Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on legislation in regard to surplus water fees. I call it the States Water Rights Act, the States water rights legislation, and I introduced this legislation as an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act. Essentially what it does is it would prevent the Corps of Engineers from unlawfully and unfairly imposing water usage fees on the Missouri River States. Joining me in this bipartisan legislation is Senator John Thune of South Dakota, Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, and also Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota. It is bipartisan legislation. In fact, I expect Senator Thune will be joining me here on the floor very shortly, and also Senator Heitkamp, so we can engage in a colloquy in regard to the legislation.

The Missouri River, of course, flows through the State of North Dakota and the other Missouri River States. We have seven States the Missouri River flows through. In 1944, through the Pick-Sloan Act, waters in those States were dammed to create large-scale reservoirs. There are six mainstream reservoirs. Of course the primary purpose for the dams and reservoirs was to provide flood protection downstream, which we have been doing now for more than 50 years--actually, over 60 years.

At the same time, just as we are providing that flood protection with these reservoirs, at the same time the upper basin States, States throughout the basin, have withdrawn water from those reservoirs for a whole variety of uses--municipalities, tribes, business and industrial--the whole gamut of uses. In all that time, more than 60 years, the Corps of Engineers has never charged the respective States-- Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska--any of them--has not charged them for using the water. That makes sense because if they draw the water out of the river--I mean every one of the States has water rights. Tribes have water rights. If they draw the water out of the river, of course, there is no charge.

Likewise, because the States gave up the land for flood protection in order to create those reservoirs, the corps has never charged for drawing water out of the reservoirs either.

That has changed now. Now the corps is saying we are undertaking a study and in our study we are going to look and decide whether we are going to charge a fee if you take water out of the reservoir; even though we never have, now we think maybe we are going to charge a fee.

This amendment blocks that. It says you can't do that. The States have water rights. Just as if you take it out of the river you can't charge us for that water, you certainly can't flood our land and then charge us for it. It doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, because States have water rights, they would never be able to do it. If in fact the corps were to proceed and impose those fees, we would sue them and we would win under the law because the respective States are entitled to those water rights. That makes this kind of an unusual situation.

We have put this legislation forward, frankly, to avoid the cost of litigation,

the cost to the respective States and the cost to the Federal Government. So the reality is without this legislation we are offering, it would actually cost the Federal Government money because they would have to undertake litigation against the States to impose fees on the States in violation of their water rights which are well established at law. This amendment, in fact, in actuality saves the Federal Government money.

But the CBO, under their scoring regime, says no, wait a minute. Somehow we are going to look beyond that. I guess they would pretend that wouldn't really happen. So we are going to assign a cost to this legislation because the corps might get some fees down the road somewhere; in spite of all these things, they might get a fee. So they have assigned a $5 million cost to the legislation over the 10-year scoring window; $5 million over the 10-year scoring window.

We have managed to address that by saying no, we have also added--in addition to the fact that under this legislation the corps can't impose the fees, we have also said you have to find $5 million in savings over the next 10 years out of your operating budget. Since just their operations alone are $2 billion a year, obviously that would be a very simple matter. The fact is it is, frankly, a technicality anyway because they are offsetting money they are never going to get so there is no cost to it. But from an accounting standpoint we do that so the CBO does not assign any score to this legislation.

That is kind of some of the nuts and bolts of the legislation. But the key is this: This is about States that have given up fertile farmland, hundreds of thousands of acres, in order to provide flood protection for other States farther downstream. They were able to not only use the land but they were able to draw water from the river as they wanted to without being charged. So here comes the corps and says now that we have flooded your land, now that you have provided that flood protection, oh, golly, we are going to charge you for flooding your land. We are going to charge small towns, we are going to charge tribes, we are going to charge business and industries, farmers-- whomever.

It absolutely makes no sense. That is what this act does. It addresses that and makes sure they do not impose those fees in clear violation of States' water rights. In fact, the legislation, even though scored by CBO as having no cost, will save not only the Federal Government money but the respective States money as well.

I am very pleased to note that my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator John Thune, is here. I wish to ask if he, as cosponsor of this legislation, would express some of his thoughts as well.

Yes.

I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for joining me, and for his question. Of course, he is anticipating exactly what would happen. The States will initiate litigation against the corps if in fact the corps decides to impose a fee. They are undertaking a year-long study and at the end they are going to come back and say: Oh, they are not going to charge a fee. Or they are not going to impose a fee. If they do impose a fee, here is what it would be. At that point they would be sued by the States. In fact, in the case of North Dakota, the legislature has already set aside moneys to fund the lawsuit.

As when I was the Governor, the current Governor and the attorney general have already said very clearly they will commence litigation. It would be multistate litigation. As I said, they have already set aside funds.

That is the point I am making. We can talk about the CBO score--which we have now squared away so it doesn't score--the reality is we are saving both the Federal Government and the States money with this legislation because there will absolutely be litigation.

I will.

Mr. President, in response to the Senator's question, absolutely not. It doesn't change any of the authorized purposes for the reservoirs and for the system. This does not impact in any way any of the authorized uses for the mainstem dams, the mainstem breviaries or the Missouri River system.

I want to emphasize that because we have the seven Missouri River States, and sometimes we get the upstream and downstream interests. This does not change any of those authorized purposes or how they are utilized or how the respective States interact with them--or even the amount of water usage.

So to try to bring in any of the other issues which have typically been concerns for the Missouri River does not

apply here. This is about whether the respective States--this is one where we can come together. This is upstream or downstream and whether any States will be charged for water that is rightfully theirs. That makes this very much a States rights issue about which all of the States should be concerned.

How can we allow Federal agencies to come in and simply impose a fee because they want to and then impose whatever fee they want? We will do a study and we will impose a fee of whatever size we determine we believe is appropriate.

It is a clear violation of States rights, and on a very important issue, water rights.

If I could, I want to also invite the good Senator from North Dakota, Ms. Heitkamp, to join us as well in this colloquy. She also brings expertise as the former attorney general in North Dakota and can certainly comment on the legal issues as well.

Before I do that, I will turn it over, Mr. President, to the Senator from South Dakota, who I think had another question and/or comment.

I thank the Senator from South Dakota for joining, and he is absolutely right. The cost to the States is significant. In actuality, the scoring number is reduced because the probability of them getting it is so remote. As I mentioned earlier, they are flying in the face of well-established water rights the States have. So once they assign the probability they would lend to it, obviously that reduces the amount that gets scored.

Once again, it shows they are trying to impose a fee where they have no right to do it, so it did create some scoring issue that it really never should. The fact is the litigation would far outweigh the score that CBO has put on it, both to the Federal Government and to the respective States. In the end there would be no fees because there is no right to assess those fees.

I think we have someone who as a former attorney general dealt, in fact, with this very type of issue during her tenure as attorney general. I turn to my colleague from North Dakota and ask that she comment on the legality of the issue as well as her thoughts in terms of the fairness and the States rights aspect, which truly makes this an issue our colleagues should join and support. This is exactly what could happen to them, and it could happen to their States.

I turn to Senator Heitkamp for her thoughts in that regard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes.

I wish to thank again my colleague for her comments in regard to the legal aspect; again, she brings a lot of direct experience working with this issue. So I thank her for her comments with regard to the legal aspect, but she makes another very important point. This isn't just about States rights; this would be a taking of tribal rights too.

I am going to turn to my colleague from South Dakota and ask him a question on this very same subject. But, in fact, in North Dakota, it is going to be one of our tribes that is most disenfranchised by this action of the corps. Because, again, we have made the point we can take water out of the river. We can continue to do that. They can't charge us for water coming from the river.

The other place they are trying to charge for water is out of the reservoir. But most of the reservoir in North Dakota is inside the tribe reservation, so the people who would be most dramatically impacted, in fact, would be Native Americans in our State.

I am going to turn to our colleague from South Dakota. I am guessing that is true in South Dakota as well.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from South Dakota and turn to my colleague from North Dakota for any final thoughts before we yield the floor.

Mr. President, with that, I wish to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Hoeven amendment No. 909.

