senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 53. two-senators voting not having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is not passed. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, last night, the house of representatives passed a tax cut bill, one that is doomed in the

senate and the president has made it clear he will not sign. it is important for us to move beyond this stalemate on an important issue that will literally affect 160 million working americans. currently, those working families enjoy a 2% payroll tax cut. for the average family in illinois, it means a $50,000 annual income and $1,000 a year or more in terms of a tax cut. so if we fail to continue this payroll tax cut, families across illinois and across america are going to see an increase in their payroll taxes of about $100 to $125 a month. we can't let that happen. these families are struggling paycheck to paycheck. we want to help them. we want to make sure that we help this economy by putting more life into it which creates more opportunity for profitability for business and new jobs. we also need to maintain our

unemployment insurance, which we have provided during these difficult times for those families struggling to find work. so, mr. president, at this point, it is clear that we should move immediately, immediately to the consideration of the house tax cut bill, a bill which passed the house and should be taken up immediately in the senate. there is no reason for delay. it has to be done before we go home. let's not waste any more time. let's bring it to a vote. therefore, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3630, which was just received in the senate from the house, that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill, that no amendments be in order prior to the vote, and that the vote on passage be subject to 60 affirmative vote threshold. further, that if the bill is not passed, it remain the pending business and the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. hutchison: i object on

behalf of our leader. this is a matter that needs to be decided between our two leaders, and that has not been done. the bill has just come over. there just needs to be some time, and certainly we hope in the future to vote on it at a time when the two leaders can agree. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president, i thank the senator from texas. i know that her objection was on behalf of the republican senate leader. i would appeal to him and all republicans on that side of the aisle. let's get down to the business of extending this payroll tax cut for working families and maintaining the unemployment insurance to help millions of americans, and let's get it done before we even consider leaving for this holiday season, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, at a time when our economy is staggering, global unrest making long-term energy supplies uncertain, we are going to eventually be able to take up a

bill that has been passed by the house that would bypass the president's decision to postpone until 2013 after the elections next year a domestic infrastructure project that promises 20,000 immediate jobs and 118,000 spinoff jobs and provides a stable energy source from our trusted neighbor canada. after three years of unprecedented reviews by state and federal agencies, the administration decided to delay the keystone x.l. pipeline until after the 2012 election. now, why? it would seem obvious, mr. president, that this is a decision that could now be made, the studies have been done and the jobs are needed. this is a privately financed traditional energy project. it is truly shovel ready. it is not a temporary government

stimulus program based on wishful thinking looking for things that can be done around the country. it is ready to go and it is privately financed, so there are no taxpayer dollars involved. the pipeline is our nation's access to the estimated 170 billion barrels of recoverable oil in american canadian tar sands. it will provide energy from a reliable trading partner and friend, lessening our dependence on oil from turbulent middle east and north african countries and dictators and terrorism-supporting regimes in south america. this turmoil leads to price spikes and supply interruptions that threaten our economy and our national security. if we can go forward with the pipeline project, it would have a tremendous impact on our nation where the project could

stimulate $2.3 billion in new spending and generate more than $48 million in new tax revenue just in my home state of texas. pipeline construction would result in 700,000 additional barrels of oil per day being sent to refineries in texas. our state's 26 refineries account for more than 25% of the total u.s. oil production, which is approximately 5% of worldwide capacity. texas refineries working at capacity is of great benefit to the consumers of america. oil is provided faster and more efficiently to domestic consumers and industry, bringing down the cost of energy to everyone in our country. last night, the house approved this legislation. president obama continues to threaten to veto any bill that comes to his desk that involves

the keystone pipeline. so i think it's fair to ask what is his plan? the administration recently announced the president's five-year blueprint for the future of america's energy resources. for example, the plan limits the offshore energy development to less than 3% of offshore areas. the administration is decreasing our energy resources while other countries continue to increase their energy wealth, just off our coast in some instances, some as close as 25 miles from u.s. waters. with the right policies, the oil and gas industry could create 1.4 million new jobs and raise $800 billion of additional government revenue by 2030. that would come from people working. that would come from people in the economy buying things,

creating new jobs and paying taxes because they are earning money. that's the way we should increase revenue in this country, mr. president. not by stimulus programs that -- that add to our deficits and to the debt that is going to be inherited by our children. the administration is determined to pursue policies that limit our utilization of our own natural resources. mr. president, most other countries in the world are trying to develop their natural resources, and some don't have natural resources and wish they did. america has them, but we are not using them. we could do with a single pipeline something that would lower the cost of energy and create 1.4 million new jobs and raise $800 billion of additional government revenue. that's almost a trillion

dollars, mr. president. the fact that we're debating this project today in the face of a frozen economy and rising energy insecurity is really unthinkable. we don't need more solyndra fiascos. we don't need to waste additional billions of taxpayer dollars to support failed businesses that wouldn't exist without federal subsidies. this pipeline has not one taxpayer dollar in it. it is privately funded and will create private industry jobs that will be jobs that create more revenue for our country through the spending and the creation of still further jobs. and we would be doing it with a trusted neighbor and ally, canada. this is something we should do, and i would love to see us do it in a bipartisan way in this

senate, as the house has already done. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about the urgent need to prevent a tax increase in the year 2012 if the congress doesn't act to extend the payroll tax cut from last year. this is really fundamental when it comes to working families across the country. 160 million working americans are depending upon the congress to do its work, to do its duty and conclude this year on a couple of matters, and the principal focus i think of most people's attention right now, in addition to making sure we have a budget in place for the next couple of weeks and months, but also most urgently to make sure that we're doing everything possible to bring about a cut in

the payroll tax again as we did last year. so we should be voting today, we shouldn't be waiting. we know that the house has acted. i would guess that it won't -- what they passed in the house won't pass in the senate, but we should vote, vote today, get that done, and then both sides can sit down and work out a compromise on the payroll tax cut. so we can give those 160 million american workers some measure of certainty as they -- as they begin to celebrate the holidays and prepare for -- prepare for our new year. when i talk to people in pennsylvania, they say to me basically two things -- do something to -- to create jobs or to create the environment or the conditions that job creation will -- will flow from, and they say do it in a bipartisan way, work together just like we, meaning americans back home, have to work together. they have got to work together

at home to meet a budget, they have got to work together at their work site to be able to move a company or their agenda forward and an employer. what we need is a very simple agreement on a very basic bill, and it should be a bill that would -- that would extend -- and i would argue expand. i'd like to go beyond the payroll tax cut of last year. what we should be doing is cutting it in half, but i know there is -- there might be others that don't want to go that far, but what we have now from the -- the house, the republican house now has passed a 350-page bill loaded with all kinds of provisions that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut, have nothing to do with moving the economy forward, and it's really just kind of a political game that they're playing. for example, the keystone pipeline will be the subject of a lot of debate and discussion,

but that has nothing to do with providing 160 million working americans with a payroll tax cut. so we should set that aside and focus on cutting the payroll tax. some of the provisions in the republican bill will do substantial harm to families individually but also to the larger economy. cutting 40 weeks -- let me say that again. cutting 40 weeks from unemployment insurance is one provision. that's the wrong thing to do. when you have between 13 million and 14 million americans out of work in pennsylvania, over half a million people out of work at last count 513,000 people out of work and they're telling us that we should cut unemployment insurance by 40 weeks, does that make any sense at all? oh, by the way, what they leave out in that debate is what unemployment insurance does to the wider economy.

