Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon.

This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country.

What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future.

We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that.

This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources.

Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years.

The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act.

The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume.

Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well.

Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage.

Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship.

We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology

to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada.

What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production.

The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship.

We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place.

That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price.

It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump.

Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right?

But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point.

What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers.

This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business.

This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it.

This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well.

The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard.

Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon.

This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country.

What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future.

We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that.

This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources.

Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years.

The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act.

The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume.

Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well.

Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage.

Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship.

We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology

to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada.

What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production.

The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship.

We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place.

That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price.

It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump.

Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right?

But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point.

What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers.

This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business.

This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it.

This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well.

The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard.

Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.

I do.

Mr. President, I request an opportunity to speak for up to 10 minutes on the pending energy legislation.

Mr. President, I am here to offer a substitute amendment to the Menendez act, which is currently under consideration on the Senate floor. That is S. 2204. The substitute amendment I would like to offer is legislation I have authored along with Senator Lugar and also Senator Vitter. It is legislation that would approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and authorize that that construction proceed. That authority is provided to Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. With gas prices now close to $4--and going higher-- Congress needs to act.

President Obama has turned down the pipeline. He continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, and it is time for Congress to act on behalf of the American consumer. Every single American, every hard-working American, is feeling this pain at the pump.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would help us produce more energy supply for our country to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. It will help us create more jobs in this country. Close to 13 million Americans are now unemployed. It would help put more of those Americans back to work. Of course, it would help reduce our reliance on oil from the Middle East.

The first chart I have in the Chamber shows what is happening with gasoline prices in the United States. This is over the last 3-year period. This shows the price of gasoline was about $1.87 a gallon when President Obama took office 3 years ago. Today, the national average, I believe stated by AAA, is on the order of $3.91. So the price of gasoline during the Obama administration's tenure has more than doubled. It has more than doubled.

I think there is something like 8 or 9 States now where the average price of a gallon of gasoline is over $4. In places such as Chicago-- the President's hometown--I believe the average price is on the order of $4.68. If we go right down to the corner here, right near the Capitol, I filled my car the other day. It cost me more than $100 to fill the tank, and I think the price was $4.39 a gallon.

So what is the solution offered in the Menendez legislation? What is the solution proposed by the Obama administration? What is the solution proposed in this bill we are considering right now on the Senate floor?

What that bill would do is raise taxes on energy companies. It would raise taxes on energy companies. Let's think about this. We are going to raise taxes on these energy companies, so we are going to increase their costs. When we add taxes, that means it not only raises their costs, which will create even higher costs at the pump for American consumers, but it also tends to restrict supply. If we want less of something, and if we want it to cost more, what do we do? We tax it. So this legislation does exactly the opposite of what will help the American consumers with the price of gasoline at the pump.

Instead, we need to increase supply. By providing more supply, we help create downward pressure on gasoline prices. That helps our hard- working Americans not only today but tomorrow as well. Let's talk about that.

Why are gas prices high? It is supply and demand. This is economics. This is about supply and demand. If we increase supply, we put downward pressure on prices. If we increase demand, we put upward pressure on prices. Global demand for oil is growing. We know that. Global demand is growing. So we need to increase the supply; otherwise, that growing demand continues to push gasoline prices higher.

As shown on this chart, here is the amount of crude oil we produce in the United States, along with our good friends in Canada today. That is shown in the first bar on this chart. We can see, it is just below 10 million barrels a day. That is where we are now. With the current policies the administration has in place, we will actually produce less supply in the future--less supply in the future.

Think about that. If gasoline prices are a function of supply and demand, it is not only the supply and demand of today, it is what people anticipate the supply and demand will be in the future. If we have growing global demand--which we know we have--and we have an administration that is constricting supply, then not only do we have an issue in terms of present supply and demand, but we have people going: Look, there is going to be less supply. We know there is going to be growing demand. That puts upward pressure on prices.

So the actions of the administration have a direct impact, a direct correlation with the price of gasoline at the pump. As I showed on the previous chart, under this administration, gas prices have more than doubled. So what we need to do is, we need to produce ``all of the above.'' We need to produce ``all of the above.''

Note that I said ``produce'' it. I do not mean talk about it. I do not mean block it when it comes to building needed infrastructure such as the Keystone XL Pipeline or preventing us from drilling offshore or preventing us from drilling onshore or having the redtape that prevents us from getting permits and the regulatory burden that prevents us from producing more energy. I mean actually doing it--not blocking it, doing it.

This third bar on the chart shows that if we just worked to produce more oil and gas in the United States and Canada, we can produce more than we consume within 15 years. That is just oil and gas. That is not even ``all of the above.'' That does not count producing all the natural gas we have in this country and in Canada or biofuels or other sources. That is just oil and gas if we start working to produce it rather than have the administration continue to block it.

Of course, that is what I am talking about with the Keystone XL Pipeline. The President has studied the Keystone Pipeline, the administration has studied it, the State Department has studied it, the EPA has studied it for 3\1/2\ years. Now the Department of Energy has come out and said--they did a study in June of last year--in their study, they said: We need the crude in the United States. We will use the crude in the United States, and it will lower gas prices on the east coast, on the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. That is Secretary Chu, the Secretary of Energy--his Department of Energy produced the report, and that is what it said.

After 3\1/2\ years, the President says: That is not long enough. We need more time. The administration needs more time to make a decision. After his own State Department said they would have a decision done before the end of the year--before the end of the year--the President says: No, we need more time, maybe sometime after the election--maybe. We need more time to make the decision.

So Congress said: OK. We will help out. You have expressed concern about the routing of the pipeline through Nebraska. We will pass legislation to kind of give you support and encouragement that says they can go ahead and build the pipeline, and we will give them whatever time they need to reroute Nebraska so there is no issue because that is what you have identified as the problem.

We passed that legislation as part of the payroll tax cut extension. The President denied it, turned it down, blocked it, and he continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline today.

A couple weeks ago, bipartisan legislation--the very same legislation I am offering in this substitute amendment--was brought to the Senate floor. Bipartisan legislation. We had 11 Democrats who voted with us. Fifty-six

votes, well over a majority--56 votes. The reason we did not get 60 votes on the legislation is because that day the President was calling Members of this body, this Senate body, to get them to vote no. So we got 56 votes instead of the 60 we needed.

The very next week--after calling Members of the Senate to get them to vote down this legislation that would authorize moving forward so we could actually bring oil in from Canada, bring more oil from my home State of North Dakota to refineries to help out Americans at the pump-- the very next week, after blocking the pipeline, after calling Members of the Senate to get them to vote against it, the President goes to Cushing, OK, and takes credit for this small portion, the southern leg of the pipeline project, saying that somehow he is expediting it.

Interestingly enough, that is the only portion of the pipeline that does not require his approval. But after blocking it, he goes down and takes credit for somehow expediting the portion that was going to be built anyway, while he continues to block the two-thirds that actually brings us more oil.

So go back to what I said just a minute ago. We need more supply. If the policy of this country is to say all of the above, but then go about blocking our ability to produce more supply, guess what happens. Prices go up. Because what counts are the actions.

So the market takes that into account and says: Look, if supply is going to be constrained, then we anticipate higher prices in the future with growing global demand. That is what we see: prices rising at the pump.

Look, we can have energy security in this country. We need to increase our oil production in this country and work with our neighbor to the north, Canada, rather than have them send their oil to China, which is what will happen if we cannot build these pipelines. We need to increase our use of natural gas. We need to do ``all of the above,'' increase renewable fuels, with a market-based approach--a market-based approach--and we need to use technology to drive energy production in this country, and working with Canada, with better environmental stewardship.

What I mean by that, in Canada, oil is produced in the oil sands with in situ, which is the new technique. It is similar to drilling, rather than the old methods--more energy, better environmental stewardship.

Look, we can create a more secure energy future for our country, we can create jobs in America, and we can reduce the price of gasoline at the pump for hard-working Americans. But we need to take commonsense steps, and we need to take them now to produce more oil and gas, to produce more energy of all kinds in this country. We are asking for the President to work with us to do just that.