I wish to close with a couple other thoughts. Senator Baucus from Montana wanted to join with us in the colloquy, but the timeline didn't work out. So I wished to express my appreciation for his support and sponsorship of this legislation as well.

I wish to again make the point that this isn't about using the water. Our respective States will still use the water. The issue is about being charged for it. That is a very important point, so that nobody tries to confuse this issue in order to try to get opposition to the issue. We will still use the water; it is just that we will be charged for it unfairly, except for the fact--as we said, this would be tied up in litigation creating a bunch of costs for the State and the Federal Government, so that wouldn't really happen. So what we are doing is solving a very important problem. It is one that all of the States need to be cognizant of, because

if a Federal agency can come in and try to do it to one State, it can do it to any one of the States. This is a fundamental issue regarding States rights.

If any of our colleagues have questions or concerns about the amendment, I encourage them to come to us. We want to talk to them about it. We truly believe, if they understand the facts, they will be strongly supportive.

Again, I wish to turn to my colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. I wish to thank him for emphasizing that point. It is very important. Again, that is why I encourage any of our colleagues to discuss this issue with us if they have any concerns whatsoever. It is just a fundamental fairness issue, and we ask for an affirmative vote from our colleagues.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. No objection.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Water Resources Development Act or the WRDA bill that we are considering on the Senate floor. I wanted to begin by thanking leadership on both sides of the aisle for moving this very important legislation to the floor so we can act on it.

This legislation is important because it funds vital infrastructure projects that make our country stronger, safer, and more competitive. I wish to begin by talking about one of those flood protection projects, permanent flood protection for the Red River Valley. The Fargo-Moorhead Area Diversion Project will establish permanent flood protection measures for the Red River Valley region of North Dakota and Minnesota.

It will, in essence, divert water around--actually water that is now almost an annual flood event--population centers, channel it safely downstream for both States. In fact, it will protect nearly one-quarter of a million people and billions of dollars of property in one of the Midwest's most dynamic, productive, and growing metro areas on both sides of the North Dakota-Minnesota border.

Furthermore, this vital infrastructure will not only protect lives and property, it will actually save the Federal Government money. This is very important at a time when we face deficits and debt, something we very much need to address.

So let me explain. This project will actually save the Federal Government money. When the waters threaten, as they have in 4 of the past 5 years, many agencies of the Federal Government are mobilized to protect life and property. That includes the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Coast Guard, even Customs and Border Protection, which has been called in to monitor the advancing waters of the flood from the air, and other agencies as well.

Those are just Federal agencies. In addition, we have State and local agencies that respond as well. Many of them also rely on Federal funding. That includes agencies such as emergency management, the National Guard, State departments of transportation, highway patrol, water commission, human services, departments of health, and many others.

The point is the flood fight requires a lot of work and it costs a lot of money. We are doing it every year. It involves the enormous task of building miles and miles--not feet, not yards, but miles of temporary earthen dams, dikes, and levees. That means moving heavy equipment such as backhoes, bulldozers, dump trucks, as well as tons and tons of dirt. It means activating the National Guard to devote its resources and equipment to the task of fighting the rising waters.

The flood fight also involves filling sandbags, literally millions of sandbags to protect homes and businesses. It involves deploying industrial pumps to try to move water out faster than it is moving into the cities. That, I tell you, is very fast at the height of the flood, thousands of cubic feet per second.

It means calling on local police and highway patrol officers to work overtime to direct traffic, provide security, and keep order. Ultimately it means paying out millions in taxpayer dollars year after year, and that is the point. We are fighting this flood every single year, and we are expending these dollars every single year.

Then there is another phase after the water recedes and then comes the cleanup: removing those dams, dikes, and levees, disposing of those millions of sandbags, cleaning the streets, repairing the damage, and addressing the multitude of costs and time-consuming tests necessary to get things back to normal. Again, as I have said, you are doing all of this on a temporary basis, and you have to do it all over again the following year. In fact, the expense of mounting a successful flood fight year

in and year out amounts to many millions of dollars every year.

For example, the successful flood fight of 2009 cost Fargo-Moorhead about $50 million. When you lose the flood fight, the cost is much greater in both human terms and in financial terms.

For example, in another community, a much smaller community, Minot, ND, lost the flood fight in 2011, destroying or damaging more than 4,000 homes and displacing thousands of people. The Federal Government has put more than $632 million--let me repeat--more than $632 million into the city's recovery efforts to date, and we are still not done.

A similar flood in the Fargo-Moorhead metro area would be far worse and far more expensive. The Army Corps of Engineers predicts a 500-year flood in the Red River Valley would cost more than $10 million in damage, and that doesn't even take into account the impact in terms of human cost and difficulty to families and to businesses.

Let's look at how the costs of such a flood are typically shared. This is very important when we do the cost-benefit analysis. Typically local government covers 15 percent of the cost. The State pays about 10 percent of the cost, and the Federal Government pays by far the largest share of the cost. The Federal Government is paying 75 percent of the cost every single year--oh, except, in severe disasters, FEMA recommends raising the 75-percent Federal share for public assistance, the repair of infrastructure, to 90 percent Federal cost after you meet a certain threshold.

When you have very significant damage and higher losses, now the Federal Government is picking up as much as 90 percent of the cost, particularly for the public infrastructure. That cost, in our case now, is incurred on a year-in and year-out basis.

In fact, Fargo-Moorhead has not only had to mount a flood fight but then conduct cleanup afterwards in 4 out of the last 5 years, including this spring. That is my point. That is exactly my point. With permanent flood protection, which is provided through the WRDA bill, we can break that cycle. With one-time spending we can protect people on a permanent basis and do so much more cost-effectively. Once you build it, you are done with the endless and traumatic sequence of fighting floods and cleaning up after them. Not only that, but the cost-sharing for permanent flood protection is lower for the Federal Government. The Federal share would be less than half of the cost of the permanent project, 45 percent of the permanent project. That compares with 75 to 90 percent the Federal Government is obliged to cover for the annual flood fight or, worse, if you lose the flood fight and you have that recovery effort.

We are saying for the permanent protection, the non-Federal share, Federal share 45 percent. The non-Federal share is more than half, which means State and local government will cover 55 percent of the cost, which is actually the majority of the project. We have already lined up those funds. At that local level and the State level, we are ready to go.

This is a two-State effort, as I said. That cost is incurred by the State of North Dakota, by local government, and Minnesota, and it breaks out as follows: Minnesota would cover about 10 percent of the non-Federal share or about $100 million. North Dakota will cover 90 percent of the non-Federal share, about $900 million, divided evenly between the State and local municipalities, each putting in about $450 million.

In the end you can't put a price on the kind of hardship and despair that losing a home or a business means after the fact. You can help to spare people that hardship in the first place with permanent flood protection.

That is what the Fargo-Moorhead diversion is all about, and that is why it is so important to North Dakota, to Minnesota, and to the Red River Valley region of the North. The Water Resources Development Act, however, does more. It is key to building and rebuilding vital water infrastructure projects throughout our Nation, projects that will make us stronger and safer.

Moreover, the WRDA bill includes streamlining provisions to help us complete worthy projects more cost effectively with less bureaucracy, with greater savings, and with less redtape. In addition, we work conscientiously through the process to make sure we do these vital projects right. They have been subjected to full corps review, including cost-benefit analyses, in an open and transparent way.

For all of these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to support the Water Resources Development Act for the peace of mind permanent flood control and protection will give to the people of our region and other regions throughout the country.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 794 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce legislation. The legislation is entitled the ``Dependable Air Service Act.'' It is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue of the furloughs of air traffic controllers, and I would like to take just a few minutes to describe it.

This is bipartisan legislation. I would like to start out by thanking my cosponsors. The lead cosponsor is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, but other cosponsors are Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Risch of Idaho, and also Senator Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire. As one can see, it is bipartisan legislation. These are original cosponsors on the bill with me, and we will have more, as we are talking to others.

