Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to address my colleagues on a

number of issues important to the future of the United States and to offer some perspective on Senate service.

In a few weeks, I will leave the Senate for new pursuits that will allow me to devote much deeper attention to a number of issues that have been a part of my Senate service. Among these are preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and developing more efficient ways to feed the world. I am especially pleased that I will be serving on the faculty of the University of Indianapolis and helping that institution establish a Washington internship program. I look forward to announcing additional endeavors of service in coming weeks.

My service in the Senate would not have been possible without the encouragement and constant support of my loving wife Char, our four sons--Mark, Bob, John, and David--and the entire Lugar family. Their strength and sacrifices have been indispensable to my public service. I also am indebted to a great number of talented and loyal friends who have served with me in the Senate, including more than 300 Senators, hundreds of personal and committee staff members, and more than a thousand interns. In my experience, it is difficult to conceive of a better platform from which to devote oneself to public service and the search for solutions to national and international problems. At its best, the Senate is one of the Founders' most important creations.

A great deal has been written recently about political discord in the United States, with some commentators judging that partisanship is at an all-time high. Having seen quite a few periods in the Congress when political struggles were portrayed this way, I hesitate to describe our current state as the most partisan ever. But I do believe that as an institution we have not lived up to the expectations of our constituents to make excellence in governance our top priority.

Many of us have had some type of executive experience as Governors, mayors, corporation chiefs, and cabinet officials. I had the good fortune of serving two terms as the Mayor of Indianapolis prior to my Senate service. For the last 36 years, I have attempted to apply lessons learned during those early governing experiences to my work in the Senate. As mayor, my responsibility for what happened in my city was comprehensive and inescapable. Citizens held the mayor's office accountable for the prosaic tasks of daily life, like trash collection and snow removal, but also for executing strategies for the economic and social advancement of the city.

In legislative life, by contrast, we are responsible for positions expressed through votes, cosponsorships, interviews, and other means. It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance. They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own. It requires leaders who believe, like Edmund Burke, that their first responsibility to their constituents is to apply their best judgment.

It is possible to be elected and re-elected, again and again and gain prominence in the Senate while giving very little thought to governance. One even can gain considerable notoriety by devoting one's career to the political aspects of a Senator's job--promoting the party line, raising money, and focusing on public relations. Responsibility for legislative shortcomings can be pinned on the other party or even intractable members of one's own party. None of us are above politics, nor did the Founders expect us to be. But, obviously, we should be aspiring to something greater than this.

Too often in recent years, Members of Congress have locked themselves into a slate of inflexible positions, many of which have no hope of being implemented in a divided government. Some of these positions have been further calcified by pledges signed for political purposes. Too often we have failed to listen to one another and question whether the orthodox views being promulgated by our parties make strategic sense for America's future. The result has been intractably negative public perceptions of Congress. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted this month found that only 10 percent of likely voters gave Congress a rating of ``excellent'' or ``good.''

For me, the irony is that having seen several generations of lawmakers pass through this body, I can attest that the vast majority are hardworking, genuinely interested in public service, and eager to contribute to the welfare of our country. Often, the public does not believe that. It is easier to assume that Congressional failings arise from the incompetence or even the malfeasance of individual legislators. Or perhaps, as some believe, Washington, D.C. itself is corrupting. It is far more disconcerting to think that our democracy's shortcomings are complex and defy simple solutions, but the Founders were realists who understood the power of factionalism, parochialism, and personal ambition. They understood that good intentions would not always prevail. Accordingly, they designed a system to check abuse and prevent power from accumulating in a few hands. But they knew that the efficient operation of such a republic would require a great deal of cooperation. They knew that it would require most elected officials to have a dedication to governance, and they trusted that leaders would arise in every era to make their vision work.

The Senate has a unique role to play in good governance. We have attributes not possessed by the executive branch, including staying power. Administrations turn over every 4 or 8 years. But Senators can have careers spanning decades that allow them to apply expertise and political understanding to problems over many years, even as administrations come and go. We also can confer a bipartisan framework on a policy. Even a small bipartisan group of Senators cooperating on a difficult problem is a powerful signal of the possibility for a unifying solution.

My hope is that Senators will devote much more of their energies to governance. In a perfect world, we would not only govern, we would execute a coherent strategy. That is a very high bar for any legislative body to clear. But we must aspire to it in cooperation with the President because we are facing fundamental changes in the world order that will deeply affect America's security and standard of living.

The list of such changes is long, but it starts in Asia with the rise of China and India as economic, political, and military powers. The Obama administration has conspicuously announced a ``pivot'' to Asia. At the center of this pivot is China, which exists as both an adversary to certain U.S. interests, and a fellow traveler sharing mutual goals and vulnerabilities on others. The ongoing challenge will be for the United States to discern, sometimes issue by issue, whether China is an adversary or a partner. This calibration will impact America's relations with the rest of Asia and may ultimately determine prospects for war or peace in this world.

While visiting Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines in October, I was reminded of the economic vitality of Southeast Asia and the fact that the ten countries comprising ASEAN represent the fourth largest export market of the United States. These countries are center stage to the circumstances with China. We must stand firm with our friends throughout Asia and actively pursue prospects for free trade with open sea lanes and other policies that will strengthen America's economic growth.

More broadly, we face the specter of global resource constraints, especially deficiencies of energy and food that could stimulate conflict and deepen poverty. We have made startling gains in domestic energy production, but we remain highly vulnerable to our dependency on oil. Perhaps equally important, even if we are able to produce more energy at home, we cannot insulate ourselves from energy-driven shocks to the global economy. In other words, we have to cooperate with other nations in improving the global system of manufacturing and moving energy supplies. Currently, a key to this is helping to ensure the completion of the southern energy corridor serving Central and Southeastern Europe and unleashing our own liquified natural gas exports to address the energy vulnerabilities of our closest allies.

The potential global crisis over food production is less well understood.

Whereas research is opening many new frontiers in the energy sphere, the productivity of global agriculture will not keep up with projected food demand unless many countries change their policies. This starts with a much wider embrace of agriculture technology, including genetically modified techniques. The risks of climate change intensify this imperative.

Even as we deal with potential resource constraints, our country remains vulnerable to terrorism and asymmetric warfare. Access to the internet and social media has deeply altered international politics, in most cases for the better. But it also has contributed to instability through sudden upheavals like the Arab Spring; it has allowed destructive terrorist movements like al Qaida to franchise themselves; and it has intensified risks of cyber-attacks, espionage, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The potential catastrophe remains of a major terrorist attack on American soil employing weapons of mass destruction. If that happens, in addition to the lives lost, our expectations for economic growth and budget balancing could be set back by a decade or more. Having devoted considerable time to this problem, my experience is that there are no silver bullets. Protecting the United States from weapons of mass destruction is a painstaking process that every day must employ our best technological, diplomatic, and military tools.

Amidst all these security risks, we must maintain the competitiveness of the United States in the international economy. We should see education, energy efficiency, access to global markets, the attraction of immigrant entrepreneurs, and other factors as national security issues. My own view is that the fundamentals of American society still offer us the best hand to play in global competitiveness. No other country can match the quality and variety of our post-secondary education. We have the broadest scientific and technological base and the most advanced agricultural system. Our population is younger and more mobile than most other industrialized nations. We still can flourish in this global marketplace if we nurture the competitive genius of the American people that has allowed us time and again to reinvent our economy.

But we must deal with failures of governance that have delayed resolutions to obvious problems. No rational strategy for our long term growth and security, for example, should fail to restrain current entitlement spending. And no attempt to gain the maximum strategic advantage from our human resource potential should fail to enact comprehensive immigration reform that resolves the status of undocumented immigrants and encourages the most talented immigrants to contribute to America's future.