you spend a buck on that, you get a lot more than a buck in return in terms of the economic impact. so unemployment insurance, when it's provided to people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, helps the larger economy in addition to helping an individual worker or his or her family. when it comes to the issue of the payroll tax cut itself, what we're talking about here is not something complicated and theoretical. we're talking about take-home pay. what goes in your pact from your paycheck. and we have got a choice here. if we go the right way and we -- we extend the payroll tax cut from last year, there is as much as $1,000 in take-home pay as a result of that. now, i had a bill which we worked to try to compromise and change, we changed our bill in order to compromise, i should say. i thought that it would be

better if we cut the payroll tax for workers in half. that would be as much as $1,500 in your pocket for 2012. the other side objected to that. they wanted a smaller -- they wanted no payroll tax cut, apparently, for businesses, which i thought was a good idea. then they wanted -- then they also wanted to scale back what we could do for employees. but we are where we are. we'll see what they are willing to do now, but let's not lose sight of the -- what this is all about. if we do the right thing, we'll have a thousand dollars extra in take-home pay for 160 million american workers. but if we go the way of some people here in washington and play games, political games, it will be zero extra dollars of take-home pay. very very simple. a very simple choice. i would hope that our friends on

the republican side would allow us to vote today on the republican house bill. it's not going to pass, but it does provide clarity so that both sides can then sit down. they've rejected -- they rejected my compromise. now the house version will come over here. but we'll have some clarity about where both sides stand. we can sit down and negotiate and get done a payroll tax cut. but we can't do that until they let us vote on what the house did. so we need to have that vote today. and i don't know why the republican side would want to hold it up here in the senate. we're ready to vote on it and we should do that. so it is about take-home pay, it is about also peace of mind. i think a lot of americans whriek to know now -- would like to know now that they can celebrate the holidays and move into 2012 with some peace of mind knowing that they're going to have some money in their pocket they might not have otherwise and it will have a

tremendous impact on the economy. we know that from the data, we no froweknow that from what hapn the first few months 20611. so if the congress fails to act, here's what it means for a state like pennsylvania. you could replicate this i'm sure in other states as well. mark zandi, a respected economist -- i think respected on both sides of the aisle here in washington -- 345rbg zand mai looked at the impact and he said it would cost our state almost just a little shy of 20,000 jobs in the calendar year 2012 in a state, by the way, that in 2011 we created -- i should say the increase in jobs in pennsylvania was more than 50,000 jobs in 2011, not enough -- we need to do more, but certainly when you are creating jobs at that rate and possibly in 2012 we could go

above 50,000 jobs created in pavment but then not to act on the payroll tax and reduce that 50,000 or more by 20,000 jobs ... that's just one state. so you don't pass a payroll tax cut. that's the adverse impact on one state: 20,000 jobs, according to mark zandi. that's big mistake. and we can't afford to make those kinds of mistakes at this moment, which is very precarious, in our economy. just when we're getting some -- not enough, but some good news about the economy. we need to kickstart, jump-start job creation across the country. and we can do that in large measure -- not completely but in marglarge measure by a payroll x cut. it is time to move on. we should get this vote done on the house version and then we can go to the negotiation table. while we're doing that, we can

get some other things. but to hold up a vote on the house bill doesn't make any sense at all. so we've only got days now until the end of the year, about 17 days, i guess, and we've got other work to do as well. but the main thing we've got to do right now is come together to protect 160 million american workers so that they can conclude the year and go into the holiday season and begin a new year with peace of mind and know that they're going to have that payroll tax cut in their take-home pay. and also to give those who are out of work, their families, their communities, and the country some assurance on unemployment insurance. so it's not time to play politics here in washington. this is the holiday season. people -- if there's any time of the year they expect folks to work together, it's at this time we celebrate the holidays. so we need to come together. we need to compromise. i've compromised a couple of

times in my legislation. i won't review that now, but did i on my version of the payroll tax cut. and we can all compromise some more. but we need to come together. we need to stop putting roadblocks in the way of voting on measures that will lead us towards that compromise on the payroll tax cut. so i think the simple answer -- or the simple message for today is, a let's vote. let's vote on the house bill and if that doesn't pass, then we can go to the negotiation table and come up with a compromise to cut the payroll tax cut, put more take-home pay in the pockets of 160 million american workers. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i'm here today to talk about the importance of sustained funding and support for the low-income home energy assistance program better known as liheap. i know it's something you care very much about as well. the liheap program helps households pay home heating costs and targets funds for those families with the lowest incomes and the highest energy costs. in 2010, nearly 165,000 families in minnesota used this critical lifeline. mr. president, minnesota, our home state, may be known as the land of ice hockey and ice fishing and other winter sports, but our tough winters can be downright dangerous to families struggling to pay their utility bills and trying to keep the heat on. even as minnesota's economy has weathered the recession better than most, we have seen a great increase in need for assistance with heating bills. from 2008-2010, there was a 30% increase in families that needed

energy assistance. without sustained funding for the liheap program at current levels, we risk pushing these 38,000 families out into the cold. this october i joined with my colleagues from many cold-weather states, as you did as well, in a letter that urged the u.s. department of health and human services to release liheap funds as quickly and as at a high level as possible. we must follow up on this action by fully funding the liheap program. on october 28, the department health and human services released $1.7 billion for the liheap program. this is a start but we need another $3 billion to ensure that we sustain level funding from last year. depending on how and what the final appropriations are for the fiscal year 2012, it is important to recognize that we will need over $1 billion to fully fund the liheap program. mr. president, i believe that seniors should not have to choose between paying for

medication and their heating bills. families should not have to choose between putting food on the table or keeping their furnace on at night. and children should always have a warm home to sleep in at night. the liheap program is targeting those families that are most in need. in fact, the average household served by the liheap program in minnesota had an income of $16,000, and 85% of the homes served by the liheap program included at least one senior, a person with disability or a child urn the age of 18. -- child under the age of 18. these families are struggling and now is the time -- not the time to pull the rug out from under their feet. the liheap program is supported by nonprofit organizations like community action of minneapolis and the salvation army, state and local governments, and utility companies. these organizations know the value that this program has to ensure that families have the tools that they need to stay safe during the coldest winter

