Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I am introducing. I am pleased to introduce this legislation, along with 43 cosponsors, making that 44 Members of the Senate sponsoring legislation to improve the Keystone XL project.

This legislation would approve Keystone XL under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. That provision, the commerce clause, gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and that is the authority Congress needs to use, just as Congress used that authority in 1973 to approve the Alaskan Pipeline.

Moving forward with the Keystone project will create tens of thousands of jobs--tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our country badly needs those jobs, at a time when we have more than 13 million people out of work, or 8\1/2\ percent unemployment. It will create those jobs without spending one Federal taxpayer dollar. Not one. This is private sector investment--more than $7 billion that will help generate tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our economy badly needs them and when we need to get people back to work.

Also, this will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East-- 830,000 barrels a day. The Keystone XL Pipeline will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada and from States such as my own, the State of North Dakota. That is 830,000 barrels of oil a day we don't have to get from the Middle East at a time when we have rising tensions in the Middle East, at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, at a time when we could see gas prices going to $4, maybe even $5 a gallon.

The reality is, even if we don't build the project, the oil will still be produced. The oil in Canada will still be produced. It is just that it would not come to the United States. It will go to China, and we will have worse environmental stewardship, not better. Building the project will actually help us provide better environmental stewardship because we don't need to haul that oil overseas, around the world. We would not need to continue bringing in oil from the Middle East. That 830,000 barrels a day will go to our refineries where there are higher standards with better environmental stewardship.

President Obama recently turned down this project. He turned down the project because he said he couldn't make a decision in 60 days. He said he couldn't make a decision on the project in 60 days. That was too soon. But the project has been under review for more than 3 years. Let me repeat that. This project has been under review by the administration for more than 3 years. The EPA and the State Department have been reviewing the project.

In our legislation we simply say this has been under review for more than 3 years, and it is time to make a decision. It is time to move forward. Furthermore, for the one portion of the route that was contested, the Nebraska portion, we say: Take as much time as you need to reroute in Nebraska--after 3 years--to make sure we provide enough time for the decision.

I have a chart here that shows this timeline. Let's take a minute and go through it.

The application was originally submitted in September of 2008. September of 2008 is when the process started. So as you can see, it has been under review in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.

The State Department itself, EPA through the NEPA process and the State Department, has responsibility to make a decision on the project and, as you can see, on their own timeline they had planned to render a decision before the end of last year. As a matter of fact, I received a letter from Secretary of State Clinton indicating they intended to have a final decision before the end of the year. Yet, when we passed our earlier legislation, the President said, Well, we can't make a decision in 60 days.

Do you mean 3 years and 60 days? How long does it take to study this process and make a decision--particularly when in the last bill which we passed 89-10 by this body, and now in this legislation again we say, as to the only contested portion of the rule where you may want to reroute through Nebraska due to the Oglala aquifer, we provide as much time as needed to do the rerouting. But at some point we have got to make a decision to move forward with the project.

So maybe you say, Well, okay, it has been studied for 3 years, but more time is needed somehow because it is a unique project. Actually, it is not a unique project.

Before coming to the Senate last year, I was the Governor of North Dakota for 10 years. While I was Governor, TransCanada built a very similar project. The red line here is the Keystone project. It goes from Calgary down to Patoka, IL, much the same route, bringing oil from Canada into our refineries. That was permitted, not in 3 years, that was permitted in 2 years. In 2 years, that was permitted. We have been studying Keystone XL, a sister pipeline--very similar. It goes down to Cushing into the refineries along the gulf coast. We have been studying for 3 years a very similar project already approved in 2.

You may say, Well, I don't know. Still, you only have one kind of project there and maybe there is some new or challenging thing you have to take into account. So, yes, we have been studying it for 3 years and you need that kind of time because somehow we are recreating the wheel or doing something new and different. Well, that is not quite the case, either.

Let's go to my third chart. These are the oil and gas pipelines in the United States. All these red lines show oil and gas pipelines throughout our country, already existing, already in place, already moving oil and gas around the country. So now we are going to bring another one through here with all these pipelines, with the latest technology, the latest safeguards. And you mean to say that, after 3 years, that is not time to figure out whether we can approve another pipeline when we have hundreds of pipelines all over this country that people count on every day for their supply of oil? For their supply of gas? That is the situation.

Clearly, we can make this decision. Clearly, after more than 3 years of study, it doesn't make sense to not move forward, particularly when we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs that we need. Not only will it not cost our Federal Government revenue, it will generate hundreds of millions in revenue back to local, State, and Federal Government.

In addition to creating jobs, it reduces our dependence on Middle East oil. And if we don't do it, the oil goes to China. It is still produced, but it goes to China. So, actually, we have better environmental stewardship with the project.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year did a study. In that study, they cited 351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now--351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now due to regulations and bureaucratic delays. If we can get those projects going, based on the study the U.S. Chamber did, that would generate almost $1.1 trillion in gross domestic product for our country. It would generate--their estimate--1.9 million jobs,

not with more government spending, but enabling the private investment to go forward by taking the bureaucratic delays out of the way, by reducing the regulatory burden, by green-lighting projects like Keystone XL, which has been under study for more than 3 years.

Back to one of these earlier charts. In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We need to put 100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline so we can get it to market, so we can get it to consumers and companies throughout this country. That is 100,000 barrels a day right now that we have to move through other means, such as truck or rail. That is equal to 500 truckloads a day, or 17 million truck miles a year. Think of the toll on our roads, think of the traffic fatalities that result when that product should be going through pipeline. And at the same time that we have less traffic safety, tremendous wear and tear on our roads, we suffer a discount. Our companies, our mineral owners, our people suffer a discount because it is more expensive to transport that product by rail and by truck. Those are the realities of getting our economy going.

Again, I go back to the national security concern: 830,000 barrels a day that we have got to get from the Middle East.

With these kinds of developments, with this kind of infrastructure, together with Canada and some oil that we get from Mexico, by building Keystone XL Pipeline we can produce more than 80 percent of the oil we consume right here in our country. That means we don't have to get it from the Middle East. And look what is going on in the Middle East. Look at Iran, threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. That is a fundamental national security issue.

Unions across this country have said, Hey, we need these jobs. We support this project. We want to move forward with this and other infrastructure projects. But it is not just about the jobs and the economy, although that is vitally important to all the people who are out of work; it is a vital and national security issue, and it is going to continue to be a more important national security issue as we continue to see gas prices rise and as we continue to see instability in the Middle East.

Again, back to the environmental issues. This oil will be produced. It is either going to China or it is coming here. If we bring it here, we have better environmental stewardship because it goes in a pipeline to refineries that have the lowest emission standards. If we don't, the pipeline goes to the west coast. They load it on tankers. You have to haul it to places such as China where it is refined in refineries with higher emissions. And then, guess what. We have to ship oil from the Middle East--generating more emissions--to bring to our refineries. Again, it makes no sense. It is time to move forward.

There is clear precedence and clear authority. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the constitutional authority to act under the commerce clause. Congress exercised that authority in 1973 for the Alaskan pipeline. It is time for Congress to exercise its authority again for the good of our economy and for the good of our country.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I am introducing. I am pleased to introduce this legislation, along with 43 cosponsors, making that 44 Members of the Senate sponsoring legislation to improve the Keystone XL project.

This legislation would approve Keystone XL under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. That provision, the commerce clause, gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and that is the authority Congress needs to use, just as Congress used that authority in 1973 to approve the Alaskan Pipeline.

Moving forward with the Keystone project will create tens of thousands of jobs--tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our country badly needs those jobs, at a time when we have more than 13 million people out of work, or 8\1/2\ percent unemployment. It will create those jobs without spending one Federal taxpayer dollar. Not one. This is private sector investment--more than $7 billion that will help generate tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our economy badly needs them and when we need to get people back to work.

Also, this will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East-- 830,000 barrels a day. The Keystone XL Pipeline will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada and from States such as my own, the State of North Dakota. That is 830,000 barrels of oil a day we don't have to get from the Middle East at a time when we have rising tensions in the Middle East, at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, at a time when we could see gas prices going to $4, maybe even $5 a gallon.

The reality is, even if we don't build the project, the oil will still be produced. The oil in Canada will still be produced. It is just that it would not come to the United States. It will go to China, and we will have worse environmental stewardship, not better. Building the project will actually help us provide better environmental stewardship because we don't need to haul that oil overseas, around the world. We would not need to continue bringing in oil from the Middle East. That 830,000 barrels a day will go to our refineries where there are higher standards with better environmental stewardship.

President Obama recently turned down this project. He turned down the project because he said he couldn't make a decision in 60 days. He said he couldn't make a decision on the project in 60 days. That was too soon. But the project has been under review for more than 3 years. Let me repeat that. This project has been under review by the administration for more than 3 years. The EPA and the State Department have been reviewing the project.

In our legislation we simply say this has been under review for more than 3 years, and it is time to make a decision. It is time to move forward. Furthermore, for the one portion of the route that was contested, the Nebraska portion, we say: Take as much time as you need to reroute in Nebraska--after 3 years--to make sure we provide enough time for the decision.

I have a chart here that shows this timeline. Let's take a minute and go through it.

The application was originally submitted in September of 2008. September of 2008 is when the process started. So as you can see, it has been under review in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.

The State Department itself, EPA through the NEPA process and the State Department, has responsibility to make a decision on the project and, as you can see, on their own timeline they had planned to render a decision before the end of last year. As a matter of fact, I received a letter from Secretary of State Clinton indicating they intended to have a final decision before the end of the year. Yet, when we passed our earlier legislation, the President said, Well, we can't make a decision in 60 days.

Do you mean 3 years and 60 days? How long does it take to study this process and make a decision--particularly when in the last bill which we passed 89-10 by this body, and now in this legislation again we say, as to the only contested portion of the rule where you may want to reroute through Nebraska due to the Oglala aquifer, we provide as much time as needed to do the rerouting. But at some point we have got to make a decision to move forward with the project.

So maybe you say, Well, okay, it has been studied for 3 years, but more time is needed somehow because it is a unique project. Actually, it is not a unique project.