Mr. President, at this point, I have a parliamentary inquiry: When the Senate resumes consideration of the pending energy tax bill, would it be in order for me to offer my amendment, a substitute amendment, which would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline to help Americans at the pump with the price of gasoline?

So no amendments will be allowed?

Mr. President, I think that is unfortunate. It is time, it is well past time, to take action on behalf of the American people.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Johanns. It is good to be with him. Also, to Senator Lamar Alexander from the great State of Tennessee, it is great to be with him as well. We share, I guess, the common experience of serving as Governors and certainly bring that perspective to our work in the Senate.

As Senator Alexander just said, there is no question ObamaCare is making the health care challenge in the United States worse, is making it worse. We have to find a way to empower our people. In our roles as Governors, before serving in the Senate, that is what we tried to do. When it came to Medicaid, when it came to health care, it was how do we empower our people, whether it is health care or anything else, in a way that not only makes their lives better but that makes sure we are fulfilling our responsibility as good stewards of the State's treasury on behalf of the citizens of our respective States.

Last week was the second anniversary of the Obama health care legislation--the second anniversary. The fact is, since that law was passed--and just 1 minute ago, Senator Alexander expressed some of the things he talked about when that debate was had in the Congress. But since that law was passed, over the past 2 years, Americans have become more unhappy with the legislation. The Obama health care legislation has actually become more unpopular over the last few years as time has gone by because, quite simply, Americans do not want government-run health care. Americans do not want government-run health care. That is what ObamaCare is.

Americans want to be free to choose their own health care provider, their own doctors, their own hospitals. They also want to be able to be free to choose their own health care insurance. Frankly, they are going to do a lot better job than having the Federal Government do it for them. That is just a fact. Of course, that is very much at issue now with the Supreme Court deliberations, the judicial review they are undertaking now on the constitutionality of the individual mandates in the Obama health care legislation.

Of course, the question is, Is that individual mandate constitutional? If it is, if they find that individual mandate is constitutional, then is there any limit to the government's ability to intrude into the lives of our citizens? This is a huge question. If so, what happened to the concept of limited government, which was so carefully developed by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution?

It seems to me that concept of limited government is gone. That is an incredible problem for all of us that extends far beyond health care. As former Governors, we understand the need to limit government, whether it is the local level--and the Senator was a mayor. Senator Johanns was a mayor in Lincoln, NE, before he was the Governor of Nebraska, now a Senator from Nebraska, and he understands that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a mayor, of a Governor, of a Senator is to make sure we honor the Constitution and we limit the power of government, at the local, the State, and the Federal level, to intrude into the lives of our citizens. That is exactly what our Founding Fathers were striving to do in the Constitution, the whole concept of checks and balances.

We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch and an executive branch because that creates checks and balances on the respective powers of each branch. Why? To protect our citizens, to limit the reach of government. We have a bicameral Congress, the House and the Senate, to make it harder to pass laws, not easier--to make it harder to pass laws. Again, it is to protect the people of this country.

We have the 10th amendment that reserves powers to the State not expressly provided to the Federal Government; again, to limit the power of government and protect the people of this great country. Of course, that is what we have in our Bill of Rights. That is what it is all about.

So we have ObamaCare; it raises taxes by $\1/2\ trillion. It raises taxes $500 billion. It cuts Medicare $\1/2\ trillion, $500 billion. Yet, at the same time, it places huge costs, a huge burden on the States. The CBO now estimates that over the next 10 years it will cost the States $118 billion. That is $118 billion in costs to the States who are trying to balance their budgets. They are already facing challenges in doing that, and we will put that kind of huge cost on them.

At the same time, think of what it does to our small businesses. Again, as a Governor, I know how it was in my State. I think it was true when the Senator from Nebraska was Governor and when Senator Alexander was Governor of Tennessee. We understood that job creation was job one. We had to make sure businesses were able to work effectively, to compete, and to employ people. That is the engine that drives our economy, the small businesses.

When we look at ObamaCare, we look at what it does to the States--the $118 billion over 10 years--and look at the costs it creates for small businesses and look at the confusion it creates in trying to comply with all of this. What do small businesses do? The Senator from Nebraska talked a minute ago about, OK, what does the small business do?

Well, either, A, they try to comply, and that drives up their costs or, B, they cancel their insurance and default to the government-run insurance. But it not only creates a problem for them in determining whether they are going to continue health care for their employees--and our citizens have shown they want the employer to continue doing that, and it goes to whether they hire more people.

Here we are with 8.3 percent unemployment, 13 million people looking for work, and we are going to make it harder for small businesses to put them to work because they don't know if they can comply with ObamaCare, let alone withstand the cost. That affects every single American.

We need to change the approach. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about an approach where we can empower people to choose their own health insurance and provider, an approach that encourages competition, which will help bring costs down, giving our consumers more choice. We are here to talk about how we work with States and small businesses to reduce costs, reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

The President of AARP, Barry Rand, estimates that $100 billion is lost annually in waste, fraud, and abuse under Medicaid. Think what our States could do on behalf of their citizens in all 50 States if we in the Congress, working with an administration that will work with us, would empower the States to go after that waste, fraud, and abuse by giving their citizens more say over their health care and by encouraging competition among insurance companies to provide more choice, access, and to go after that waste, fraud, and abuse.

There are so many things we can do, but it is not through a big, monolithic, government-run insurance program that puts costs on the States and costs on its citizens. That is what we need to change. We need to change it now.

Again, I thank Senator Alexander for being here and for his work to empower our people when it comes to health care. Also, I particularly thank Senator Johanns for calling us together to discuss this very important issue on behalf of the people of America.

Madam President, I am waiting for my associate who has some charts, but I certainly can proceed at this point. I am here to speak in regard to my amendment No. 1537, which is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

This is an amendment that would provide for approval of the Keystone Pipeline project. Congress has, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, express authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries. That provides the very clear constitutional authority for Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline project. That is something we absolutely need to do.

Today there will be a very clear choice. There will be a very clear choice for the Members of the Senate. Make no mistake, I do not want to leave any doubt. This is a clear choice. My amendment provides that the Keystone Pipeline project will move forward, authorized by Congress. It is very clear that all the protections, all the environmental protections are incorporated, as has been provided over 3\1/2\ years-- 3\1/2\ years this project has been under review by the EPA, by the Department of State, by this administration. They have gone through not one but two environmental impact statement processes.

They have met all the environmental requirements. Our legislation incorporates all that and in addition provides whatever time is necessary for rerouting the pipeline through the State of Nebraska. Here is a schematic of the project. The one issue in terms of the

routing was through the State of Nebraska. This legislation provides whatever time is necessary for the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to work with State, to work with EPA, and reroute the pipeline through the State of Nebraska.

So my point is, we incorporate all necessary environmental safeguards into the project. But it authorizes that the project, after 3\1/2\ years, can go forward. So I would like to talk for just a minute about why that is so important. Because there is another amendment, an alternative that has been presented by Senator Wyden. That amendment-- let me be clear. That amendment will block this project. That amendment will block this project. Let there be no confusion.

The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment will advance the project. The amendment that is being put forward by my esteemed colleague Senator Wyden as a Democratic alternative, that will block the project. This is a clear choice. Nobody should be confused.

Gas prices. This chart is a few days old. So it is a little bit behind the curve. But since this administration took office, gas prices have gone from $1.85 a gallon--more than doubled--to $3.70 a gallon. This is a little bit old, so the national average is actually higher. The last time I checked it was $3.76 a gallon, going up. So it is probably higher than that today. That is from AAA.

The projections are that gasoline prices will be $4 a gallon by Memorial Day and possibly more than $5 a gallon later this summer. That means every American is paying that at the pump. They are paying that at the pump. That is affecting our American consumers. That is affecting our businesses. That is affecting our economy.