Faced with immense responsibilities, there is a need to elevate our Senate debate. It is vital that the President and Congress establish a closer working relationship, especially on national security. This is not just a matter of process. It is necessary to undergird national unity in the event of severe crises, such as war with Iran or another catastrophic terrorist attack.

This cooperation depends both on Congressional leaders who are willing to set aside partisan advantage and on administration officials who understand that the benefits of having the support of Congress is worth the effort it takes to secure it. Currently, the national security dialog between the President and Congress is one of the least constructive that I have ever witnessed. There is little foundation for resolving national security disputes or even the expectation that this can occur. Before the next 9/11, the President must be willing to call Republicans to the Oval Office to establish the basis for a working partnership in foreign policy. And Republicans must be willing to suspend reflexive opposition that serves no purpose but to limit their own role in strategic questions and render cooperation impossible. All parties should recognize the need for unity in the coming year when events in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, and other locations may test American national security in extreme ways.

I commend each of you, my Senate colleagues, for the commitment that led you to stand for election to the United States Senate. Running for office is a difficult endeavor that is usually accompanied by great personal risk and cost. Each one of you is capable of being a positive force for changing the tone of debate in our country. Each one of you has a responsibility not only to act with integrity and represent your constituents, but also to make the informed and imaginative choices on which good governance for our country depends.

I am optimistic about our country's future. I believe that both internal divisions and external threats can be overcome. The United States will continue to serve as the inspiration for peoples seeking peace, freedom and economic prosperity. And the United States Senate should and will be at the forefront of this advancement.

May we seek each day from God our creator, the wisdom and the will to do our best in the governance of our country. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, for NATO Act.

The United States is in possession of vast resources that could directly contribute to the energy security of our closest NATO allies, who face over-reliance on Russian and Iranian gas sources. In 2009, the United States overtook Russia as the world's largest natural gas producer due to vast unconventional reserves. At current U.S. consumption rates, the United States possesses perhaps a century of gas supply. This development has caused U.S. natural gas prices to fall to nearly a half to a third of gas prices in other key European and Asian markets and has prompted numerous applications for export licenses of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports.

Pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, gas exports are subject to approval by the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which must certify that a particular export is in the U.S. public interest. For destination countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement, a presumption is created that the export is in the public interest, and the license is automatic. For non-free trade agreement nations, a study must be conducted to determine the public interest, entailing a notice and comment period. Several companies have submitted applications to retrofit U.S. LNG import terminals for regasification and export; to construct new LNG export terminals; and to export cryogenic natural gas to Latin America by rail and ship. After approving one application, the Obama administration deferred others until at least 2013, pending a study completed last week. This study found that under any scenario, LNG exports will be a net benefit for the U.S. economy. Moreover, continued development of unconventional gas suppliers is an important source of job creation in the United States.

U.S. shale gas reserves are already transforming European natural gas markets since LNG previously destined for the United States has now been made available for Europe. The United States can do much more to both use LNG exports to benefit NATO allies facing energy insecurity in Europe and to promote economic growth in the United States.

Turkey currently relies on Iran for 20 percent of its gas imports, which could come under increased pressure when the European Council's decision of October 15, 2012 to prohibit the ``purchase, import or transport of natural gas from Iran'' is implemented. Moreover, several allies and partners in Central and Southeastern Europe, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Greece, the Czech Republic, and Moldova, will see their long-term contracts with Gazprom expire in the coming years. For these countries, targeted U.S. LNG exports, along with infrastructure investment and other policy responses, could help alleviate energy insecurity. It is possible that several other NATO allies and partners may opt for U.S. natural gas imports, and even paying a reliability premium for them, if the opportunity existed.

Meanwhile, European nations are ramping up capacity to import LNG. At present, Europe imports LNG primarily from Algeria, Egypt, Oman, and Qatar to meet about 26 percent of its gas needs, due in large part to a lack of LNG import terminals, which are mostly located in Western Europe, as well as underdeveloped onward interconnectors and storage capacity in Europe. However, numerous European countries, some with financing from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD, are considering construction of additional LNG import terminals, including Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine. In light of these dynamics, the United States is well-positioned to

become a strategic energy supplier of LNG to NATO allies in need of diversification.

The LNG for NATO Act would not direct supply, which should remain exclusively the function of private industry. Instead, this legislation would affect Section 3 the Natural Gas Act to create a presumption that licenses to export U.S. natural gas to NATO allies is in the U.S. public interest, giving NATO allies the same preferential treatment enjoyed by our free trade partners. Specifically, swift passage of this act will make gas export licenses automatic for Turkey, which relies on Iran for 20 percent of its gas demand, and those NATO countries, whose long-term gas contracts with Russia's Gazprom expire in the coming years.

Through market forces, NATO allies will be more secure and the Alliance will be stronger. While the U.S. Congress will no doubt continue to debate full liberalization of natural gas exports, the LNG for NATO Act follows other precedents for narrowly tailored exceptions to our export licensing regime.

I am hopeful that the LNG for NATO Act can command bipartisan support and swift passage.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, for NATO Act.

The United States is in possession of vast resources that could directly contribute to the energy security of our closest NATO allies, who face over-reliance on Russian and Iranian gas sources. In 2009, the United States overtook Russia as the world's largest natural gas producer due to vast unconventional reserves. At current U.S. consumption rates, the United States possesses perhaps a century of gas supply. This development has caused U.S. natural gas prices to fall to nearly a half to a third of gas prices in other key European and Asian markets and has prompted numerous applications for export licenses of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports.

Pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, gas exports are subject to approval by the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which must certify that a particular export is in the U.S. public interest. For destination countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement, a presumption is created that the export is in the public interest, and the license is automatic. For non-free trade agreement nations, a study must be conducted to determine the public interest, entailing a notice and comment period. Several companies have submitted applications to retrofit U.S. LNG import terminals for regasification and export; to construct new LNG export terminals; and to export cryogenic natural gas to Latin America by rail and ship. After approving one application, the Obama administration deferred others until at least 2013, pending a study completed last week. This study found that under any scenario, LNG exports will be a net benefit for the U.S. economy. Moreover, continued development of unconventional gas suppliers is an important source of job creation in the United States.

U.S. shale gas reserves are already transforming European natural gas markets since LNG previously destined for the United States has now been made available for Europe. The United States can do much more to both use LNG exports to benefit NATO allies facing energy insecurity in Europe and to promote economic growth in the United States.

Turkey currently relies on Iran for 20 percent of its gas imports, which could come under increased pressure when the European Council's decision of October 15, 2012 to prohibit the ``purchase, import or transport of natural gas from Iran'' is implemented. Moreover, several allies and partners in Central and Southeastern Europe, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Greece, the Czech Republic, and Moldova, will see their long-term contracts with Gazprom expire in the coming years. For these countries, targeted U.S. LNG exports, along with infrastructure investment and other policy responses, could help alleviate energy insecurity. It is possible that several other NATO allies and partners may opt for U.S. natural gas imports, and even paying a reliability premium for them, if the opportunity existed.

Meanwhile, European nations are ramping up capacity to import LNG. At present, Europe imports LNG primarily from Algeria, Egypt, Oman, and Qatar to meet about 26 percent of its gas needs, due in large part to a lack of LNG import terminals, which are mostly located in Western Europe, as well as underdeveloped onward interconnectors and storage capacity in Europe. However, numerous European countries, some with financing from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD, are considering construction of additional LNG import terminals, including Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine. In light of these dynamics, the United States is well-positioned to

become a strategic energy supplier of LNG to NATO allies in need of diversification.

