. And we are producing more energy.

So here is a project which is incredibly important to Canada. It is an opportunity for us to get more energy, both energy that we are producing and energy from Canada, rather than from the Middle East-- something the American people very much want. If we don't approve it, what are we saying to our closest friend and ally, when they have said very clearly and repeatedly, this project is very, very important to them?

To add irony to that indignity, they will still produce the oil, but they will be forced to send it to China. So we will import oil from the Middle East and force our closest friend and ally to export their oil to China, creating more greenhouse gas emissions, not less? That is what happens if we don't approve the project.

If the President refuses to do it, then we have the responsibility to step up and do it. Yes, the Senator is 100 percent right that it is not only a project that our people very much want approved but it is also something the people of Canada and the Government of Canada very much want approved. So the Senator is right.

I would yield the floor back to the good Senator from Alabama and encourage him to bring in our esteemed colleagues from South Dakota and South Carolina as well into this important discussion.

I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama not only for his outstanding argument but for his passion as somebody who truly cares about getting this economy going.

I would turn to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and also to the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I would like to ask that they both engage in this discussion, starting with the good Senator from South Dakota.

In South Dakota they understand how to create a good business climate. They have no income tax. They have a strong economy because they understand what it takes to create a good environment so that businesses will invest and grow and create jobs. I would like to ask the Senator how this relates to the discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

To the distinguished senior Senator from Texas--clearly Texas knows energy production--I would ask for his thoughts in terms of how important this infrastructure is for energy development and production in our State.

First, I would like to turn to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and turn to our colleague from the State of Oklahoma, certainly a State that understands energy production and understands how vital this pipeline infrastructure is. So with the indulgence of the Senator from Texas, I would ask to return to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this important issue, and I turn to the Senator from Texas, a State that produces more oil and gas than any other State in the Union, and ask for his thoughts and support.

To respond to the Senator from Texas, of course, by not having a median pipeline infrastructure we are forced to move oil by other means and that means primarily railcars, and it is overburdening our rail system. As you have seen, we have had accidents, and it is just the overburdening of the current capacity of our rail system.

For example, in North Dakota we produce a million barrels of oil a day. Over 700,000 now has to move by rail car because we don't have adequate pipelines. So this is not just about bringing oil from Canada to the United States. It is also about moving oil from States such as Montana and North Dakota to refineries in the most efficient and safest way possible. For example, the Keystone XL Pipeline on the day it opens will take 500 trucks a day off some of our roads in the western part of our State. So it is clearly a safety issue. The State Department says if this pipeline isn't built, to move that amount of oil you would have to move 1,400 railcars a day. That is 14 unit trains of 100 railcars a day. Clearly, we don't have that rail capacity. Clearly we don't have that rail capacity, so we need this vital infrastructure. We can't develop the energy in this country and work with Canada to truly become energy independent without vital infrastructure, which this project represents.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the esteemed Senator from Texas.

I wish to turn to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his thoughts on the importance of this project and the need for our country to become energy independent.

Mr. President, I turn to the Senator from South Carolina and I welcome his comments on this important topic.

That is correct.

I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for putting this issue in very human terms, including what it means for people in this country who want a job. I thank him for his passion on this important issue.

I turn now to the Senator from Missouri for his input on this important issue.

I thank the Senator from Missouri and turn to our ranking member on the Energy Committee, the Senator from Alaska, who deals with energy issues every day.

Mr. President, I have conferred with the good Senator from Illinois and beg his indulgence. He has offered 3 minutes for each of our remaining speakers. I thank him for that and ask for the Chair's indulgence.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Illinois and turn to the Senator from South Carolina for his thoughts on this important issue.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina and turn to the esteemed Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Georgia, who is putting forward common sense.

I would like to turn, in closing, to the Senator from Wyoming, who is a senior member of the energy committee and truly understands energy issues.

Mr. President, I will close.

It is time for the Senate to vote on this important issue.

With that, I will turn to the Senator from Illinois and again thank him for the additional time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Wyoming for leading this colloquy.

Our effort here is to address in real terms the problem--the legislation we have on the floor right now is the unemployment insurance bill--to truly address the problem, which is getting people back to work, rather than additional government payments added onto the payments already made.

What we are trying to do is make sure there are jobs to get people back to work. Energy is an incredible opportunity to do just that. So when we talk about this energy legislation, it is about producing more energy for our country. But it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, and it is about national security. So I commend the esteemed Senator from Wyoming for leading the charge on legislation which would allow us to export liquefied natural gas.

We currently consume in the United States on an annual basis about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, but we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. So we are already in a situation where we are producing more than we consume. We import some from Canada, and we are growing in terms of our domestic production in States such as Wyoming, my home State, and others. Across the country with the shale gas development, we are producing more and more natural gas. We need a market for that natural gas, and Europe very much needs natural gas so they are not dependent on Russia for their energy. So we are talking about an opportunity here at home to actually create more economic activity and put people back to work. That is the real solution. It doesn't cost the government one penny. Instead, we get revenue--not from higher taxes, but from a growing economy and people going back to work.

When we look at this legislation, we have taken legislation led by the Senator from Wyoming and we have tied it together with Keystone legislation I have submitted. We call it the Energy Security Act, and it does those two things--it approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, a $5.3 billion investment by private companies in our economy. By the Obama administration's own estimate, their State Department has said it will create more than 40,000 jobs in the construction phase. We tie that with legislation which has been put forward by the Senator from Wyoming, which I am extremely pleased to cosponsor. We put those two together, LNG exports with Keystone. We call it the Energy Security Act. We have submitted it and we have filed it as amendment No. 2891.

I therefore ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 2891.

With due deference to the good Senator, I understand his desire to make sure people who are unemployed receive assistance. I think he truly is a champion in that effort. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him in a bipartisan way. But I would submit this very legislation absolutely complements what he is trying to do, and does it in a number of ways, first, in terms of a permanent, real, long-term solution--meaning getting those people back to work, but, second, in terms of paying for it, in terms of actually paying for the cost of unemployment insurance, these provisions--this amendment and the other amendment we are offering--will actually help create revenue to do what the Senator is trying to do.