nights. they also see how's it creates economic -- see how it creates economic activities by creating demand for utilities when household budgets are under the greatest strain and may be forced to go without. according to economists, liheap is a smart investment. for every dollar in benefits paid, $1.13 is generated in economic activity. as a cosponsor of the liheap protection act introduced by senator jack reed of rhode island, i want to commend my colleagues on their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to ensure this legislation is passed and that funding for the critical program is maintained. thank you very much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'm going to make a unanimous consent request. we've alerted our republican friends to it. but before i do, i want to set the stage for why i'm going to

ask eventually that we be allowed to go to h.r. 3630, which is at the desk, and that there be a debate and a vote on the republican-passed payroll tax cut. for the life of me, i don't understand why, as we approach the end of this year, republicans right now don't want to have a vote on their own bi bill. well, maybe it's because they don't have a lot of votes for it because it is a disaster. the president has spoken out very strongly for a payroll tax cut. we need that because it's been in effect, and if we don't extend it in this time of recovering from a deep, dark recession, economists of all stripes have said we're going to see a reduction in economic

growth, just something we don't need right now. so it seems to me what has happened, because initially the republicans said we don't want anything to do with this tax cut. they love the tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires. oh, that one they have a heart for. but this one they didn't really like. but i think they took the heat back home, and good for the american people, because now they decided they had to pass it. because if they don't pass it, then working people are going to notice about a $1,000 increase in their -- in their taxes. so we're facing a very odd situation. and having served in the house for ten years -- i left when newt gingrich became speaker; i ran for the senate at that

time -- i know how things work over there. and i can almost see -- and i have no accuracy on this, this is my own feeling -- that the mind-set was the president wants this tax cut so badly, let's do it but let's load this up with things that, you know, he is not going to be able to abide by. and, frankly, that's what they did. let's look at some of these things that are in this payroll tax cut. first of all, they added environmental riders. one of them i'm very familiar with and want to spend a minute explaining it. the e.p.a. passed a rule to control the filthiest and dirtiest boiler operations. these boilers are located in our communities. they spew forth things that you don't want to know but we better

know. mercury, arsenic, and lead. all of these things cause canc cancer. all of these things are dangerous to all of us, particularly to the children. particularly to pregnant women. and the e.p.a. has crafted a rule -- listen to this -- that only goes after 5,500 of the 1 1.6 million boilers, the filthiest, the dirtiest. and in crafting this rule, they had peer-review science, mr. president, that showed this rule will prevent 8,100 premature deaths every single year. that's because we're talking about mercury, lead and arsenic. not our friends.

so not being able to abide by this, those in the house are standing with the dirtiest polluters and they put a stop to that rule. to me, it is shocking, as chairman of the environment and public works committee, because, mr. president, if you were driving a car in a certain direction and i said to you, "if you continue to drive this car in this direction, you're going to -- you're going to hurt people and you're actually going to be responsible for the deaths of 8,100 people in the course of a year," you would turn that car around. but, oh, no, they're barreling forward. and i'm not even giving you the stats -- because i don't have them by memory -- on the number of missed workdays, the number of asthma cases and lost school days. because it's in the tens of thousands in a year. so they attach that what i call

a rile poison pill -- a real poison pill to the payroll tax cut. aboubut that wasn't enough. then despite the objections from the republican governor of nebraska, they pushed forward the tar sands pipeline before the studies are really done. and, by the way, the environmental impact report was done by a company that had ties to the developer. so before we rush to judgment on this, colleagues, we need to have more information. oh, no, they're going to jam that through. so those are two environmental rider as that are on there that are very dangerous for the american people. so it's sort of like, here's a thousand dollars for you with the payroll tax cut but we've just increased your risk of getting asthma or perhaps dying of cancer or heart attack. maybe that's why they object to having a vote on this bill. now, in this bill, the way they

pay for things is unbelievable. they are so fearful of hurting the upper-income people -- those over a million dollars a year -- and paying for this payroll tax cut the way we do, with a small surtax on the millionaires and billionaires that doesn't kick in, you know, until you get past the million-dollar mark -- they go after the middle class. they raise premiums on medicare for 25% of medicare recipients who earn $80,000. a year. and they raise it 15% for some of them.in this tim in this time. they cut the number of weeks that you can get unemployment insurance, which at this time is really just plain cruel. and they go after the salaries of middle-class workers, like

federal firefighters, veterans nurses, air traffic controllers, f.b.i. agents -- all federal employees -- while they allow government contractor employees to earn up to $700,000 a year. now, senator grassley is here and i know he probably disagrees with some of what i said but i know he agrees on the federal contractor issue. but in this particular bill, the house did, i say to my friends, they go after middle-class workers but the government contractor workers can earn up to $700,000 a year. to me, that's the only reason i can see why the republicans are okay to having a vote -- are objecting to having a vote on that so-called payroll tax bill, because it is loaded up with things that are going to hurt the american people. so i think we ought to have this

vote and kill this christmas turkey because it is a turkey. it is harmful to the middle class. it is literally going to cause an increase in premature death, in asthma cases. it is literally going to hurt middle-class workers while they leave the millionaires and billionaires alone. what kind of value system is that? merry christmas to the middle class. no, it isn't. so i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3630, which was just received from the house, that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill, that no amendments be in order prior to the vote, and that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold. further, that if the bill is not

passed, it remain the pending business and the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: reserving the right to object -- and i must object -- but i want to make clear that the senator from california understands that i didn't come to the floor to object to her request but on behalf of the republican leader i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i just want to thank my colleague. we are buddies. we work together on a lot of good government issues, but the minority leader, the republican leader is objecting, so in summing this up, as i leave the floor, i would ask rhetorically why on earth the republican leader is afraid to vote on a republican bill other than the fact that that bill really, in my view, exposes a set of values that are not consistent with the

american people. i thank you very much and i yield the floor and i -- i note -- is my colleague going to speak? i thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask unanimous consent to speak for what time i might consume, but i wouldn't expect it would be more than 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i have come to the floor to speak about fast and furious investigation, but i would also like to follow up and have this portion of my remarks follow the senator from california, because i think that my side has a legitimate position to take on some job creation things that are in the house bill that has come over here that the people just hear one side of the story,

they might understand that we're not interested in creating jobs, that we're only interested in putting stumbling blocks in the way of regulations or president decisions that are made. but it's directly related to in the case of rules by e.p.a. that the senator spoke about. it is a fact that under this administration there is just an explosion of regulations, and a lot of those regulations, because of their cost, have led to the elimination of a lot of jobs or a lot of jobs not being created as a result thereof. so if we -- if we hear a president of the united states saying that we ought to pass legislation to create jobs that he's for or because we hear the president of the united states one or two times a week flying