What is the administration doing about it? What is Congress doing about it? The Obama administration has said, when it comes to energy, we are going to have an all-of-the-above strategy. I agree with that. We should have an all-of-the-above strategy. But the point is, we cannot just say it. We have to do it. We cannot just say it. We have to do it. The administration, at this point, not only are they just saying it and not doing it, they are, in fact, blocking it. I am giving you as clear an example as I can think of. I do not know how it could be any clearer that they are blocking energy development in our country.

This pipeline project would bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our country. That is more than 700,000 barrels a day from Canada. That is more than 100,000 barrels a day from my home State of North Dakota and our sister State Montana--830,000 barrels a day of product coming to our refineries.

The administration has said no to this project. They continue to say no to the project. They have approved this portion of it. That does not bring one single drop of product to our country. So I do not know. They are kind of confused about exactly what they are doing, but they continue to block this project. So that means 830,000 barrels a day that we have to get from the Middle East. Everybody knows what is going on in the Middle East. They have incredible turmoil. They have incredible tension in the Middle East. Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz; they have threatened to do that. As a result, crude oil prices continue to go up and consumers continue to pay more at the pump.

So in the face of all that, in the face of real hardship to working Americans, the administration is saying no to this project. They are saying no to my home State of North Dakota. They are saying no to Montana. They are saying, no, we are not going to allow them to build this project that gets that product to market and no to Canada, saying we are not going to allow them to bring that oil into the United States, instead they are going to have to send it to China and we are going to get oil from the Middle East and our consumers are going to continue to pay higher prices.

Again, make no mistake. This choice today is a choice. It is a choice whether we vote for an amendment to move forward with this project or whether we vote for an amendment to block the project. Again, there should be no confusion about that.

Why would the administration hold up this project? Why in the world, with gas prices we know going to $4, maybe $5 a gallon, why in the world would anyone oppose the project? The opponents have put forward three arguments. So let's go through them. Let's go through them and see if they hold water. Let's see if they pass muster. Let's see if they make sense.

The first argument is that somehow this pipeline is going to leak.

Now here is the route. Somehow we will build this pipeline that is going to leak. But we built a sister project that is working just fine. There have been no underground leaks in that project. While building it, there were minimal leaks as they put it together, and that was in the normal course of construction. But there have been no other ground leaks from this sister pipeline. It is working fine. So why would this one be a big concern about leaking? It doesn't make much sense.

If you don't buy that, just look at this chart and the network of pipelines in this country that carries oil and gas. There are thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of pipeline right now operating in this country right through the very region through which the Keystone XL Pipeline would pass. But somehow this one is a problem and these thousands are not? That is a reason to say no, after 3\1/2\ years? Come on. That doesn't pass anybody's test, and it doesn't make any sense.

The second argument that has been put forward is that the crude oil will come from Canada, and it will be then exported to China; we won't use it in the United States; and it won't help with gas prices. For starters, let's use some common sense on that one. I am pretty sure if we don't build the pipeline, it is for sure going to China. That is just flat-out common sense, for starters.

Even beyond that, the Department of Energy for this administration did a study in June of last year. In that study, they said the oil will be used in this country, and it will--not ``may'' but ``will''--lower gas prices on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. I had Secretary Chu in front of me at one of our hearings, and he acknowledged that, in fact, that is what the Department of Energy of this administration provided--that the product will be used here, that we are going to need more crude, and it will lower gas prices. Of course, that just stands to reason, doesn't it? If we are importing 30 percent of our oil from the Middle East today, obviously, we are going to continue to need crude from outside our borders.

Let's go to the third argument I have heard against the pipeline project, which is that Canada should not produce oil in the Canadian oil sands. The reason: Greenhouse gas emissions are 6 percent higher than conventional, and that the excavating process has a negative impact on the boreal forest.

Let's deal with the real situation, the current situation. The current situation is that 80 percent of the development in the Canadian oil sands is in situ--80 percent. What does that mean? That means drilling--not excavating but drilling--like we do in the United States. So you have about the same footprint in gas emissions as conventional drilling. Those arguments don't hold muster.

Here we are faced with a very clear choice. Do we go ahead and get oil from our closest friends and trading partner, Canada, or say no to them and have them send it to China? Do we reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and reduce the price of gas for hard-working American consumers? How about national security? Would you rather rely on oil from the Middle East or from Canada? Would you rather have oil produced here, in North Dakota, Montana, and in Canada, or would you rather get it from the Middle East?

I know how Americans will answer that question. I am looking forward to seeing how the Senate answers that question and how the administration answers that question.

Again, this is a clear choice. These amendments are clear. They are not similar. One is for the project; the other is against the project. The amendment that my esteemed colleague has put forward, the Democrat alternative, will block the project. It says after 3\1/2\ years of study, start over. After 3\1/2\ years of studying this project, start over.

What does that mean? Another 3\1/2\ years before we build it or another 5

years? How long do we have to study vital infrastructure projects before we can build them?

Do you think that might be one of the problems with our economy? Do you think that might be one of the problems with energy development? That is where it starts, by saying: TransCanada, start over, after 3\1/ 2\ years.

Then it adds additional impediments. What are they? Well, it says, for starters, none of the crude and none of the refined product can be exported from this country--not one drop. We cannot export any of it. The reality is there are refined products that we don't even use in this country. You can't. They are some of the coking products, and so on and so forth. There isn't demand or we cannot use them. If the refineries cannot sell them, they have to recoup that revenue stream. How? When they sell gasoline and diesel in our country. That pushes gasoline prices higher when they are already going higher by the day. Does that make sense to anybody? I don't think so.

Another impediment in the legislation is that not one penny of the inputs can come from outside the United States, even though 75 percent of the steel and 90 percent of all of the other materials in this multibillion-dollar project, paid for by private enterprise--75 percent of the steel and 90 percent of the other inputs come from North America. But that is not good enough. We are going to say every single penny of the inputs has to be bought in the United States. Of course, the companies cannot do that because they have already bought a lot of the steel and other materials. It is just a way to block the project.

Think about that absurd level of protectionism. Are we really going to grow our economy, create a lot of good jobs with that kind of protectionism? We cannot import anything and we cannot export anything, we are going to grow and expand and diversify this American economy and put people to work, and we are going to raise income with that approach? I don't think so.

Again, I go back to where I started. We have a clear choice to make, a very clear choice. We can stand with the people of America, stand with the workers, with the families, with the small business, and we can work to grow our economy and create jobs, and we can work to strengthen our national security or we can choose to say: No, we are going to continue to rely on oil from the Middle East. We are not going to increase supply, and we are not only going to turn down Canada, we are going to turn down our States such as North Dakota and Montana and say we would rather get that oil from the Middle East.

Today we have a clear choice about building a better energy future for our country, more jobs, and more security. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment I have put forward, to move the Keystone Pipeline project authority forward so they can advance the project, and vote against the amendment offered as a Democratic alternative, which will block the project.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Keystone XL Pipeline will bring more than 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Canada and also from States like mine, such as North Dakota and Montana. We need that crude oil rather than relying on the Middle East.

This is a vote to block the project. Make no mistake, this not only requires the TransCanada start-over, it says start over after 3\1/2\ years. What does that mean, another 3\1/2\ years before they can go forward? And it adds additional impediments to the project. With gasoline prices going up every day, we need more supply, we need it from Canada, we need it from North Dakota and Montana, not from the Middle East.

Please vote no on this amendment and yes on the next one, which will allow us to move forward for American workers, American consumers, for our businesses, for our economy, and for national security.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment which would authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline project to move forward. It provides an authorization after more than 3\1/2\ years of study. It incorporates all of the safeguards that have been developed through the environmental impact statement process with both EPA and the Department of State, and it allows whatever time may be necessary for rerouting in Nebraska. So it addresses the concerns that have been raised as far as the environmental impact statement but authorizes the project to proceed.