For that reason, I think it is absolutely complementary to the legislation at hand and will in fact add bipartisan support to passage of that legislation.

I will cite one more extremely compelling study which relates to this point before I turn back to the Senator from Wyoming.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2011 commissioned a study. They had experts do an evaluation of energy projects awaiting approval to proceed from the administration--awaiting permits or other requirements so they could proceed with these energy projects.

What I am talking about are energy projects that total billions, even hundreds of billions, of dollars where private companies are willing to invest their money and develop energy resources across this great country.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce study I cite was performed in 2011. It came back and said there are more than 350 energy projects, both renewable type energy and traditional energy, that are stalled because of bureaucratic redtape on the part of the Federal Government at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the American economy and nearly 2 million jobs for the American people. Think about that, 2 million jobs for the American people, when what we are talking about here today is the unemployed.

What we are talking about here today is putting people back to work.

I will cite from that study:

In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject

projects (the ``investment phase'') would generate $577

billion in direct investment, calculated in current dollars.

The indirect and induced effects (what we term multiplier

effects) would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase

in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) including $352 billion

in employment earnings, based on present discounted value

(PDV) over an average construction period of seven years.

Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs

would be required during each year of construction.

Good-paying construction jobs. The Keystone XL Pipeline is just one of those more than 350 projects, and it alone is an investment of $5.3 billion. It alone, according to the State Department's own estimates, will create more than 40,000 jobs.

What are we trying to do here? I thought it was to put people back to work, trying to make sure they have an opportunity--in States such as Ohio. Of course, in my State we have an energy boom. We are trying to get people. We have more jobs than people because we have unleashed this investment in energy. We have done that in our State. Why not do it across the country? Why not do it across the country? There is no question we can.

We have offered other amendments as well. The other point I want to make is they are bipartisan amendments. They are amendments that don't cost the Federal Government any money but create incredible investment and incredible opportunity for our people, and they are bipartisan.

One of the amendments put forward by the Senator from Missouri passed through the House with 1 dissenting vote. I don't know if the 1 dissenting vote was Republican or Democrat, but I don't know how you get any more bipartisan than that, because they were one short of unanimous. So that is what we are talking about here.

I know negotiations and discussions are going on as to votes we may get on the legislation we are offering as part of this unemployment insurance bill. I ask the leadership on the majority side to allow us to vote on these amendments. We will accept the verdict of the Senate; all 100 get to vote, which is what we were sent here to do.

I will close with that. This isn't about either the Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle. This is about people who are unemployed and need an opportunity. We absolutely have the ability to give them that opportunity, so let's do it. Let's do it. That is what this debate is all about.

Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for leading the discussion. He has been an energy leader as well as a physician, so he certainly has been a leader on the health care issue too. But he has certainly been an energy leader, and his State is a leading energy- producing State.

As I said at the outset, and he has made the point so eloquently, this is an opportunity. Energy is an opportunity. It is jobs, it is economic growth, it is national security. Let's go. Let's get it done.

With that, I turn to my colleague from Wyoming and again thank him for his leadership of this important discussion.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation we are currently considering. While we all want to help those who are unemployed, the real solution is to get them a job, is to create a growing economy and more jobs. We need to get this economy going. One way we can do it is by empowering our energy sector.

That does not mean spending more government money. What it means is taking the shackles off billions in private investment that is ready to go into energy development in this country. In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study. The study took a look at the energy projects that are stalled in this country due to government bureaucracy and redtape.

That study found there are more than 350 energy projects, projects that will both produce renewable energy as well as projects that will produce traditional energy that are stalled at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the American economy, at a cost of almost 2 million jobs for the American people.

I want to take a minute to read from that report:

In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject

projects would generate $577 billion in direct investments,

calculated in current dollars. The indirect and induced

effect, where we apply the multiplier, would generate an

approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic

Product, GDP, including $352 billion in employment earnings

based on present discounted value over an average

construction period of 7 years.

Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs

would be required during each year of construction.

Two million jobs. Many of these projects are still blocked by government redtape and the permitting process. That is why I have introduced a States First All-of-the Above Energy Plan for our country to get these projects going. If you think about it, it just makes sense. The States, after all, are the laboratories of democracy. Let's make them the laboratories of energy for our country.

The right energy plan is about much more than just energy. It means economic growth, it means national security, and it means jobs--jobs for those who are currently unemployed and jobs at a good wage. Today I am offering amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that will do all of those things.

The first one I wish to talk about for a minute is the Energy Security Act. I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso and also our ranking member on the Energy Committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, as well as other cosponsors on the legislation, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, obviously a big energy- producing State, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

What the Energy Security Act does, quite simply, is first it approves the Keystone XL project. This is a more than $5 billion pipeline that has been in the permitting process now for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year of the permitting process trying to get a permit from the administration. We have thousands of pipelines all across this country, millions of miles of pipeline, and here is a project that for 6 years the administration has held in limbo.

The latest greatest technology moves Canadian oil, our closest ally, Canada, moves oil from Canada as well as oil from my State, North Dakota, and Montana to refineries across the United States. We import 50 percent of our oil. Do Americans want to get that from the Middle East or do they want to produce it here in our country and get it from our closest friend and ally, Canada? That is an obvious answer. That is why in poll after poll, 3 to 1, Americans want this project approved. But it remains in limbo, now in its sixth year of the permitting process on the part of the administration.

So when I talk about those 350 projects, when I talk about $1.1 trillion in GDP, when we talk about almost 2 million American jobs that study performed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified, you can see what they are talking about when you talk about this project that has been held up now into the sixth year.