As I said, this is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue we face of delays in our airports across the country because of the furloughs to air traffic controllers. What the bill does is to say to the Administrator of the FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration, Administrator Huerta--that he can use dollars within his budget, move them around as he needs to move them around, and that is what he needs to do--to move dollars around within his budget so he does not have to take $206 million out of the salary line of the air traffic controllers. He can then decide what reductions he can make in those salaries and what level of furloughs he can make to air traffic controllers but still maintain air service on an on-time basis, so we have dependable on-time air service across this country for our citizens.

Further, it provides that if for any reason the FAA Administrator, within his budget, cannot fully accomplish that, then the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. LaHood, can work with him to utilize funds within the budget of the Department of Transportation. It provides the authority, quite simply, to move the dollars around within the budget of the DOT--Department of Transportation--and gives the Secretary that authority to make sure they do not furlough more air traffic controllers than are needed to keep our air flights on time, to keep service, of course, safe and dependable so the traveling public can be assured their flights are going to be on time.

The FAA has announced they are furloughing about 1,500 air traffic controllers, which is about 10 percent of their total air traffic controller workforce. They are doing this to save $206 million of the roughly $630 million to $640 million the FAA is reducing under sequestration. They have the authority to move 2 percent of their operating budget without congressional approval, and they have the authority to move up to 5 percent of their operational budget around with congressional approval, which means coming to the Appropriations Committee and getting approval to move up to that 5 percent. But FAA Administrator Huerta has said that is not a sufficient amount to make the adjustments he needs to make within the FAA budget to address the furlough issue.

So what this bill does, quite simply, is it says: Look, you can move the dollars as you need to within your budget. You have the flexibility and the authority to do that. Do that. And if for any reason that isn't sufficient, then Secretary LaHood can backstop that through the Department of Transportation dollars.

To put this into perspective, the total budget for the Department of Transportation is $72 billion--$72 billion--and the total cuts throughout DOT, which includes the FAA, under sequestration is about $1 billion--$1 billion. The FAA is taking $637 million of that reduction. Of course, the real issue we are dealing with in terms of flight delays is that about $206 million comes out of the air traffic controller salary line. So what we are saying is: Look, make some reductions, find some economies, do what you can within the air traffic controller line, just as you are doing across the budget. We should all be doing that because the Federal Government has a huge deficit. We have a huge debt. We have to find ways to reduce spending. So we are all in this together and we have to find sensible, commonsense ways to minimize the impact to the public. We have to, with that approach, find savings. So find the savings you can in terms of how many air traffic controllers you can truly furlough and then move the dollars you have to in order to be sure we do not impact the traveling public.

Again, this is a bipartisan bill. This is a simple--straightforward solution to the issue, and we need to do it. We need to do it.

On Monday, reports were there were 1,200 flights delayed across the country. At airports in New York, in Dallas, and in Los Angeles, some of those flights were up to several hours. What the FAA has indicated is that up to 6,700 flights a day out of the roughly 23,000-plus flights a day may be delayed because of these air traffic controller furloughs. There is no reason for that. So I want the public to know we are putting forth a simple, straightforward bipartisan solution that still saves the dollars we need to save but gives the simple, straightforward flexibility that is necessary--both within FAA and DOT, if necessary--to make the adjustments, to make sure those flights are on time for the traveling public.

I called Secretary LaHood yesterday. I said: What do you think? He said: I think that will work fine. Great. Let's work together. Let's do it.

We talked to the airlines association. We talked to the FAA Administrator and said: What do you think? The air traffic controllers union: What do you think? They all seemed to say: Commonsense, simple, straightforward. Let's do it.

Let's make sure we solve problems for the American public. They need to know that not only are their flights safe, they need to know they are dependable. They need to know when they show up at the airport that airplane is going to leave when they expect it to leave. It is important for our families, it is important for our businesses, it is important for the economy of this country, and it is easily solved. So let's do it.

I ask my colleagues to join me in this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce legislation. The legislation is entitled the ``Dependable Air Service Act.'' It is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue of the furloughs of air traffic controllers, and I would like to take just a few minutes to describe it.

This is bipartisan legislation. I would like to start out by thanking my cosponsors. The lead cosponsor is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, but other cosponsors are Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Risch of Idaho, and also Senator Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire. As one can see, it is bipartisan legislation. These are original cosponsors on the bill with me, and we will have more, as we are talking to others.

As I said, this is a very simple, straightforward solution to the issue we face of delays in our airports across the country because of the furloughs to air traffic controllers. What the bill does is to say to the Administrator of the FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration, Administrator Huerta--that he can use dollars within his budget, move them around as he needs to move them around, and that is what he needs to do--to move dollars around within his budget so he does not have to take $206 million out of the salary line of the air traffic controllers. He can then decide what reductions he can make in those salaries and what level of furloughs he can make to air traffic controllers but still maintain air service on an on-time basis, so we have dependable on-time air service across this country for our citizens.

Further, it provides that if for any reason the FAA Administrator, within his budget, cannot fully accomplish that, then the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. LaHood, can work with him to utilize funds within the budget of the Department of Transportation. It provides the authority, quite simply, to move the dollars around within the budget of the DOT--Department of Transportation--and gives the Secretary that authority to make sure they do not furlough more air traffic controllers than are needed to keep our air flights on time, to keep service, of course, safe and dependable so the traveling public can be assured their flights are going to be on time.

The FAA has announced they are furloughing about 1,500 air traffic controllers, which is about 10 percent of their total air traffic controller workforce. They are doing this to save $206 million of the roughly $630 million to $640 million the FAA is reducing under sequestration. They have the authority to move 2 percent of their operating budget without congressional approval, and they have the authority to move up to 5 percent of their operational budget around with congressional approval, which means coming to the Appropriations Committee and getting approval to move up to that 5 percent. But FAA Administrator Huerta has said that is not a sufficient amount to make the adjustments he needs to make within the FAA budget to address the furlough issue.

So what this bill does, quite simply, is it says: Look, you can move the dollars as you need to within your budget. You have the flexibility and the authority to do that. Do that. And if for any reason that isn't sufficient, then Secretary LaHood can backstop that through the Department of Transportation dollars.

To put this into perspective, the total budget for the Department of Transportation is $72 billion--$72 billion--and the total cuts throughout DOT, which includes the FAA, under sequestration is about $1 billion--$1 billion. The FAA is taking $637 million of that reduction. Of course, the real issue we are dealing with in terms of flight delays is that about $206 million comes out of the air traffic controller salary line. So what we are saying is: Look, make some reductions, find some economies, do what you can within the air traffic controller line, just as you are doing across the budget. We should all be doing that because the Federal Government has a huge deficit. We have a huge debt. We have to find ways to reduce spending. So we are all in this together and we have to find sensible, commonsense ways to minimize the impact to the public. We have to, with that approach, find savings. So find the savings you can in terms of how many air traffic controllers you can truly furlough and then move the dollars you have to in order to be sure we do not impact the traveling public.

Again, this is a bipartisan bill. This is a simple--straightforward solution to the issue, and we need to do it. We need to do it.

On Monday, reports were there were 1,200 flights delayed across the country. At airports in New York, in Dallas, and in Los Angeles, some of those flights were up to several hours. What the FAA has indicated is that up to 6,700 flights a day out of the roughly 23,000-plus flights a day may be delayed because of these air traffic controller furloughs. There is no reason for that. So I want the public to know we are putting forth a simple, straightforward bipartisan solution that still saves the dollars we need to save but gives the simple, straightforward flexibility that is necessary--both within FAA and DOT, if necessary--to make the adjustments, to make sure those flights are on time for the traveling public.

I called Secretary LaHood yesterday. I said: What do you think? He said: I think that will work fine. Great. Let's work together. Let's do it.

We talked to the airlines association. We talked to the FAA Administrator and said: What do you think? The air traffic controllers union: What do you think? They all seemed to say: Commonsense, simple, straightforward. Let's do it.

Let's make sure we solve problems for the American public. They need to know that not only are their flights safe, they need to know they are dependable. They need to know when they show up at the airport that airplane is going to leave when they expect it to leave. It is important for our families, it is important for our businesses, it is important for the economy of this country, and it is easily solved. So let's do it.