all over the country at taxpayers' expense to give political speeches and asking for -- to put the pressure on congress to pass his jobs bill, at the very same time that his departments are issuing regulations costing jobs or not creating jobs or the president making a decision that you shouldn't build a pipeline from canada down to texas so we can import oil in a more cost-effective way from our friend canada, a reliable friend, instead of paying $840 million every day, every day to import oil and paying that to countries that either hate us or want to kill us, we think that there is an inconsistency between a president that's going around the country giving speeches on why congress isn't passing his legislation to create -- to create jobs when his

administration is making decisions in the case of the pipeline, 20,000 jobs could be created right now, union-paying jobs, good jobs, and 110,000 jobs on the side related thereto, plus what it does good for the energy policy in the united states to have that bill, and the president is standing in the way. he says it takes another year of study. well, the state department has already given two studies over a period of years, saying it's okay to go ahead, it's not an environmental problem. nebraska legislature held it up for a little while because of the aquifer, but they have reached an agreement that it can go through their state in just a little different direction. well, we think that we ought to create those 20,000 jobs and we ought to do it right now, and this legislation that has come over from the house does that. this legislation coming over from the house puts some block of some regulations going into effect that's going to eliminate

jobs or stop the creation of jobs. and so we're a little bit irritated about the inconsistency between an administration that wants us to pass legislation to create jobs when at the very same time one person is making a decision that we're not going to move ahead with job creation projects, and this legislation allows to move ahead for that. the reason i came to the senate is to give my colleagues an update on the fast and furious investigation that i have been conducting since last january january 31. for almost 11 months now, i have been investigating fast and furious, an operation of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, a.t.f. on december 2, the justice department finally came clean about who helped draft its february 4 letter to congress. that was a letter that i wrote

that they responded to since i opened the investigation on january 31. it only took them a few days to get back a letter to me that had a tremendous number of falsehoods in it. that letter falsely denied a.t.f. whistle-blower allegations that a.t.f. walked guns. the revelation in the december 2 documents of this year were the last straw for me. they claim -- they admitted that that february 4 letter had falsehoods in it. i called for assistant secretary general brewer to step down. i don't do that lightly. earlier documents had already shown that mr. brewer displayed a stunning lack of judgment in failing to respond adequately when told guns had walked in operation wide receiver in the years 2006-2007. the december 2 document showed that mr. brewer was far more

informed during the drafting of the february 4 letter than he admitted before the judiciary committee just one month earlier. these two issues led me to call for the resignation of mr. brewer, the highest ranking official in the justice department who knew about gun walking and operation wide receiver. the december 2 documents also established a number of other key points. the first is that the justice department has a flawed process for responding to letters from congress that involve whistle-blowers, so any of my colleagues, any 99 other senators that are writing letters to the justice department understand that they have a flawed process if it involved whistle-blowers to responding to us, and i will show that to you. in the cover letter that accompanied the documents, the justice department wrote that in drafting their february 4

response which had these falsehoods in it -- quote -- "department personnel relied on information provided by supervisors from the components in the best position to know the relevant facts j well, they were listening to supervisors. because they only listened to supervisors, that's the problem with not answering the letters in a truthful way to me five days later after i handed them to the attorney general, and i'll show that in just a minute. clearly, the justice department did not rely on those in the best position to know the facts since the letter was withdrawn on december 2 due to its inaccuracies. now, i don't know how you can withdraw a letter that's in the public domain, but they just somehow withdraw the letter. the whistle-blowers were in the best position to know the facts. front-line personnel, not supervisors, were in the best position to know the facts, not

the senior bureaucrats or political appointees, yet the department failed to provide credible process for whistle-blowers, people that know what's happening on a day-to-day basis and other front-line personnel to provide information without fear of retalliation. employees simply do not believe that they are free to report misconduct because they see what happens to those who speak out. they know it's a career killer because the a.t.f. and the justice department culture protects those who retaliate against whistle-blowers, yet whistle-blowers in this case spoke out anyway. in other words, these whistle-blowers were speaking out, taking a chance on their professional future in federal government because they knew something wasn't right about the walking of guns, so they risked their career to make sure that

truth was known. you know, the only crime committed by whistle-blowers generally is the crime of committing truth, but when the office of legislative affairs sought information to respond to my inquiries, it didn't ask these brave whistle-blowers what happened. instead, it simply relied on self-serving denials of senior officials at a.t.f. headquarters or the criminal division here in d.c. or the u.s. attorneys in arizona. in other words, the department took the word of the very officials the whistle-blowers alleged had mismanaged the situation in the very first place without getting both sides of the story. the u.s. attorney has since admitted in testimony to congressional investigators that he was too industry dent when he first heard these accusations. he claimed he didn't know all the facts. you can't rely on the mccain

mccain -- chain of command when you have a whistle-blower. by definition, whistle-blowers emerge because the chain of command is broken. whistle-blowers come to congress because they are unsuccessful in getting their supervisors to see the fraud, waste and abuse. sometimes the supervisors attempt to cover the tracks and paper over the problem. that's why you have to get the story straight from the horse's mouth. you can't let the facts be filtered through multiple layers of bureaucracy. after all, the bureaucracy is filled with the same supervisors who should have done something about the problem in the very first place, before whistle-blowers even come forward. these problems are particularly impressive length in the federal government that is so very large, it is virtually impossible for anyone to ever be held accountable for anything, so it's crucial that those investigating whistle-blower allegations go straight to those

on the ground level with firsthand knowledge of the facts. their goal should be to understand the underlying facts of the whistle-blowerral gaigz, not to -- whistle-blower allegations, not to intimidate whistle-blowers into silence. instead, inquiries, all too often focused on the whistle-blowers themselves and what skeletons they have in their closet. that approach is exactly what's wrong with the federal government and why it doesn't function as efficiently as it can, because if more whistle-blowers were listened to and wrongs were brought to the surface and transparency ruled, there would be more accountability. the focus should be on whether the accusations are true so that the problems can be corrected. too often, however, the focus is on finding out what information the whistle-blower disclosed so the agency can circle the wagons and build a defense.