The LNG for NATO Act would not direct supply, which should remain exclusively the function of private industry. Instead, this legislation would affect Section 3 the Natural Gas Act to create a presumption that licenses to export U.S. natural gas to NATO allies is in the U.S. public interest, giving NATO allies the same preferential treatment enjoyed by our free trade partners. Specifically, swift passage of this act will make gas export licenses automatic for Turkey, which relies on Iran for 20 percent of its gas demand, and those NATO countries, whose long-term gas contracts with Russia's Gazprom expire in the coming years.

Through market forces, NATO allies will be more secure and the Alliance will be stronger. While the U.S. Congress will no doubt continue to debate full liberalization of natural gas exports, the LNG for NATO Act follows other precedents for narrowly tailored exceptions to our export licensing regime.

I am hopeful that the LNG for NATO Act can command bipartisan support and swift passage.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, I rise today to commemorate the 85th birthday anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej who has reigned for 66 years as King of Thailand.

Over 50 years ago, the King, also known as Rama IX, a long-time and proven friend of the United States, addressed a Joint Session of Congress. He and the people of Thailand have partnered with the people of the United States in war and in peace. As noted in the recent Thailand-U.S. Joint Vision Statement preceding President Obama's recent trip to Thailand, ``. . . the Thai-U.S. defense alliance has promoted regional stability by fostering cooperation in areas that enables both nations to address shared security concerns effectively''.

The King has been internationally recognized for his consistent dedication to promote the well-being of the Thai people. Among the awards received is the U.N. Development Program First Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award. Over the last 60 years the King has initiated thousands of development projects throughout Thailand addressing a wide range of challenges including public health and education, agricultural development and reforestation.

Mr. President, in the Congress extensive time and effort are dedicated to the consideration of major challenges to the United States, domestically and overseas. Endless debate carries on to determine how to deal with leaders in those countries who do not share democratic values, and in fact are opposed to the United States actively engaging in global free trade and the promotion of our national security.

Consequently, it is a pleasure and an honor on behalf of Senator Inhofe and myself to highlight the life of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who has been steadfast in his friendship to the American people. He is the longest- reigning monarch in the history of Thailand and currently the world's longest-reigning monarch as well.

Mr. President I was pleased to recently visit Thailand and meet with government officials regarding Thailand's participation in the Nunn- Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program. Thailand is actively working to counter biological threats. Among other areas, the U.S. will also continue to work to help Thailand control infectious disease that could become the source of a pandemic or the target of terrorists seeking to create a biological weapon.

In conclusion, I am grateful for the overall relationship between our two countries, and look forward to developments in the future which will bring us closer together.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I believe the chairman has stated a fair position. On the other hand, in terms of our side, the Republican side, I wish to preserve at least the rights of our Members to have the maximum amount of time as possible. So I am inclined to believe the time should be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, as we all now know, the Senate will vote today on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The United States has long been a leader in its treatment of those with disabilities. Becoming a party to the convention would provide an important platform and forum for the United States to continue this leadership.

We received strong expressions of support for the convention from a wide

range of groups who advocate on behalf of the disabled. This includes numerous veterans organizations representing those who have become disabled while serving our country in the Armed Forces.

An important factor in my decision to support the convention has been the testimony received by the Foreign Relations Committee that joining the convention will not require any change--and I emphasize that: will not require any change--in existing U.S. law or policies regarding treatment of the disabled.

In their statements before the Foreign Relations Committee, officials from the executive branch as well as former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh stressed that current U.S. law satisfies all obligations the United States would assume in joining the convention.

In order to underscore the importance of this point, the Foreign Relations Committee specifically addressed it in a declaration in the resolution of advice and consent. The declaration formulated by the Foreign Relations Committee reads as follows:

The Senate declares that, in view of the reservations to be

included in the instrument of ratification, current United

States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the

Convention for the United States of America.

On a related point, the resolution of advice and consent also underscores that the convention will not be self-executing in U.S. law. This means its provisions are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts and do not confer private rights of action enforceable in the United States.

These provisions of the resolution of advice and consent establish important parameters for U.S. accession to the convention. They give effect to the intent of the Senate that joining the convention will not require any changes in U.S. laws and policies with regard to the disabled, either now or in the future, and will not provide a basis for lawsuits in U.S. courts. Such matters will continue to be governed solely by U.S. laws.

It is my hope these provisions in the resolution of advice and consent will provide assurance to Members who may be concerned that joining the convention could somehow confer new rights on disabled persons in particular areas or that the convention can be used to require the United States to change its laws or policies with respect to the disabled. With these provisions, the United States can join the convention as an expression of our leadership on disability rights without ceding any of our ability to decide for ourselves how best to address those issues in our laws.

The United States can play an important leadership role in helping countries around the world identify ways to expand opportunities for the disabled. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting United States accession to the convention as a means of advancing this goal.

I would point out that many of us have visited with veterans-- disabled veterans, as a matter of fact--in the corridors of the Capitol in the last 24 hours. They have expressed without reservation the fact that their lives would be enhanced in the event we were able to pass this treaty, because their treatment in other countries would improve as other countries adopt principles we have found useful as a practical means of helping the disabled.

I believe each one of us ought to be moved by the testimony of our veterans--veterans I have seen here in the corridors who have lost legs during fights on behalf of the United States of America. This is a serious issue and a humanitarian, thoughtful way. And I emphasize again and again, the United States joins with other countries, sharing our experiences of how we can improve treatment of the handicapped, with no possible provision in the treaty--and we have reserved this completely--that there could be any change in our laws.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the chairman of our committee, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, has expressed the case well and strongly. Let me say in simplicity that as we enjoyed hearing of the rights of persons with disabilities, we have learned that essentially the United States has an opportunity for leadership for an expression of our idealism with regard to the care and treatment and concern for disabled persons in our country and the world.

If we ratify this treaty, we will join with other nations who meet annually and will receive every 4 years reports from the various countries that are involved as to the progress they have made. They compare notes. They learn really how the disabled are treated. Our belief is that we are the gold standard and that there are many countries that would like to know technically how people are treated in the United States and what sort of investment would be required in those countries.

Having said that, we should also say, very frankly, that the committee or this governing aspect has no ability whatsoever to create law--either State, local, or Federal--in the United States of America or to compel Americans to do anything, literally. So we have an opportunity to be advocates of our idealism, and we have an opportunity to listen to others and perhaps to gain new insight in this body about how, along with our fellows in the House, to proceed. I think that is very important.

Now, having said all that, I would say that likewise the committee did understand there are considerable anxieties in our country about this situation. I would say it is conceivable the debate we have today will illustrate that some Members of our body have valid concerns about the convention. I think it is clear that we will cite again and again our domestic legislation, such as the ADA and the IDEA, which constitutes the most comprehensive and effective standards to advance the rights and provide equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

One of the arguments by the administration in support of Senate ratification is that by becoming a member we will be able to increase our global credibility. It is argued this increased credibility with other countries will be beneficial in exporting and promoting

standards. The executive branch also argued that when officials have bilateral conversations advising other governments about improving standards for their disabled citizens, officials often question why the United States is not a party now to the convention. Opponents of the convention have argued we should only accede to the convention if it advances the national interest of the United States, especially in an area where the United States is a global leader.

There have been questions raised regarding the binding nature of the convention. The response has been that the convention is nonbinding, and the committee formed by the treaty has no compulsory authority. This also addresses the concerns of opponents who have cited instances of overreach by such committees established by human rights treaties in the past.

Most major veterans groups, as has been cited, and disability rights groups have all written in support and, as a matter of fact, turned out by the hundreds for the hearings and the markup of this legislation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As I indicated, it would be very important from the perspective of making the world a more accessible place for U.S. citizens, including disabled citizens and veterans who are disabled. And improving a global standard for all segments of the disabled community should be our goal. Although accession to the treaty will not instantly achieve that goal, it may provide another avenue through which we might achieve the goal.