The legislation, the Energy Security Act, would approve that project, but it would also approve the 24 pending applications that would allow us to export LNG, liquefied natural gas, to our allies who need that help. Right now in this country we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We consume about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is growing rapidly. Believe me, I know. We are flaring off natural gas in our State that we want to get to market. We need a market for that product. But right now we are not allowed to export liquefied natural gas to countries such as the NATO countries.

Look what is going on in Eastern Europe, such as what Russia is doing in Ukraine. What is next? One of the reasons Russia is able to take that kind of action and the European Union is reluctant to put sanctions in place as a response is because Europe, Ukraine, are dependent on Russia for natural gas for energy. Over one-third of the supply of the EU's energy comes from Russia.

So we have an opportunity here. We can create economic activity. We can create jobs. We can use that natural gas we produce beyond what we need here at home to help our allies and at the same time stand up to Russian aggression. That is why I say this is about jobs. This is about getting our economy growing. But this is also very much about national security, our national security here at home, energy security for our country, but also security working with our allies to stand up against the kind of aggression we see from Russia and from President Putin right now.

In terms of jobs, the Obama administration's State Department, their own State Department, has estimated the Keystone XL Pipeline during the construction phase will create more than 40,000 jobs. That is just that one project, more than 40,000 jobs. If you look at some of the studies, very conservative studies on job creation that will occur by approving these LNG applications, the National Economic Research Associates identifies more than 45,000 jobs that would be created by expediting approval of those permits.

Let me give you two examples so you understand the magnitude of what we are dealing with here. Cheniere Energy wants to invest $11 billion in an export facility at Corpus Cristi, TX. That is not one penny of government spending--not one penny. We have a huge deficit and we have a huge debt. We have got to get on top of it. That means controlling our spending, but that means we have to have economic growth.

So here are companies willing to invest and create jobs and create economic growth and create tax revenues--not raising taxes, creating tax revenue. Why in the world do we hold them up? How does that make sense? How is that common sense? Here we are on an unemployment insurance bill where we are going to spend more government money to pay people who remain unemployed when we could approve these projects and put them back to work at good-paying jobs. Instead of growing the deficit, we could actually create tax revenues from a growing economy-- again, not higher taxes, from a growing economy that helps reduce our deficit and debt.

So the Cheniere Energy project, $1 billion investment facility in Corpus Christi, creates a market for some of the natural gas that is now being flared off, according to the Perryman Group, 3,000 direct construction jobs, far more indirect jobs during the construction phase. Here is another project. Exxon wants to build the Golden Pass LNG facility at Sabine, TX, which is on the border between Texas and Louisiana. That is a $10 billion investment. Perryman Group estimates that between both the direct construction jobs and indirect jobs, on the order of 45,000 jobs for that project during construction, almost 4,000 permanent jobs.

So you can see when we talk about NERA, the National Economic Research Associates, saying, hey, there are going to be 45,000 jobs for these projects, that is a very conservative estimate. It creates so much more--not just good-paying jobs but also a growing economy, cash revenues to help with the deficit and national security, and security working with our allies at a critical time, a critical time in Eastern Europe.

In addition, I have offered other legislation I filed, that I am now offering as an amendment to this unemployment insurance bill--again, legislation that will create jobs and help people get back to work.

The second one I want to mention is the Empower States Act. The Empower States Act gives primary regulatory responsibility to the States when it comes to regulating hydraulic fracturing. The reality is, a Federal one-size-fits-all approach does not work for hydraulic fracturing, because the way hydraulic fracturing is done across this country is different in different States. The way they hydraulically fracture in States, for example, in West Virginia, where they are going after natural gas is very different than the way they do it in North Dakota where we are going after oil. We drill down 2 miles, 2 miles vertical drill bore to reach the oil, and then we drill out for miles at that level.

We produce primarily oil and natural gas--huge amounts of natural gas and gas liquids as a byproduct--but we are miles away from any potable water, which is much closer to the surface, so it is very safe. The water that is produced--both the frack water as well as the water that comes up with that oil and natural gas--we put back downhole through saltwater disposal wells, in essence recycling the water. Anything that can't be reused goes back downhole and that creates a recycling process.

That is different than the way it is done in the Marcellus shale in places such as New York, Pennsylvania, and it is different than the way it is done in West Virginia and different than the way it is done in the Utica shale in Ohio. There are some similarities with the way it is done in Texas in the Eagle Ford, where they also drill for oil.

But the point is, the way this is done, the technologies that are used, even the product we are going after--and certainly the formations are different across the country.

When we put a Federal one-size-fits-all approach in place, it doesn't work. Not only does it not do the job in terms of making sure we have the right kind of regulation, it holds up projects. It prevents job creation. It doesn't allow our economy to grow. It doesn't empower us to produce the energy that could be produced across this country with the right approach, with the right energy plan.

As far as job creation, our State is now the fastest growing State. We have the lowest unemployment, and we have the fastest growing economy, 7.6 percent in the most recent statistic versus a 2.6-percent average for the other States. Again, this is about creating a growing economy. It is about creating jobs.

Also, I am offering the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act legislation I filed as an amendment to this bill. DEJA is a series of bills that has already passed the House. This is all legislation that has already passed the House. So we know if we can get a vote in the Senate, the legislation we can pass in the

Senate has already gone through the House. We are already a huge distance on the journey to getting this done.

What does the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act do? It does exactly what the title says. It reduces the regulatory burden, it sets goals, it helps us produce more energy and create jobs.

For example, we establish an American energy development plan for Federal lands. We have all of these Federal lands--millions and millions of acres of Federal land both onshore and offshore. The Department of Interior should have a plan to develop energy on those public lands, and they should set goals to do so. This legislation would require them to do just that.

We freeze and study the impact of EPA rules on gasoline regulations. That benefits all Americans at the pump, not only small businesses that are looking to hire people but families, all consumers.