that needs to change. if the department is going to regain its credibility, it needs to provide straight answers, not talking points and spin. the only way to provide straight answers is to make sure that you get straight answers in the first place. that's one reason that we have pushed in our investigation to be able to interview front-line personnel. the justice department objected in a letter tuesday night. in that letter, the justice department also objected to us talking to first or second-level supervisors. this is exactly the sort of approach that prevents key information from getting to senior officials and to congress and impeding congress' constitutional responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed. in other words, we don't just pass laws and say that's the end of it. we have to pass laws to make sure that we're a check on the executive branch of government, and that means do the

constitutional job of oversight. that means ask questions. that means we're entitled to answers unless somebody is trying to cover up something, and when they try to cover up something in the bureaucracy, i always tell them you get stonewalled, eventually, the truth's going to come out, and the more truth that comes out, the more egg you're going to have on your face, and mr. brewer is one of those that has tremendous egg on his face. justice sites the so-called lying to personnel policy for refusing to provide officials for voluntary interviews. now, the policy is based purely on nothing but the department's own preferences. this isn't any law. or statute or even case law. the department has frequently set aside the policy and made exceptions. for example, attorneys gave transcribed interviews under oath to congress in the 1992

rocky flats nuclear weapons facilities investigation. as recently as october, assistant u.s. attorney rachel lieber, the line attorney responsible for the anthrax investigations, participated in an interview with the pbs frontline. how can the justice department tell me or argue to congress that congress should not be allowed access to line attorneys when they give that same kind of access to the press? those are the kind of lin lying personnel, the individuals who have the actual answers. i kind of surmise that the reason the justice department will let a u.s. attorney or some f.b.i. agents be interviewed on television is not public affairs officer has looked at it and

says, you know, that is good story. this is going to makees look good. -- this is going to make us look good. but when congress wants to interview lying people, no. and we've got a constitutional responsibility to do that. i'd like to suggest that the justice department -- it might make them look a little better if they let us talk to them. or are they afraid we'll find something out? it is just as irritating as heck. in this case, had the justice department gone to the horse's mouth before send an inaccurate letter to me on february 4, they would have been able to get the story ta straight. the memo that i have here that i want to -- i am not going to read from the memo, but i want to hold it up -- the memo is from an a.t.f. line agent who

substantiated the claims of the first a.t.f. whistle-blowers. i ask that it be placed in the record immediate lid after my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: it is dated february 3, 2011, the day before the justice department sent their letter to me. the memo basse was passed up hin in response to investigators on my staff talking to him about operation "fast and furious." he accurately described the problems with "fast and furious." what he said was consistent with the claims i had already heard from other whistle-blowers. information like this was why i was skeptical days earlier when the department sent its letter to me denying the allegations. in other words, i had proof that they were lying to us. the agent wrote in the memo about being ordered by "fast and furious" case agent to hold back in their surveillance so that they did -- didn't -- quote --

," unquote -- so they didn't -- quote, unquote -- "burn the operation." violating the laws of this country but encouraged to do it by their own justice department. the case agent -- quote -- "told all the agents to leave the immediate area." while a crime was being committed, the agent said to the agents to leave the area immediately. the memo explicitly says -- quote -- "the transaction between the suspects took place and the vehicle that took possession of the firearms eventually left the area without agents following." a crime is committed. u.s. agents are there. just let them move on.

after the phone call with my staff, the a. it.f. agent suggested that he write this memo what he had told my investigator. it was passed all the way up the chain of a.t.f. leadership. we know because there are e-mails attaching the memo sent to senior headquarter officials. however, the justice department has refused to provide copies of those e-mails and will only allow them to be reviewed at justice department headquarters. the memo has also refused -- or the department has also refused to provide a copy of this memo. my staff had to obtain it from confidential sources. one of the questions yet to be answered is who in the justice department saw the memo and when? either way, once the justice department got ahold of it, they tried to keep it under wraps. by refusing to give me a copy. they made my staff go to the

justice department to view it, even though the entire memo simply recounts information that was already provided to my staff. it's just embarrassing to the department because it shows that the truth was easily knowable before the false denial was sent to congress on february the 4th. if they had asked for firsthand documentation like this memo when they first got my letter in january, we wouldn't be where we are today. the second point these documents establish is that main justice had problems of its own. it wasn't all the fault of the a.t.f. or the u.s. attorney. mr. brewer deputy, deputy assistant attorney general jason wiswinestein participated in drafting a false statement.

the justice department february 4 letter read -- quote -- "a.t.f. makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent they are transportation to mexico." end ever quote. documents show that that line originated in a phone conversation february 1, 2011, between justice department legislative affairs assistant director billy hoover from a.t.f. and jason winestein from main justice's criminal division. like assistant attorney general brewer, mr. winestein knew that a.t.f. had let hundreds of weapons walk in operation "operation wide receiver" was an earler, smaller-scale case than "fast and furious." in fact, in april 2010, he brought that fact to the attention of mr. brewer, his

boss. now, april 2010 is eight months before i got involved in this investigation. his e-mail to mr. brewer about "operation wide receiver" said -- quote -- "as you'll recall from jim's briefing, a.t.f. let a bunch of guns walk in efforts to get upstream conspirators but only got straws and didn't recover many guns. some were recovered in mexico after being used in crimes." end of quote. it's ironic that that's how mr. winestein described "wide receiver." he was one of the officials who authorized wiretaps in "fast and furious." therefore, he was in a position to know that exact same description applied to "fast and furious." yet he allowed the myth to be perpetrated that a.t.f. would

never do such a thing. mr. winestein saw the justice department's very first draft of the letter to congress. in fact, as one of his justice department colleagues in the deputy attorney general's office said -- quote -- "c.r.m." -- which parenthetically happens to be the criminal division -- and o.l.a." -- which is the office of legislative aface. so let me back up. c.r.m. and o.l.a. basically drafted it. that's the end of quote. mr. winestein knew the letter contained a blatantly false line, yet he did nothing to correct it and that line thus remained in every successive draft of the letter. on december 2 this year, the justice department's latest spin was that its statement that a.t.f. -- quote -- "-- quote "that a.f.t. makes every effort to interdict weapons" -- end of

quote -- was -- quote, unquote -- "aspirational." that didn't stop them from withdrawing the letter for inautomatic a sis. perhaps the aspirational language should be saved for mission statements. responses to specific and serious allegations ought to, in a commonsense way, ought to just stick to the facts, right? this was an oversight letter. i was not asking for some feel-good, fuzzy message about what a.t.f. aspired to. i was asking for simple facts. a u.s. border patrol agent had died and at the scene of his death were two guns from "fast and furious." so his death was connected to the a.t.f. operation. whistle-blowers were reaching

outside of the chain of command because supervisors wouldn't listen. instead of treating these allegations with the kind of seriousness they deserved, the justice department resorted to damage control. now, i don't know what else my investigation is going to uncover, but we're going to pursue it until we get to the end of it, because my goal is to mind out who at the highest level of government -- in justice or the white house -- approved it and get them fired. make sure the terry family get s all the information about the death of their son. to poo point they've had hardly nothing. to make sure that a stupid program like "walking guns," "fast and furious" and, et cetera, never happens again. just this week the investigation revealed that shortly after the february 4 letter lanny brewer asked mr. winestein to write up an analytical memo of "fast and furious."