Before coming to the Senate last year, I was the Governor of North Dakota for 10 years. While I was Governor, TransCanada built a very similar project. The red line here is the Keystone project. It goes from Calgary down to Patoka, IL, much the same route, bringing oil from Canada into our refineries. That was permitted, not in 3 years, that was permitted in 2 years. In 2 years, that was permitted. We have been studying Keystone XL, a sister pipeline--very similar. It goes down to Cushing into the refineries along the gulf coast. We have been studying for 3 years a very similar project already approved in 2.

You may say, Well, I don't know. Still, you only have one kind of project there and maybe there is some new or challenging thing you have to take into account. So, yes, we have been studying it for 3 years and you need that kind of time because somehow we are recreating the wheel or doing something new and different. Well, that is not quite the case, either.

Let's go to my third chart. These are the oil and gas pipelines in the United States. All these red lines show oil and gas pipelines throughout our country, already existing, already in place, already moving oil and gas around the country. So now we are going to bring another one through here with all these pipelines, with the latest technology, the latest safeguards. And you mean to say that, after 3 years, that is not time to figure out whether we can approve another pipeline when we have hundreds of pipelines all over this country that people count on every day for their supply of oil? For their supply of gas? That is the situation.

Clearly, we can make this decision. Clearly, after more than 3 years of study, it doesn't make sense to not move forward, particularly when we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs that we need. Not only will it not cost our Federal Government revenue, it will generate hundreds of millions in revenue back to local, State, and Federal Government.

In addition to creating jobs, it reduces our dependence on Middle East oil. And if we don't do it, the oil goes to China. It is still produced, but it goes to China. So, actually, we have better environmental stewardship with the project.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year did a study. In that study, they cited 351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now--351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now due to regulations and bureaucratic delays. If we can get those projects going, based on the study the U.S. Chamber did, that would generate almost $1.1 trillion in gross domestic product for our country. It would generate--their estimate--1.9 million jobs,

not with more government spending, but enabling the private investment to go forward by taking the bureaucratic delays out of the way, by reducing the regulatory burden, by green-lighting projects like Keystone XL, which has been under study for more than 3 years.

Back to one of these earlier charts. In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We need to put 100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline so we can get it to market, so we can get it to consumers and companies throughout this country. That is 100,000 barrels a day right now that we have to move through other means, such as truck or rail. That is equal to 500 truckloads a day, or 17 million truck miles a year. Think of the toll on our roads, think of the traffic fatalities that result when that product should be going through pipeline. And at the same time that we have less traffic safety, tremendous wear and tear on our roads, we suffer a discount. Our companies, our mineral owners, our people suffer a discount because it is more expensive to transport that product by rail and by truck. Those are the realities of getting our economy going.

Again, I go back to the national security concern: 830,000 barrels a day that we have got to get from the Middle East.

With these kinds of developments, with this kind of infrastructure, together with Canada and some oil that we get from Mexico, by building Keystone XL Pipeline we can produce more than 80 percent of the oil we consume right here in our country. That means we don't have to get it from the Middle East. And look what is going on in the Middle East. Look at Iran, threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. That is a fundamental national security issue.

Unions across this country have said, Hey, we need these jobs. We support this project. We want to move forward with this and other infrastructure projects. But it is not just about the jobs and the economy, although that is vitally important to all the people who are out of work; it is a vital and national security issue, and it is going to continue to be a more important national security issue as we continue to see gas prices rise and as we continue to see instability in the Middle East.

Again, back to the environmental issues. This oil will be produced. It is either going to China or it is coming here. If we bring it here, we have better environmental stewardship because it goes in a pipeline to refineries that have the lowest emission standards. If we don't, the pipeline goes to the west coast. They load it on tankers. You have to haul it to places such as China where it is refined in refineries with higher emissions. And then, guess what. We have to ship oil from the Middle East--generating more emissions--to bring to our refineries. Again, it makes no sense. It is time to move forward.

There is clear precedence and clear authority. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the constitutional authority to act under the commerce clause. Congress exercised that authority in 1973 for the Alaskan pipeline. It is time for Congress to exercise its authority again for the good of our economy and for the good of our country.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the subject of the Keystone Pipeline. I am pleased to follow my esteemed colleague from the great State of Texas. I think it is only appropriate that I follow him, both because I agree absolutely with his remarks and I think it shows the importance of this project to North Dakota and Texas and across this country. This is an incredibly important project, so I am pleased to be here again today to address it.

Russell Evenmo

First of all, let me say it is nice to welcome Russell Evenmo to the floor on his last day. He has done an outstanding job working for me. He also has my chart, so I am glad we are able to get him on the floor.

The legislation we have authored on the Keystone Pipeline is included in the House package that provides an extension for the payroll tax cut. It is very appropriate that it is in that package, so I come today to talk about some misperceptions I am hearing out there in regard to this legislation. The first is that somehow this is an add-on to the payroll tax holiday extension legislation which some think shouldn't be there. I wish to address that, because it is absolutely where it should be. It is a jobs bill. The extension of the payroll tax cut, the payroll tax holiday, is about helping to create more jobs in this country. It is about helping people who are out there working hard every day. It is about stimulating economic activity. It is a tax reduction to help get this economy going and to help get people back to work.

Keystone is a jobs bill. It belongs in a jobs package. This is a jobs package. This is about creating jobs. It creates jobs without the Federal Government spending 1 penny. In fact, this will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of State and local tax revenues. It will generate private investment, but it will create jobs. This is a jobs package. So I wish to address that misperception I have heard from time to time and respond that this does belong as part of a jobs package. Of course it does. This is how we create jobs.

I appreciate greatly the esteemed Senator from Texas speaking about some of the things that are going on in North Dakota, and he is absolutely right; Texas has a long history with the energy industry. North Dakota is increasingly becoming a stronger and stronger energy player in all types of energy. We have wind; we have hydro; we have biofuels; we have biomass; we have solar. We are now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the country. Next year we will be the third largest oil-producing State in the country behind only Alaska and, of course, No. 1, Texas. But to do that, we need infrastructure. We need to be able to transport our oil--oil that we produce--to the refineries around the country. We will put 100,000 barrels of oil a day that we produce in North Dakota into this pipeline and get it down into the gulf refineries. So this isn't just about moving Canadian crude into the U.S; this is about moving our own domestic product as well.

As the Senator from Texas may have explained, there is a backlog of oil in Cushing right now, which is a hub for oil. But we need to move that oil from Cushing, in Oklahoma, down to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. This pipeline will move that product to these refineries. So, again, it is not just about moving Canadian crude into the United States; this is about moving product throughout the United States as well where we have serious bottlenecks. When we have those bottlenecks, our producers in North Dakota get less. They face a discount. If the product has to move by rail or by truck, we suffer a discount. That affects not only the oil companies themselves but it also affects the individual producers, the mineral owners who get royalty payments. This is about truly creating economic activity.

The first point I want to emphasize is that this is absolutely--is and should be--part of this jobs package.

The second point I want to talk about for a minute is that the concern has been expressed that somehow we are rushing this process. Somehow we are not taking enough time in terms of approving this pipeline, so maybe that could create an environmental concern. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are taking more time than we did for almost the exact same project that has already been approved.

This red line here on this chart is the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline runs from Alberta, Canada, down to Patoka, IL. It brings product down to refineries in the United States. That pipeline has not only been approved but it has been built. It moves 590,000 barrels a day of oil from the Alberta, Canada area down to our refineries. That has been approved and built, and we are moving almost 600,000 barrels of oil today. This is the Keystone XL project, right next to it--a very similar project.

I want to talk a little bit about the timeline on this as well. I was formerly the Governor of North Dakota. While I was Governor, TransCanada built the Keystone Pipeline and now they are working to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Let's walk through that timeline for a minute. First let's start with the Keystone Pipeline. That project initially applied for a permit on April 19, 2006. The final environmental impact statement was issued 2 years later--actually less than 2 years later. It was issued on January 11, 2008. So in less than 2 years, this project, very similar--in less than 2 years they got a final environmental impact statement. And amazingly enough, within 60 days after that final environmental impact statement it was signed off on and approved by the State Department. It had final approval. So it all happened within a 2-year process for that project.

Now let's talk about the Keystone XL project. Keystone XL: TransCanada, the same company, is building it. The same company is building both projects. They filed for a State Department Presidential permit in September 2008. That is when they filed for their permit. They went through the whole process. They got a final environmental impact statement on August 26, 2011--3 years.

The first project, the whole project was approved in less than 2 years. This project, we have already been at it for 3 years. So people are saying this is rushing--somehow rushing the project. Almost an identical project, fully approved from start to finish in 2 years, and we are sitting here 3 years later, and we don't even have approval yet, and we are rushing the process somehow.

Furthermore, the Department of State indicated that after all this environmental work--after 3 years of environmental work the State Department said, We are going to have a decision out before year end, meaning now. Before the end of this year, the State Department says, we are going to have a decision.

So myself and others who have been working on this say: Well, that is great. Finally, we are going to get a decision. Then all of a sudden the administration says: No, no, we are not going to have a decision. We are going to need another 18 months. We are going to need another 18 months somehow because there is concern about the route through Nebraska. That was the concern.

So the State of Nebraska then--let's make sure I have my dates right--then said: OK, we are concerned in Nebraska. But we are going to address the problem. We are going to solve the problem. The State of Nebraska had a special session on November 1 of this year, which concluded on November 22. In their special session, they agreed that they would reroute the Keystone XL Pipeline as to the route in Nebraska. The concern was that it went through western Nebraska, what is called the Ogallala Aquifer or the sandhills region. There is a lot of irrigation there. Even though there are other pipelines there, they said: We do not want it in that part, so we will agree to reroute the pipeline in Nebraska.

All this legislation provides, the legislation we have written--and there have been other bills on this--but the legislation included in the House package we are working to get passed in the Senate, here is what it says: 60 days after the bill is passed, the President, through the Department of State, has to make a determination on whether this project is in the national interest. They do not have to say yes. They can say yes or they can say no, but they have to determine whether it is in the national interest--60 days after the bill is passed.