This project will bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude to our refineries, as I mentioned earlier, not only from Canada but from my home State of North Dakota, as well as from Montana. This is about not only producing more energy both at home and with our closest friend and ally, Canada, but it is also about national security. It is about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

I urge my colleagues' strong support for this amendment on behalf of American workers and consumers.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I wish to thank the esteemed Senator from Arizona for allowing me to join him on the floor today to talk about this very important issue that has had a favorable outcome. Even more importantly, I want to express my great appreciation and gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator Graham for organizing the opportunity for us to go over to Egypt, and to not only meet with our NGO workers at the U.S. Embassy, but to engage in conversations and meetings with military and government leaders on this very important issue.

It is not just these seven Americans we are very concerned about, and their safety--which obviously is paramount. But as Senator Graham indicated, this situation clearly had ramifications for the relationship on a longer term basis between Egypt and the United States, and Egypt and Israel, particularly in regard to the peace treaty.

So taking this initiative to sit down with Field Marshal Tantawi, who is the leader of the military council, but also the leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party--which is the majority party now in the Parliament. Of course, that is the Muslim Brotherhood. We sat down with the Muslim Brotherhood as well. I think those meetings were extremely important in helping to foster an understanding that broke the logjam.

I too want to commend the work of our Ambassador, Ambassador Anne Patterson. She did an outstanding job. I want to thank Secretary Clinton and the people at the State Department for their diligent efforts. But I must say, having the opportunity to be part of a delegation led by Senator McCain and Senator Graham gave us the opportunity to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave us the opportunity to talk to the leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party. And the next day they put out a statement, which I agree was very important in helping move things forward, because what they said in that statement involved two things, two things that I do think helped break the logjam; first, that they support nongovernment organizations. They support nongovernment organizations. They recognize that these NGOs do important work, and they want to address the laws in Egypt to make sure they have good laws that will enable the NGOs to continue.

The second thing they said, which I thought was particularly important, is they also expressed their concern about NGO workers, and that those NGO workers be treated fairly.

As Senator McCain said, I hail from the State of North Dakota, and he knows I am going to say this. I can see the smile sneaking up on his face already. One of the NGO workers, one of the Americans detained under the travel ban whom I had the opportunity to visit with at the Embassy is a woman named Staci Haag. She has been over

there working. Needless to say, I was worried about all of our Americans. I was really worried about Staci, and making sure that she and her fellow workers--and of course, Secretary LaHood's son, Sam LaHood, but all of them, that they were able to get home safely.

Again, I think it was important in terms of fostering an understanding that I hope now will continue as we work to build relations with Egypt and their new government.

I will, to the Senator from South Carolina.

I echo the sentiments of the good Senator from South Carolina. What I would like to add is I think that is exactly the right question to pose. The Senator from Connecticut says: Where do we go from here? I think that is right-on. There is no question in my mind but that the relationships Senator McCain and Senator Graham have built overseas made a difference for the United States and our foreign policy. This is a clear example of it.

When we sat down with Field Marshal Tantawi, when we met with other government leaders, even when we met with the Muslim Brotherhood, because of the fact that there was a relationship there, that they knew these individuals, there was some level of trust there that enabled us to engage in very important communications that produced a message that I think was integral to the resolution of this situation, which could have been a very bad one.

These relationships matter when we talk about working with other countries, particularly in that part of the world. There are so many differences between our countries and how we operate that having some relationships where people can sit down, have these discussions, and talk about how we work together and foster some future agreement and some mutual understanding is vitally important.

At the meeting with the Freedom and Justice Party parliamentary members, we invited them to come visit us. I think that would be very helpful and very important, not only so these new leaders and their parliament have a better sense of the United States and how we work and the kinds of relationships we can foster in both business and government but also so the Members of this Senate, of this Congress, and our people here get a better sense of them as well. I believe that is very important as we track forward with this new, young government that is now embarking on writing a constitution and governing in a vitally important country in the Middle East.

At this point, I would like to turn things back to the good Senator from Arizona, with my sincere gratitude.

Madam President, I request 10 minutes to speak in regard to a resolution.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution, and also, in addition to requesting 10 minutes, I request that my cosponsor on the resolution, Senator Blumenthal, be allowed to engage with me in this discussion.

We have submitted a resolution calling for free and fair elections in Iran. Those elections will be held tomorrow, March 2. It is the first time the Republic of Iran has had parliamentary elections since June 12, 2009. I thank Senator Blumenthal for joining me in this resolution and also Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Kelly Ayotte. As I say, I think we have now over 60 sponsors on this resolution, working to see that it can pass the Senate here very quickly. It expresses a sense of the Senate clearly calling for open, free, and fair elections in the Republic of Iran. The problem is that the elections they will be holding tomorrow are neither free nor fair. They are certainly not consistent with international standards.

As I said, these will be the first nationwide parliamentary elections since June 12, 2009. Those elections were neither free nor fair, and they provoked widespread protests throughout Iran. Those protests were brutally repressed, put down by the regime, Ayatollah Khamenei and Prime Minister Ahmadinejad, trampling human rights and taking political prisoners who remain in prison to this very day.

Since the last elections, uprisings, popular movements for self- determination, have taken place throughout the Middle East--often referred to as the Arab spring--in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other places as well. We want to support that right to self- determination in Iran for the people in Iran as well.

Right now the only people who can run for office in Iran are people who are approved to run by the regime itself. They have the Council of Guardians, and the Council of Guardians has to approve anyone who wants to run for office, so the reality is the government of the regime itself decides whether you can run for office. About over 5,000 individuals applied to run for government, and of those 5,000 about 3,000 were approved by the Iranian regime to run. More than 2,000 were denied, so they cannot even run. Well, how can you have a free or a fair and or an open election that meets independent standards when the government decides who can run and who cannot run? It doesn't work. That is not the way elections should work.

America truly is a force for freedom and for democracy in the world, and that is why we are working to call the attention of the world to these elections. It is particularly important at this time that we stand with the Iranian people in calling for free and fair elections as we impose sanctions to try to prevent government from developing a nuclear weapon. We want to make very clear that while we need to impose strong, consistent sanctions that prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear bomb, at the same time we support the Iranian people's right to self-determination.

Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Connecticut for working with me on this resolution and recognizing the right of the Iranian people. I also want to thank our colleagues, as I say, now more than 60--who have joined us on this resolution and also look forward to quick passage.

With that, I wish to turn the floor over to my colleague, the good Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I, too, wish to express my appreciation to Senator Blumenthal and to all our cosponsors, and I look forward to the Senate agreeing to this important resolution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for organizing this colloquy with the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Ohio on this very important issue.

We have our American consumers paying more than $3.70 at the pump today. Actually, today the price is $3.72. That is the right question because that hits every single American. As the Senator from Texas and the other Senators have pointed out, when the administration took office, the price of gasoline per gallon was about $1.85. Today, it is $3.70. Actually, again, this chart is already old; today the average price is $3.72. In some places, it is already well over $4. The projection is that by Memorial Day, gasoline will be $4 a gallon and by later this summer it could be as much as $5 a gallon.

Let's put that into perspective for just a minute, following up on the question by the Senator from Texas. Recently, the President wanted a payroll tax cut, and the Congress passed that payroll tax cut. As the President liked to point out, that was about $1,000 a year. The benefit of that payroll tax averaged about $1,000 a year for the American worker or about $40 a paycheck. People get a paycheck every week, so it would be $40 a paycheck for the average working American. That is about $20 a week.

When we are paying between $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump, we more than pay that additional $20 we got in that payroll tax, don't we? In other words, it costs us more than that. In essence, we have gone back because of the high price of gasoline.