I want to mention specifically now some technical aspects of our committee consideration. Article 34 of the convention creates the committee we have talked about--the committee on the rights of persons and disabilities. It consists of 18 persons, elected by state parties to the convention, and they are required to submit periodic reports to the committee concerning measures taken to give effect to the obligations under the convention and the progress made in that regard. The convention provides the committee shall make such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward those to the state party concerned. The committee recommendations are advisory only and are not binding on the sate parties, including the United States of America.

Now, the United States has recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities through constitutional and statutory protections--the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which has been cited. As such, many of the general requirements of the convention for protection of disability rights already exist in Federal law. The provisions of the convention can be grouped generally into the following categories: Accessibility, education, equality, employment, and health.

Now, the committee closely reviewed the ``best interest of the child'' standard as set forth in article 7 of the convention, including whether the ratification of the convention by the United States could negatively impact parental rights with respect to disabled children, including parents who opt for home schooling of disabled children. The Department of Justice testified unequivocally that parental rights would not be hindered in any way.

In response to written questions for the record, Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Eve Hill, stated:

In light of the Federalism and private conduct

reservations, among others, there would be no change to

Federal, State or local law regarding the ability of parents

in the United States to make decisions about how to raise or

educate their children as a result of ratification.

Mention has been made by the chairman about article 25 of the convention. The state parties recognize that individuals with disabilities have the same right as others to enjoyment of the highest attainable standards held. They must be offered the same range, quality, and standard of care that is available to other persons in their countries. Health care professionals must provide care on the same basis they would provide if the individual seeking care did not have a disability. Article 25 also prohibits discrimination based on disability related to the provisions of health and life insurance.

The convention does not provide any additional or different rights on matters of abortion. It also provides that people with disabilities not be treated any differently than others. Existing U.S. rules on abortion would still apply to U.S. citizens.

The administration has recommended the Senate include certain reservations, declarations, and understandings in any resolution of advice and consent. The administration has stated, with the following reservations, understandings, and declarations; that the United States would be able to implement its obligations under the convention using its vast existing network of laws affording protection to persons with disabilities. Therefore--and I stress this--no new legislation would be required to ratify and implement the convention.

I shall not go through all the details of the reservations, but they do specifically mention federalism: The convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government of the United States of America to the extent it exercises the legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein and otherwise by the State and local governments to the extent that State and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters.

I would say, secondly, there is nonregulation of certain private conduct. This is a reservation suggested by the administration, adopted by the committee. The Constitution and laws of the United States establish extensive protection against discrimination, reaching all forms of government activity as well as significant areas of nongovernment activity. Individual privacy and freedom from government interference in certain private conduct is also recognized as being among fundamental values of our free and democratic society.

The United States understands that by its terms the convention can be read to require broad regulation of private conduct. To the extent it does, the United States of America does not accept any obligation--any obligation--under the convention to enact legislation or take other measures with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

I would mention, in addition to proposed reservations of the administration adopted by the committee, there were numerous proposed understandings all of which were adopted by the committee. They protect essentially the first amendment of the United States, economic, social, and cultural rights in our country, equal employment opportunity, uniformed employees of the United States, military departments, and definition of disability. In other words, U.S. law, State and local government law apply in all of these cases without exception and cannot be countermanded by anything with regard to this treaty. Likewise, there have been proposed declarations offered by the State Department, and these were adopted by the committee.

I would simply say, Mr. President, without reiterating each of the reservations, they all attempt to meet any conceivable objection or question raised by citizens of the United States who have testified, who have written to the committee, or Members of this body who have visited with members of the committee as we were preparing for this obligation today. This is a treaty, in essence, that states our idealism. We would be a part of an organization in which we have a forum to do that. We are under no obligation to adopt any of the suggestions of the other committee members, although we will listen respectfully to them.

As a matter of fact, the treaty is important because we have such a gold standard that others have simply raised the question: Why are you not a part of a picture that might make this available, thoughtfully, to the rest of the world? And there is no good answer to that if in fact we espouse these ideals with regard to all of humanity and hope they might be adopted by others. But, specifically, and one reason veterans organizations and other organizations trying to help the disabled in our country advocate this treaty is that we would like to see improvement in other countries.

Sometimes our warfighters, as a matter of fact, are forced by all sorts of conditions to live in other countries. We hope they are receiving proper treatment, the best treatment. As a matter of fact, if they have any sort of

life in those countries, we hope there is improvement for them. We hope, as they come back to America and then find it necessary to travel abroad again for any number of purposes, that the treatment for their disabilities will be there and, hopefully, of the same quality. We need to be advocates of this convention, advocates for our veterans and for other Americans who have disabilities.

So for these reasons, Mr. President, I am grateful to the majority leader for bringing this legislation to the floor at this time. We are very hopeful that at least the bipartisan debate we had in our committee and the strong vote for ratification will find at least some resonance in this overall debate in the Senate.

It has been a privilege on my part to work with our leader and to have had an excellent set of hearings and to have enjoyed the comments of our veterans. There are many in this body who have served this country in the military services. They have distinguished records. I had only a modest 3 years and 4 months of Active Duty after volunteering for the Navy, but that was sufficient for me to learn what was important for those with whom I was serving and those in veterans organizations, such as the American Legion, headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, about what is vital to the quality of life for those constituents.

So I am hopeful we will have success in this effort tonight.

I yield the floor.

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

I would like to recognize Senator Vitter on our side.

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

Mr. President, I join the chairman in thanking John McCain for his testimony, his courage, his eloquence, and his mention of those on our side of the aisle who have historically fought for the disabled. That is a very important fact today, and his presence, his strength and determination are very inspiring. We appreciate so much his support.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the extraordinary career achievements of Richard F. Grimmett, specialist in international security with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service, who is retiring on September 30, after 38 years of distinguished government service. A native of Akron, OH, Richard graduated with honors from Kent State University, where he also received a Ph.D. in American history with a focus on recent U.S. national security policy.

Since 1974, when he joined CRS, Richard has been involved in a wide range of major international security policy issues that have confronted the Congress, from questions involving intelligence community oversight, war powers, and the basing and use of U.S. military forces overseas, to the international arms trade and arms export controls. Through his nearly four decades as a staff adviser to the Congress and several of its major committees, his various appearances as a con1mittee witness, and through his authoring of numerous in-depth CRS reports, Richard has become recognized as a national expert in these critical defense and foreign policy issues.

The broad sweep of his intellect is reflected in the substantive reports and memoranda he has written for the Congress. Yet an especially significant part of his contributions to congressional policy debates has been through the numerous consultations and briefings he has provided to major committees of the Senate and House on key issues before them. At the beginning of his career at CRS, Richard provided direct support to major congressional investigations of events of great consequence for U.S. national security interests. Among these were his analytical support for the Senate and House Select Intelligence Committees--the panels chaired by Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike--charged with investigating the activities of the U.S. intelligence community during 1975 to 1976, investigations that ultimately led to the creation of permanent select committees in the House and Senate that oversee the budget and activities of the U.S. intelligence community today. Later, in 1985 to 1987, Richard was a senior coordinator of the support provided by CRS to the House and Senate joint committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair, personally providing advice and suggestions that focused attention on key deficiencies in U.S. law, several of which were later corrected by legislative enactment. Immediately after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, he directly assisted the Senate and the House in clarifying its understanding of the legislative options available to the Congress to respond, through use of force, against those responsible for the attacks on this country. His comprehensive understanding of the War Powers Resolution and its provisions have proven invaluable to the Congress when it has needed to consider what actions it might take when the President has engaged the U.S. military in hostile operations overseas. In 2005 Richard provided the Congress with an analytical roadmap that highlighted the common policy suggestions for legislation that the 9/11 Commission and previous similar inquiries had 1nade to bolster U.S. internal security against the threat of terrorism. Subsequently, several of these proposals were enacted into law.