But as to the Nebraska piece, we say, Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality will work with EPA and the State Department and take the time they need to reroute in Nebraska. Because that was the concern. It does not set a timeline on how fast they have to do it. It says: You have the time you need to reroute and address the concern that was raised.

This legislation is all about solving the concern that was raised so this project can go forward. It does not set a timeline on it. Again, where is this rush that it could somehow create an environmental issue? It is not there.

The point is this: If we do not pursue this project, this oil will still be produced--700,000 barrels a day--700,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude. It will still be produced. But instead of coming down to our refineries in the United States, instead of creating jobs in the United States, instead of reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East, the oil is going to China. That pipeline, instead of going south, will go west. The product will be put on oil tankers and it will go to Chinese refineries. In the Chinese refineries there will be higher emissions, lower environmental standards. So you are going to have more emissions, more environmental impacts.

Again, I come back to the point: Are we going to create more energy independence for ourselves, are we going to create more jobs here, or are we going to send that product to China? Because that is the choice. That is the real choice. Do you want to deal with reality, real terms? That is the choice we face.

Look, this project is about creating jobs. It belongs in a bill that is about creating jobs. This--and I will wrap up, Mr. President-- legislation is about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East--700,000 barrels a day--not to mention the product it helps my State of North Dakota, Montana, and others move down to our refineries in Texas and Louisiana.

With this pipeline, we will have better environmental stewardship, not worse. This is a project on which we need to move forward. We have drafted this legislation. We have worked on a

bipartisan basis to get legislation that addresses the concerns. It is time to move forward. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Russell Evenmo, an intern in my office, be permitted floor privileges for today. It is his last day and I wish to get him on the floor, if I could.

I wish to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague from the great State of North Dakota. I appreciate very much his support for this important project as he has again expressed. This is something we worked on for a great length of time. It is something we have quite a bit of background and experience with, energy production and the infrastructure needs that go with it. Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Conrad for his support of the project, and also for expressing, and I think doing so in very eloquent terms and in terms that are very much appreciated, that he feels this is something that needs to advance; that he feels as we work forward in terms of determining how to handle the payroll tax cut holiday issue, this is something that can be helpful and constructive.

I am here to speak in support of the Keystone project. You might say, Why? Why is it important that we move forward with this project? Well, first and foremost, because it is a tremendous job creator, but also because it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of oil as well as improving environmental stewardship. I want to take a minute to talk about all three aspects of the legislation.

Together with my colleagues, I put forward the North American Energy Security Act of 2011. Essentially, that legislation clears the path to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

For those who may not be familiar with the Keystone XL Pipeline, I brought this chart that actually shows the route it travels. It is a 1,700-mile-long pipeline which runs from Alberta, Canada, down to our refineries in the gulf coast region. As you can see, it is this blue line laid out on the chart. Right next to it we have this red line. This is the Keystone Pipeline. I will take a minute to talk about that, because I think it is important in the context of what we are trying to do with Keystone XL.

Prior to being elected to the Senate, I served the State of North Dakota for 10 years as Governor. During that time, we worked with many companies to develop pipeline infrastructure in North Dakota as we produced more and more oil for this Nation, but we also worked with our neighbors from the North who provide oil to our country as well, in fact 2.2 million barrels a day, to move that product safely into our country.

The Keystone Pipeline, built by TransCanada, as you can see, tracks from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to Patoka, IL. So it is similar in that it brings Canadian crude into our refineries here in the United States, which is refined and reduces our dependence on other sources of oil. About 590,000 barrels a day flow through the Keystone Pipeline right now. So when we talk about the Keystone XL project, we are not talking about something which hasn't been done before. In fact, we just got done permitting this pipeline, which is almost identical, bringing oil from roughly the same place in Canada down to refineries into the United States. That has already been approved by EPA and the Department of State. It went through the requisite NEPA and study processes, it went through the proper processes with the Department of State, and it has been approved, 590,000 barrels a day coming into our country to reduce our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela right now. So when we talk about Keystone XL, we are not talking about doing anything we haven't already done.

This pipeline--which would run a little bit to the west--again roughly starts up about the same place, Alberta, Canada, comes down further than the existing Keystone Pipeline down to our refineries. It is important to know that this isn't just about moving crude oil from Canada to the United States. This is also about moving oil within the United States.

In this part of our country, in North Dakota and in Montana, we are producing a tremendous amount of oil. My home State of North Dakota today is closing in on oil production of 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We will put 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil, such as sweet crude, into this pipeline as well. So it is not just about moving Canadian oil in America, it is about moving oil within our country, production from the Bakken region in the Williston Basin, down to our refineries.

Also, you will notice that the pipeline comes down to Cushing, OK. Right now we have a backlog of oil in Cushing, OK, and this pipeline will move oil from Cushing down to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. So it helps solve bottleneck issues, moving oil in our country, which will help reduce prices to consumers as you eliminate some of these bottlenecks and price disparities.

Again I go back to the point of my being here today, talking about this legislation, which is solutions-oriented legislation, problem- solving legislation. What it does is it creates jobs, it reduces our dependence on Middle East oil, and again it provides better environmental stewardship. So when I say it is solutions oriented, what do I mean by that? The issue, as I think most people who follow this issue will recall, the concern or the problem was in the Sandhills region of western Nebraska. Concern had been expressed about going through the Sandhills of Nebraska. That is an area where we have the Ogallala aquifer, and there was concern there that there might be an issue should there be any kind of breach in the pipeline. So that was the issue.

However, the State of Nebraska recently had a special session. In that special session, they said, Hey, we will work to reroute the project to eastern Nebraska, similar to the pipeline that already exists. That eliminates the problem. Now we don't have an issue anymore in the Sandhills area of Nebraska.

The legislation we have written and that has now been incorporated into the House bill takes that very solution and incorporates it into the legislation. It says the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality can work with EPA and the State Department to reroute the project in Nebraska so there is no longer an issue. We solve the problem. It is problem-solving legislation.

We say as to the entire project that the administration, with State, the EPA, and so forth, has to make a decision on whether to approve the project within 60 days. Is it in our national interest? They have to make that decision within 60 days so the project can get started and we can start creating those construction jobs. But as to Nebraska, they are not bound by the 60 days. They have the time they need to incorporate the solution from the State's special session.

All we are saying is this project has been studied for 3 years. It has been studied for 3 years already. It has gone through the NEPA process. It has gone through the full EIS. State was ready to make a decision. It got held up because of Nebraska, and we specifically addressed that problem. Now it is time to go forward. That is why this is problem-solving legislation.

Again, this is about creating jobs. This is about reducing our dependence on Middle East oil. We absolutely address the issue of Nebraska. We do not set a 60-day time limit on it. As to the rest of the project, we can get started.

Let's talk about who supports the project. The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has talked to our President and said, look, our greatest ally is Canada. Canada says, this is a very important project for Canada. This is about producing our energy resources in Canada. This is about jobs and economic opportunity in Canada.

Let's join with our best ally and together create jobs and produce energy we can count on.

The issue has been brought up about environmental stewardship. For those who say we have some concerns about producing oil in the oil sands region of Canada, I submit Canada is doing what we are doing. North Dakota all the time is improving their technology in order to improve their environmental stewardship. For example, going to in situ mining rather than for excavation for things such as producing the oil sands.

The point we have to understand that is very important is, if the pipeline doesn't go this way, if the pipeline doesn't go south, it is going to go west. If this product does not come to the United States, this 700,000 barrels, it is going to the west coast of Canada, where it will be loaded on ships and it will go to China.

We have a choice to make. Do we want to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela and other parts of the world where we have real security issues? Do we want to increase the relationship and the economic ties with our best ally in the world or do we want 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian oil going to China instead?

By the way, let's talk about the environmental stewardship. That means we have to haul it over there on oil tankers. We have to continue to bring our product in on oil tankers, so we have higher emissions instead of lower emissions. Instead of that oil being refined in the cleanest refineries in the world, which we have, it is going to be refined in refineries in China, which have much higher emissions.

Again, the whole focus of the legislation--I authored the bill. The whole focus in writing this bill was to say: How do we solve the problem? How do we deal with the concerns? How do we make sure we are being fair to people but that we move forward with real job creation, with producing more energy to increase our energy independence with our good friend and neighbor, our strongest ally--Canada? How do we continue to do more in terms of private investment, deploying technologies, creating better environmental stewardship? It is about problem-solving legislation.

We can see we have not only the U.S. Chamber of Commerce now supporting this legislation, because they want to see job creation, but we have all the large building and trade unions supporting it as well-- AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Labors International Union of North America, United Association, International Union of Operating Engineers.

It is America's workers who are clamoring for the expedited approval of this important project. We can't wait.

Mark Ayers, president, Building & Construction Trades Department,

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues during our morning business time.

Madam President, I rise this morning to discuss the North American Energy Security Act in a colloquy with my colleagues. Joining me will be our leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Senator Johnny Isakson from the great State of Georgia, Senator Mike Johanns from Nebraska, and Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma. We are here to discuss a very solutions-oriented piece of legislation. It is about creating jobs. It is about creating energy security for our Nation. It is about good environmental stewardship. It is about all of these things and more.

We want to take this opportunity to discuss the legislation and encourage--to urge--our fellow colleagues to join with us to create jobs and opportunity for the American people. In a nutshell, this legislation clears the way for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a 1,700-mile pipeline that will run from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to the gulf coast region of the country, down to the refineries in the United States.

This blue line shows the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This red line shows an existing pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, which was built very recently by TransCanada. It provides almost 600,000 barrels a day of crude to the United States. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide more than 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our refineries. In addition, it will also haul domestic crude from States such as North Dakota and Montana.

It will put 100,000 barrels a day of our own light, sweet, domestic crude into the pipeline to bring it down for our needs in the country. It will also bring oil from places such as Cushing, OK, where we currently have backlogs to the refineries, as well. So it is also about moving oil within our country as well as bringing Canadian crude to the United States and to our refineries.

I mentioned it is a job creation bill. As our leader said just a minute ago, just the construction alone will put 20,000 workers on the job--20,000 workers on the job--just constructing the pipeline. The Perryman Group out of Waco, TX, has indicated more than 250,000 jobs. It is a huge job creator.

I yield to our leader, Senator McConnell.