I ask my colleagues to join me in this legislation.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend my esteemed colleague from the State of North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, on giving her maiden address this morning. She is not only someone I have known for a long time and worked with for a long time but somebody who I think truly brings a spirit of bipartisanship to this

body, which is so needed as we address the challenges today, ranging from our debt and deficit, to getting our economy going, to getting people back to work, and addressing things such as terrorism and the heinous act we saw in the attack on the marathon in Boston and the great people of this great country, on immigration, on entitlement reform, protecting and preserving Social Security and Medicare for the long term, progrowth tax reform, an energy plan for this country, making sure we find ways to get our health care system working better-- the finest health care system in the world--all of these great issues of the day for this Nation. I know she brings that sense of bipartisanship and that desire to serve the people of this great country.

It is an unbelievable honor to serve the people of North Dakota and this country and this body, and I look forward to working with Senator Heitkamp--and all of our colleagues--on the challenges we face and the opportunities we face, the greatest country in the world, as we work on behalf of the American people. But I do want to commend her for her dedication and her commitment and her vision for a brighter future for this country.

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

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

Madam President, I rise this morning to speak in regard to the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Much has been made recently about pipeline spills in Arkansas and in Texas. These spills are being used by opponents of the Keystone XL Pipeline project as examples or reasons to not approve the Keystone Pipeline. Now, no one ever wants a spill of any kind, but let's deal with the facts rather than misperception or emotion. This is an important project, and it is important that we deal with the facts.

The Exxon spill in Arkansas involves a pipeline known as the Pegasus pipeline. This pipeline was built in the 1940s--1947 and 1948. Approximately 5,000 barrels of oil were spilled. The EPA considers that a major spill because anything above 250 barrels is considered a major spill. Emergency response personnel were on the ground within 30 minutes of the leak being detected. Approximately 640 cleanup people have responded to the incident in addition to Federal, State, and local responders.

There has been no impact to the drinking water. I will repeat that: There has been no impact to the drinking water, and the oil did not enter any lake or waterway. Fourteen vacuum trucks and sixteen storage tanks are on site. The claim's hotline has been established for residents affected by the spill to register claims and for anyone who wants information. As of today about 140 claims have been made. ExxonMobile is paying for the cleanup and they have committed to honor any valid claims. So that is the Arkansas spill that much is being made about by opponents of approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The other one they talked about is in West Columbia, TX, and that is a pipeline owned by Shell Oil. Let's talk about that project for just a minute.

There was approximately 950 barrels of oil spilled, and 50 barrels of that oil entered the waterway. All 50 barrels have been cleaned up. Let me repeat that: All 50 barrels have already been cleaned up. The company is now working to clean up the remaining 900 barrels of oil that is located on land.

This pipeline is an oil-gathering pipeline that gathers oil from the gulf. It is not an oil sands pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline, of course, would be an oil sands pipeline, and that is not what this is. Furthermore, Shell believes the break in this pipeline happened because a contractor was working in this area and perforated the pipe. There was not a default in the pipe or the pipe leaking. They believe the injury to the pipeline was caused by a worker in that area.

Let's consider some basic pipeline safety facts. Pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport oil and gas. Let's compare accidents at pipelines to accidents for trucks, for barges, or for rail. Accidents are 1,000 times more likely to occur with a truck hauling oil versus a pipeline. What was that number? Accidents are 1,000 times more likely to occur when moving oil by truck than by pipeline. An oilspill is 13 times more likely to occur when it is moved by a barge versus a pipeline. Oilspills are five times more likely if it is moved by rail than by pipeline.

Using a pipeline to transfer oil will result in 1,000 fewer spills compared to moving it by truck, 13 times fewer spills than moving it by barge, and five times fewer spills than moving it by rail. Those are the safety statistics on pipelines versus alternative methods of moving oil.

The Arkansas pipeline was built in the 1940s, so actually the incident highlights the need to build new infrastructure using the latest technology. The Keystone XL Pipeline is one of the most advanced and most studied pipeline projects in our country's history. For example, the Keystone XL Pipeline will be monitored through a centralized high-tech center 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Satellite technology will send data every 5 seconds from 21,000 data points to the monitoring center. If a drop in pressure is detected, any section of the pipeline can be isolated remotely thereby closing any of the hundreds of valves on the system within minutes.

After four environmental impact statements and 5 years of review, the State Department has determined that the Keystone XL Pipeline will create no significant impacts to the environment. Again, they have determined it will create no significant impacts to the environment, and that is why several weeks ago 62 Senators supported an amendment that was sponsored by myself, Senator Baucus, and other Senators. Again, 62 Senators went on record approving the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

Furthermore, 66 Senators, two-thirds of the Senators, voted against an amendment that was put forward by Senator Boxer that would have further delayed the project and added more restrictions to the project. Two-thirds of this body went on record opposing more delays and more restrictions; 62 Senators then voted to approve the project. That is why 70 percent of Americans in a recent poll said they want the Keystone XL Pipeline approved.

This project is about more energy and more jobs for this country. This pipeline project is about growing our economy and producing tax revenues to help with our debt and deficit, not by raising taxes but by growing the economy and stimulating more economic activity. This project is about eliminating our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela. That is a national security issue.

It is vital that when we are working on important issues, we deal with the facts, and those are the facts.

I thank the Chair, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask this amendment be opposed. It is an effort to prevent construction of the most studied pipeline in the history of the United States. After four environmental impact statements, every one of the reports has shown no environmental impact. Every State on the route has approved this project. The studies which are asked for in this amendment have been done.

In 2011, the Department of Energy provided a report and said the oil will be used in this country, and we will need more. In addition, this would preclude local eminent domain laws which would prevent the pipeline from being constructed. It also says you can't use any materials manufactured in Canada for a pipeline which is built half in Canada and half in the United States.

I urge a ``nay'' vote.

Mr. President, this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It puts the Senate on record in support of the Keystone Pipeline project, and that is just appropriate. As I said just a minute ago, every State has approved the project. The Department of State has done four environmental impact statements over the last 5 years--four--and has said there are no significant environmental impacts. So it is time the Senate stepped up with the American people.

In a recent poll 70 percent of the American public said: Build the pipeline. Only 17 percent said they opposed it. So it is time for us to enjoin every single State on the route to say we support this project. We support this pipeline. After 5 years, let's build it.

This is energy, this is jobs, this is getting our economy going and growing, and this is making sure we don't have to import oil from the Middle East. It is not just oil from Canada, it is oil from the great State of North Dakota and Montana--light, sweet crude we need to get to our refineries. Please join me in voting yea.

Mr. President, I call up the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.

I am pleased to be here to discuss this very important issue, the matter of our budget, for this great Nation and to follow my distinguished colleague from Nebraska. I have had a tremendous opportunity to work with both of these Senators. Senator Thune and I have been friends for many years and have worked on many issues important to this country and the Dakotas. Likewise, I have had an opportunity to work with Senator Johanns when I was Governor of North Dakota; he was Governor of Nebraska.

I want to pick up on some of his comments, but I am going to start out in a broader sense; that is, we are here today to debate a budget for this country. It is something we need to do. It needs to be a budget that moves the country forward. It needs to be a budget that helps us meet the challenges the American people want us to address. It needs to be a budget that sets the right priorities. It needs to be a budget that will help us truly reduce our debt and our deficit, and that means it needs to balance. It needs to be a budget that balances in a timely way. It needs to balance without raising taxes.