What is the administration doing? As the Senator from Missouri just pointed out, the administration has an all-of-the-above strategy. What is that? That means we produce more energy from all our resources--oil, gas, biofuels, solar, wind, nuclear, and biomass. I agree with that. We should produce all our energy resources and have an all-of-the-above strategy. The problem is the administration is saying that, but they are not doing it. They are saying we should have an all-of-the-above strategy, but they are not doing it. Not only are they not doing it, they are actually blocking oil and gas development in our country, and they are blocking our ability to get oil from our closest ally and trading partner, Canada.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, which they have turned down, is a great example of that. That is 830,000 barrels a day that we are not getting from Canada, because after 3\1/2\ years of study, the administration turned down the project. The Keystone XL Pipeline and projects similar to it are very important parts of the solution. We still get 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. Oil prices are going up because of instability in the Middle East. That creates a risk premium to the price of gasoline, which we could reduce substantially by producing more oil and gas here at home and with our closest friend and trading partner, Canada.

Ironically, the President wanted a payroll tax cut to stimulate our economy, he said, and to help the American worker. Then he more than takes away any benefit from that payroll tax cut by blocking our ability to develop oil and gas in this country and to get oil from Canada. In my State of North Dakota, not only can we not get our oil to market because we cannot put it into the Keystone XL Pipeline and get it to refineries, we cannot get the oil from Canada either, and our consumers, working Americans, pay the price at the pump. Why would the administration do that? Why?

I think some insight is provided by Ted Turner's letter on the CNN Web site. He has a letter on that Web site,

and everyone can check it out. Mr. Turner cites a number of arguments as to why we should not get oil from Canada. First, he says: That oil we get from Canada--we will just export it, so it will not reduce gas prices in the United States. But in a recent Department of Energy report, dated June 22, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy says just the opposite; that the crude we bring in from Canada will be refined in the United States, and it will lower gas prices in the United States on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest--not ``may'' reduce gas prices but ``will'' reduce them on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. Mr. Turner's letter says the pipeline will leak and, gee, we don't want a pipeline that leaks.

As my second chart shows, this is the second Keystone Pipeline. This first Keystone Pipeline has already been built. He says that Keystone Pipeline leaked, so we cannot build a second one. The first one had no underground leaks. The leaks he refers to were minor leaks at some of the joints as they constructed the thing, which is normal and they were quickly and readily handled and they were no problem. That is functioning today just fine, and there are no underground leaks. So that is not accurate either, is it?

As a matter of fact, let's take a look at this chart. Those are not the only two pipelines we have in the United States. There are others. We have thousands of oil and gas pipelines across the country. But somehow building one more that will bring in 830,000 barrels a day to help reduce the price of gas is a problem. Really? That doesn't make much sense.

The other argument he uses is that we are producing that oil in Canada in the oil sands, and that is not good because we have to excavate to do it. What is the reality with producing oil sands? It does have somewhat higher greenhouse gas emissions. How much? About 6 percent. That is how much more greenhouse gas emission we get. But we are moving from excavating to produce that oil and gas to in situ. In situ is drilling just like we do for conventional oil. That means the same amount of greenhouse gas, the same footprint. Eighty percent is in situ. It has the same amount of greenhouse gas. We have deployed new technologies and produce more energy and do it with better environmental stewardship. So these arguments aren't accurate.

But the reality is this: Folks like Mr. Turner, rich and famous, I guess they can pay $4 for gasoline. They can pay $5 for gasoline or a lot more. That isn't a problem for them. The problem is for hard- working Americans who have to pay that price at the pump every single day. So the administration has to decide who they are going to side with on this issue. Who are they going to side with on this issue? Are they going to continue to side with, I guess rich and powerful interests that want to see those gasoline prices go higher, and for whom the price of gasoline at the pump really isn't an issue or with hard-working Americans for whom this creates real hardship? That is the issue we have here with this vote that we will be having on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The reality is this: We can have North American energy security. We can do it. Right now, between Canada and the United States, with some help from Mexico, we produce about 70 percent of our crude. The Keystone XL project alone would take us up over 75 percent. And with other sources, which some of my colleagues have referred to, such as shale and the in situ drilling I have talked about, we can easily meet our needs. In fact, if we include the work we are doing with natural gas, with biofuels, and with energy efficiency, I believe we can truly have North American energy security--meaning we can supply the energy needs in the United States and North America, with our friends in Canada, within 5 to 7 years. But we have to get started. We have to get started.

So let's get started, Mr. President. Let's start by approving the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Let's show the world we are serious about getting this done. Asking the Saudis for more oil, as some of my colleagues have done, doesn't solve the problem. Nor does taking oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That doesn't solve the problem. We solve the problem by truly producing all of the above--not saying it but doing it.

It is ironic the administration praises TransCanada for moving forward on building the only portion of this pipeline they can build without a Presidential permit. He praises them for moving forward at the very time the administration is blocking the project. And while they are blocking it, that means not one more drop of oil is coming into this country from Canada, not one more drop of oil is coming from my State of North Dakota down to the refineries to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. That is not an all-of-the-above energy policy. That is not helping American workers. And that is exactly why gasoline is $3.70 a gallon and going higher.

It is time for Congress to act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague from the great State of Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this important issue, for his work on the highway bill, and specifically for his work on the TRIP bonds, as he said, the Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project bonds. It is a creative concept, and I think it is very timely.

Senator Wyden approached me and said: As we are working on this highway bill, can we work together on this concept of something like a TRIP bond concept? I expressed my appreciation for his creativity and the offer to work together and said, one, I absolutely wanted to do it because it is so important to our country right now--we need the jobs, we need the economic activity, we need the infrastructure, that is clear--and, as the good Senator said, we have to be creative in figuring out how to do this.

I said: We are going to have to do it within the framework of making sure it is paid for and making sure it does not add to the deficit or the debt. He said: Agreed. And we went to work on it.

So this truly is bipartisan, and I thank him for taking the initiative and for all the work both and he his staff have put into what I think is a very creative idea and a real opportunity for us, as I say, in infrastructure and in job creation and economic activity for our country.

I also extend my thanks to two Members of the House of Representatives as well, both Ed Whitfield, Congressman from Kentucky, Republican, and Congressman Leonard Boswell, Democrat from the State of Iowa.

So in both the Senate and the House this has been a bipartisan effort. That is important because at the end of the day, if we are going to get this passed, that is what it is going to take, bipartisan support. So this is about addressing something that is vitally important: our infrastructure needs, job creation. It is something we pay for, so it does not increase the deficit or the debt, and it is absolutely bipartisan.

Again, as my esteemed colleague just mentioned, I bring a perspective as a Governor. We are talking about $25 billion in addition to the normal highway funding. So this is for projects in infrastructure that State departments of transportation and Governors--people at the State level, at the local level--decide what infrastructure projects need to be done, and they can then use

these funds accordingly. That is of tremendous value to them. Without exception, go across the States, ask any of the Governors or directors of transportation, and they will tell you: That is exactly the kind of funding we want and need to do the very best job for the people we serve in our respective States.

Mr. President, $25 billion--$10 billion the first year, $15 billion in year 2--will make an incredible difference for every single State in the country.

Now, the other thing to keep in mind is--Senator Wyden went through for just a minute how we have structured the bonds--essentially, it results in a 4-to-1 leveraging of funds for every State. They put their dollars into the sinking fund. They select the projects. Then, on a project-by-project basis, they put forward dollars in the sinking fund, and we provide them a 4-to-1 match.

So, for example, $\1/2\ billion goes to a State. As they select projects, that $\1/2\ billion funds those projects. They put up $100 million as they select and advance those projects. For their $100 million, they are doing $500 million in projects.

Again, this is exactly what the States are looking for. This is exactly what they need to meet their infrastructure needs. Anyone driving around the country--whether it is in the District or anywhere else--is going to tell you: Look, we have to address our infrastructure needs. And this is absolutely something that will make a big difference in doing that.

Again, in addition to being truly a bipartisan effort, and a bicameral effort, at this point we have received tremendous support and encouragement from across the country and from truly a diverse range of groups--from labor, from business, from mayors, from county commissioners. It truly has not only bipartisan support but incredibly strong support across the country.

Just some of the various groups that have come out and already endorsed the project include the American Association of Road and Transportation Builders, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Highway Users Alliance, the Associated General Contractors of America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Labors' International Union of North America, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Again, mayors, commissioners--this truly has broad, strong support at the grassroots level. That is reflective of the fact that it is exactly the kind of project we need to advance.