We provide onshore oil and gas leasing certainty, meaning that the Department of Interior has to approve the permits within a stipulated, reasonable period of time. It advances offshore wind production. This is about producing renewable energy as well as traditional energy. It streamlines the permitting process. It provides access to the National Petroleum Reserve for development in Alaska. It requires the BLM to hold live Internet auctions. Let's use this new technology to encourage investment in job creation and energy development in new and creative ways.

It establishes rules on surface mining that make sense, commonsense rules. It increases States' revenue sharing for Outer Continental Shelf drilling, offshore drilling, and it also offers lease sales off the Virginia coast.

Clearly, developing these new areas creates revenue for the States, creates revenues for the Federal Government, creates more energy for our country, and creates more jobs--not spending Federal money, investing hundreds of billions of private dollars that are currently sidelined in these new and exciting projects.

Finally, I am offering the stream buffer rule legislation that I filed as a stand-alone bill. I am offering that as an amendment as well to this UI bill. The Department of Interior wants to implement a Federal one-size-fits-all rule for stream buffer zones, meaning mining proximity to rivers and streams. Again, a one-size-fits-all, one-size Federal approach for every situation does not work. Allow the States to take the primary role in regulating the stream buffer zones and let them do what makes sense.

With all of this legislation, we can empower hundreds of billions in private investment. We can put that investment in good old-fashioned American ingenuity into getting our country going, getting our economy growing, and getting our people back to work.

We can do it. The way we can get started is simply by voting. That is what we do in the Senate. That is what we do in this Senate forum. Let us put forward our ideas and let's have a vote. If it passes, we can do these things. But why in the world wouldn't we get a vote? That is what this body is all about. Let's have the debate. Come to the floor and let's have a debate. Let's debate each one of these and a lot more. That is what we do. Then let's vote. That is how we will decide. That is what the American people expect us to do. They sent us to the Senate to do just that.

The question I have is why aren't we voting on these amendments and a lot more if we are serious about getting people back to work? If somebody wants to come down and refute this, come on down, do it, and then let's vote.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I come to the Senate floor today to address the legislation that we are considering, legislation that will provide economic and diplomatic sanctions to deter Russian aggression and also provide financial assistance in the form of a loan guarantee to the Ukraine to provide financial assistance that will be combined with $15 billion in loan guarantees from the European Union as well as assistance from the International Monetary Fund that can truly make a difference for Ukraine in helping them to stand up to this Russian aggression, while at the same time undertaking sanctions that I believe can be effective in deterring the incursions Russia is making into Ukraine.

A very important part of what we do is to be united with the European Union in this effort. For the sanctions to work, for the economic assistance to Ukraine to work, we have to have a united front. We have to work with our allies throughout Europe. But the European Union's ability and willingness to stand with us is greatly impacted by their energy situation. So how do we help? How do we help them address a very difficult situation in energy so that they will stand with us in putting forth the kinds of sanctions that can truly make a difference now? And the time to take action is now. The time to stand up to Russia's action of invading another country unlawfully, taking part of that country, holding an election that is not bona fide, and amassing troops on the border of a country and threatening to make additional incursions into a country--the time to stand up and put sanctions in place that will deter that behavior is now.

But the European Union finds itself in a situation where fully one- third if not more of its energy comes from Russia. Half of that is piped through the Ukraine and 50 percent or more of Ukraine's energy comes from Russia as well--specifically, natural gas. So the EU finds itself in a very difficult position when it comes to energy, and obviously that is a very important factor as they deliberate their steps in terms of both sanctions against President Putin and Russia and the activities he has undertaken and may undertake in the future and also in terms of their willingness to stand up and to halt those actions and to assist Ukraine.

So as part of this legislation we are considering, we have offered to help provide energy to Europe. The good Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, was on this floor. He is the prime sponsor of legislation that would help move natural gas in the form of LNG--liquefied natural gas--from this country to Europe. I am a cosponsor of that legislation. We filed that legislation as an amendment to the bill we are considering, and we are asking for a vote on that legislation. I think there would be very strong bipartisan support in this Chamber, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the legislation will pass the House as well. Representative Gardner has introduced the same or very similar legislation on the House side, and there is no question that the support is there to pass the legislation.

So as we look this week--and I think we will pass a bill this week-- to both put sanctions on Russia in place and to assist Ukraine, we can add this energy legislation which is an integral piece in helping the EU stand with us in standing up against Russian aggression--very simple, straightforward legislation.

What the legislation provides is that for companies in the United States that are willing to build LNG facilities and export liquefied natural gas, which they are prepared to do--and we will expand the countries to which they can export. Right now we have a limitation in terms of the exports. They can go to countries with which we have free- trade agreements, but there are many other countries that we have strategic security interests in that make a huge difference in terms of our security and security in the world, NATO countries, the EU, Ukraine.

I understand it would take time to build the facilities and move that product, but there is no question in the near term that if we pass this kind of legislation, we will be sending a very strong signal to world markets and, even more importantly, a very strong signal to President Putin that we are serious about working with the EU to provide energy so that they have sources other than Russia. That strengthens the EU, and it also weakens Russia because Russia is entirely dependent for revenue on their sales of energy. So as we take this step, we not only strengthen our allies, we weaken Russia's ability to make the kinds of incursions they have made into the Ukraine.

This is a very straightforward amendment. It has bipartisan support.

We are offering it as part of this bill. As we work through the amendment process and we determine the form this bill is going to take--and again, I think there is strong bipartisan support to move this legislation. I believe we can move it this week. I believe we can get agreement to have the votes and to move it this week. But I call on our leadership, I call on the leadership of the majority party in a bipartisan way to come together and give us the opportunity to vote on this amendment. It is part of a commonsense, comprehensive approach to truly deal with the situation in Eastern Europe.

In addition, I would like to take a moment to call on the President of the United States to take concrete steps that could make a big difference in the energy equation. The President is negotiating with our NATO allies right now, with the EU, which is now the G7--formerly the G8 but the G7 without Russia--talking about what steps can and should be undertaken to address what Russia has done and may do in the future.