We have millions of people in this country who want a job. They want to get back to work, and raising taxes will absolutely hurt our economic growth and hurt their ability to get a job and to get back to work. At the same time we are talking about reducing our deficit and our debt. That means we have to control our spending and find ways to cut and reduce spending in an intelligent way, but at the same time we need economic growth. We cannot have higher taxes to hurt that economic growth, which kills jobs, but also it is that very economic growth, not higher taxes, that produces the revenue--again, combined with the right kind of controlled spending reductions--that gets our debt and deficit under control. The fact is this budget doesn't meet those very fundamental tests. It raises taxes by $1 trillion--more than $1 trillion. That would be the largest tax increase in the history of our country. That will hurt our economy. That will hurt our ability to get people back to work. That will hurt the economic growth we need to actually create revenue to address the debt and the deficit. So more than $1 trillion in higher taxes that will truly hurt our economy. Yet, even with a $1 trillion tax increase, the budget doesn't balance. Think about that: $1 trillion in tax increases and the budget doesn't balance. Does that make sense? I don't mean it doesn't balance this year; I don't mean it doesn't balance in 10 years; it doesn't balance.

So we can go through all the individual numbers and talk about all the different aspects of this budget in great detail, and we will. But for starters, on a fundamental basis, the Presiding Officer was a former Governor, as was my colleague from Nebraska, and there are others in this Chamber. We were required by the constitution of our respective States to submit budgets that balanced, and balanced every single year. This budget raises taxes by over $1 trillion on the American people, the largest tax increase in the history of our country, and it never balances. That is not setting the right priorities.

The Senator from Nebraska spoke a little bit about how he as a Governor approached presenting a budget, and it is something every Governor has to do. They have to present a budget to their respective legislatures that sets the right priorities.

When I did that budgeting process, the way I approached it was to say, OK, our budget first has to fund the right priorities. We have to set priorities. There is always more demand than there are resources available, so we have to determine what the right priorities are and fund those priorities in the best way we can. We can't fund everything, so we have to set the right priorities.

Second, in our State--and I know in many States--we said as well that we also needed to have a rainy day fund. We needed to be prepared for the future. We shouldn't be running big debt and deficits; we should be having reserves for a rainy day. We should have an adequate reserve fund for the future.

Third, we always looked to determine how we could reduce the tax burden on our hard-working citizens, the taxpayers of our respective States or the taxpayers of this country.

So fund priorities, build proper reserves, be fiscally sound and responsible, just as we do for our homes and businesses. We want to make sure we are in strong financial shape, we are fiscally solid and sound, have a reserve, and reduce the tax burden on our hard-working taxpayers. This budget does none of those fundamental things that go into building the right kind of budget. That is why I can't support this budget and we should not pass this budget.

As we look at our country today, we have to get people back to work. We have to get our economy growing. We have to reduce our deficit and our debt. We need to do it for our well-being today, for the well-being of our country today, and we need to do it for our children. This is about our kids. This is absolutely about our kids. So that means we have to have a budget that reduces our spending, that sets the right priorities, that controls and reduces spending. At the same time, we need progrowth tax reform and not higher taxes that hurt our economy. We need progrowth tax reform that gets our economy going, that gets people back to work. And with a growing economy, we get revenue from growth, not higher taxes. We need to reform our vital programs. We need, in a bipartisan way, to reform our programs such as Social Security and Medicare so we preserve and protect them for the long run. That is what the American people want. That is what the American people are asking us to do.

So as we set this direction with this budget--something that is incredibly important for our country--with all of these different aspects, we have to have the right priorities. This budget does not have the right priorities.

Members have to ask themselves as they vote on this budget: Does this budget set the right priorities? Does it properly control our spending? Will it put our fiscal house in order? Does it increase or reduce the tax burden on our hard-working taxpayers? We should ask ourselves those questions as we deliberate.

I know the American people will be asking those same questions. Those are the priorities that have to be fully evaluated and properly addressed in any budget, and this budget doesn't do that. For that reason I cannot support it, and I believe it should not be passed. I believe we should go back to work and create a budget that truly does those things: controls spending, sets the right priorities, doesn't raise taxes, and that truly does what the American people want and need us to do.

With that, I turn again to my distinguished colleague from South Dakota. I thank him for leading this colloquy, and I look forward to working with him on this very important issue.

Madam President, I rise to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, last week the U.S. State Department issued its new environmental review for the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is the fourth environmental review in nearly 5 years of study. Unsurprisingly, it said the same thing as all the other reports have said.

The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment. Again, the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.

Ironically, the report indicates that there will be more emissions if you do not build the pipeline than if you do build the pipeline. So let's go through that for a minute. The Keystone XL Pipeline project is perhaps the most thoroughly studied and long-delayed project of its kind in U.S. history. The State Department's favorable finding in this, its most recent report, underscores both the good environmental stewardship of this project and the need to begin construction without further delay. But the State Department now indicates it will hold a 45-day comment period and an as-yet-undetermined period of time before it will issue a final environmental impact statement. Then it will conduct an interagency comment period to make its national interest determination.

So while we welcome the finding of no significant impact, for the fourth time now, we have yet another indeterminate delay which runs counter to both public opinion and reasonable due diligence. After four environmental reviews and favorable results, the President needs to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project without delay because there remains no excuse not to do it.

The argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the Keystone XL Pipeline will somehow reduce emissions. But the most recent State Department report makes clear that this contention is false. The report actually indicates just the opposite, that if the pipeline is not built from Alberta, Canada to the United States, the oil will still move to market but it will move to China from Canada's west coast. To get the product to China, the oil will be shipped in tankers across the Pacific Ocean to be refined in overseas facilities with weaker environmental standards and more emissions than facilities in the United States. The United States, moreover, will continue to import oil from the Middle East--again on tankers. Factor in the cost of trucking and railing the product to market over land and the results--contrary to the claims of its opponents--will be more emissions and a less secure distribution system than if in fact we build the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

Let's look at it. This is a commonsense argument. The report indicates less emissions if we build the project. Yet it is being held up by extreme activists on the basis that if we build the pipeline, somehow we get more emissions. That is just not the case.

With the pipeline from up in the Edmonton-Hardisty-Alberta, Canada region, the pipeline brings oil down right

in the North Dakota-Montana area where it picks up 100,000 barrels a day from the Bakken. The oil then goes to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana. We have domestic oil, from our country, oil from our closest friend and ally, Canada, that we are using here in our refineries for our customers: more energy, more jobs, more economic activity so we get economic growth, we get revenue to reduce the debt and the deficit without raising taxes, and it is a national security issue. Instead of having tankers coming from the Middle East bringing heavy crude in some cases which in fact has higher emissions than the Canadian oil, we rely on oil from our country and Canada. We get what Americans want; that is, no longer depending on the Middle East for oil.

If we do not build the pipeline, the oil is still produced. This oil will be produced, but it will not come to the United States. It is going--where? It is going to China. And it is going to be sent on tankers over to China so you have not only the emissions of those tankers but it is going to be refined in Chinese refineries which have worse environmental standards than we do, and we continue to bring in oil from the Middle East. That makes no sense and that is why 70 percent of the American people approve the project. Only 17 percent have indicated opposition.

This is about President Obama making a decision for the American people rather than for special-interest groups. In my home State of North Dakota, as I say, we will put 100,000 barrels a day of light sweet Bakken crude into that pipeline. That takes 500 trucks a day off our roads. That is a safety issue. That is an issue for our roads in western North Dakota.

To recount briefly, this is a $7 billion high-tech pipeline project that will bring 830,000 barrels of oil today from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Oklahoma and the Texas gulf coast, as I said, including 100,000 barrels a day of light sweet crude from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota and Montana.

As the most recent State Department report confirms, it will create tens of thousands of jobs during the construction phase, boost the American economy, raise much needed revenue for State and local governments at a time when they very much need it, and do it without raising taxes. Perhaps most importantly, it will put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal, and that is true energy security.

For the first time in generations, the United States--along with its closest friend and ally Canada--has the capacity to produce more energy than we use, as well as eliminate our reliance on the Middle East and other volatile parts of the world such as Venezuela.

Even after an exhaustive review process, the consent of every State along its route, the backing of a majority of Congress, and the overwhelming support of the American people, the Keystone XL Pipeline project continues to languish at the hands of the President of the United States.

We again ask, as we have before, that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry provide us with an actual timeline and some certainty as to when this long-delayed project will finally get approved.