So as we work on this highway bill, I see this as a tremendous opportunity--really an opportunity, and not just in terms of the infrastructure we so badly need but to put people to work in good jobs, in good-paying jobs. Think of the ramifications that has, the secondary ramifications that has for our economy right now. It is incredibly important. It makes a huge difference, and then we have the lasting infrastructure, we are meeting the lasting infrastructure needs of this country.

Before I yield the floor, just a final comment and that is to ask our colleagues to join us in this effort. If they have good ideas, we are absolutely open to those ideas. But this is a concept whose time has come. We need to make sure, as we work forward on this highway bill, we include the TRIP bonds as part of that package.

With that, I yield the floor back to my esteemed colleague.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of energy security for our Nation. I have filed legislation which would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I filed our bill as an amendment to the highway bill. That bill is the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter-McConnell-Johanns- Hatch bill. But it actually includes 45 Senators as cosponsors of the legislation. As I said, I filed it now as an amendment to the highway bill.

The fact is Congress needs to act. The administration, after more than 3 years, has decided not to act--evidently will not act on this important issue. So we in Congress need to.

This highway bill provides a tremendous opportunity. The highway bill is about infrastructure, vital infrastructure for our country. That is exactly what the Keystone XL Pipeline is. It is vital infrastructure that is very much needed by our country.

Look at gas prices today. According to the Lundberg Survey or AAA, gas prices are now more than $3.50 a gallon. That is the highest they have been at this time of year ever--more than $3.50 a gallon.

Since President Obama took office, gas prices are up 88 percent. They are up 88 percent. That is even though demand is down. We are using less. Demand in the United States for gasoline is down by 5 percent. Yet we are seeing record high gas prices. AAA is now projecting that gasoline will go to $4 a gallon by Memorial Day.

Some are saying we could see $5 gasoline this year--$5 a gallon. Why is that? All we have to do is look to the Middle East to understand what is going on. With the turmoil there, Iran is threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Something like between one-fifth and one-sixth of all the seaborne oil in the world goes through the Strait of Hormuz. So we can imagine what would happen if Iran blockaded that strait.

Why are we continuing to get oil from the Middle East and places such as Venezuela? Nearly 30 percent of the crude we use comes from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela. Why? Why are we doing that when we don't have to? We don't have to. Why not produce that oil in this country and get it from our closest friend and our strongest trading partner, Canada?

The reality is, we can have North American energy independence. We absolutely can do it. I believe we can do it within the next 5 years. In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce 535,000 barrels a day of light sweet Bakken crude oil. But the problem we have is we cannot get it to market. In the last 5 years, we have increased production from about 100,000 barrels a day to more than 500,000 barrels a day, and it is continuing to grow. But we need pipelines to get that product to refineries in the United States. That is what the Keystone XL would do. More than 100,000 barrels a day of our oil would go into the Keystone Pipeline to get it to refineries.

From Canada, 700,000 barrels a day would go into the Keystone XL Pipeline. So we are talking about 830,000 barrels a day that would go through the Keystone XL Pipeline, which we would not need to get from the Middle East.

Between the United States and Canada, and some from Mexico, building infrastructure such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, we can produce more than 75 percent of the crude oil we need in our country, and that is growing. When I talk about North American oil independence or North American energy independence, that is very attainable. It is something we can absolutely do, but we need the infrastructure to do it.

Today, in North Dakota, light sweet Bakken crude is suffering a discount of $27 a barrel. Our oil is suffering a discount of $27 a barrel because we are constrained by pipeline capacity. In Canada, Syncrude is suffering a discount of $21 a barrel because of that pipeline capacity. Even in Cushing, OK, a hub for oil in this country, oil has been discounted because it cannot move to the refineries because we lack the pipeline capacity.

But even with these bottlenecks, as I have pointed out, these discounts at the pump, consumers and businesses are paying more than $3.50 a gallon. The bottlenecks create those constraints. Think of the impact on our economy and to our consumers. There are other impacts as well. For example, in North Dakota, we have more truck traffic on our western highways than ever before. That means more fatalities, more traffic accidents. It also means a lot more wear and tear on our infrastructure. So we are talking about a highway bill to maintain and improve our highway infrastructure throughout the country, and in my State our roads are getting worn out by all that truck traffic. The Keystone XL Pipeline alone would reduce the truck traffic on our highways just in North Dakota by 17 million truck miles a year. Again, that is 17 million truck miles a year--all that without one penny of government spending, not one penny of Federal Government spending. So it is a $7 billion private investment in enhancing our infrastructure that would not cost us a penny.

The Keystone XL Pipeline will create needed infrastructure, tens of thousands of jobs, more energy security for our Nation, and millions in tax revenues, all with no government spending. The U.S. Department of Energy said the Keystone XL Pipeline will lower gas prices--not ``may'' but ``will''--for the east coast, the gulf coast and the Midwest. But the Obama administration says no.

So the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, goes to China last week. While there, he met with President Hu Jintao of China about selling Canadian oil to China. Prime Minister Harper said this in The Gazette:

We are an emerging energy superpower. . . . We have

abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. And you

know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy

our energy. It's that simple.

He also spoke of ``a new era in a strategic Canada-China energy partnership.'' To the United States, he said:

If you don't want Canadian oil sand crude, China is a

waiting customer.

To back it up, he returned with a memorandum of understanding from China to develop energy sales from Canada to China.

To those who don't think the Canadian oil sands are going to be produced, that is wrong. They are going to be produced. This oil will be produced. The issue is whether it is going to go to China or come to the United States. The reality is, if it goes to China, it will be worse environmental stewardship. If it comes to the United States, there will be better environmental stewardship.

Let's talk about that for a minute. First off, if it comes from the United States in a pipeline instead of going to China, we don't have to haul it in tankers across the ocean, which produces greenhouse gas. The oil going to China creates more greenhouse gas because we have to haul it to China.

Second, if we are not getting it in the pipeline, we are going to have to continue to have tanker loads coming here from the Middle East and Venezuela--again, producing more greenhouse gas.

Third, we have the best refineries in the world. We have the highest standards and the lowest emissions in our refineries. Instead, this oil will go to China, where they have more emissions and more greenhouse gas. That is worse environmental stewardship by sending it to China, not better.

Another point. Eighty percent of new production in the Canadian oil sands is in situ. That means drilling down to bring up the oil, as we do with conventional oil, not excavating, as they have done historically but drilling or in situ, which has the same impact on greenhouse emissions as conventional drilling. So 80 percent of the new development is in situ, with the same impact as conventional drilling.

That is the real solution. The real solution is using better technology to not only produce more energy but with better environmental stewardship. That is the real solution, and it means jobs and energy independence for North America.

Finally, on the issue of reexporting the oil, the issue has been brought up that, OK, if we bring the oil in from Canada, it will just get exported to some other country and not be utilized in the United States. But 99 percent of the crude in the United States is refined here; 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the United States is used in the United States; 90 percent of the transportation fuel refined in the United States is used in the United States. We need this oil. We need the refined product.

The reality is, for the small amount exported--think about that. For that, we get jobs, and we get dollars for our economy. Think about it like manufacturing for just a minute. Refining is a process. We take crude oil, refine it, and we have a finished product, a refined product. Similar to manufacturing, we take inputs and manufacture and we have a finished good. Would anybody, for a minute, argue that we don't want to manufacture products in the United States and send them overseas? Of course we do because we get jobs and wealth from that, don't we? In other words, we want to manufacture and process goods in the United States, and when we export them, we get value, we get jobs, and we get a growing economy.

What is going on with this argument? If we think about this argument in the simplest form--for those who say we don't want to build the pipeline because some product might get exported, stop and think for a minute. If we don't build the pipeline, all the oil goes to China; none of it comes here. So we are worried that some might get exported? That makes no sense. None.