This is a project that is absolutely ready to go and will not cost the Federal Government one penny. It puts 20,000 workers on the job right away.

The hurdle was the route through Nebraska, but we have now worked with the State of Nebraska. They have had a special session. They have set up a process to clear that part of the route. Our legislation says within 60 days after passage of this bill the route is deemed approved. That is after 3 years of process through the EPA.

So we are ready to go. We have addressed the issues. We can put these people on the job now if we can get the Presidential approval.

I ask Senator Johanns, would he like to respond?

I would ask Senator Isakson to join us at this point. He is here specifically to talk a little bit about the issue with oil sands development and China. So Senator Isakson, and then certainly Senator Hutchison as well.

I thank Senator Isakson and ask the Senator if he has any more he wants to add. I know the Senator has to leave and is on a tight timetable.

I thank Senator Isakson and thank him for being here.

I will turn to Senator Hutchison from Texas.

We have actually 40 Senators already on this legislation--40 Senators. It is bipartisan. This is something we absolutely need to move on. I spoke with the Canadian Ambassador today, Ambassador Doer. He talked about how they are already looking at Western routes to send this oil to China.

So this oil is going to be produced. It is going to be produced. The question is, Does it come to the United States and help us reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Does it come here and create thousands of jobs or do we send it to China where there will actually be more emissions because it will be refined in refineries that produce higher emissions?

We will also have the emissions of shipping product all around the world, not only shipping this oil to China but then we are going to continue to have to ship oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela. So we actually increase CO2 emissions without this project.

Now, in Texas, of course, we have refineries, and Senator Hutchison is here to talk about just how important it is we bring this product down to our refineries in the gulf coast region.

I thank the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison is, as usual, not only eloquent but has hit the nail on the head. Looking across our country from North Dakota to Texas to Oklahoma, across our country we need these jobs. This is the way to get them, and we can get them now. We need our President to act.

This legislation is a solutions-oriented bill.

It is about job creation. It is about energy independence. It is about good environmental stewardship. We need to do it. I would like to now turn to my esteemed colleague from the State of Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who is the ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He has a tremendous background in energy, as does Senator Hutchison. I would turn to Senator Inhofe for his comments.

If I may, I would like to ask the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma to talk for a minute on the subject of how we create that environment that gets job creation going. I think this project is a perfect example of what we are talking about. We have to create an environment--a legal, tax and regulatory environment--that empowers private investment, not government spending but private investment, to get job creation going.

Here we have a regulatory issue, where we just--TransCanada has worked for 3 years to meet the environmental process. Most recently, the problem was in Nebraska, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Ogallala aquifer. But now we have come up with a solution to make sure we deal with that issue. So we have cleared that process.

That means this project is ready to go as we have just described. Leader McConnell just a minute ago talked about how the labor unions strongly support this project. I can go through that whole list as well. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: Let's go. We support this project. So we have 40 Senators, bipartisan, labor unions, Chamber of Commerce.

Here is an another interesting statistic. This example is such a good example of what we are talking about. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma to maybe expand on the point. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year released a study identifying 351 stalled energy projects nationwide costing the American economy $1.1 trillion in lost income impact, and nearly 2 million jobs annually.

My point is this: We have to find a way to empower private investment to get job creation going. The esteemed Senator from Oklahoma is ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He sees this every day. But without more government spending, the secret to unlocking jobs in this country is to empower the investment. I would ask if the Senator from Oklahoma can address that for just a minute because I think this project is such a perfect example of what we are talking about.

I thank the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma. He is so right. That is what it is all about. It is about putting people back to work. It is about American ingenuity, private investment. It is about getting this economy going.

We have to find ways to save dollars, to reduce the spending that has gotten out of control. But a big part of getting out of the deficit and the debt is getting people back to work and getting this economy rolling. We are talking about a project that will create 20,000 construction jobs right upfront, 250,000 permanent jobs, $600 million in State and local tax revenues.

This is a project that reduces our dependence on oil from the Middle East. This is a project that provides better environmental stewardship, as we have described. This is a project where we need to move forward. This body needs to be about solutions. This is a solution. We need to act.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak in regard to several amendments to the Defense authorization bill. First is in regard to the nuclear triad and the important role it plays in defense of our Nation and security of the world and also in regard to the Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems program and the important role it has for our forces, both today in our efforts around the world and what it means to us in the future.

First, in regard to amendment 1279 and the nuclear triad, this amendment was cosponsored by Senator Tester, Senator Enzi, Senator Blunt, Senator Vitter. Also, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, be included as a cosponsor of the amendment, as well as Senator Baucus of Montana.

The amendment declares that the United States should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems which includes missiles, bombers, and submarines. It also declares that it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the modernization of those systems and the weapons they deliver.

Over the past couple of years, numerous statements have been made in support of the triad. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the United States needs the nuclear triad. The Senate, in its resolution of ratification for the New START treaty, declared that the United States needs the nuclear triad. And President Obama last February certified that he intends to modernize the nuclear triad. However, the administration is now currently conducting a further review of the role nuclear weapons play in defending U.S. national security--a miniature Nuclear Posture Review. It is important that the Senate reaffirm its commitment to the nuclear triad once again.

I am particularly concerned by statements that we can reduce our nuclear arsenal significantly below the requirements laid out in the New START treaty. Given the threats we face and the responsibility we have to the American people and to our allies, I believe we must retain the nuclear triad. The reasons are clear and compelling. We need missiles to provide a persistent, dispersed, and cost-effective deterrent. We need submarines to provide an invisible, mobile, and survivable deterrent. And we need bombers to provide a visible, long- range, recallable deterrent.

The bottom line is that the triad provides us with a safe, credible, reliable nuclear deterrent that renders any effort to eliminate or sidestep our retaliatory capabilities completely meaningless. And those benefits accrue not only to the United States but to our allies as well. The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the resolution of the ratification to the New START agreement, and the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review all concluded that the United States needs to maintain the triad.

The triad was developed out of a need to counter an immense threat from the Soviet Union, but it now gives us the flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing international security environment. And supporting a triad means supporting a program to maintain and enhance the weapons and a delivery system that make up the triad.

It is very important to point out--particularly given our fiscal situation--that the costs of updating and maintaining the weapons in the triad will not take up a very big percentage of the defense budget, particularly relative to the tremendous security advantages it provides. In fact, General Kehler, the head of Strategic Command, recently indicated his strong support for efforts to preserve the triad and modernize each of the associated delivery systems.

It is tempting to assume that because the Cold War is over, we don't need the nuclear arsenal anymore. In fact, people who defend the nuclear arsenal are often accused of being stuck in a cold war mindset. The truth is just the opposite. Only in a cold war mindset would we assume Russia is the sole reason we preserve our nuclear arsenal. Today, our nuclear deterrent counters a variety of threats that did not even exist during the Cold War, and it hedges against the emergence of new nuclear threats.

The decades following the end of the Cold War have made nuclear deterrence far more complicated than the old superpower confrontation of last century. We must now counter nuclear threats from multiple actors around the world.

First, consider China. China's military modernization program is built on a foundation of a large and growing nuclear arsenal. Intelligence estimates suggest that the number of warheads atop Chinese ICBMs capable of reaching the United States could more than double within the next 15 years. Recent reports indicate that China is fielding four different new nuclear-ready ballistic missiles. China is prioritizing the development of mobile land-based ICBMs and submarine- launched ballistic missiles. China's nuclear posture is also troubling. China has not defined what it would consider a minimum nuclear deterrent, making it difficult to understand the motivations behind China's nuclear force expansion and their modernization efforts.

Second, new nuclear powers such as North Korea and Pakistan further complicate how we calculate our need for deterrence. North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons using both plutonium and uranium and continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles that can threaten the United States. North Korea's nuclear arsenal forces our allies in East Asia-- especially South Korea and Japan--to put a premium on the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Pakistan's nuclear weapons greatly complicate the security situation in central Asia and create a serious risk of nuclear proliferation. The emergence of these two nuclear powers is a cautionary tale about the unpredictable ripple effects of new players in the nuclear game and a strong reason why reductions to U.S. strategic forces should only be made with the greatest caution.

Third, nuclear proliferation will remain one of our foremost security challenges in the world. The IAEA reports that Iran has been researching and developing nuclear weapons, and it expressed serious concerns about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. Syria was so serious about developing a nuclear weapon--probably with the help of North Korea and Iran--that in 2007 Israel had to destroy

a Syrian nuclear site. Terrorist groups and other rogue actors also seek the development or the acquisition of nuclear arms.

And, of course, fourth, we cannot yet forget about Russia. Under the provisions of the New START agreement, Russia can expand its nuclear force rather than pursue reductions. Russia intends to build a new heavy ICBM to be available by 2018. Russia expects to build eight new nuclear submarines, and it also plans on designing and building a new nuclear bomber.

We cannot afford to let our nuclear deterrent atrophy in light of so many nuclear threats. Once we lose our nuclear capabilities, it will be extremely hard to reconstitute them.

We need a reliable and credible nuclear arsenal. We need it to dissuade new nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. We need it to deter nuclear powers from using their weapons. And we need it to hold enemy arsenals at risk.

People may not always stop and think about the demands placed on America's nuclear deterrent, but they are real and they are extensive. We have nuclear weapons as a guarantor of the security of the American homeland. Our nuclear arsenal renders any plan to strike the United States with nuclear weapons sheer folly. The investments made over the last several decades continue to pay dividends by creating the space within which America can address other security threats.

Make no mistake, without a large nuclear arsenal other nations would move plans to strike the United States from the category of unthinkable to possibly thinkable.

Second, and nearly as important, the United States nuclear deterrent replaces the need for our allies to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, keeping the peace in critical regions around the world. East Asia is a particularly good example. The status of U.S. nuclear posture is a major concern in Japan. Despite assurances from the United States that our nuclear umbrella will continue to protect Japan, Tokyo is worried about even the most subtle changes in U.S. policy. During his most recent trip, Secretary Panetta publicly reiterated the U.S. commitment to protect South Korea with our nuclear umbrella and our nuclear deterrent is probably the only reason South Korea has not developed a nuclear capability in response to North Korea's nuclear programs.