The Keystone XL project will provide tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to help us reduce our debt and deficit, and it will do it with good environmental stewardship.

With 70 percent of the American people in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline and 12 million Americans still out of work, there is no reasonable excuse to delay this project any longer.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my distinguished colleagues on the matter of the Keystone XL Pipeline for 30 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today with my distinguished colleagues, both Republican and Democratic, on a bipartisan basis to urge approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Joining me today will be Senator Mary Landrieu from the great State of Louisiana, a Democrat; Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas; Republican Senator John Boozman from Arkansas; Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia; Republican Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming; Democratic Senator Mark Begich from Alaska; and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, also from Alaska. I emphasize that to show the bipartisan support for this critically important project.

I also will have a statement from Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who has been leading this effort with me, in his case on the Democratic side of the aisle. He wasn't able to be here, but I do have a statement from Senator Baucus that I will read as well, and I appreciate very much his statement of support.

You may have seen that the national gas price has now risen to an average of $3.62 per gallon. So the average price for gasoline today in the United States--and it continues to go up--is up to $3.62 a gallon. That is the highest it has ever been in the month of February. So that is a new record--not a record we want to make, either, but it is a record, the highest price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States that we have ever had in February.

If you take a look at that trend line, you will see it has been going up dramatically, and that price is double--$3.62 a gallon average across the country--that is double the price of gasoline compared to when this administration first took office. So it is a doubling of the price, and, of course, every consumer, every working American is paying that price at the pump. It affects our small businesses across the country, and it affects our families across the country every day.

There was a poll released yesterday that you may also have seen. The poll was commissioned by API, which is American Petroleum Institute, and was conducted February 5 through February 10 by Harris Interactive. They polled just over 1,000 registered voters, and so the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. In that poll, 69 percent of the respondents support construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--69 percent--and 17 percent oppose it. So Americans overwhelmingly support the project--69 percent to 17 percent--in the most recent poll. And, of course, why wouldn't they.

This is a project which provides energy to our country when we very much need it. It is a project which will provide jobs--tens of thousands of jobs. We have 7.9 percent unemployment. We have 12 million people out of work. Here is a project that won't cost the Federal Government one single penny, but it creates tens of thousands of high- quality private sector jobs.

It is about economic growth. This is a $7.9 billion project. The project over its life will create hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue for State and local governments, as well as the Federal Government to help with our deficit and our debt without raising taxes--more tax revenue without raising taxes.

It is also about our energy security, energy security for America. Instead of bringing oil from the Middle East, this is about working with our closest friend and ally Canada to meet our energy needs. This pipeline will not only bring in Canadian oil, however. It also moves oil from my State of North Dakota and from the State of Montana to our refineries in places such as Texas and Louisiana and other places around the country. So this is about making sure we don't have to import oil from the Middle East, and I think that is something every American wants. That truly is an issue of national security.

It has been 4\1/2\ years since TransCanada--the company that is seeking to build the Keystone XL Pipeline--it has been 4\1/2\ years since they first applied for a permit. Here is a chart that shows the route the pipeline would take, and it shows that they had already built another pipeline. This is actually a second pipeline they are seeking to build. But after 4\1/2\ years, they still don't have approval of a project that is similar to other projects that have been built.

As a matter of fact, we have built quite a few pipelines through the country, and they go everywhere. For some reason this project has been held up for 4\1/2\ years when almost 70 percent of Americans support it. We need the energy, and we need the jobs. Why would that be?

There was a report in the news yesterday that actress Daryl Hannah and about 40 activists handcuffed themselves to the fence of the White House, and they were arrested for that. They were doing that in protest of the Keystone Pipeline project. Maybe that is where we should be today. Instead of our bipartisan group of Senators here in the Senate arguing the merits of this project and advocating for what the American people want, maybe we should be handcuffed to the White House fence because that seems to work.

It has been 4\1/2\ years, and we still don't have a decision. We still don't have approval from the administration on this project even though gas prices have doubled on this President's watch, even though the American people overwhelmingly support the project, even though we need the energy and the jobs. We don't want to keep importing oil from the Middle East, and that is why we are here. We are here on a bipartisan basis to make our case and to get this project approved.

I want to begin by recognizing a distinguished colleague and somebody who has been a real leader in the energy world and has a direct interest on behalf of his constituents in the great State of Texas concerning this project. We need to move oil to the refineries in Texas; we need to move oil--not only Canadian oil but oil from North Dakota, Montana--and we need to get it to refiners so we can get it to our consumers, so instead of seeing the price continue to go up, we can bring it down. I think that is what the American people want.

Perhaps the Senator from Texas can talk about the refining and jobs aspect of this multimillion-dollar project.

Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Texas. Look at the economic growth and dynamism in his State of Texas; look at the economic growth and dynamism in the State of North Dakota. We are now the fastest growing State in the country. Senator Cornyn is correct when he said Texas is the largest producer of oil in the country. I think they produce about 1.1 million barrels of oil a day. We are at 750,000 barrels and growing, so we are after you. The important point is we are producing this product and we have to have the infrastructure to get it to market.

Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I wish to now turn to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. Here is another State that is doing amazing things in oil and gas. They have refineries, and they have refineries that need product. To get that product from North Dakota, Montana, and our ally Canada to Louisiana, we need pipelines. We don't want to ship it in from the Middle East. We want to send them our oil.

I am very pleased Senator Landrieu is here, and I would ask for her comments.

To the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, I recently visited with the ambassador, Ambassador Gary Doer. We talked about this and other issues.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership in energy, onshore and off, in a big way. She is absolutely right.

This is our opportunity to have North American energy security and North American energy independence, working with our closest friend and ally Canada. This is how we do it--Mexico as well. The Senator from Louisiana is also absolutely right: Canada will produce this oil. That is a fact. That is going to happen. The question is, Is it going to come to the United States or is it going to go offshore to China? We see these green lines; they show the pipelines that would take that oil to China rather than the United States. Net effect: We continue then to import oil from the Middle East, and Canadian oil goes to China. It makes no sense--not to mention better environmental stewardship that we would enjoy working with Canada, which we will touch on as well.

I wish to at this point ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, to join the colloquy, and I would also invite Senator Manchin as well. I see Senator Begich is here also. So I invite Senator Boozman to make his comments but then also offer the opportunity for our other distinguished Senators to join in the colloquy.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the Senator from the great State of West Virginia.

Madam President, I wish to respond to the Senator from West Virginia. Right now, between the oil we produce in the United States, both together with Canada and Mexico, we generate about 70 percent of the oil we consume. This project alone would add 6 percent. We are talking about over 800,000 barrels a day this project adds and brings to market. So we go from about 70 percent just for this project phase 1 to about 76 percent. But understand this pipeline project is expandable to 1.4 million barrels a day, so we can see it would take us up even higher.

So we are talking about a significant contribution to our oil supply, again, from North Dakota, Montana, and Canada, versus, as the Senator says, countries such as Venezuela or from the Middle East.

I appreciate the question from the Senator from West Virginia. For starters, it would put 100,000 barrels a day--this is for starters--into the pipeline. So day one is 100,000 barrels.

North Dakota and Montana. It is very important to understand that is just when we start. The pipeline is expandable. Today, North Dakota is the second largest producer of oil in the Nation, second only to Texas. We produce 750,000 barrels a day--and it is growing--and more of our oil is leaving the State by truck and rail than by pipeline. We need these pipelines. This project alone will take 500 trucks a day off our roads, trucks which are beating up our roads and creating safety issues in our State. This is vital infrastructure we need to get this product to refineries in Louisiana, in Texas, in Illinois, and other points around the country.

At this point, I wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana, again, for her participation in this colloquy. I wish to turn to the esteemed Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, another major energy-producing State, and ask him for his thoughts in regard to the regulatory obstacles to energy development. If we are going to be energy secure, energy independent in this Nation, we have to find a way to empower project investment and empower the kind of development we are talking about--not only infrastructure but the new technologies that will help us produce more energy in our country with better environmental stewardship. That is what we seek to do and I know that is exactly what Senator Barrasso is working on in his State. I would like him to address that aspect.