Throughout his career Richard has been the leading specialist at CRS on issues relating to U.S. arms sales to foreign nations, U.S. arms export control law, and the international arms trade in general. From the mid-1970s to the present, he has advised the Congress and its policy committees on

issues associated with every controversial foreign arms sale proposal that has come before them. Since 1982 he has produced a comprehensive annual report for the Congress detailing the agreements and deliveries concluded by the world's conventional weapons suppliers, a work that has set the gold standard on this subject. Richard was also the editor and coauthor of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee print ``Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate'' the definitive reference document on this subject.

In the area of arms export control and oversight legislation, Richard has provided continuing expert support and advice to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, from the original drafting of the Arms Export Control Act in 1976 through its various periods of amendment to the present day. More recently, he directly supported the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's exhaustive review of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. In this endeavor, Richard provided his specialized expertise to the committee on the complex issues posed by this treaty, from its proposal by the President in 2007 through the Committee's consideration and the Senate's advice and consent to it in September 2010.

In all of the examples I have noted, Richard Grimmett's institutional memory and command of the substance of the issues for which he has been responsible has made him an invaluable resource for the U.S. Congress at large and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in particular. I am confident that the Members of the Senate and the House join me in expressing our deepest appreciation to Richard for the extraordinary service he has provided to us over his long and distinguished career.

Mr. President, what a pleasure it is to be with my colleague Pat Leahy on this very special day. It was a great coincidence that the 13,000th vote and the 14,000th vote should occur this afternoon, but what a joyous moment to be with my friend on this experience.

I once again thank the leader Mitch McConnell of our party and Harry Reid the majority leader of the Senate for their very generous remarks about both Pat and me.

I join Pat in extolling the virtues of those who have made such a difference in our lives. My wife Charlene, our 4

sons, our 13 grandchildren, our great-grandchildren--these are very precious people who have made such a difference in my life and made it possible for me to have good health and spirits throughout all this time and to enjoy thoroughly this experience.

I would just add to the remarks of my colleague that tomorrow we hope to have a little celebration in the Agriculture Committee room.

Long ago, at the beginning of our careers, Pat and I were situated at the end of the long table that stretched the length of the Agriculture Committee room. Our chairman, Herman Talmadge of Georgia, was at one end with Senator Jim Eastland of Mississippi. I am not certain what the rules of the Senate were at that time, but I recall that frequently both were enveloped in smoke at the end of the room, and it seemed to me that they were, in fact, developing whatever the policy was going to be and making decisions. As a matter of fact, sometimes they simply arose, and Pat and I were left to ponder really what had occurred.

So it was appropriate that our two portraits should be put at the end of the table, at the entry to the Agriculture Committee room, where we once sat as the most junior members and eventually ascended to the chairmanship, having great experiences together in farm policy and the ability to help feed the world.

I am grateful, likewise, for Vice President Biden's presence today because he was a wonderful partner in the Foreign Relations Committee for so many years. I was not aware that the Vice President would be in the chair. I told him I was somewhat embarrassed because my 13,000th vote finally eclipsed his votes, and he ranks now 11th. Joe was aware of that. He had in the chair today the rankings 1 through 11. So we are sort of all situated and still love each other in the process.

I thank all Senators for the honor that has been accorded for this opportunity to address the body. This has been a great experience of my life, and this has been a very special moment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, last week heads of state, key policymakers, and foreign aid implementers met in Washington to examine ``Frontiers in Development.'' It was my pleasure to provide the conference keynote address Monday in which I pressed for greater transparency in global financial transactions and investments. This includes both U.S. foreign assistance funding and payments that companies make to foreign governments for oil, natural gas and mineral developments. Fuller disclosure improves accountability to citizens of both our country and the recipient country and would set an important example for other countries to provide more clarity about their own foreign assistance programs. Transparency in energy and mineral payments is already required for U.S.-listed companies by law in the Cardin-Lugar provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, and thanks to American leadership, the European Union is preparing similar legislation. Now, it is timely to enact legislation requiring the U.S. to disclose where and for what purpose it provides foreign assistance dollars across the globe. Further, taxpayers and foreign aid recipients have a right to know the impacts of these funds.

That is why I am introducing The Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act, which will require the President to disclose this information through a publicly accessible website in a timely manner.

The U.S. provides assistance through a host of federal agencies including the Departments of State, Defense and Agriculture, as well as agencies including the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC. While our Federal budget is available for public review, there is currently no single source required by law where one can review in what amount and for what purpose U.S. dollars flow to individual countries and programs. President Obama early in his administration promised to bring more transparency to our international development programs. But so far, the efforts by the State Department, USAID, the MCC and others to display this information through the Foreign Assistance Dashboard have been inadequate. There is a meager amount of data on the Dashboard, and it is often woefully out of date.

My legislation is the identical version to that introduced earlier in this Congress by Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, which now has more than 50 House co-sponsors. I compliment Representative Poe on the bill and appreciate the bipartisan support he has already garnered for it in the House. I look forward to working to enact the legislation in this Congress, bringing greater transparency and accountability to taxpayer funding of foreign assistance programs in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week heads of state, key policymakers, and foreign aid implementers met in Washington to examine ``Frontiers in Development.'' It was my pleasure to provide the conference keynote address Monday in which I pressed for greater transparency in global financial transactions and investments. This includes both U.S. foreign assistance funding and payments that companies make to foreign governments for oil, natural gas and mineral developments. Fuller disclosure improves accountability to citizens of both our country and the recipient country and would set an important example for other countries to provide more clarity about their own foreign assistance programs. Transparency in energy and mineral payments is already required for U.S.-listed companies by law in the Cardin-Lugar provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, and thanks to American leadership, the European Union is preparing similar legislation. Now, it is timely to enact legislation requiring the U.S. to disclose where and for what purpose it provides foreign assistance dollars across the globe. Further, taxpayers and foreign aid recipients have a right to know the impacts of these funds.

That is why I am introducing The Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act, which will require the President to disclose this information through a publicly accessible website in a timely manner.

The U.S. provides assistance through a host of federal agencies including the Departments of State, Defense and Agriculture, as well as agencies including the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC. While our Federal budget is available for public review, there is currently no single source required by law where one can review in what amount and for what purpose U.S. dollars flow to individual countries and programs. President Obama early in his administration promised to bring more transparency to our international development programs. But so far, the efforts by the State Department, USAID, the MCC and others to display this information through the Foreign Assistance Dashboard have been inadequate. There is a meager amount of data on the Dashboard, and it is often woefully out of date.

My legislation is the identical version to that introduced earlier in this Congress by Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, which now has more than 50 House co-sponsors. I compliment Representative Poe on the bill and appreciate the bipartisan support he has already garnered for it in the House. I look forward to working to enact the legislation in this Congress, bringing greater transparency and accountability to taxpayer funding of foreign assistance programs in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to express my congratulations to the winners of the 2011 2012 Dick Lugar/ Indiana Farm Bureau/Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest.

In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for 8th grade students in my home State. The purpose of this contest is to encourage young Hoosiers to recognize and appreciate the importance of Indiana agriculture in their lives and subsequently craft an essay responding to the assigned theme. The theme chosen for this year was ``The Role of the Farm in a Healthy Diet.''

Along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, I am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years. I applaud each of this year's participants on their thoughtful work and wish, especially, to highlight the submissions of the 2011 2012 contest winners--Travis Koester of Wadesville, IN, and Andrea Ledgerwood of Angola, IN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the complete text of Travis' and Andrea's respective essays and I am pleased, also, to include the names of the many district and county winners of the contest.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. France A. Cordova, Purdue University's 11th president and the first woman to head that institution.