this suggests that mr. brewer and his deputy, mr. winestein, were down in the weeds on "operation fast and furious" a lot earlier than previously admitted. mr. winestein was in an excellent position to write such a memo since mr. brewer has acknowledged that mr. winestein was one of the individuals who approved wiretaps in the summer of 2010, as part of "operation fast and furious." however, we had to learn of this memo from sources not from the justice department but from outside of the justice department. the justice department has not provided it to us, even though it is clearly responsible he respoon stiff to a house oversight and government reform committee's october 25 subpoena. this type of maneuvering is what got the justice department in trouble to begin with. the justice department should

produce this document immediately along with all the other responsive documents. this investigation will continue. people must be held accountable. the justice department must stop stonewalling today. mr. president, i don't see another member on the floor, unless some staff person of the republicans or democrats tell me somebody is coming, i'd like to take another five minutes, if i could. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, more like seven or eight minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: okay. mr. president, th the cornerstoe of congress's anlt to effectively oversue the federal government is the free and open access to information. in other words, congressional oversight, what i just was talking about in regards to "fast and furious." while on another investigation 231 days ago on april 27, i made

a very simple request: i requested that the federal communication commission turn over communications regarding its controversial approval of light-squared project. light-squared is a company owned by a hedge fund called harbinger capital partners that is seeking f.c.c. approval to use its satellite spectrum to build tear resterrestrial network. light scared has already spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and made large political donations. the problem is that light-squared's signals would, according to federal government tests, cause massive interference with global positioning systems -- or more commonly referred to as g.p.s. g.p.s., as you know, is a critical tool for everything from military drones and

missiles to cars and ship navigation. light-squared's initial plan which the f.c.c. initially approved would interfere with just about every single g.p.s. i.r.s. the surprising fact is there is no evidence that the f.c.c. even tested light-squared's plan before approving t in fact, the f.c.c. granted this waiver, which is estimated to be worth at least $10 billion to light-squared, in a shortened comment period starting right around thanksgiving 2010. giving a company a possible $10 billion windfall in a holiday shortened comment period without doing any test something very suspicious. risking our nation's g.p.s. assets, including the role they played in defending our nation to accomplish this goal, is

downright dangerous. the question i'm asking is, why would the f.c.c. do this and of course to get to the bottom of this question, i asked the federal communication commission for some documents. again, just a simple question for some information. the f.c.c., an agency whose employees are supposed to work for the american people, said, no to my request. my staff was told that the f.c.c. intentionally ignored my document q the f.c.c. official said that they have determined that they will only be responsive to two members of congress, the chairs of the house and senate commerce committees. not even to ranking members of those same committees. and, of course, not to members of those committees, whether you are majority or minority.

and presumably, they wouldn't be answer to the majority leader of the senate or to the speaker of the house. but for sure they surely aren't answering to this senior senator from iowa. now, if you happen to be one of the 99.6% of the congress who doesn't chair one of those two committees, well, from the f.c.c.'s point of view, sorry, you're out of luck. no documents for you. this attitude is unacceptable. i conveyed my concerns to the f.c.c. again on july 5 and asked again for documents. again, i was stonewalled. this time the f.c.c. claimed that since i can't subpoena the f.c.c., it would not respond. president obama committed to run the most transparent administration in history. yet the f.c.c. is saying, if you can't force us to be open, we won't do it.

i wrote another letter asking the f.c.c. for documents on september 8, and again i was stonewalled. this brings us to where we are today. 230-some days later. the f.c.c.'s decision to impede congress's constitutional duty of oversight has forced me to make a difficult decision. i do not that i can that decision to hold up nominees lightly. but i never do it in secret. i always put a statement in the record. and this is in addition to that statement. but when an agency flagrantly disregards congressional oversight, something must be done. before i publicly announce my intention to hold the nominees, i, through staff, contacted the f.c.c. officials. i informed them that if the documents were not forthcoming, i would hold up the federal communication commission's nominees that the president sent up here. i was surprised -- probably

shouldn't have been -- and i was disappointed by their response. despite knowing my intentions, they chose not to provide any documents. as a result, i'm honoring my promise to hold those nominees. it is unfortunate that the f.c.c. has chosen this path. due to the f.c.c.'s decision to hide its actions from the public and congress, these nominations are now stalled in the senate. the question i would ask today of my colleagues and the president of the senate is, why the f.c.c. has already told me it would likely provide these documents if certain other members -- chairmans of committees -- ask for them. but somehow 99.6% of the congress otherwise has no right to this information. in other words, 9.6% of the members of congress can't do their constitutional job of oversight of the federal communications commission.

to paraphrase a very popular slogan these days, i guess that makes me part of the 99.6%. my concern is not just specific to this document request. it's broader than that. in the future, any member of congress may request documents from the f.c.c. as the courts have put it, every member has a voice and a voice in the process under the constitution. each one of us has the authority to request information from the executive branch in order to inform those votes. that's what our court has said. that is inherent in each member's ability to participate in the legislative process. the committee system and the delegation of certain responsibilities to committee chairmen doesn't change that at all. individual members still have a right as well as a responsibility to inform themselves by requesting information directly from

agencies. for congress to have a complete view of how an agency works, we need to have access to documen documents. turning off that flow of information short circuits transparency and hurts accountability n. this case, t the -- accountability. in this case, the federal communication commission's actions have real-world effects. the f.c.c.'s decision to grant a waiver to light square created uncertainties for g.p.s. users, and that includes our own national defense agency, the department of defense. and other federal agencies. another one is the federal aviation administration claims that 800 people would die as a result of light square's initial proposed network. to the f.a.a., the f.c.c.'s decision could have killed people. the department of defense wrote a letter that the f.c.c. -- to the f.c.c. saying that it was

not consulted by the f.c.c. and press reports say that the general skeleton, who heads up g.p.s. for the armed forces, says that light square's interference would harm the military's use of g.p.s. to the department of defense, the federal communication commission's actions would have harmed national security. these are only two agencies, but the department of transportati transportation, nasa, noaa, among others, have also raised concerns about light square's plan. the effects of the f.c.c.'s decision aren't just limited to the federal government. they also affec aaffect ordinary americans. just two examples. for americans who hope that nexgen would reduce air traffic control delays, it would have waste time, fuel and ultimately money for the flying public. for americans who use precision

agriculture to save time and money, the f.c.c.'s actions would harm the accuracy and reliability of their equipment. this again leads to wasted energy, lower crop yields, higher prices for products like wheat and corn. at the end of the day, the f.c.c.'s actions would cost the american consumers money. does the f.c.c. even care? i don't know. but the agency certainly has not provided any evidence that it took any of this information into consideration. what we see today is an agency that is completely unaccountable and unanswerable to 99.6% of the congress and by extension, the american public. this is simply wrong and i will continue to hold the f.c.c.'s nominees until this attitude changes. i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. reed: mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the recordmen record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to immediately extend the payroll tax cut and to fully continue jobless benefits to millions of americans. in less than three weeks, the 160 million americans face an automatic tax increase and millions of out-of-work americans will begin to lose their jobless benefits. in order to keep our economy on track, we must continue the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for millions of out-of-work americans. my state of rhode island in particular has felt the economic downturn acutely. and with four unemployed job seekers for everyone job, middle-class families are struggling to get by. the possibility that congress