I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator from Wyoming being here and for his leadership on energy. Again, I want to recognize that he comes from an energy-producing State, a State that is producing energy for this Nation and creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs in doing so. I thank him for his leadership on the Energy Committee as well.

I want to turn to and recognize the Senator from Alaska, who is the ranking member on our Energy Committee. As the Senator from Wyoming said, she has recently put out a blueprint for energy development, energy independence, energy security for our Nation. It is comprehensive. It includes all types of energy and, again, developing-- developing--them the right way, with good environmental stewardship and the latest technologies but truly accomplishing something the people of this country very much want; that is, energy security.

So at this point I would turn to the Senator from Alaska and ask for some of her comments on this Keystone Pipeline project in terms of the economic benefits and the need for our Nation to truly have energy security.

I thank the Senator from Alaska again for being here today talking about the importance of moving forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline project and, again, for her leadership on energy issues. She is our ranking member on Energy. I think no matter whom you talk to, she is absolutely inclusive when she talks about energy development, all aspects--the energy development, the environmental stewardship, the jobs, developing all types of energy. She brings tremendous knowledge and experience to energy issues. So I would urge the administration to listen to one of the leading voices in energy in our country, and that is Senator Murkowski, and ask them to approve this project.

The senior Senator from Montana could not be here today but did ask that I express his strong support for the Keystone XL project--Senator Max Baucus from Montana. My friend from Montana has said over and over the same thing all of us know; that is, Keystone is about jobs, and every day we delay the Keystone Pipeline is another day we delay creating American jobs.

So I want to thank not only Senator Baucus but all of the Senators who have joined us here today: Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, Senator Cornyn from Texas, Senator Boozman from Arkansas, Senator Manchin from West Virginia, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, Senator Begich from Alaska, and, as you have just heard, Senator Murkowski from Alaska.

We have made the environmental case. The environmental case is stronger with the pipeline project than without it. Every single State on the route is supporting the project. And I think, as Senator Murkowski so well concluded for us, it is about energy; it is about jobs; it is about tax revenue we need to close the deficit and address the debt without raising taxes; and it is about energy independence and energy security for this country so we do not continue to import oil from the Middle East or from places such as Venezuela but, rather, we get it from our closest friend and ally Canada, as well as from States such as my own State and from Montana, and we refine it in our refineries and provide it to our hard-working citizens across the country. So instead of having record highs in the price of gasoline--we have the highest price ever at this point in February: $3.62 a gallon-- we start moving energy costs down for our consumers, to create a more robust economy, and to ease the pain at the pump for our hard-working Americans.

I just want to close with that there will be another rally of demonstrators around the White House this weekend. I think it is scheduled for Sunday. Now, I do not know if they are going to handcuff themselves to the fence like actress Daryl Hannah did the other day or what they are going to do. But the simple point is this: I just gave the information from a poll that was conducted from February 5 through February 10. One thousand voters were contacted in that poll that was commissioned by API and conducted by Harris Interactive. One thousand voters were contacted, and 69 percent support construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and 17 percent oppose.

So here is a project which on the facts is something that needs to happen. We need approval of this project on the facts, as we have gone through and cited in great detail. But this is a project which the American people support 69 percent to 17 percent. My question for the administration is, Is this decision going to be made on the facts and what the American people want or is this going to be made on the basis of special interest groups that may demonstrate from time to time around the White House? I believe the decision needs to be made for the American people to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

Gas prices are now about $3.50--actually, $3.53--a gallon, which is up over 90 percent since President Obama took office. Economic activity for the fourth quarter of 2012 declined by one-tenth of 1 percent. It was projected to go up by about 1 to 1.2 percent, and actually it declined by one-tenth of 1 percent.

Still, the President refuses to approve a multibillion-dollar project-- the Keystone XL Pipeline--that will provide energy, create jobs, generate tax revenue, and help reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. He is still delaying even though every State on the pipeline route has consented to the project. So every single State on the route has approved the project and will have better environmental stewardship with the project than without it. Let me repeat that. Every State on the route has approved the project and will have better environmental stewardship with the project than without it, and yet the President continues to delay.

Let me elaborate. Recently, a group of 53 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter that I helped organize to President Obama asking him to approve without delay the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The letter was signed by a majority of the Senate within just 1 day--1 day--of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman's approval of a new route through his State of Nebraska. The new path addressed Nebraska's concerns about the route, as well as the President's, by circumventing the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region, effectively removing the last obstacle to approval.

Prior to sending this letter, in November Senator Max Baucus and myself organized a similar letter--that was in November--signed by nine Republican Senators and nine Democratic Senators asking to meet with the President to discuss the many benefits that accrue to our Nation by building the Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, let me read that letter. It is very short.

With the elections of 2012 behind us, we write to remind

you of the continuing importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

We want to work together to keep creating jobs, and Keystone

XL is one vital piece of the puzzle. We would like to meet

with you in the near future to discuss this important

project.

Setting politics aside, nothing has changed about the

thousands of jobs that Keystone XL will create. Nothing has

changed about the energy security to be gained through an

important addition to the existing pipeline network built

with sound environmental stewardship and the best modern

technology. Nothing has changed about the security to be

gained from using more fuel produced at home and by a close

and stable ally. And nothing has changed about the need for

America to remain a place where businesses still build

things.

We hope that you will follow through on your directive of

March 22, 2012, to Federal agencies to move forward vital

energy infrastructure like Keystone XL. The state of Nebraska

is nearing completion of the new pipeline route within

Nebraska. With that process near completion, we look forward

to an affirmative determination of national interest soon.

We sent that letter to the President in November--a bipartisan letter, nine Republican Senators, nine Democratic Senators. To date, we have received no direct response from the White House despite the fact that there is clearly strong bipartisan support for the project.

The only response we received was not from the White House but, rather, from the State Department. Let me read that letter. It is very short too. It is from David S. Adams, Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Basically, it says:

Thank you for your November 16 letter to President Obama

concerning the status of the administration's review of

TransCanada's new application for a Presidential Permit for

the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. We have been asked

to respond on behalf of the President.

The letter then kind of goes: Yes, we recognize it is an important project. We are looking at it. We are doing some more draft supplemental reviews, and we hope this information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

That is the extent of the response.

So it has now been more than 4\1/2\ years since the permit applications were submitted to the State Department for this vital energy project. Yet, even with an exhaustive review process, the consent now of every State along the route, the backing of a majority of Congress, and the support of the American people, the Keystone XL Pipeline project is still languishing at the hands of the President of the United States--after 4\1/2\ years.

Let me expand on the point about all of the States on the route approving the project. After Governor Heineman, on behalf of the State of Nebraska, sent a letter to the President approving the project, which happened just several weeks ago, after I worked with Senator Baucus and others to get 53 Senators in 1 day on a letter saying to the President, let's get this approved, the Governors along the route also sent a letter to the President saying, hey, let's approve the project.

So now you have every single State saying--every single State on the route saying: Hey, fine, let's do the project--every single one.

Here is the letter. It also includes the Honorable Brad Wall, the Premier of Saskatchewan. The pipeline passes through Saskatchewan as well. I am not going to read the whole letter but just a few excerpts.

Dear Mr. President:

As you begin your second term, we are writing to

respectfully urge you to move forward on the Keystone XL

Pipeline project.

The energy relationship between the United States and

Canada is vital to the future of both our countries. It is an

interest we share, transcending political lines and

geographic boundaries.

The letter goes on and talks about how the project is crucial to U.S. energy security, working with Canada for our energy rather than getting it from the Middle East.

The letter talks about ``thousands of jobs'' the project creates not only building this $7 billion pipeline but then all the jobs that go to the refineries and the other activities that go with it. And it talks about safety, efficiency, and reliability.

The letter concludes:

Mr. President, we consider the Keystone XL Pipeline

fundamentally important to the future economic prosperity of

both the United States and Canada.