Dr. Cordova became president of Purdue on July 16, 2007, and has overseen a strategic plan that emphasizes student success, research deliverables and global engagement. During her presidency, she has led Purdue to record levels of research funding, reputational rankings, and student retention rates; championed diversity among students, staff and university leadership; and promoted student success, faculty excellence, education affordability and programmatic innovation. Under her leadership, Purdue has expanded its role as a top research institution on the global stage and raised more than $1 billion through private philanthropy.

President Cordova will retire from Purdue at the end of her 5-year term,

July 2012. She leaves a legacy of excellence at Purdue and in the field of higher education. Among the numerous national boards she serves, she is currently the chair of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, a three- year term which began in January 2012.

That Purdue is the cradle of astronauts--with 23 astronaut alumni--is significant to Dr. Cordova, who first dreamed of exploring space as she watched Neil Armstrong take the first human footsteps on the moon in 1969. She has served Purdue University honorably and with a great commitment to students, research innovation and global outreach.

It is my honor to recognize Dr. France A. Cordova as an outstanding scientist, educator and administrator, who has given so much to Purdue University and the State of Indiana, and I wish her every continuing success in her future endeavors.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who is retiring this month after 25 years of distinguished service as Indiana's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Justice Shepard was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Governor Robert Orr in 1985 and became Chief Justice in 1987, then the youngest chief justice in the nation. During his career, he has authored nearly 900 civil and criminal opinions and 68 law review articles. His writings have been cited hundreds of times by law journals and other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Shepard's leadership and idealism are recognized beyond his legal opinions. Under his tenure, the court adopted a more balanced workload of civil and criminal cases and began webcasting all of its oral arguments. In 2001, he created the Courts in the Classroom program, which helps students learn about the judiciary, and was a driving force behind the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity program which promotes diversity in the legal profession. In 2007, Justice Shepard was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels as co- chair of the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform, and several of the Commission's recommendations have been implemented.

A seventh-generation Hoosier, Justice Shepard grew up in Evansville, IN, and graduated cum laude from Princeton in 1969. He received his law degree from Yale Law School in 1972. Among other awards, Justice Shepard has received the Indiana Chamber of Commerce Government Leader of the Year, the American Judicature Society's Opperman Award, and the Indiana Black Expo Lifetime Achievement Award. He has honorary degrees from the University of Southern Indiana, the University of South Carolina, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Evansville.

I appreciate this opportunity to recognize Justice Shepard, and I wish him every continuing success as he pursues new challenges and opportunities.

Madam President, I rise today in support of American jobs and national security.

First, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to families who have lost loved ones in the tornadoes that struck Indiana and other States on March 2.

Last weekend Senator Coats and I toured the damaged areas of southern Indiana and met with people who are dedicated to a full recovery from total devastation. I wish to pay special tribute to advanced preparedness by the schools and many others that prevented an even greater loss of life. Also, our gratitude goes out to the first responders who are doing amazing work, in some cases while facing their own devastating circumstances.

I am returning this weekend to encourage the continuing progress toward recovery, and I am working closely with Governor Daniels and other State officials to coordinate Federal assistance that is appropriate given the level of devastation.

Amendment No. 1537

Madam President, I rise in support of American jobs and national security in a very strong way and to encourage my colleagues to support the Keystone XL Pipeline amendment I have offered with Senators Hoeven, Vitter, and others. The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment No. 1537 mirrors legislation that 46 Senators from both parties have cosponsored. Let me give special thanks to John Hoeven for his partnership and his leadership in this effort.

My own advocacy for the Keystone XL pipeline derives from its benefits for national security, job creation, and economic growth. Keystone XL will reduce our vulnerability to oil market

manipulation by unfriendly foreign regimes, thereby giving our military and diplomats more flexibility in addressing national security priorities such as stopping Iran's nuclear weapons capability. Keystone XL will create thousands of private sector American jobs almost immediately and without taxpayer subsidy. The more than 7 billion private sector dollars invested for Keystone XL will benefit American workers far beyond those installing the pipeline.

Moreover, analysis from the Department of Energy just last year found that oil supplies coming via Keystone XL would most likely lower gas prices.

President Obama's denial of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is not in the national interest. Americans are screaming for more affordable oil supplies. The irony is that Democratic Senate leadership is calling for more oil from Saudi Arabia even as they continue to oppose oil from Canada.

The Obama Administration's failure to approve Keystone XL detrimentally impacts Americans today. If the State Department had conducted its review in a timely manner of 18 to 24 months, the southern half of Keystone XL would already have been in operation, relieving the bottleneck currently keeping more affordable U.S. oil away from consumers. The remainder of Keystone XL would have been in operation any day now, so today's markets, tighter from supply reductions in Iran and Sudan, would have had reliable sources online soon. We should not delay needed market liquidity any longer.

The Democratic alternative to our legislation would add more delay to American jobs, enable a large government overreach into private industry decisions, and jeopardize the jobs of American refinery workers.

It is not the normal course of events that Congress would be acting on a single private sector project. As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for months I encouraged timely evaluation of this the project on the merits, even while sharing my own support for its completion. Historically, pipeline applications have been treated in a technocratic matter by both Republican and Democratic administrations. For that reason, Congress has not generally been compelled to assert its constitutional authority over border crossings for oil pipelines as we have for bridges, ports, and immigration.

Regrettably, actions by the Obama Administration to first delay and then deny the Keystone XL application point to election year politics overwhelming the need for objective consideration of the national interest.

In that circumstance, last December 89 Senators voted to pass into law the Lugar-Hoeven-Vitter legislation, S. 1932, which required President Obama to conclude more than 3 years of analysis. In other words, we tried to give President Obama a chance to finish the job. Immediately upon passage, the White House complained that they did not have sufficient time to make a decision. In reality, the Obama Administration issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on August 26, 2011, and pondered the Keystone XL application for 1,217 days before rejecting it in January.

The lengthy delay in permitting Keystone XL is incongruous with our country's dire need to diversify oil sources and promote job creation. The first Keystone pipeline's permit was granted in 693 days. The Obama Administration approved the Alberta Clipper permit after an 829 day review.

Incredibly, even after 1,217 days the Obama Administration still was unable to determine the national interest, even at this time when oil markets are the tightest they have been in years, gas prices are soaring, and unemployment remains at 8.3%.

The only reason that has been given for delay is that the Keystone XL route through Nebraska is being shifted to avoid some sensitive areas. Benefiting from the diligent efforts of Senator Johanns and his staff, the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment protects that state process, giving Nebraskans all the time they need while not unduly holding up construction in other states. The Federal government need not tell Nebraskans where to put the pipeline on their territory; our legislation trusts Nebraskans to do what is best for Nebraska.

Mr. President, it may surprise some colleagues to learn that it is not the Federal government's role to decide when an oil pipeline should be built or where it will be placed. The primary Federal role is to ensure safety and environmental standards are met. Our legislation contains safety and environmental requirements in excess of current law and already endorsed by 89 Senators in December. With our bill, Keystone XL would be perhaps the most advanced oil pipeline in the country.

It is only by virtue of crossing our international border with Canada that Keystone XL came into the unfortunate situation of requiring Presidential permission. Our legislation removes the need for an international border-crossing permit for Keystone XL, which currently is required only by Executive Order and not U.S. law. The pipeline could enter the United States at Phillips County, Montana, and nowhere else. In doing so, it recognizes not only that trade in reliable and affordable oil with our closest economic and strategic ally is in the national interest, it also recognizes that in large part the U.S. and Canadian energy systems are integrated to our mutual advantage.