I will conclude on the triad. Our nuclear deterrent has been the foundation of U.S. national security since World War II. The nuclear triad provides an incredible return on our investment and I urge the Senate to send a strong signal of support for the nuclear triad as laid out in amendment No. 1279.

Amendment No. 1358

Madam President, if I may very briefly also address the importance of the Global Hawk with a brief overview of amendment No. 1358. This amendment simply states that it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Air Force should continue to abide by the guidelines set forth in the acquisition decision memorandum issued June 14, 2011 from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That memorandum on Global Hawk, the RQ-4 Global Hawk, found that the Global Hawk UAS is essential to national security and that there is no other program that can provide the benefits to the warfighter that the Global Hawk can provide.

The Global Hawk is a vital intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance asset. The Global Hawk flies at high altitude. It can fly at extended ranges and for long periods of time, and it can carry a wide array of sensors simultaneously.

We have invested a lot of time and a lot of money in this platform and it is paying fast dividends. The Global Hawk is flown in a wide variety of missions all over the world in support for things such as CENTCOM operations, humanitarian relief efforts in Japan and Haiti, and extensively for operations in Libya. For these reasons and many more, my amendment stresses that the Air Force must continue to heed the conclusions of the June 14, 2011 acquisition decision memorandum on the RQ-4 Program. The RQ-4, which is Global Hawk, remains essential for United States national security and is irreplaceable.

The bottom line is America needs to support and continue the Global Hawk. Our commanders require as much information about the battlefield as they can get. The RQ-4 represents a new generation of ISR aircraft with unprecedented capabilities.

Finally, we must invest in this essential capacity precisely because budgets are tight. As the Pentagon concluded in June, the Global Hawk represents the most cost-effective way to meet the requirements of our warfighters now and in the future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the North American Energy Security Act of 2011. This is legislation I am sponsoring, along with Senator Lugar, Senator Vitter, Senator Johanns, and 37 other cosponsors--we already have 37 cosponsors on this legislation. This is a solutions-oriented bill that addresses concerns along the route of the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is designed to carry 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Alberta, Canada, from the oil sands area in Canada, to refineries in the United States along the gulf coast, both in Texas and in Louisiana.

This is a $7 billion high-tech pipeline that will make a huge difference for our country, both in terms of energy security and also job creation. This is a project, Keystone Pipeline, that I have been working on for quite some time, formerly as Governor of the State of North Dakota and now as part of this body, the Senate. There already exists a pipeline called the Keystone Pipeline, which was built by TransCanada, that goes from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to our refineries. This pipeline runs through the eastern part of North Dakota and on down to Paducah, IL, and other locations as well, bringing approximately 600,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude into the United States.

The Keystone XL project would also be constructed by TransCanada, and it would come down from the Alberta area in Canada down just along North Dakota's western border in eastern Montana and go on down to Cushing and, as I said, to the refineries along the gulf coast.

In addition to bringing Canadian crude into the United States, it would also pick up crude along the way, crude produced in North Dakota. For example, in my home State of North Dakota, we will add 100,000 barrels a day of light sweet crude produced in the Williston Bay, centered in North Dakota and Montana, into that pipeline.

It is also designed to move our domestic crude to refineries as well. This is an important project that has been in the permitting process for 3 years. It has been going through the NEPA process, seeking an environmental impact statement and approval not only of EPA but of our State Department for 3 years.

We need to get it going because it is not only about reducing our dependance on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other places in the world that are not friendly to the United States, but it is also a huge job creator. This project is a big-time job creator. We are talking about a $7 billion investment to build the pipeline. We are talking about 20,000 construction jobs right away. We are talking about 250,000 jobs over time. We are talking about $600 million in tax revenue to States and other localities.

This is a huge project, and we need to get it going. We particularly need to get it going at a time when we have 9 percent unemployment in our economy and more than 14 million people looking for work. So we need it to get that economic activity going. We need it to get people back to work. We need it for energy security. We need this project to reduce our dependance on oil from the Mideast.

Where is the project right now? The latest issue that has been raised as far as not getting approval for the project from the Department of State was that the State of Nebraska had environmental concerns that the pipeline, this 1,700-mile pipeline running from the oil sands in Canada all the way down to our refineries, that in its route through the State of Nebraska, it was going through an area that was environmentally sensitive and that would create a problem.

It is the High Plains area, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. The concern was that with the Ogallala aquifer underlying that area and the irrigation for that farming and ranching region, that pipeline was a problem. In fact, there was opposition in the State of Nebraska to the project for that reason.

However, working with the company, TransCanada, and with the State of Nebraska, we have addressed that issue. Recently, the State of Nebraska had a special session. Gov. Dave Heineman called a special session in Nebraska. They held the session, and they came up with a plan, through their Department of Environmental Quality, working with the EPA, to reroute the project in the State of Nebraska.

On the basis of that rerouting and going through the approval process they developed between the State and Federal Government, on that basis, they have now addressed that concern in Nebraska. What this legislation does, it essentially is a solutions-based piece of legislation that says: OK, we are addressing these issues that have been raised. Now we need to move forward to capture the tremendous benefits for our country that this project provides: big-time job creation and reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

How does the bill work? Specifically, what it provides is that 60 days after its passage, the pipeline is approved so work can commence on the Keystone XL pipeline. That means 20,000 jobs. That means $7 billion in investment starts right away.

Then, as to the Wyoming piece, the State of Wyoming, together with EPA and the Federal Government, works through to reroute in Nebraska, so that a portion of the pipeline is then approved once they have gone through their process and decided on the route that meets the concerns in Nebraska.

In essence, this legislation, again, it is about addressing the concerns, solving the problem, and moving forward. This incorporates the special legislation and the solution that has been put forward by the State of Nebraska. It incorporates it right into the bill and enables us to move forward.

I have referenced the tremendous benefits in terms of energy security, in terms of job creation, in terms of working with our best friend and ally, Canada, in reducing our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela.

But let me address one other point. Another point that has been brought up in opposition to the pipeline project is that the production of oil in Canada, in the oil sand region, produces CO2. So that if this pipeline is built, some argue then there will be more CO2 released because of production in Canada in the oil sands and that product coming into the United States.

But, in fact, without this pipeline, we will produce more CO2. The point, let me underscore, is that this pipeline project will actually produce less CO2 than we would otherwise produce without the creation of the pipeline.

Why is that? Let me go through it. If we do not have the pipeline, then instead of bringing that product into the United States, that product will still be produced. The production will still occur in Canada. But the pipeline, instead of coming into the United States, will be rerouted to the western border of Canada, and it will be sent to China.

That means large oil tankers will be hauling the product to refineries in China. The refineries in China produce higher emissions than our refineries. Plus, we have those ships that produce CO2 as they haul all this product to the Far East. Furthermore, since that supply is not coming to the United States, we have to continue to import product from the Middle East and also from places such as Venezuela, as I mentioned.

In essence, we have supertankers bringing that product to the United States. So not only are we, in essence, now hauling the equivalent of 700,000 barrels a day around the world in supertankers and producing CO2 emissions there, we are also taking this

product over to the Chinese refineries, where they have higher emissions.

My point is, the oil sands are still produced, are they not, under either scenario? But without this pipeline, we actually have higher CO2 emissions on a global basis. Again, it is about addressing all the concerns that have been raised with this project, and it does that. At the same time, we create tens of thousands of jobs right off the bat. We create hundreds of millions in revenue for States and localities at a time when they badly need it and, again, we reduce our dependance on oil from parts of the world where it truly is an issue for our country in regards to energy security.

It is about common sense. It is about addressing all the issues that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 37 sponsors and cosponsors that we already have on this legislation to pass it and help put people back to work, help get our economy going, and help improve our national energy security.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 1045 to H.R. 2354, which is the Energy and Water appropriations legislation. This amendment rebalances funding for the fossil energy research and development account in the U.S. Department of Energy from within the existing budget. I want to point out that this action results in no additional spending. It is simply an adjustment within the existing budget.

You may have heard recently about the tremendous progress we are making in the State of North Dakota when it comes to oil and gas development. We are also developing many of our other energy resources as well. Over the past decade, through a comprehensive energy plan called Empower North Dakota that we have put together, we have advanced all of our energy resources in tandem, and we have done it with good environmental stewardship. That includes coal, wind, biofuels and, of course, oil and gas.

In a little more than a decade, North Dakota has grown from the ninth to the fourth largest oil and gas-producing State in the country, having surpassed oil-producing States such as Oklahoma and Louisiana. If our current estimates are on target, we will soon pass California and become the third largest oil-producing State in the Nation. That growth is the product of a progrowth legal, tax, and regulatory environment that we have built with the right kind of pro-business policies. At the same time we have, as I said, developed a comprehensive approach and a comprehensive energy policy called Empower North Dakota. In addition, we have put in place cutting-edge research, which has also been a very important part of our energy strategy for the State. It was new technologies and

methods such as directional drilling that brought the innovative research over the past decade to tap the abundant petroleum reserves of the Bakken formation and other shale formations in North Dakota's oil patch. Directional drilling has not only enabled the recovery of oil in hard-to-reach vertical layers of shale, but it has also enabled multiple well bores to be drilled from a single pad. The result is more oil but also a much smaller environmental footprint. That is good for the energy industry, that is good for the environment, and that is good for American workers, with tremendous job creation, and, of course, for our consumers.

My amendment would redirect research dollars within the budget of the fossil energy research and development provision in this appropriations bill, and that would include $5 million that would be provided for in the natural gas technologies research and development, and also $10 million would be provided for unconventional oil or fossil energy technology development. Both of these research and development areas are very critically important, not only for more energy development but again for doing it in an environmentally sound way.

Because this $15 million is offset with funds from within the fossil energy research and development budget, it results in no additional expenditure to the account. Obviously with our deficit and our debt, that is very important. What the amendment will do is empower research into the next generation of petroleum and natural gas technologies to produce more energy, again, with better environmental stewardship.

This amendment will fund research in a range of important areas, including using carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery in mature oilfields and reducing the environmental impact of natural gas and oil development. Notably, this research will continue to drive and develop new technologies for gas purification to achieve near zero atmospheric emissions, an economic as well as an environmental goal.