On a bipartisan basis, I joined with Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, and on May 21 we wrote a letter to the President calling on him to undertake an energy plan. I would like to take a minute to read that letter on the Senate floor because I think it is a straightforward, commonsense energy plan that the President could undertake right now and show the world and show specifically President Putin that he is serious, that we are serious about working with the EU starting immediately. So it addresses taking short-term steps but undertaking a long-term plan that will ensure that the EU, working with the United States and others--countries such as Norway, which is producing incredible amounts of natural gas in the North Sea--working with countries that can supply natural gas to the EU, that we will end their dependence on Russia. And if Russia continues the kinds of activities it is undertaking, they will find themselves isolated.

Dear President Obama. We write to you today because we are

deeply concerned with the events unfolding in Ukraine and

Crimea that have been instigated and supported by Russia.

President Vladimir Putin's aggressive actions and

intransigence, and his continued dismissal of U.S. and

European Union warnings, is of particular concern. We share

your view that tough sanctions from both sides of the

Atlantic will be required to provide the necessary motivation

to change Putin's behavior, and to enable a diplomatic

resolution of this crisis.

The sanctions that have been implemented so far are good

and appropriate; however, we believe that energy security is

a critical component to achieving a successful outcome in the

region. Russia provides one-third of Europe's natural gas

needs. With Russia in a position to slow or stop gas flowing

into much of Europe, Putin retains leverage to continue to

dominate European energy markets. Though Russia has publicly

committed to maintaining a full supply of gas to Ukraine and

Europe, their recent history contradicts those proclamations.

In January 2009, Moscow cut its supply of gas flowing through

Ukraine, and at least 18 European countries saw their

supplies completely or partially reduced. Some governments

declared states of emergency and ordered factories and

schools to close, while millions of people struggled to cope

in freezing temperatures.

As long as Vladimir Putin continues to use energy as a

weapon, we must take this threat seriously and take this

Russian threat off the table. For the first time in a generation, America is in a position to export energy, and acting strategically to increase our natural gas exports accompanied by a more comprehensive U.S.-EU energy security dialogue will weaken Putin's grip on European energy markets.

We produce 30 trillion cubic feet of gas a year in the United States. States such as mine are producing incredible amounts. We are flaring off gas we would like to get to markets. This is a winning proposition to the United States. If we provide gas to the EU, that generates economic activity and jobs here and helps strengthen the EU and reduces our dependence on natural gas from Russia.

We urge you to take five specific actions that will have

near and long term positive impacts on the energy security of

Ukraine and the EU.

First, direct the Department of Energy to accelerate the

natural gas export permit process by approving the pending

permits within 60 days, or providing specific reasons why it

cannot approve individual permit applications. Though exports

would not start immediately, and though the price points in

Asian markets are currently more attractive to natural gas

exporters, calling for expedited approval of Liquefied

Natural Gas exports will increase liquidity on the global

markets and will improve the European energy security.

Second, conduct a strategic review of U.S. energy policies,

and expand the group of nations that currently qualify for

U.S. energy exports beyond those with free trade agreements

to include our NATO allies, the EU, Ukraine, and any others

that are in the national security interest of the United

States.

It just makes sense.

The review could include examining the potential of

additional investments of facilities capable of liquefying

natural gas.

Third, launch a joint U.S.-EU initiative on energy security

at next week's--

Meaning this week--

U.S.-EU summit in Brussels, with specific near-term and

future deliverables. One area of critical importance to

ensure greater energy security in Europe is the natural gas

infrastructure. While some European countries such as

Lithuania and Austria receive 100 percent of their gas from

Russia, others receive far less, and by improving the

interconnections, these countries could far more easily

direct supplies to one another in case of an outage. One

specific fix would be to reverse the flow of gas from

Slovakia to Ukraine, a proposal that is under consideration

by the European Commission. Additionally, we should assist

Ukraine to establish and maintain a high level of security

around its strategically significant gas storage facilities

in Southern Ukraine.

Countries such as Norway--Statoil--can supply more gas. Working cooperatively, we could have an impact right now as well as put a long- term plan in place that sends a very clear message to President Putin that we are going to change the energy equation.

Fourth, help Ukraine implement a significant energy

productivity initiative. U.S. businesses have developed many

off-the-shelf technologies that can greatly reduce energy

waste and promote greater efficiency, which will reduce

Ukraine's energy needs. This has the potential to greatly

reduce the amount of energy required by Ukraine and lessen

their dependence on Russia.

I was recently in Ukraine. We have many U.S. companies doing business over there. Many of the companies were from my State. I met with 10 CEOs from different companies in Kiev that are doing business throughout Ukraine. There is no question that by working with our companies they can have a major impact on what happens in Ukraine both in terms of conserving energy but also producing more energy, and that goes to the final point.

Finally, help Ukraine implement energy development

technology to enhance domestic production and promote energy

security. We have been contacted by several U.S. companies

that are ready to make strategic investments to help Ukraine

increase production of their own energy resources to reduce

reliance on Russian energy supplies.

We urge you to support and encourage the U.S. State

Department's Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement program

that allows U.S. local and state-level officials to share

best practices with European government officials. Already,

U.S. oil and gas companies are leading EU countries in shale

gas exploration and off-shore exploration in Eastern Europe

to help these countries diversify their energy sources.

We urge you to use the meetings to encourage more European

cooperation to solve their own energy dependency problem. A

recent proposal from the United Kingdom provides a series of

recommended reforms to the European energy infrastructure. We

believe our proposal aligns with the British recommendations

will provide a helpful starting point for the discussions

next week. The U.S. has a long history of supporting the

transatlantic relationship on areas of security and defense,

and energy security should be part of that dialogue.

We then close the letter saying:

We look forward to working with you to implement this plan.

Think about it. These are steps the administration can and should take now. There is bipartisan support for energy legislation in this body to back it up and make it happen.