The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter bill resets evaluation and permitting for all portions of the pipeline to where it was before November 11, 2011, when the President announced he would delay a decision for more than a year until after the 2012 election. The Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the State Department would be reinstated, along with associated Federal permissions. Keystone XL would still be required to go through regular order in receiving permits that it had not received prior to that date, including from the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Land Management.

Importantly, our legislation recognizes the vital role of individual states in approving oil pipelines. Keystone XL must have all State permissions required by the States that it proposes to cross. That also applies to eminent domain, which is the jurisdiction of the States when it comes to oil pipelines.

I recognize that there is opposition to Keystone XL among certain segments of the environmental community. I take these concerns seriously. That is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into U.S. law. It reflects work of the State Department, the Transportation Department, and other Agencies that identified expansive and specific requirements for pipeline construction and operation. TransCanada has pledged to follow those guidelines, which would have the force of law through our legislation.

In the course of debate we will likely hear a number of Democratic colleagues attest their support for pipelines and for Keystone XL in particular. Surely more will profess their concern for the thousands of workers that would earn incomes with Keystone XL, as well as for the numerous unions that support them. I have no doubt that many Senators, regardless of party affiliation, share those sentiments. Yet, sentiments mean little if in the next breath they oppose reasonable legislation we have offered to make it happen, namely the Hoeven-Lugar- Vitter bill.

I understand that there can be reasonable questions, even concerns on a project of this size. I, along with Senator Hoeven and other cosponsors, have repeatedly offered to Democratic colleagues to hear any genuine concerns with our legislation and to negotiate changes that would earn their votes. Those offers have been refused. Instead, the Democratic leadership has offered a last minute side-by-side amendment that would add more delay, jeopardize the prospect of any Keystone XL jobs being created, and undermine the job prospects of American refinery workers.

I am hopeful that Democratic colleagues will join me in supporting jobs and energy security by voting in favor the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment. Voting against the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment while simultaneously refusing to negotiate is a vote against Keystone XL, against the private sector jobs it will produce, against the chance it brings for lower gasoline prices, and against the relief it can provide from our dangerous dependence on

oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

Mr. President, in my judgment, there is no doubt that the Keystone XL pipeline would benefit United States national security, energy reliability, economic growth, and job creation. It would be the most advanced pipeline in the United States, thus minimizing environmental risks.

United States dependence on foreign oil is one of our foremost national security vulnerabilities. Iran's threat to shatter global economic recovery and splinter allied opposition to their nuclear weapons program by using their oil exports as leverage is just the most visible example today. The dollars we use to buy oil from autocratic regimes complicate our own national security policies by entrenching corruption, financing regional aggression and repression, and inflating Defense Department costs. Crude oil from Canada, North Dakota, and Montana delivered by Keystone XL will replace a substantial part of future imports of heavy oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.

The less we are directly dependent on oil from unstable and unfriendly regimes, the more flexibility we will have in diplomatic and defense options. Consider, for example, some of the flashpoints in oil- rich countries over the more than three years that the Obama Administration examined the Keystone XL pipeline application: Iran threats against Israel, the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. Navy; Venezuelan antagonism; war in Libya; hostilities in Iraq; a stalemate in Sudan; unrest in Russia; the Arab Spring; strained relations with Saudi Arabia; violence in Nigeria; and the ongoing threat of terrorism against energy infrastructure.

In contrast, the only uncertainty in oil trade with Canada has been the U.S. indecision over Keystone XL. This delay has caused the Canadian government to openly question whether the U.S. is a reliable market and whether it should devote new oil capacity to supplying China's voracious appetite for energy.

No single project or policy is a cure-all, but having more independence from unstable regimes will give more options to avoid being drawn into oil-driven conflicts and to diplomatically advance national security objectives. For example, among the most significant challenges to enforcing strong sanctions on Iranian oil is concern over high gas prices driven by a weakening global supply margin. More than 3 years of bureaucratic delay on Keystone XL means that the Obama Administration has prevented Keystone XL oil from helping Americans hit by high gas prices today. Approval now would send a strong signal to markets of coming supply, and with our legislation, Keystone XL would be in place to help address future emergencies.

Having built-in first access to Canadian crude via pipeline is a strategic and economic advantage when global oil markets are under threat of shortage, as powerfully illustrated by Iranian threats against 20 percent of world oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz.

The global oil market has fundamentally changed. Booming demand by China, India, and other emerging economies is quickly absorbing new supplies. Old oil fields are running low and new ones are expensive and harder to find. World markets are likely to remain tight for the foreseeable future, which means that supply disruptions due to political, terrorist, or weather events can lead to shortages much more easily than in the past. Tight global oil markets will invite threats to supplies for years to come, whether by Iran or other hostile actors. Having oil flow to the United States, instead of to China, via Keystone XL would give Americans the benefits of first access in times of trouble.

In Indiana job creation is the number one priority. The situation is urgent for families struck by our 9 percent unemployment rate, and many more are underemployed. Having the private sector willing to inject more than $7 billion into the economy for the Keystone XL pipeline is a tremendous vehicle for putting people back to work, and it will have a multiplier effect for economic growth. Moreover, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of the money Americans send to Canada for imports is returned to the United States, thereby encouraging more trade beyond the energy sector.

Keystone XL is perhaps the largest private infrastructure project available for construction almost immediately. It is expected to directly create 20,000 jobs, particularly in the hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors. In addition, tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of other American workers will have their jobs bolstered through the supply chain. Many of these are small American businesses that manufacture specialty parts or provide services.

Already Hoosiers working at Koontz-Wagner in South Bend, IN, have benefited from some of the $800 million that has already been spent for Keystone XL supplies. As a subcontractor for Siemens, Koontz-Wagner last week finished the last of 78 equipment shelters for Keystone XL. The largest of the shelters measures 62 feet long, 14 feet wide, and weighs about 8,500 pounds. Manufacture of the 78 units for Keystone XL generated 140,000 ``man hours'' of work, allowing 50 60 new employees to be hired. It is the single largest contract for that company in South Bend. The people of Koontz-Wagner are fortunate that they are an early contractor. Meanwhile, thousands of additional workers are waiting for their chance.

Other Indiana firms stand to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline. I visited Endress+Hauser in Greenwood where they already have manufactured $600,000 worth of flow and temperature devices, Caterpillar in Lafayette where they manufacture the engines for the heavy equipment developing the oil sands, and Fairfield Manufacturing in Lafayette where they manufacture large gears and other components of the Caterpillar machines, in addition to other industrial machinery.

More than 2,400 American companies in 49 States, including over 100 in Indiana, supply goods and services for oil sands development and transport, according to industry estimates. Virtually all of these American companies stand to benefit from robust trade with Canada, and stand to lose from Canada turning its trade preferences toward Asia.

An important testament to the job-creating opportunities of Keystone XL is the strong support of several unions, such as the AFL CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers' International Union of North America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Private sector job creation must be our top domestic priority. Some argue that the estimate of 20,000 new jobs from Keystone XL construction is too high even while they admit that many thousands of new jobs will be created. Even a smaller number of new private sector jobs are important gains during this time of 8.3 percent unemployment nationally and 9 percent in Indiana. Whether it is a pipeline, a road, or a house, it is the nature of the construction industry that jobs created are temporary in the sense that once a single project finishes, another needs to take its place. A benefit of a project as large as Keystone XL is that the temporary employment is actually quite long and desperately needed by workers and their families.

Keystone XL is privately financed. No taxpayer money is needed to bring these jobs--all that is needed is for government to get out of the way.

In my judgment, further delaying these benefits is not in the national interest. With the firm go-ahead offered by our legislation, Americans can get to work almost immediately in manufacturing goods and in building the pipeline.