would let these payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits expire is unthinkable. i've joined my colleagues on this side of the aisle and voted time and again to cut taxes to middle-class families, and each time our republican colleagues have opposed the measure because they value tax breaks for the top .1% of income earners more than they do middle-class americans. republicans have even rejected our effort to provide tax cuts to businesses and provide them incentives to hire. so in response, democrats narrowed the focus of the tax cuts to employees, but republicans again refused to provide a tax cut for the middle class because it was paid for by asking the top .1% of 1% of americans to contribute. we have seen refusal of the republicans to invest in our nation's roads and bridges and schools and other policies that will create jobs because republicans cling to their belief that the wealthiest in

our nation should not have to share in the sacrifice every other american has made during these very difficult economic times. republicans have voted in favor of millionaires and billionaires five times, costing middle-class american tax cuts and the continuation of jobless benefits and other policies that would help create and sustain jobs. and the republicans are not putting forward serious proposals. the house republican extenders plan that passed that body yesterday is the latest example of want only brinksmanship -- not only brinksmanship but ideological rigidity. instead of working with americans on reaching a sensible compromise that works for all americans, the house republicans voted to slash the current unemployment insurance program nearly in half, eliminating targeted relief for the hardest-hit states, like my state of rhode island. butteriry's not alone in this category. and even as our job market is still weac and 14 million

americans are out of work, -- still weak and 14 million americans are out of work, they refuse to pass legislation and extend this insurance. instead, they passed waivers leading to block granting and creating artificial barriers all with the long-term goal of dismantling the system. republicans would blunt one of the most effective counter circumstance cel tools and would -- countercyclical tools and would ultimately throw away. at the core of this failure to extend benefits is this terribly misguided belief that americans don't want to work. they want to work. but we have to incentivize the privatprivate sector to create o they can work. instead of focusing on economic policies that will help create joz help the middle class -- jobs, help the middle class, house republicans focused on dead-on-arrival pet projects like the keystone pipeline and further efforts to weaken the

clean air act. the republican plan ignores the reality and the challenges that face american families. to maintain their home, to maintain their job, to provide for the future of their families and their children and their retirement. for those who have lost their jobs in one of the worst economic downturns we've ever faced, unemployment insurance is a lifeline. it's also important for main street businesses that rely on these dollars -- the grocery stores, the drug stores. all of them depend on people having some cash to come in and take care of the necessities of life. without an extension of jobless benefits, consumers will pull back spending, hurt local businesses, and decelerate the progress that we've made. we have had 20 months of job growth. not sufficient to satisfy the

demands across the country but in stark contrast to the absolute collapse of employment in the last months of the bush administration. that's not been an accident. that's been a result of decisions that the president and congress made, the recovery act, other programs that have helped keep the economy moving, too slowly but keep it moving forward. the economic policy institute has estimated, when they've looked at these u.i. benefits, that if we don't extend them, we could lose $72 billion of economic activity in 2012. $72 billion pulled out of the economy. $72 billion of lessened demand, slowing the economy down and slowing job creation down. these are challenging times for millions of americans. we cannot afford to let congress be sidetracked by marginal issues. the core issues are very clea

clear -- extend tax cuts for middle-class americans, provide continued unemployment benefits to those desperately searching for work. we're facing a tough job market. we've got to pass these matters. it has to be a clean tax for millions of americans, a clean tax cut for millions of americans, and we have to i continue these jobless benefits. and with, that mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, when -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. boozman: i ask that the

quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, when president obama was sworn in to office, the nation's average price for a gallon of gasoline was under $2. we all know that that is not the case today. in most parts of the country, gas remains well over $3 a gallon. in my home state of arkansas, the price of gas ranges anywhere from just under $3 to $3.50 a gallon. the only reason that it's staying at a steady price is because there is decreaseed demand because of the poor economy. business owners will tell you that when the price of gas hits 3.50 a gallon, it truly does affect how decisions are made. when it hits the 4-dollar mark, things really start to shut down in terms of the economy because the average person's disposable income is going to the gas pump instead of local businesses.

that is -- our country at this time lacks an energy policy. we're also facing a jobs crisis of enormous magnitude and our president is standing in the way of one project that can help address both of these problems, the keystone x.l. pipeline. the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would transport 7,000 barrels of oil per day from canada to united states refineries on the gulf coast. canada's oil sands are among the largest oil reserves in the world. as the global demand for oil surges and canada increases production, the addition of the keystone pipeline will ensure that americans benefit from reliable and secure oil from our largest trading partner and trusted ally. the $7 billion cost to be paid

by the key tony consortium will fund nearly half a billion dollars in salaries. it will result in the purchase of $6.5 billion worth of materials, services and other local economic activity. none of this with any federal money. it is a no-brainer. some of these jobs are in my home state of arkansas. well-spun tubular company which makes pipes for the oil industry has been producing pipe for the keystone project. unfortunately, due to the administration's delay on keystone, the company has already begun to lay off workers in little rock. they have 500 miles of pipe that was produced for the project ready to go that's just sitting in the facility. postponing the start of the project is putting more americans out of work instead of putting americans to work. delaying this project costs thousands of well-paying jobs when americans need reliable

employment, and it hurts arkansas businesses that have invested millions of dollars to help produce the pipeline. it's also a major step backwards for energy policy goals. reducing our dependence on oil from unstable regimes. when it comes to energy policy, i'm kind of a t. boone pickens guy. i firmly believe that if it's american, we need to be using it. this goes for not only the renewable forms of energy but the vast amount of fossil fuels that we have been blessed with throughout the united states and directly off our shores. if we use what we have here in a responsible manner, we can be better positioned to pick and choose who we import our remaining oil needs from. importing oil from canada will accelerate america's independence for overseas -- from overseas oil by increasing petroleum trade with one of our most reliable allies, one of our

most reliable friends, instead of depending on the likes of saudi arabia and hostile regimes like venezuela for much of our oil. the amount of oil provided through this project is equal to half the amount we import from the middle east. i doubt that anyone in this body would argue that any of the countries that we import oil from in that region are more stable than canada. president obama needs to quit pandering to the radical environmentalists. he needs to do what is best for the country, not what he perceives is best for his re-election. the keystone pipeline is what is best for america. let's move forward with it. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. without objection. mr. mccain: i thank you, mr. president. today the president traveled to -- the president of the united states traveled to fort bragg, north carolina, to mark the enof the war in iraq and to pay tribute to the more than 1.5 million men, women of our armed forces who have served and fought there since 2003. those americans deserve all of the praise and recognition they receive. they've given up their comfort and safety. they've given up less demanding and more lucrative jobs. they've given parts of their bodies and cherished parts of their lives. they've given the quiet little sacrifices that often go unmentioned but often hurt the