I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together as part of an effort to deter Russian aggression, help Ukraine. To help the EU stand strong and united with us, we need to address the energy issue. We can and we should.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to take a moment to commend the Senator from Minnesota on her remarks. She expressed what we feel very strongly in this body. I wish to express both my agreement with her comments as well as the importance of moving this legislation. I believe there is very strong bipartisan support to move this legislation. I think we can get it done this week.

Again, I express my appreciation for her words here today and I believe that is exactly the kind of cooperative spirit we need on the part of all 100 Senators to get this done. Now is the time for action. I join with the good Senator from Minnesota in calling for that action.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

Last night the majority party had an all-night session talking about energy, but there is no specific proposal coming forward. We are here ready to vote to do our job representing the American people and actually craft a plan, a comprehensive energy plan for this country that works.

Since we didn't hear one last night, I thought I would come today and propose one. I would like to propose a States-first all-of-the-above energy plan. This isn't new. This is a plan I proposed along with others, my good colleague from South Dakota, my good colleague from Wyoming who was just here, and others. This is a comprehensive approach, a bipartisan approach, and actually specific legislation, a number of bills that will create a comprehensive plan to not only produce more energy for our country but to create more jobs, to grow our economy, to help expand our tax base, so we can reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes and, maybe most importantly of all, actually providing national security so we do not have to import oil from the Middle East--a specific action plan with legislation drafted and introduced that, instead of talking about it here on the Senate floor, let's do it. Let's start voting. Let's pass it. Let's put solutions in place for the American people.

Now this is not one big monolithic one-size-fits-all Federal plan, Federal approach. Instead, it is a series of bills sponsored, as I say, by Members on both sides of the aisle that would truly create a States- first, all-of-the-above energy approach. It includes measures such as my good colleague from South Dakota just said. Let's approve the Keystone Pipeline. The administration has been working on it for 5 years. Maybe they are going to work on it for another 5 years. I don't know. Well, let's approve it here in Congress. Let's act.

Another bill, the Dominion Energy and Jobs Act, is a bill I introduced that has already been passed by the House. It is a series of 13 different pieces of legislation that would help us produce more energy in this country both onshore and off.

The Empower States Act is another piece of legislation I put forward that would address hydraulic fracturing which is unleashing new areas of energy production in our country, or the coal ash recycling bill, that not only would help us recycle coal ash, but provide better standards to make sure that we are storing ash that is recycled in environmentally sound ways, addressing a problem that EPA is working on, and has to come up with a solution by the end of the year. We work with the EPA to come up with a commonsense solution that also encourages recycling coal ash to use on highways and buildings and other construction, and for other construction purposes. There is the Domestic Fuels Act, which is another piece of legislation that not only helps us market traditional fuels at the pump, such as traditional oil and gas products, but also renewable fuels, such as biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, other types of energy that we are working to develop--renewable fuels. Let's make it easier to give consumers choice at the pump and more competition that will help reduce their costs.

This is the same kind of comprehensive plan that we developed in North

Dakota when I was Governor. I was a Governor there for 10 years. We developed a plan that we called EmPower North Dakota, and of course the whole idea was to unleash the energy resources of our State--all of our resources. I am not just talking about oil and gas--traditional sources of energy--but all traditional and renewable energy that have truly made our State an energy powerhouse for the country. We did it at the State level, and we can do it at the national level.

So how does it work? Quite simply, it empowers States to build on their relative strengths. It does so by giving them the primary role, or the primary responsibility, in terms of regulating energy development and growth in their State. That may be oil, gas, nuclear, biofuels, hydro, wind, solar, biomass or whatever else may be an area of strength or expertise for their respective State.

I ask the Chair for 2 minutes.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

If you think about it, it builds on the very foundation and very concept of how our country works. The United States is the laboratory of democracy. The States are the laboratories of democracy. Let's make them the laboratories of energy development in this country. Why not? Let's make them the laboratories of energy development in this country, whether it is Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming. You name it. Different places have different strengths.

When it comes to producing energy, let's empower them to produce the type of energy that works best in their respective State. It is bipartisan, it is inclusive, and it includes not only the Federal Government, but it includes the Federal Government in a way where they are working with the States and building on the very strength of our country.

I know my time is limited. I will be back later today to talk about it some more.

I want to leave with this point: It is not just about energy. It is about better environmental stewardship because we unleash the very investment that drives and deploys the new technology that produces more energy and does so with a better environmental stewardship.

It is about a growing economy that creates revenues without raising taxes to help address the deficit and debt. It creates good-paying jobs that we need in this country.

It is also about national security. Think about what is going on in Europe right now. Is the European Union going to join with us and impose sanctions on Russia? Are they? Do they have the will or are they concerned that 30 percent of all of the natural gas that goes to Europe comes from Russia and half of it goes through the Ukraine?

Are they so concerned about their energy future that they are not willing to stand with us to do the things we need to do to make sure that an aggressor like Russia doesn't invade another sovereign country?

So energy is very much about national security, and we can be energy secure in this country in very short order with the right approach.

I yield the floor.

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

This morning I spoke on the floor and I talked about energy. I talked about the need for a States

first, all-of-the-above approach to a comprehensive energy plan that will not only produce more energy for our country but will get us to energy independence or energy security within a very short period of time and will also help with environmental stewardship and will help us deploy the technology that will not only produce more energy--and do it in a dependable, cost effective way--but at the same time the same technology as we deploy it will help us produce that energy with better environmental stewardship.

That is the right kind of plan for America. We have legislation that I introduced along with my colleagues both on the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle to accomplish that plan, including a good friend of mine, a Senator from West Virginia, a Democrat. I am a Republican, but we have been able to work together on legislation that will empower hundreds of billions in private investment into the energy sector to produce more energy more cost- effectively, more independently, more efficiently, more reliably, and with better environmental stewardship because it deploys the new technologies that not only will make a difference in this country, but will be adopted by other countries around the globe.