In short, this is the kind of research that will help to increase our supplies of domestic energy, reduce our reliance on foreign energy and foreign sources, and hold down the cost of foreign energy for American consumers and American businesses--all with better environmental stewardship.

This amendment will help us do all of these things and much more, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Also, while I have the floor, I wish to express my support for two other amendments to H.R. 2354. These include amendment No. 975 and also amendment No. 976. I am pleased to have cosponsored both of these amendments with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri.

As you are well aware, there has been extensive flooding along the Missouri River over the course of this past year, all the way from Montana and North Dakota and the upper basin, down through the State of Missouri and the other lower basin States. As a result, we have been working hard with our citizens to recover from that flooding.

One of the things we have pressed the Corps of Engineers to do as aggressively as they can is to provide more flood protection so we not only help our citizens recover from the flooding this year, but so we can do all that we can to prevent flooding next year. At the same time we are pressing them to take all of the preventive measures they can to reduce lake levels, reduce reservoir levels so we have adequate room and protection to prevent flooding next year, we are also working within their budget to make sure they have the resources to address these needs.

Amendment No. 975 essentially takes $50 million that is within the Corps of Engineers' budget that is now used for the Missouri River recovery program--meaning things such as building sandbars and some of the riparian areas along the river. Currently there is a total of $72 million in that Corps of Engineers account. What we are doing is saying that $50 million of that should be made available so they can utilize it to enhance flood protection. This is a critical need right now. They are working diligently to repair dams, dikes, and levees.

We are pressing for them to do more in terms of preparing as far as water levels throughout the upper and lower basin, and at the same time we are providing assistance in their budget by giving them the flexibility to use dollars where they need them to enhance flood protection. This is $50 million within their budget that can now be used to enhance flood protection, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 975 to H.R. 2354, again, giving the Corps of Engineers needed flexibility to provide flood protection that is so important to the people along the Missouri River in the upper basin and lower basin.

Amendment No. 976 essentially provides that same flexibility and assistance. Essentially it eliminates the redtape. It prevents the Corps from having to get new permits, new licenses, or new approvals as they work to repair and restore levees, locks, and dams. So as they work along the Missouri River--the entire length of the Missouri River--to restore those flood protection measures--whether it is a levee, a lock, dike, or dam, whatever it might be--we are waiving those requirements to get new permits and new licenses and new approvals so they can get that work done now, this year, and be prepared for next year.

Again, the flooding has been devastating and extensive along the Missouri River. In my home State, it is not just the Missouri River but along the Souris River, as well as other areas. The Red River and Cheyenne had a terrible time with flooding. We need to take the kind of steps that will help our people recover but will also help us prepare for the future so we don't face these types of floods next year or any other year in the future.

Again, I encourage support from my colleagues on these very important amendments.

I thank the Chair for this time.

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

Mr. President, we have seen flooding of historic proportion in North Dakota this year, and, as you know, other States have also sustained severe damages from hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and a range of natural disasters. In Minot, my hometown, friends and neighbors were forced to evacuate their homes and live day- to-day in makeshift accommodations. Some are not yet in temporary FEMA housing as winter approaches. Almost as severe as the impact of the floodwaters, however, is the anxiety of not knowing when and how much help is forthcoming from the federal government. The State of North Dakota, local communities, and the Federal Government are already providing extensive assistance, but uncertainty over housing and infrastructure persists in the aftermath of this disaster. We took an important step forward in the Appropriations Committee 6 weeks ago when we approved $400 million in supplemental CDBG funding, which goes directly to help with housing for people who have lost their homes. We are grateful to the subcommittee for approving that appropriation, but I am here to tell you there is more to be done. We look forward to working with subcommittee Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Collins to ensure that we do all we can to maximize CDBG assistance to those in need, not just in North Dakota, but across the Nation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of job creation as well, specifically in regard to legislation I will be introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce the cost of electricity to Americans throughout this country.

In North Dakota, we have a powerplant north of our State capitol, the city of Bismarck. It is about 1,100 megawatts. It consists of two separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so the complex provides 1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our State, as well as sending power to Minnesota and other places as well. This plant uses the latest in emission control technology. It is state of the art.

We also have an ethanol plant attached to the powerplant, so the waste steam that comes off the powerplant is used to power the ethanol plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well.

In addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that after they produce the electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash and, rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse it, and they use it to make concrete--they call it FlexCrete--for highways, they use it in building materials, and they even use it in products such as the shingles we use on our roofs.

Formerly, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that coal ash. Now they sell it for all these products and generate around $12 million a year in revenue. If you take the $4 million they used to expend to landfill the material, figure in the $12 million they now make selling the product, that is a $16 million revenue benefit to the plant. That means a $16 million reduction in the cost of electricity to their customers throughout North Dakota and Minnesota.

At the same time, because they have partnered with a company out of Utah called Headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a facility that manufactures these building products, FlexCrete, and creates good-paying jobs as well.

Today I rise to introduce commonsense, bipartisan legislation--a jobs bill, if you will--the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. In fact, this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives with a large bipartisan majority.

In a true example of American ingenuity and innovation, entrepreneurs around the country are recycling coal ash. Millions of Americans now work in buildings that are either partially constructed from coal ash- strengthened building materials or they drive home from work on roads and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete or, as I said, they live under roofs that are shingled, and those shingles are made out of this coal residuals material. In fact, in my home State of North Dakota, we have both our Heritage Center, which is under construction now, and also the National Energy Center of Excellence that were constructed with these materials.

First, this National Energy Center of Excellence, this is the Bismarck State College. They specialize in energy programs. This facility overlooks the Missouri River and it is about a $20-plus million facility. It is absolutely beautiful, and it is made with the coal residual building materials.

On this other slide, right now this facility is under construction. This will be a more than $50 million facility, which is, in essence, a museum and a heritage center for the State of North Dakota. The building materials in this state-of-art facility will have both static and interactive displays and is being built with what is called coal ash--but coal residual materials. These are materials coming out of powerplants that were formerly simply landfill, and now we are using them for all these purposes. The important point is, we need to be able to continue to do that. That is exactly why I am introducing this legislation.

It turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, businesses, and highways more affordable to build. It also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, while using this cost- effective material.

Meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it is estimated the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced by 162 trillion Btu's, British thermal units, and that water usage is reduced annually by 32 billion gallons a year. That is the equivalent of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount of water--actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire State of California each year. So we can see from a conservation standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has.

Unfortunately, the EPA is now considering whether to overturn 30 years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, and State regulatory agencies throughout the country, as well as EPA itself. EPA's own studies show the toxicity level in coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous waste designation.

In fact, the EPA's May 2000 regulatory determination--in that determination they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. However, new regulations first proposed in June of 2010 would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of jobs, and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when working families can least afford it. But the damage to American's pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling industry.

It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That could mean up to another $50 billion in costs, a burden on our electricity generators that use coal and, most important, customers-- American families, businesses, and farmers--again, Americans throughout this great country.

It is also estimated this regulation by EPA, this proposal, could mean the loss of more than 300,000 American jobs. That is why I have at the desk the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which I am introducing today, along with Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Joe Manchin, and also Senator John Boozman; four Republicans and four Democrats. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation.

As I said, it is a companion to H. Res. 2273 that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday with strong--and I emphasize strong--bipartisan support. It takes a commonsense approach to ensuring we can continue

this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars for American consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

This bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing the byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it establishes Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the EPA regulates the program for that State.

Importantly, States will know where they stand under this bill since the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program is set in statute. EPA can say: Yes, the State does meet these standards or, no, it doesn't. But EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a State's first approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is, under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. These include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and financial assurance and the recordkeeping needed to protect the public.

The Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act is legislation needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and electric bills.

I wish to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who have taken a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I particularly wish to thank my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Kent Conrad. I urge our colleagues to join us and support this important measure.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of job creation as well, specifically in regard to legislation I will be introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce the cost of electricity to Americans throughout this country.

In North Dakota, we have a powerplant north of our State capitol, the city of Bismarck. It is about 1,100 megawatts. It consists of two separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so the complex provides 1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our State, as well as sending power to Minnesota and other places as well. This plant uses the latest in emission control technology. It is state of the art.

We also have an ethanol plant attached to the powerplant, so the waste steam that comes off the powerplant is used to power the ethanol plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well.

In addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that after they produce the electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash and, rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse it, and they use it to make concrete--they call it FlexCrete--for highways, they use it in building materials, and they even use it in products such as the shingles we use on our roofs.

Formerly, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that coal ash. Now they sell it for all these products and generate around $12 million a year in revenue. If you take the $4 million they used to expend to landfill the material, figure in the $12 million they now make selling the product, that is a $16 million revenue benefit to the plant. That means a $16 million reduction in the cost of electricity to their customers throughout North Dakota and Minnesota.

At the same time, because they have partnered with a company out of Utah called Headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a facility that manufactures these building products, FlexCrete, and creates good-paying jobs as well.

Today I rise to introduce commonsense, bipartisan legislation--a jobs bill, if you will--the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. In fact, this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives with a large bipartisan majority.

In a true example of American ingenuity and innovation, entrepreneurs around the country are recycling coal ash. Millions of Americans now work in buildings that are either partially constructed from coal ash- strengthened building materials or they drive home from work on roads and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete or, as I said, they live under roofs that are shingled, and those shingles are made out of this coal residuals material. In fact, in my home State of North Dakota, we have both our Heritage Center, which is under construction now, and also the National Energy Center of Excellence that were constructed with these materials.

First, this National Energy Center of Excellence, this is the Bismarck State College. They specialize in energy programs. This facility overlooks the Missouri River and it is about a $20-plus million facility. It is absolutely beautiful, and it is made with the coal residual building materials.

On this other slide, right now this facility is under construction. This will be a more than $50 million facility, which is, in essence, a museum and a heritage center for the State of North Dakota. The building materials in this state-of-art facility will have both static and interactive displays and is being built with what is called coal ash--but coal residual materials. These are materials coming out of powerplants that were formerly simply landfill, and now we are using them for all these purposes. The important point is, we need to be able to continue to do that. That is exactly why I am introducing this legislation.

It turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, businesses, and highways more affordable to build. It also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, while using this cost- effective material.

Meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it is estimated the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced by 162 trillion Btu's, British thermal units, and that water usage is reduced annually by 32 billion gallons a year. That is the equivalent of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount of water--actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire State of California each year. So we can see from a conservation standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has.

Unfortunately, the EPA is now considering whether to overturn 30 years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, and State regulatory agencies throughout the country, as well as EPA itself. EPA's own studies show the toxicity level in coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous waste designation.

In fact, the EPA's May 2000 regulatory determination--in that determination they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. However, new regulations first proposed in June of 2010 would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of jobs, and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when working families can least afford it. But the damage to American's pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling industry.

It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That could mean up to another $50 billion in costs, a burden on our electricity generators that use coal and, most important, customers-- American families, businesses, and farmers--again, Americans throughout this great country.

It is also estimated this regulation by EPA, this proposal, could mean the loss of more than 300,000 American jobs. That is why I have at the desk the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which I am introducing today, along with Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Joe Manchin, and also Senator John Boozman; four Republicans and four Democrats. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation.

As I said, it is a companion to H. Res. 2273 that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday with strong--and I emphasize strong--bipartisan support. It takes a commonsense approach to ensuring we can continue

this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars for American consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

This bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing the byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it establishes Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the EPA regulates the program for that State.

Importantly, States will know where they stand under this bill since the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program is set in statute. EPA can say: Yes, the State does meet these standards or, no, it doesn't. But EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a State's first approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is, under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. These include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and financial assurance and the recordkeeping needed to protect the public.

The Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act is legislation needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and electric bills.

I wish to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who have taken a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I particularly wish to thank my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Kent Conrad. I urge our colleagues to join us and support this important measure.

I thank Senator Portman, and I thank Senator Johanns for organizing this discussion on a very important issue, a timely issue. It is good to be here with Senator Roberts, with Senator Blunt and Senator Isakson. I think, coming from our different States, we show how important these trade agreements are not only to our individual States across the country but how important these trade agreements are to our Nation right now.

When we are talking trade, we are talking jobs. We need to create more jobs in this country, and it is the private sector that creates jobs. It is business investment, it is companies that create jobs. Our job, our task, our role is to create an environment where our companies and our entrepreneurs and American ingenuity that built the greatest economic engine in the history of the world--this country, this economy, this U.S. economy--we have to create that environment so they can invest and create those jobs.

One of the important ways we do that is with good trade agreements. Let's make sure our companies can export their great products and services all over the world. We have to compete in a global, high-tech economy, and these trade agreements let us do it. That is why it is so important that we move forward.

Today, we are on the floor of the Senate saying: Why do we have these trade agreements? Thursday night, we heard from the President that we need to move forward with these trade agreements. We want to move forward with these trade agreements. We are ready to go. We have been for some time. In fact, the Senators here on the floor and others have been working very hard to do everything we can to make sure we have cleared the path so these trade agreements can come to the Senate floor.

It was not too long ago that Senator Johanns, myself, and Senator Portman went with Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Moran over to South Korea to meet with President Lee. He wants the agreements. He is ready to go. As a matter of fact, he said, please ratify the agreements in your country, get them over to me, because I am ready to take that to my legislators and get this approved.

Second, our President said there are some concerns we need to deal with as part of these trade agreements. He said we need to address TSA, trade assistant adjustment. We said we will work with TSA. We will make sure we have enough Senators so it is squared away. We have it covered. That has been communicated. So the question is: Why at this point don't we have the trade agreements? That is the question I think that has to be asked. Where are they? Why aren't they here on the Senate floor so we can move forward with them? In our State, as others mentioned in their States, they are incredibly important.

A few big stats to follow on what Senator Portman mentioned a minute ago. For every 4-percent increase in trade, we create a million jobs in this country. For every 4-percent increase in trade, a million jobs in this country are created. How important is that? The United States- South Korea free trade agreement alone means more than a quarter of a million jobs, more than $10 billion in increased U.S. exports to that country alone. I cannot think of a time when it is more important to create those jobs than right now when we have more than 14 million people out of work and many more who are either not working because they have not been able to get a job or who are underemployed. Unemployment is more than 9 percent.

This is one of the ways we create that environment that gets our people back to work by empowering the private sector to make that investment and create those jobs.

I was just back in North Dakota, and one of the many events I went to was an expansion of one of the Caterpillar company's locations in West Fargo, ND. They remanufacture a lot of their equipment in West Fargo, ND. This equipment goes all over the world. It is part of the huge machines that Cat makes. They use these machines for excavating, for mining, road building, for all these things all over the world, and they are the technology leader in the world in this huge equipment. They bought Bucyrus, which is huge in mining, so now they are big in the mining business. Getting into places such as Colombia and Panama is incredibly important for Caterpillar. It is not just about creating jobs in North Dakota, but think of the impact throughout the heartland in Indiana or in Illinois or, as Senator Roberts talked about, agriculture.

In North Dakota we have more cattle than people. I think we have more than 3 million cattle. Right now to send them to South Korea, we pay more than 40 percent tariff. How do we compete with Argentina or Australia in that situation? This is an opportunity. This is absolutely an opportunity. We need to reach out and grab it with both hands. We have the President right now saying, pass those trade agreements. Absolutely. Please get them down here to us. We have worked so hard to make sure we have cleared all the hurdles, TAA, or whatever else is required. Bring those trade agreements to us. We stand ready to pass them.

It is absolutely true. In handing off the ball in this discussion, I want to go back to the trade adjustment assistance, which I mentioned earlier. There were a number of things the administration wanted to see before bringing these trade agreements forward to us for ratification. Senator Blunt and Senator Portman were instrumental--and along with these two, Senator Johanns, myself, Senator Isakson, and others. We even signed on to a letter not once but I think twice, to make sure we got it right. Senator Blunt's leadership in making sure we had taken all the necessary steps so the administration was prepared and willing to bring these agreements to the Senate floor has been covered. I thank the Senator for that leadership. He may want to touch on that, but I know how important the trade agreements are to the State of Missouri. But I also thank the leadership of Senator Portman, as well, in making sure we addressed TAA and all of the issues that needed to be addressed as part of moving forward with these trade agreements.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great importance to our country, and that is jobs and our economy. I know the President will be speaking this evening. I want to emphasize the importance that we focus on a long-term strategy to get our economy going. By that I mean a pro-jobs, progrowth economic strategy for our country.

The things that go into that include building the best possible business climate. We have got to have a business climate that will stimulate private investment, that will stimulate entrepreneurship, ingenuity, that will stimulate job creation by businesses small and large across our economy. We need to build a strong business climate. We need a long-term, progrowth economic strategy to do that.

We also need to control our spending and live within our means. We need a comprehensive energy policy. All three of these things go into the right kind of long-term comprehensive approach this country needs to get our economy growing and get people back to work.

I wish to start by taking a minute to look at our current situation, to talk about where we are. If you look at unemployment, unemployment is more than 9 percent, and it has been more than 9 percent for an extended period of time. Weekly jobless claims: more than 400,000. We have more than 14 million people who are out of work. That does not include people who are underemployed or people who are no longer looking for work because they have been discouraged and are not included in the workforce--14 million people we need to get back to work.

We also have a tremendous deficit problem. If you look at our revenues today, we have revenues of about $2.2 trillion. Our spending is at a rate of $3.7 trillion. That is a $1.5 trillion deficit. That is adding up to more than a $14 trillion dollar debt--a $14 trillion debt that weighs on our economy. If we do not deal with it, it is a debt our children will have to pay. That is not acceptable for us and we have to deal with it at the same time we get this economy going.

If you look at our current situation, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and deficit and our debt is growing at $4 billion a day. I brought some graphs so we can look at it graphically. Here you see revenues and spending.

Unfortunately, the spending line is the red line along the top here. Spending is more than $3.7 trillion a year. At the same time, our revenues are $2.2 trillion. That gap is a $1.5 trillion budget deficit we are accumulating on an annual basis. As I say, it is now leading to a debt that is more than $14 trillion.

If you look at this next chart, we talk about unemployment. Here you see annual unemployment. Currently we are at 9.1 percent. We have been there for an extended period of time. Again, that represents more than 14 million people who are unemployed that we need to get back to work.

The other thing you will notice on this chart is the blue line. This blue line is the chart for my home State. There you will see our unemployment is about 3.2 to 3.3 percent. For the last decade in our State, we have focused on a progrowth, pro-jobs economic strategy. By that I mean building the best possible business climate, making sure we live within our means, and building a comprehensive energy approach to develop all of our energy resources. There is no reason we cannot do the same thing at the Federal level. In fact, we need to do exactly that at the Federal level. So I am here today to talk about some of the things we need to do to make that happen.

The first is that I emphasize by building a good business climate, I mean a legal, tax, and regulatory certainty so businesses know the rules of the road so they can invest. They can invest shareholders' dollars so entrepreneurs can start new businesses, so existing businesses can expand. But to do that, they need to know the rules of the road. They need to know what our tax policy is. Right now we have a tax policy that expires at the end of the next year. So how do you as a business person go out there and start making investments when you do not know what the tax policy is going to be beyond the end of next year? We need tax reform.

How about regulation? We have an incredible regulatory burden. How do you go out there and make an investment, get a business going, hire people, if you do not know what the regulatory requirements are? We need to reduce that regulatory burden.

We need to pass trade agreements so our companies can sell not just here in the United States but they can sell globally. If you look at the history of our country, that is how we have grown this economy, how we have become the most dynamic economic engine in the world. It is through that private investment, that entrepreneurship, that American ingenuity.

The role of government is to create a business climate that unleashes that potential. We have got to roll back the regulatory burden. We have got to create clear, understandable rules and tax policy to follow so these companies can make these investments, get those 14-plus million people back to work, get a growing economy, at the same time that we get a grip on our spending and start living within our means. That is how we not only raise our standard of living and our quality of life, but we make sure we do not pass on a huge debt to our children and our grandchildren.