I will wrap up. The reality is this: Whether we measure it by jobs or whether we measure it by energy security for this Nation--national security with what is going on in the Middle East--or whether we measure it from an environmental stewardship standpoint, it absolutely makes sense to develop this infrastructure. This is an important step in the right direction toward North American energy security. There is a lot more we need to do, but the reality is we can get there with this kind of private investment by creating the right environment for that. With the infrastructure and steps we need to take, we can get to energy security. It is time for Congress to step forward and act.

This is vitally important infrastructure for our country. This is a vitally important step in terms of national security for the American people.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about jobs, energy independence, and good environmental stewardship for our country. I rise to speak about working with our strongest ally and trading partner, Canada. I rise to speak about moving forward on behalf of the American people and not delaying, not failing to act in their best interests.

Yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper left for China. He left for China with five of his top Ministers, including his Minister of Trade and his Minister of Natural Resources. He also took along 40 leading businessmen from Canada, including many of their leading businessmen in the area of energy, oil, and gas. He left on a trade mission to China. And what is at the very top of his list? At the very top of his list in his trade mission to China is selling Canadian oil to China. Why is that?

The reason is because our current administration evidently would prefer that we buy oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela rather than buying oil from our closest friend and our No. 1 trading partner, Canada.

That seems hard to believe but, if not, how else can we explain the administration turning down the Keystone XL Pipeline project after more than 3 years of study--not 60 days but more than 3 years of study. We recently passed legislation in this Chamber and in the House that was approved by the President, and in that legislation we said the President needs to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days of the date of that legislation, but that is after 3 years of study.

The administration came back and said: Well, it cannot make a decision in 60 days but forgot to mention they have been looking at it for over 3 years. In fact, let's go through that timeline. I think it is important that the American people understand the real timeline.

The real timeline has nothing to do with 60 days. The real timeline is more than 3 years that a project has been held in limbo. On September 19, 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is more than 3 years ago. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department said they would have an answer on the project before the end of last year. They made it very clear that after going through the full NEPA process-- including the full environmental impact statement, doing all of the due diligence, all the work over more than a 3-year period--they would have an answer before the end of the year.

The administration then says: No, that is not enough time. We don't have enough time in more than 3 years to make a decision, so the decision is null. You ask: Why would that be? Is this such a unique project that we have never done this before; that after more than 3 years of study--not 60 days--this is so unique we cannot make a decision in that amount of time? So the administration says no.

On this chart we see this red line that runs from Hardisty, which is Alberta, Canada, all the way down to Patoka, IL, to refineries we have in this country. This is the Keystone Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years, roughly 2006 to 2008, and then constructed. It now moves almost 600,000 barrels of oil a day from the Canadian oil sands down to our refineries. So that project already exists. We are talking about building a sister pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, that will bring it from the

Calgary area, the Province of Alberta, Canada, down to Cushing, which is a major oil hub, and our refineries in the gulf.

So it is not a new concept; we are already doing it. This pipeline carries almost 600,000 barrels a day. The new pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels a day.

It is not just about Canada. It is not just about moving Canadian crude to our refineries. My home State of North Dakota, and Montana, produce oil as well--light, sweet, Bakken crude--good stuff. We need to get that product to market as well; 100,000 barrels a day from North Dakota and Montana will go into this pipeline. Now, that is incredibly important to States such as North Dakota and Montana because right now we have to move that product by truck and by train. There is incredible wear and tear on our roads, and with the congestion on our roads, there are also traffic accidents and traffic fatalities.

Mr. President, 100,000 barrels a day represents 500 truck loads a day on some of our highways in western North Dakota and eastern Montana.

This pipeline would reduce the number of truck miles to move that product by 17 million truck miles a year. So it is not just about moving that product from Canada to our refineries, it is about moving our own crude, crude that we produce in this country to market. Our States need that vital infrastructure, and the government is not building this infrastructure--not one penny of tax money, not one penny of Federal Government spending. This is a $7 billion-plus investment from the private sector to give us the infrastructure we need to get our oil to our refineries.

So it is not a new project. It has been done before.

As a matter of fact, as my next chart shows, not only has this been done before, but the Obama administration has approved similar projects before.

In August of 2009 the current administration approved a 1,000-mile pipeline that moves 800,000 barrels of oil a day that is moving oil right now. They approved this project in August 2009. It came online in October 2010. It goes from the Province of Alberta down to refineries in Wisconsin. So they approved it in August 2009.

So what is going on here? Well, the issue they have talked about is that they have to delay this because of the western Sandhills region of Nebraska. The western Sandhills region of Nebraska includes something called the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer is obviously very important for water supply and irrigation. That is here in western Nebraska, so that concern has been raised. So we put forward legislation that addresses that issue.

We put forward legislation that follows the lead of the State of Nebraska and says: We will reroute the pipeline in Nebraska. For example, rerouting it over here where there is already the existing Keystone Pipeline. But in the legislation we put forward we say we will reroute the pipeline in Nebraska; that issue will be fully addressed, and we do not set a timeline on doing it and we expressly provide that we work with the State of Nebraska to do it.

Nebraska had a special session in November. After their special session where we all agreed to do the rerouting, the State of Nebraska--their legislature, their Governor, and their Senators-- supported the project. They said: Yes, we need to move forward with the project.

As you can see, there are many pipelines through there already. Nevertheless, we said: OK, the administration said that is an issue. We do the rerouting and we set no time limit to do it. So why aren't we proceeding with the project? What are we waiting for? And what are the ramifications of waiting? Look at all these pipelines. This is not a new concept.

So I take a step back to what I mentioned earlier: What is going on here? Why is it that Prime Minister Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada in China today, is arranging to sell oil that they produce in Canada to China rather than to us in the United States when we need it so badly--not just for our economy, not just for the jobs, but for energy security at a time of incredible upheaval in the Middle East? Now this oil is going to go to China. What is going on here?

Well, the only thing that I guess we can figure is that the administration has decided they don't want oil produced from the Canadian oil sands. They have decided they don't want oil that is produced in Canada in the oil sands. The argument is that somehow that oil will have higher greenhouse gas emissions, so we are not going to take it and somehow that is not going to be produced. So it is an environmental issue. The only problem with that is that it is going to be produced. It just won't come to us, it will go to China. And maybe an even bigger irony--although certainly not a bigger problem but a bigger irony--is that the environmental stewardship will then be worse, not better. So if that is the argument, it is going in the wrong direction.

This oil, which will be produced up here--that is exactly the agreement Prime Minister Harper is now working on with China and, believe me, China wants the oil. There is no question about that. They have made it very clear. While we continue to put Canada on hold, China is working very hard to make sure that oil comes to them.

Lets talk about the environmental aspect of that. Now, instead of bringing this oil in a pipeline down to our refineries--the best technology in the world in terms of refining, so we put it in a pipeline and we have lower emissions in the very best refineries in the world--we are going to put this oil in thousands and thousands of tankers that have to go across the ocean, producing greenhouse gases, and it is going to be refined in China, where they have lower emission standards, meaning higher emissions. They don't have the same standards we do, so we end up with more greenhouse gas, and yet at the same time we continue to have tankers of oil coming in from the Middle East producing more greenhouse gas because we can't get the oil from Canada.

So if that is the argument, what are we doing? We are saying: OK, we are going to say no to the jobs and we are going to say no to the fact that we can be energy independent in terms of oil. Between the United States and Canada, we can be independent in our oil needs. We won't need to get oil from Venezuela and we won't need to get oil from the Middle East--a huge national security issue. Look at what is going on in Syria and look at what is going on in Egypt and look at what is going on in Iran. Look at what is going on with the price of gasoline. We can become oil independent with our best friend and ally, Canada, but we say no instead. After 3 years, we are going to say no to the project, so Canada sells it to China and we get worse environmental stewardship.