Kicking the can down the road is not simply a delay in construction. Delay opens more rounds of duplicative review with no definite conclusion that the pipeline will be built. Meanwhile, the Government of Canada is racing ahead with plans to export crude to China. Recent high-level agreements between Canada and China demonstrate no reluctance for oil trade through Puget Sound and across the Pacific.

The national imperative to reduce dependence on foreign oil from adversarial and unreliable regimes is not a partisan issue. Increased development

of domestic energy resources, including domestic oil, alternative liquid fuels from biomass and coal, and innovation for fuel efficiency and electrification are all needed. I have offered my Practical Energy Plan, REFRESH farm bill, and Open Fuels Standard with Senator Cantwell to aid in those efforts. My legislation, if implemented, would reduce our need for foreign oil by 6.3 million barrels per day by 2030--more than two-thirds of current imports.

It is ultimately the expected resilience of higher average global oil prices and technological breakthroughs that will determine the success of alternatives, not the presence of oil pipelines. We must be realistic: Even with rapid improvement in alternatives and efficiency innovations, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy, and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more affordable and secure than far-flung imports.

Even if we achieve domestic production and efficiency goals, we cannot afford to ignore the source of our foreign oil. Canada is our most reliable and safest oil trading partner. The Keystone XL Pipeline alone could virtually eliminate the need for oil from Venezuela. Even if in the future we do not ourselves consume all the Canadian oil imported, having that crude in the U.S. system would give us tremendous flexibility to deal with supply shortages caused by conflict, political manipulation, terrorism, or natural disaster.

But perversely, opponents of the pipeline have thrown up a series of canards against the project to distract from the overwhelming arguments in favor of it. One such canard is that Keystone XL is intended to use American soil to convey Canadian oil to markets abroad. The facts are otherwise. The United States is a huge net importer of crude oil about 9 million barrels every day. It is that reality that has perverted our national security policy for decades. Analysis from the Department of Energy finds the likelihood of crude exports from Keystone XL to be extremely low because U.S. refinery capacity for heavy oil is expected to exceed supply from Canada and because transport of oil via Keystone XL, then tanker would be considerably more expensive than domestic Canadian export options.

Overall U.S. exports of refined products are running at an unusually high 15 percent of total production because America's struggling economy has sapped domestic demand, and those export levels likely will shrink again as the economy gains steam. Simply put, we are keeping some of America's 108,000 refinery workers, including about 2,245 in Indiana, employed by selling at home and overseas.

Moreover, it is especially curious that the prospect of even a small amount of exports manufactured at U.S. refineries comes under scrutiny since President Obama has identified the doubling of U.S. exports as a goal. According to the Department of Commerce, the President already has the authority to prohibit petroleum exports if he deems it to be in the national interest.

In my view, exporting a small percentage of refined products to maintain refinery capacity is not a problem to be solved. In the event of a global energy crisis, exports from U.S. Gulf refineries could quickly be diverted back to American gas pumps, providing that their source is a secure supply from the U.S. or Canada, not overseas.

Even as Democrats seek to block the prospect of even a small amount of manufactured petroleum products from being exported, they are also arguing to block the import of products through ``domestic content'' mandates. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a private project and does not receive taxpayer subsidy. The Federal Government has no place in making procurement decisions of private companies. According to TransCanada, of the expected total procurement for Keystone XL, 98 percent is already under contract. In other words, a domestic content requirement may force it to violate existing contracts.

In the end, the most vigorous opposition to Keystone XL is not over the pipeline itself; it is against further development of the Canadian oil sands in an effort to stem greenhouse gas emissions. In considering this issue, it is important to understand that extensive investment in coking capacity at U.S. refineries means that oil from the oil sands will mostly replace other heavy oil, such as that from Venezuela.

But more to the point, there is no doubt that Canada will continue to develop the oil sands regardless of U.S. decisionmaking on Keystone XL. The Canadians have already spent billions of dollars developing this resource, which they see as an essential national asset and job producer. The value of this asset will increase over time as the growth in global populations and living standards increases the demand for oil. Shipping the oil to the Canadian Pacific or Arctic coasts and onward via tanker for sale to China would compound environmental risks, while denying our country the strategic and economic benefits associated with oil sands production.

The strong majority of American people agree with our support for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Polling by Rasmussen and United Technologies/ National Journal clearly indicates that a majority of Americans support the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Pew Research Center released a poll on February 23, 2012, that found 66 percent of people who have heard about Keystone XL support its approval, while just 23 percent oppose. These findings are reinforced by the dozens of Hoosier citizens, mayors, and retired service personnel who have written in favor of Keystone XL and the Indiana State Senate that voted in unanimous support.

America's overdependence on oil imports from unstable and hostile regimes endangers our national security and puts our warfighters and civilian personnel at risk. It also worsens our national budget situation, as we spend billions of dollars to ensure safe passage of oil around the world. But today we have a dramatic opportunity to change that energy and national security equation by building the Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada, our good friend, to North Dakota and Montana and then to the gulf refineries.

Better yet, building Keystone XL, a private sector project, will create thousands of American jobs now. Job creation is the No. 1 issue in our Nation. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the country's largest shovel-ready infrastructure project. President Obama had the opportunity to create thousands of new jobs right away, plus bolster job prospects for thousands more throughout the manufacturing supply chain, such as our Hoosiers firms Endress+Hauser, Koontz-Wagner, and Caterpillar. Allowing $7 billion of private economic activity should be a no-brainer.

Incredibly, even after reviewing Keystone XL for 1,217 days and in the midst of Iranian threats against global oil supplies and the U.S. Navy, President Obama caved to pressure from extreme environmentalists by rejecting Keystone XL jobs and security. The President ignored analysis from his own Department of Energy that said oil supplies coming via Keystone XL would most likely lower gas prices.

President Obama's rejection of Keystone XL implicitly says that the administration prefers to send billions of dollars to unfriendly regimes rather than expand trade with Canada. It says that Democratic leadership prefers going hat-in-hand seeking more oil from Saudi Arabia rather than taking control of our energy future. It is incomprehensible. No objective standard of U.S. national security interest could justify such a decision.

I recognize there is opposition to Keystone XL among certain segments of the environmental community, and I take those efforts and concerns seriously. That is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into U.S. law. It ensures that the Federal Government will not interfere with individual property rights or tell Nebraskans what to do in their own State.

Opponents believe that by blocking the pipeline, they will stop development of the oil sands in Alberta. That is a false hope. There is no doubt that Canada will continue to develop the oil sands regardless of U.S. decisionmaking on Keystone XL. The Government of Canada is racing ahead with plans to export crude to China. Recent high-level agreements between Canada and China demonstrate no reluctance for oil trade through the Puget Sound and across the Pacific.

Others say we should encourage alternatives to oil, and greater fuel efficiency, and I agree with that, but even under the most optimistic scenarios, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy, and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more affordable and secure than far-flung imports.

Crude oil from Keystone XL will replace heavy oil imports from Venezuela and the Middle East. The less we depend on oil from adversarial and unreliable regimes, the more protection Americans will have from price spikes and shortages and the more flexibility we will have in diplomatic and defense options in oil-rich lands.

Finally, let me say that Politico reports that President Obama is so anti-Keystone that he is personally calling Senators to oppose our bill. The Democratic alternative aligns with President Obama's rejection of Keystone XL and is a massive overreach into the private sector. Senator Wyden's bill would ultimately hurt the workers it claims to help and would penalize America's 108,000 refinery workers directly.

In sum, the Keystone XL Pipeline will create thousands of private sector jobs, and it will help protect the national security interests of the United States. It comes at no taxpayer expense, and it will strengthen vital ties with our ally Canada. I urge my colleagues to support the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter Keystone XL amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.