Let me talk about some of the kinds of laws and legislation we need to pass to make sure that happens.

Not too long ago, President Obama issued an Executive order. I hope it is something he talks about this evening in his address to the joint session of Congress. In that Executive order, he said all of the agencies--all of the Federal agencies--need to look at their regulations, at their existing regulations and any regulations they are putting out, and make sure that if those regulations are costly, burdensome, if they do not make sense, if they are outmoded or outdated, they are eliminated, they are stripped away, so we empower people and companies throughout this great country to do business. He said in that Executive order make sure all of our agencies look at their regulations and eliminate those that do not make sense, that are costly, and that are burdensome, so we can stimulate economic activity and job creation in this country. I think we need to do exactly that. In fact, let's make it a law. Let's make it the law that all of the regulatory agencies need to look at their existing regulations and any regulations they are looking at putting out, to make darn sure they are clear, straightforward, understandable, that they are workable, and not only that our regulations are clear and understandable, that the regulators work with Americans and American companies to make sure they understand them and they are able to meet them so they can pursue their business plans, their business growth, their business investment, and that they hire and put people back to work. That is how it is supposed to work.

Together, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, myself, and others have put forward the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act. That is just what it says. How much more bipartisan can we get than that? The President puts out an Executive order saying we need to roll back some of these regulations that are burdening our business base, and we as Republican Senators say: Okay, here is an act to put that Executive order into law. Let's work together in a bipartisan way to reduce this regulatory burden that is stifling economic growth and job creation in our country.

That is what Congress is supposed to do. That is what we need to do. That is what the people of this country want us to do on a bipartisan basis.

When the President comes to the Capitol this evening and talks about how we get business going, let's get it going by reducing this regulatory burden so private investment can get people back to work in this country. It is not about more government spending, it is about private investment and initiative. We have to create the framework to make it happen. We can do it, and we can do it on a bipartisan basis.

Another example is that the United States has been the leader in aviation throughout its history. Throughout the

history of aviation, since Kitty Hawk, the United States has led the world in aviation, in invention, development, and innovation, and all the things that have gone into the development of aviation. Again, throughout its history, the United States has been the leader. One of the key areas for growth in aviation right now is UAS, unmanned aerial systems or unmanned aircraft. They call them remotely piloted aircraft. Our military uses them to tremendous benefit in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

Even though our military flies UAS all over the globe, we can't fly them here in the United States together with manned aircraft. Yet if we are going to continue to lead the world in aviation innovation, we have to find a way to fly both manned and unmanned aircraft together in our airspace in the United States.

Others and I have been talking to the FAA and working with the FAA, saying that you have to promulgate rules, set the rules of the road-- or, in this case, the rules of the air--so we can fly both manned and unmanned aircraft together in the U.S. airspace. The FAA has been working on this for I don't know how long but a long period of time. As of yet, they have not come out with those rules so we can fly both manned and unmanned aircraft in our airspace. But we need to, because if we don't, other countries will, and they will move ahead of us-- maybe not in military aviation, where we are flying unmanned aircraft all over the world, but how about in commercial and general aviation and all the other applications it will have for unmanned aircraft.

The FAA bill, which we are now working to complete--a version was passed in the House and a version was passed in the Senate, and we are trying to reconcile the two versions. Again, we need to do this in a bipartisan way. I have included language that authorizes--in fact requires--that the FAA set up airspace in the United States so that manned and unmanned aircraft can be flown concurrently. Again, it is about making sure that we not only maintain our lead in aviation but create those exciting, good-paying jobs of the future. If the agency isn't going to take that step, we as the Congress have to make sure we take that step and move the aviation industry forward.

Another example is how we have to create the environment, the forum that encourages that type of innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment in job creation. That is our role, our responsibility, in this most important of all issues, which is getting the economy going and getting people back to work.

On the free trade agreements, we have three of them pending--one with South Korea, the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, another is the Panama Free Trade Agreement, and the other is with Colombia. Those trade agreements have been negotiated for some time. For three years those trade agreements have been pending. It is time to take them from pending to being passed. We need the administration to bring those free trade agreements to the Senate and to the House and we will pass them. We have worked across the aisle in a bipartisan way to make sure that whatever issues needed to be dealt with to bring them to the Congress-- whether it is trade adjustment authority or whatever, we have worked together in a bipartisan way to say, look, we have addressed the issues. Now the administration needs to bring the free trade agreements to the Senate floor. We will pass them.

With just one of those free trade agreements--for example, if we take the South Korea free trade agreement--we are talking about more than $10 billion in trade every year for our U.S. companies.

These free trade agreements reduce tariffs on the order of 85 percent. We are talking more than a quarter of a million jobs that will be created if we pass these agreements. For every 4-percent increase in trade, we are talking about 1 million American jobs that we can create. Again, it is about creating the environment that empowers investment, empowers our entrepreneurs in this country, and empowers businesses large and small to invest and get our economy going.

At the same time we get this economy growing, we have to start living within our means. Right now, as I indicated, we have a $1.5 trillion deficit and a debt that is closing in on $14.5 trillion. So at the same time we get the economy growing, which will grow our revenues--not higher taxes, but grow revenues from a growing economy, and with tax reform that empowers that economic growth, at the same time, we have to get control of our spending and live within our means.

Along with some fellow Senators, we have sponsored a number of pieces of legislation that I believe we can pass in a bipartisan way to make sure we get spending under control. The first is a balanced budget amendment. I come from a State where I was Governor for 10 years. We have a balanced budget amendment. Every year, we are required by our Constitution to balance the budget. States have a balanced budget requirement, and businesses and families and communities all have to live within their means. Our Federal Government has to live within its means.

If you think about it, a balanced budget amendment gets everybody involved. We not only have to pass it in the Senate and in the House with a two-thirds majority, but then it goes out to the States for ratification. What better way to get everybody throughout the country directly involved in making sure that we control our spending. Every State has to deal with a balanced budget amendment. So it is all of us working together as Americans, and it is the Congress going to the people of this great country and saying: Here is a balanced budget amendment, you tell us what you think. Again, what a great way to get everybody involved, the way we should get everybody involved in making sure we live within our means not only today but tomorrow and throughout future generations.

At the same time, we need to pass other tools that can help us get control of our spending. For example, the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act. This is a bipartisan act that I think was originally sponsored by Senator Tom Carper, a former Governor, a Democrat from Delaware, and Senator John McCain. I am proud to be a cosponsor. One of the key provisions is to give the President a line-item veto. Reaching across the aisle, we are giving our President a tool--a line-item veto--to make sure we cut out waste, fraud, and abuse, and that we control our spending. As a Governor, the most effective tool I had was the line- item veto. We need to make sure our President has it as well.

I think we also need to look at a biennial budget, so that we pass a budget on a two-year cycle--make sure we get it passed and the next year we can come back and make the adjustments we have to make; but at the same time we have time for oversight and making sure spending is going in accordance with the directive of the Congress, and whether it is waste, fraud, abuse, or duplication, that we cut it out. Again, this is absolutely what the American people want us to do.

The third area I will touch on for a minute--and I will go to the next chart--is building the right kind of energy plan, a comprehensive energy policy that will help this country develop all of its energy resources. We did it in North Dakota. I know we can do it at the Federal level.

If you think about it, energy development in this country is an incredible opportunity. It is an opportunity to produce more energy more cost effectively, with better environmental stewardship that will enable all of our industries to compete in a global high-tech economy. In addition, what a great opportunity it is to create high-paying jobs. Again, I go back to what I said before. For our energy companies looking to invest hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, they need to know the rules of the road. It comes back to creating a comprehensive energy policy that sets up those rules of the road so they know what their tax situation is and what the regulation and regulatory requirements are. When they make those investments to produce more energy more cost effectively, with good environmental stewardship, they have to know they are going to be able to get a return. They have to know they can meet the regulatory requirements. Those investments may last 40 and 50 years, and they know they are going to have to be able to recoup those investments.

This first chart gives an example of some of the energy development in our

State. Out West, there is oil and gas. North Dakota is now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the country. We have passed Oklahoma and Louisiana, and people don't realize it. Every State has some kind of energy. If you look at this map, we have oil, gas, coal, and wind. We are in the top 10 wind producers. We have biofuels, biomass, solar--we have all of them. Different States have different strengths. A lot of States have oil, gas, coal, or certainly wind, or they can develop the biofuels.

It comes down to creating that environment that stimulates private investment so companies will come in and do exactly what I am talking about--at the Federal level, as well as at the State level.

This next chart shows what is actually happening at the Federal level. This chart is the cost of major new regulations. What it shows over the last three decades is the cost of regulation by year, over the last 30 years. When the cost of regulation is high, if you go back and check, you will see our economy wasn't doing very well. When the cost of regulation was low, you will see that it was doing much better. Look at the cost of regulation today. It was $26.5 billion in 2010, the cost of meeting the regulatory requirements. That is what I am talking about. That is what is impeding job growth and economic growth and business investment. We have to address that. We have to roll back the regulatory burdens our companies and entrepreneurs face today.

This last chart gives one example of some of the new regulations EPA is putting out that somebody who wants to develop energy has to meet. If you are an energy company or a young person with a good idea to develop a new type of energy, or existing type of energy with a new technology, can you meet all of these requirements? Can you even begin to understand them? Do you have a big enough legal team and scientific team, or a deep enough wallet to try to figure that all out before you put your money or your shareholders' money at risk? That is what is impeding economic growth in our country, and we have to deal with it. Congress has to deal with it.

Again, this is not rocket science, and it is not about spending more Federal dollars. We have to create an environment that will encourage, stimulate, and empower private investment. It is that private investment throughout this land that will get our economy going and get people back to work. We can do it. It has to be a long-term strategy. It can't be a few stopgap measures that we put into place now for the next 90 days or for 1 year at a time. It has to be on a long-term sustained basis. I believe that is what the people want to hear this evening. I think they want to hear that kind of commitment to a long- term strategy, a progrowth, pro-jobs economic strategy that will get this economy going now, tomorrow, and for the long term. It has to be done in a bipartisan way to get it through this Congress and signed by the President. But it is that kind of vision we need for our country.

I yield the floor.