We strongly urge you to issue a Presidential Permit and act

swiftly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

It is signed by Governors--now, remember, Senator Baucus and I have been working on this on behalf of Montana. You have Nebraska here. Governor Heineman just sent in a letter. Here are some of the other Governors on this letter: Gov. Sam Brownback from Kansas, Gov. Jack Dalrymple from North Dakota, Gov. Dennis Daugaard from South Dakota, Gov. Mary Fallin from Oklahoma, Gov. Rick Perry from Texas, in addition to other Governors who are not on the route, such as Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho, Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona--Republicans and Democrats.

But the point is that on the whole route, all the Governors have written and said: Hey, let's do this. Let's do it.

So what is going on here? Why does the President continue to delay the project?

The long wait for approval is dismaying enough, but it represents a larger issue for our Nation and begs a bigger question for policyholders: How will America ever build an ``all of the above'' energy policy if the President takes nearly 5 years to approve one piece of an inclusive plan, particularly, as I say, after everybody on the route has said: Hey, can we do this after 5 years, please. Can we move forward, Mr. President?

To account briefly, this $7 billion, 1,700-mile, high-tech pipeline will carry oil not only from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Oklahoma and the Texas gulf coast, but it will also carry growing quantities of U.S. sweet crude from the Bakken oilfields in North Dakota and Montana. Even by modest estimates, it will create tens of thousands of jobs, boost the American economy, and raise much needed revenues for State and Federal governments. We have a deficit. Here is a project to get substantial tax revenue without raising taxes, through economic activity, through job creation.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal: true energy security. For the first time in generations, the United States, with its friend and ally Canada, will have the capacity to produce more energy than we use, reducing or eliminating our reliance on the Middle East and other volatile parts of the world.

The argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the Keystone XL will somehow reduce emissions. But let's look at that claim. That is the other piece. Let's look at the environmental aspects of this project.

Today, more than 80 percent of all new recovery in the oil sands is being accomplished ``in situ,'' a technology

that makes the oil sands' carbon footprint comparable to conventional drilling. In fact, the oil sands industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil produced by an average of 26 percent since 1990, with some facilities achieving reductions as high as 50 percent. Today, heavy crude oil from the Middle East and even from California produces more carbon emissions over its life cycle than the Canadian oil sands. Let me repeat that. Today, heavy crude that we import from the Middle East and even some of the California heavy crude produce more carbon emissions over their life cycle than Canadian oil sands.

We also need to factor in that if the pipeline is not built from Alberta to the United States, a similar pipeline will be built to Canada's Pacific coast. That is what I show right here on this chart. From there, the oil will be shipped across the Pacific Ocean, a much larger, sensitive ecosystem than the Sandhills--which we are not even going through now--to be refined at facilities in China with weaker environmental standards and more emissions than facilities in the United States. The United States, moreover, will continue to import oil from the Middle East, again, on tankers. Factor in the cost of trucking and railing the product to market overland, and the result, contrary to the claims of opponents, will be more emissions and a less secure distribution system without the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

Think about it. So we say: OK, we are not going to have this pipeline, even though we have built other pipelines already. We are not going to get oil from Canada. What happens? That oil goes to China, with higher emissions. You are going to take it across the ocean, which is a greater risk than putting it in a pipeline. You are going to have it refined in refineries in China, which have much worse emissions standards than our own. And guess what we get to do. Let's see, we do not get the jobs. We do not get the tax revenues. Do you know what we do get to do? We get to continue to import our oil from the Middle East. How does that sound? Is that a good idea with what is going on in Iran and with what is going on in Egypt and with what is going on in Syria--the risk that the Strait of Hormuz could be blockaded or that you could have further conflict over there that could cut off oil supplies? Is that what the American people want? They want to continue to get oil from the Middle East rather than our closest friend and ally, Canada? The American people would rather that oil go to China? Of course not. And that is what we are talking about with this project.

Well, that raises another important point. The administration's own State Department completed its 3-year National Environmental Protection Act--NEPA--review of the Keystone XL project back in 2011 and determined that ``there would be no significant impacts'' on the environment. That is what the administration determined in their own NEPA process.

And that raises another point. The White House says: Well, we do not want to get ahead of the process. But the President effectively abandoned the process more than a year ago when he halted the project by Executive action. Had he not, the State Department, in keeping with the usual process, would have issued a decision on the permit--after 4 years--by December 2011, according to a letter Secretary Clinton sent to me in August 2011.

I have worked toward approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline--first as the Governor of North Dakota and now as a Senator--because I believe it is just the kind of project that will grow our economy and create the jobs our country so desperately needs, and it will do so with good environmental stewardship. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on the Middle East for oil, which is what the American people have desired for decades. The Keystone XL Pipeline project is long overdue. For the benefit of our economy, our environment, and our long-term energy security, President Obama needs to approve it now, without further delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for several minutes on another topic in regard to a recipient of the Medal of Honor from my State of North Dakota.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's true heroes--Army SSG Clinton Romesha.

On Monday the President will present Sergeant Romesha with our country's highest military award--the Medal of Honor--for ``acts of gallantry . . . above and beyond the call of duty.''

Clint comes from a long line of military heroes. His father is a veteran of the Vietnam war. His grandfather fought in the U.S. Army during World War II. Romesha often cites his grandfather as his greatest hero, so it was not surprising that Clint followed his example and joined the Army in 1999.

Staff Sergeant Romesha showed courage every day that he donned his Army uniform but especially on October 3, 2009, one of the deadliest days of the war in Afghanistan. On that day hundreds of Taliban fighters ambushed American Combat Outpost Keating from all sides with grenades, machine guns, mortars, and rifles. Heavily outnumbered, Clint Romesha and his fellow soldiers quickly fought back in what would turn out to be a deadly daylong battle.

Sergeant Romesha fought valiantly. He darted into danger to draw out the enemy many times. He himself took out a machine gun team. Staff Sergeant Romesha was working to take out a second when he was wounded by shrapnel from an exploding grenade.

His Medal of Honor citation reads:

Undeterred by his injuries, Staff Sergeant Romesha

continued to fight and upon the arrival of another soldier to

aid him and the assistant gunner, he again rushed through the

exposed avenue to assemble additional soldiers.

With complete disregard for his own safety, he continually

exposed himself to heavy enemy fire as he moved confidently

about the battlefield engaging and destroying multiple enemy

targets.

Staff Sergeant Romesha exemplified the valor that President Theodore Roosevelt--also a Medal of Honor recipient--spoke of when he said: ``Courage is not having the strength to go on; it is going on when you don't have the strength.''

Despite his wounds, Sergeant Romesha never stopped fighting. He stayed in the battle--leading his team, directing air support, protecting wounded soldiers, and helping to recover the bodies of his fallen friends.

The battle lasted for 12 hours. Eight soldiers lost their lives, and 22 were wounded--a fact that Romesha humbly reminds us of whenever his bravery is touted.

In fact, Sergeant Romesha said:

What I got injured with was nothing. I have buddies who

lost their eyesight, who lost limbs. For that, I would rather

give them all the credit they deserve for the sacrifices they

made. For me, it was nothing.

To Sergeant Romesha, it was just doing his job. To the rest of us, he is a true example of courage and selfless sacrifice. He went above and beyond the call of duty, repeatedly risking his life to defend his post and, more importantly, to help his fellow soldiers. We are grateful for his service and for his example to us all.

Today, Clint resides in Minot, ND, where he and his wife Tamara are raising their three children. I am certain he is every much the hero and inspiration to them that his own grandfather was to him.

My wife Mikey and I join our fellow North Dakotans and Americans in honoring Sergeant Romesha for his heroic and selfless service. We thank him for his exemplary actions on that dangerous day in Afghanistan and every day he served our great country.

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

Mr. President, please let the record show that I was in Minot, ND, on January 29, 2013, to speak at the funeral and honor the life of Chester Reiten when the confirmation vote on Senator John Kerry to be Secretary of State was held. Chester Reiten was a dedicated public servant who devoted a considerable amount of his time and energy to serving his community and State. His efforts included lengthy tenures as a State senator and mayor of Minot.

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