I hope the American people fully understand exactly what is going on here because it is time to act. Right now, Prime Minister Harper is talking to President Hu Jintao, the President of China and, believe me, China wants the oil. Prime Minister Harper and Canada, our closest ally in the world, have waited 3 years--3 years--to get a ``no'' answer from the administration. So we will see what kind of agreement he comes back with from China.

The reality is, it is time to act. Here are some of the pipelines that are moving crude oil and other product around our country. Do we really think that is a problem, particularly when we put in legislation--when we went specifically and found out what the administration's concern was and we solved it and we built it into the legislation? The time has come to act. I call on my colleagues to join me. We put forward legislation that addresses the concerns. But it is time to act for the good of the American people.

Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

I will.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their help in passing S. 2039 by unanimous consent last month. This bill, which establishes a pilot program in North Dakota, will provide a great deal of help to citizens in my State.

I sponsored this legislation because Federal policy has stood in the way of flood protection measures necessary for communities in North Dakota. I want to highlight a couple of situations, one in Fargo and one in Minot, that illustrate the need for this bill.

First, Fargo, ND, has faced repeated flooding in the Red River, which runs through the heart of the city. The city has constructed a permanent levee to run along as much of the river as possible. However, over the years, some properties along the river bank were bought out using funds from FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. HMGP guidelines prohibit the construction of any structure, including a levee, on land bought out under the program. So as a result, Fargo's levee stops every time it comes up to HMGP land. When the waters rise, the city builds a temporary extension of its levee that goes over the HMGP land and connects to the next section of the permanent levee, and when the waters recede, the city has to take down the temporary levee to remain in compliance with the HMGP no-construction policy. Year after year, Fargo has constructed and then removed several temporary levees at great expense and for no apparent reason other than the letter of the HMGP law.

Second, Minot, ND, is about to run into the same problem currently facing Fargo. As my colleagues know, Minot faced enormous flooding during the summer of 2011, losing thousands of homes and sustaining hundreds of millions in damages. In response, the city plans to build a major new flood protection system, including levees through the middle of town along the river. In order to build that system, Minot will have to buy out dozens of properties and create space for a levee. The Federal Government will make money available through the HMGP program for property buyouts, but we are unable to use it if spending it precludes construction of a levee on these properties.

In both cases, the solution is simply to permit levee construction on property purchased with HMGP funds. HMGP restrictions on construction were intended to ensure that the Federal Government would not be on the hook to pay for future flood damages on property it had bought out. For the most part, that makes sense. But when a community wants to add flood protection in the form of a levee, it should be allowed to do so. A levee across HMGP-purchased land does not create future liabilities for the Federal Government; instead, it increases flood protection for local residents--something that will save the government money in future flood situations.

The text of S. 2039 allows for levee construction on North Dakota land purchased through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The legislation directs the FEMA Administrator to approve construction of a levee on HMGP land after the Administrator determines that the levee would provide better flood risk mitigation than maintaining the property as open space. The Administrator is also directed to ensure that the levee would comply with relevant levee construction and maintenance standards and would minimize future costs to the Federal Government.

And I would like to put particular emphasis on the subject of costs to the Federal Government. This legislation does not affect the amounts of money provided under the HMGP program. It does, however, allow communities like Minot to use HMGP dollars more efficiently by permitting property buyouts to be linked with new flood protection plans. The legislation eliminates the costs FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers incur every time they are forced to build and then tear down temporary levees on HMGP properties. Finally, the legislation ensures that any costs associated with the process the FEMA Administrator and the Army Corps Chief of Engineers use to approve levee construction are borne by the State, local, or tribal government requesting the levee. Any Federal funds approved elsewhere of course remain available for levee construction and are not affected by this legislation.

S. 2039 has moved on to the House of Representatives where I hope it can be approved expeditiously and sent to the President. The bill will provide important benefits to the people of Fargo, Minot, Devils Lake, and other North Dakota communities facing repeated flood risks. I thank my colleagues for their support of this common sense legislation, and I hope it can be an example of how to improve flood protection nationwide.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for organizing the colloquy and I also thank the good Senator from Nebraska for joining us as well. I appreciate working with them on this project, which is not only vital to our State but to our country.

As the Senator from South Dakota said, this project is critically important to our country for a number of reasons. First, it will create tens of thousands of jobs. There will be a $7 billion investment, not one penny of which will be Federal Government spending but all private sector investment. The Perryman Group projected, when they did a study on the job creation, that it would create 20,000 construction jobs right away; it would create upward of 100,000 spinoff jobs as they expand refineries and with the other economic activity that is created. Some might dispute those job numbers, but any way we look at it, tens of thousands of jobs will be created by the private sector, which is why it has strong union support at a time when we have 13-plus million people out of work and we need the jobs.

As the Senator from South Dakota said, it will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenues from a growing economy, from more economic activity. The last I checked, it is pretty important at the local, State, and Federal levels to have those revenues coming in. In addition, it will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. With what is going on in Iran--and they are threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz--and with gas prices at $3.50 a gallon, roughly, and going up, it is important to consumers and the businesses of this country that we use the oil in this country and from our closest ally, Canada, rather than relying on the Middle East.

The third point is, this oil will be produced. If we don't build the pipeline capacity to bring it to our refineries to be refined, it goes to China. That is a fact. It will be produced. It will either go to China or it will come to us.

I have this chart to give a history of the project because, as the good Senator from South Dakota said, this has been under review for more than 3 years. TransCanada, the company that is trying to build the pipeline, built this Keystone Pipeline already. That is this red line on the chart. That project was approved in 2 years. Again, Keystone XL has been under study more than 3 years. The sister pipeline has already been built, and that was approved in 2 years. It comes from Alberta, Canada, to the refineries in the Patoka, IL, area.

The existing project, as we can see, comes through North Dakota--that was when I was Governor--through South Dakota, and down through Nebraska. The Keystone XL comes just to the west. I point that out because of the Bakken oil play in North Dakota

and Montana, it is very important we have the ability to put oil into this pipeline. We are looking at putting 100,000 barrels a day of U.S. crude into this pipeline so it can get to our refineries. In other words, it is not just about bringing Canadian crude to our refineries; it is about bringing our own crude to them. It also saves wear and tear on our roads, and it is a safety issue because it reduces truck traffic. We are talking 500 truckloads a day and 17 million truck miles a year that we don't have to put on our roads. We don't have to have the traffic issues, the safety issues or the road issues in our country because we have the ability to move the product with this pipeline.

Let's look at this timeline. September, 2008. I know this is hard to read. I will make an important point. In September 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. In November of 2008, the current administration was elected. For the entire time the current administration has been in office, they have held up this project. It has gone through the full NEPA process. It had the full environmental impact studies done. Even the State Department said there would be a decision before the end of last year. For the entire time this administration has been in office, TransCanada was working to go through the process with EPA and the Department of State, and the Department of State said they would have a decision before the end of last year, but we still don't have a decision. We have to ask why. Why don't we have a decision? That is what we are talking about. It is long past time to act.

Let's look at this chart. What are we talking about? What we are talking about is this--another pipeline. We are talking about another pipeline just like the one that has already been built. How about the hundreds or maybe I should say thousands of pipelines we already have, and somehow we cannot build this pipeline? That doesn't make any sense. Somebody needs to explain this to us.

We have legislation, with 45 Senators, 45 sponsors, who are saying: Hey, it is time to move forward and build the project. As a matter of fact, we are doing everything we can to address any and all problems or concerns the administration has raised.

That is why I am going to turn it over now to my good colleague from Nebraska, because when the administration says there is an issue or a State or the EPA says there is an issue, we stepped up in our legislation and solved it. We say: Great, let's address it, but let's move forward for the good of our economy and the good of our country.

I defer now to the good Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota again for organizing this colloquy this morning. I thank him and the esteemed Senator from Nebraska for their support of this legislation.

Again, we have taken a problem-solving approach to this legislation, and we are continuing to do that. We will continue to work with other Members of the Senate and our colleagues in the House, but we need the administration to engage with us on this important issue for the good of the American people.

Again, I thank my colleague from South Dakota.

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. 2041 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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