That means lower-cost energy. That means more energy, and at the same time better environmental stewardship. That is the right approach. That is the right approach to a comprehensive energy policy.

The fact is, we do not just have one bill to do what I am talking about--not just one big, monolithic Federal approach--but rather we have a whole series of bills that would create a step-by-step approach to a comprehensive energy plan for this Nation that would truly create a States first, all-of-the-above approach. That would create more jobs and economic growth. It would create tax revenue to help address our deficit and our debt without raising taxes through economic growth.

It would create more domestic energy, and more domestic energy means national security, not being dependent on oil from the Middle East. This country does not want to be dependent on oil from the Middle East and there is no reason that we should be. Together with our closest friend and ally Canada, we can produce more than enough energy for our needs. That means national security, and as I said, with the new technologies and better environmental stewardship.

As I said, I put forward legislation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish just that. Again, this isn't one big, comprehensive 1,000-page bill that you have to pass to understand what is in it. These are individual bills that are very understandable, that are common sense--legislation that includes approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As I said this morning, the administration has been reviewing the Keystone XL Pipeline for more than 5 years. This Congress can approve it, and it should.

It includes items such as the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which has already been passed by the House. It includes a whole series of bills that would help us to develop a strategic, comprehensive plan and goals to make sure we are producing more energy in this country on public lands both onshore and off.

The Empower States Act makes sure that States have a primary responsibility for regulating hydraulic fracture. Hydraulic fracturing is enabling us to tap new areas of energy that we never thought we would be able to develop.

Coal ash recycling legislation. Together with my good friend from the great State of West Virginia, we have a coal ash recycling bill. This bill not only will help us recycle coal ash for building materials, for building roads, but it will also help make sure that when we landfill coal ash, it is done with good environmental stewardship. That is a win-win.

This is something the EPA is working on. They have to have a solution in place by the end of the year, and we have worked with the EPA to actually come up with something that is clear and understandable and works, not only to make the landfill safer but to make sure we can recycle coal ash in a way that reduces the cost of our roads and our buildings. Again, just another commonsense example of what is in the Domestic Fuels Act.

The Domestic Fuels Act allows marketers, gas stations, to not only sell oil and gas products but actually makes it easier for them to sell renewable fuel as well--ethanol, biofuels, hopefully hydrogen and other fuels of the future. It makes it easier for them to get permitted and to use the same equipment to sell a whole variety of different types of fuels. What does that mean? That means consumer choice. That means more competition to help bring down the price at the pump. Now this is the same kind of comprehensive plan that we developed in my State of North Dakota. We called our energy plan EmPower ND--EmPower North Dakota.

The idea was to unleash all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable. Our State is now an energy powerhouse for the Nation. The only State that produces more oil for this country now is Texas. We are closing in on a million barrels a day of oil, and producing it in new ways with new techniques that people thought were not possible a few years ago, and with a smaller footprint and better stewardship. That is what the technology does.

When you create an environment where you empower the investment, that technology unleashes the energy and does it with better environmental stewardship. We did that as a State, and we can do it as a country. It builds on the very foundation of how our government works.

The States in our great country are the laboratories of democracy. What I am proposing is that we also make the States the laboratories of energy development. We do that by giving them the primary role in how they develop energy, how they develop their energy resources and how those energy resources are regulated.

So whether it is oil or gas or nuclear or biofuels, hydro, wind, solar, biomass or whatever else may be an area of strength for that State, they decide and they figure out how to develop it. Who will be more concerned about good environmental stewardship than the people who live right there and deal with it every single day?

It is a States first, all-of-the-above comprehensive plan for energy development for this country instead of the current approach, an approach where there is too much regulation, taxation, and restriction by big Federal policies. This one-size-fits-all approach is, in fact, preventing investment in energy development in this country.

I will give you the Keystone XL Pipeline as a great case in point. There is $5.3 billion in investment and not one penny of Federal spending, but $5.3 billion that has been held on the sideline now for more than 5 years. In 2011 the Chamber of Commerce put forward a study. They cited hundreds of projects across the country totaling hundreds of billions of dollars that were being held up that would create energy and jobs and economic activity for our country. If you think about it, you cannot regulate it. The Federal Government cannot regulate our way to a solution--think about it--even if you put out regulations. If the Obama administration could say, OK, only these kind of energies can be produced and they have to be produced this way--even if that worked in this country, what about the rest of the globe?

This is a global issue. So instead of holding up the development and deployment of these new technologies with regulatory barriers, we need to empower that investment. As you empower investment and you produce energy and you deploy new technologies, you get better environmental stewardship.

It doesn't happen in just this country. It will happen in other countries too. Why? Because they will adopt the technology we develop. That is how it works. When somebody develops a better technology, then other companies, other countries adopt it.

So let me contrast what is going on right now. One of the things I worked on both as a Governor and now here in the Senate is getting the Keystone XL Pipeline approved. It has been more than 5 years--more than 5 years--and the administration still refuses to make a decision. That is defeat by delay, sidelining $5.3 billion of private investment that the administration's own studies show will create jobs. The final environmental impact study produced by the Department of State said

that the Keystone XL Pipeline project will create 42,000 jobs without spending a penny of Federal money. The $5.3 billion in private investment would create 42,000 jobs at a time when we need to get the economy growing and creating jobs. It also will create hundreds of millions in revenue that will address the deficit and the debt at the local, State, and Federal level. It will also create hundreds of millions in revenue over many years at a time when we have deficit and debt without raising taxes. It also strengthens national security.

There is no question when you go to the public and say: Do we want to get our oil from the Middle East or would we rather get our oil from right here in the United States and Canada, if we can produce it ourselves and get it from Canada, is that what we want or do we want to continue to rely on the Middle East, obviously that is a pretty easy answer, isn't it?

In a recent public poll performed last week, March 7, by the Washington Post and ABC, two-thirds of Americans support building the Keystone XL Pipeline and 22 percent oppose. After 5 years and study after study, the administration still can't make a decision. Yet two- thirds of Americans know what we need to do. Two-thirds of the American people say: Build the pipeline. What are you waiting for? Only 22 percent oppose it.

The final environmental impact--I believe it is either the fourth or fifth environmental impact study--done by the Obama administration came out and again it showed there was no significant environmental impact. That was released at the end of January.

The inspector general's report that was released at the end of February said there was no conflict of interest by the company hired to do the environmental impact statement. Yet still we wait. There is still no decision. So you wonder why. You look at our economy and you say: Why isn't our economy growing faster? Why isn't our economy stronger? Why isn't unemployment going down? Why is there so much investment capital sidelined? Why aren't businesses growing? Why aren't small businesses growing? Why aren't small businesses across the country hiring people? Then we see regulations which are holding up approvals for more than 5 years. Maybe that is the answer.

America has always been the place where everybody came to do business because it was easier to do business. As a result our economy has always been the greatest economy in the world. When we have a government that can't even make a decision on a regulatory approval to approve a project billions of dollars after its own agency has come out time and time and time again and said there is no reason not to go forward, maybe that is the problem.

Obviously the people of this country know that. That is why when you go out and ask them a commonsense question, they give you a commonsense answer: Build the pipeline. We listened to the arguments about how we can't build the pipeline because of CO2 emissions because using oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, will create

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

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the Iran sanctions legislation, but first I want to talk about the veterans legislation we are on, and why it is so important that we include the Iran sanctions provision.

I believe we all want to make sure we take care of our veterans. We will have on the floor two bills today which deal with our veterans, one offered by Senator Sanders of Vermont and another offered by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina.

I am asking the majority leader to allow an open process so we can craft a good bill for our veterans. This means allowing amendments. This means allowing a vote on both bills. I believe that with an open process--with an open amendment process, by allowing votes as I have described--we can in fact build the kind of bipartisan support, the kind of bipartisan consensus we need to pass this legislation. There are provisions in the bills which I think have broad bipartisan support, which is why it is so important we have this open process.

One such provision which can help us build that kind of bipartisan support is the Iran sanctions provision in the legislation. It is sponsored by Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey and also Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, and it is cosponsored by 57 other Senators, including myself. So we are talking about a piece of legislation within the Burr bill which has 59 Senators cosponsoring the legislation.

If this legislation is put on the floor included as part of the Burr bill, it is pretty much guaranteed we can pass it. It has 59 cosponsors. If we pick up one more vote, we pass the bill. It is good for our veterans and it is also very important for our national security.

Let me talk about the Iran sanction provision for a minute.

Right now the Obama administration is trying to negotiate an agreement with Iran to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and while the administration is negotiating, Iran continues to develop its nuclear weapon. While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry negotiate with President Hassan Rouhani, Iran continues to build a nuclear bomb. While the administration and our Secretary of State talk with our allies in Europe about the negotiations with Iran, the Supreme Leader and Iran continue to build a nuclear bomb.

The reality is the only thing which has brought Iran to the negotiating table is sanctions and only continuing those sanctions will get them to stop building a bomb. The sanctions should be reinstated, and they should not be lifted until, one, Iran agrees they will not build a bomb, and we have an open, verifiable transparent process to make certain they are not doing so.

Sanctions take time to work. The sanctions we applied more than 1 year ago--particularly the Kirk-Menendez banking sanctions--have had a real impact on Iran's economy. I bring a background as a banker to my work experience, both as a Governor for 10 years, and my work experience here in the Senate. The reality is that the Kirk-Menendez banking sanctions have been extremely effective. It is a well-crafted piece of bipartisan legislation which passed this body overwhelmingly, which is really effective. The reason it is so effective is because it prevents any company, any country which wants to do business with the U.S. banking system--and countries and companies worldwide have to be able to transact with the U.S. banking system, but they are not allowed to transact with our banking system if they also do business with Iran.

If Iran can't sell its oil because it can't get paid for its oil, they are in a very tough situation. Not only do they not have the resources or the funds to build a bomb, their administration--the regime--does not have the money to operate their country. So we not only prevent them from building a bomb, but we put the regime itself at risk if they continue to build a bomb. That is why the Kirk-Menendez sanctions--those banking sanctions--have been so effective. But they work over time. They work over time.

When the sanctions are lifted, the relief is immediate, the relief is immediate because now Iran can sell and get payment for their oil. They can purchase what they need, not only to continue to build a bomb but to keep their country and keep the regime in power.

When we are talking about sanctions and negotiating an agreement to get them to stop building a bomb, it is important that we have a process that is open, transparent, and verifiable. We need to know that they have stopped building the bomb and are dismantling their nuclear weapons enterprise.

It is very important to understand that sanctions work over time, but when sanctions are lifted, the relief is immediate. That is why we cannot lift sanctions while we negotiate the agreement. We have to get Iran to stop first and give us a process to verify that, in fact, they have stopped before we can lift those sanctions.

We have the opportunity in this body right here, right now, today, to address that problem. It is incredibly important that we do address this issue. We have 59 sponsors on the legislation. We are one short. If you put it up for a vote, we will have well more than 60 votes. If we impose those sanctions now, we will tell Iran: You stop, and we make them stop. That is the option before us today. That is what we need to do.

If we don't do it, what are our options? A military strike? That is the last option. That is what we don't want to have to do. We don't want to have to do a military strike to take out their bomb-making capability. But if we don't act and reimpose those sanctions, that is the option that is left.

Today we have a choice. I ask that we be allowed to vote on the Burr legislation, that we be allowed to vote on amendments, and that we be allowed to vote to reimpose sanctions on Iran.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I see the good Senator from New Mexico is here. I am willing to defer to the Senator if time is an issue for him. If it is not, I will proceed.