most. the anniversaries spent alone. the birth of a child missed. the first steps not seen and the first words not heard. they've given all of that. in all ways they are prepared to give more. they deserve to be honored by us all. i know that the president's words of praise and appreciation for our troops today were sincere and heartfelt. and i have every reason to believe le do all in his power to keep his promises to take care of our troops and their families here at home and to never forget how those noble americans have done far more than their fair share for the betterment of our nation. the president is a patriot and a good american and i know that his heart swells the same pride and sense of awe that you will s feel when we are in the presence

of our men and women in uniform. these are humbling feelings. feelings of wonderment and gratitude. and they unite all americans, whether you supported the war in iraq or not. but let me point out a fact that the president did not acknowledge today which is this. our men and women in uniform have been able to come home from iraq by the tens of thousands over the past three years and not just come home but come home with honor, having succeeded in their mission, for the simple reason that the surge worked. all of this is possible because in 2007, with the war nearly lo we changed our strategy, changed our leaders in the field and sent more troops. this policy was vehemently opposed at the time by then-senator obama and now the

president of the united states and his senior leaders right here on the floor of this senate. on january 10, 2007, the day the surge strategy was announced, then-senator obama said -- quote -- "i am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. in fact, i think it will do the reverse." on november 15, 2007, when it was clear to general david patent system trapetraeusand amd many of us that the surge was working, then-senator oh bammer said -- and i quote -- "the overall strategy has failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among iraq's political leaders." finally, on january 28, 2008,

when it was undeniable the surge was succeeding, he had this to say. "president bush said that the surge in iraq is working and we know that's just not true." at the time, the president's preferred alternative was to begin an immediate withdrawal and have all u.s. troops out of iraq by the end of 2009. i'll let future historians be the judge of that proposed policy. all i will say is that for three years, the president has been harvesting the successes of the very strategy that he consistently dismissed as a failure. i imagine this irony was not lost on a few of our troops at fort bragg today, most of whom deployed and fought as part of the surge. the fact is, the president has

consistently called for a complete withdrawal of all u.s. troops from iraq at the earliest possible date and he has never deviated from this position as president. indeed, he has always reaffirmed his campaign promise to end the war in iraq and withdrawal all of our troops. so perhaps it should not have come as a surprise when the president announced in october that he was ending negotiations with the iraqi government over whether to maintain a small number of u.s. troops in iraq beyond this year to continue assisting iraq's security forces. i continue to believe that this decision represents a failure of leadership, both iraqi and american, that it was a sad case of political expediency triumphing military necessity, both in baghdad and in washington. and that it will have serious, serious negative consequences for iraq's stability and our

national security interests. i sincerely hope that i am wrong but i fear that general jack keen, who was one of the main architects of the surge, could be correct again when he said recently -- and i quote -- "we won the war in iraq and we're now losing the peace." let me be clear. like all americans, i, too, am eager to bring our troops home. i do not want them to remain in iraq or anywhere else for a day longer than necessary. but i also agree with our military commanders in iraq, who are nearly unanimous in their belief that some u.s. forces, approximately 20,000, should remain for a period of time to help the iraqis secure the hard-earned gains that we had made together. all of our top commanders in iraq -- by the way, chosen by the president of the united states -- all of our top

commanders in iraq, general petraeus, general odierno, general austin, all of them believed that we needed to maintain a presence of u.s. troops there and they consistently made clear to many of us during our repeated visits to iraq. on february 3, the commander of u.s. forces in iraq, general lloyd austin, and u.s. ambassador to iraq, jim jeffrey, testified to the coarmed services -- committee on armed services that for all the progress the iraqi security forces had made in recent years -- and it's been substantial -- they still have critical gaps in their capabilities that will endure beyond this year. those shortcomings including enabling functions for counterterrorism operations, the control of iraq's airspace and other external security missions, intelligence collection and fusion, and training and sustainment of the force. our commanders wanted u.s. troops to remain in iraq beyond

this year to continue assisting iraqi forces in filling these gaps in their capabilities. indeed, iraqi commanders believe the exact same thing. in august, the chief of staff of iraq's armed forces could not have been any clearer. he said -- i quote -- "the problem will start after 2011," he said. "the politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 20 2011. if i were asked about the withdrawal," he stated, "i would say to politicians, the u.s. army must stay until the iraqi army is fully ready in 2020." during repeated travels to iraq with my colleagues, i have met with all of the leaders of iraq's major political blocks and they, too, said they would support keeping a presence of u.s. troops in iraq. so let's be clear. this is not what our commanders

recommended. it is what iraqi commanders recommended and it is what all of iraq's key political leaders said privately that they were prepared to support. so what happened? what happened? advocates of withdrawal are quick to point out that the current security arrangement which requires all u.s. troops to be out of iraq by the end of this year was concluded by the bush administration and that is true. but it's also beside the point. the authors of that agreement always intended for it to be renegotiated at a later date to allow some u.s. forces to remain in iraq. as former secretary of state condoleezza rice, whose state department team negotiated the security agreement, has said -- quote -- "there was an expectation that we would negotiate something that looked like a residual force for our

training with the iraqis." she stated, "everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force." so if that's not the region -- if that's not the reason, i ask again, what happened? the prevailing narrative is that the u.s. and iraqi leaders could not reach agreement over the legal protections needed to keep our troops in iraq. to be sure, this was a matter of vital importance. but while this may have been a reason for our failure, the privileges and immunities issues is less a cause than a symptom of the larger reason why we could not reach agreement with the iraqis. because of his political promise to fully withdraw from iraq, the president never brought the full weight of his office to bear in shaping the politics and the events on the ground in iraq so as to secure a residual presence of u.s. troops.

this left our commanders and our negotiators in baghdad mostly trying to respond to events in iraq, trying to shape events without the full influence of the american president behind them. last may i traveled to iraq with the senator from south carolina, senators graham. we met with all of the major iraqi leaders and all of them were ready to come to an agreement on a future presence of u.s. troops in iraq. but as prime minister malaki explained to us, the administration at that time and for the foreseeable future had not given the iraqi government the number of troops and missions it would propose to keep in iraq. for weeks after, the administration failed to make a proposal to the iraqis, and when the iraqis finally united together in august and publicly asked the administration to begin associations, the response from washington was again

characterized by delay. this ensured that a serious negotiation could not begin much less succeed. i novak is a sovereign country. i know it has an elected government that must answer to public opinion. and i know there could be no agreement over a future u.s. military presence in iraq if iraqis did not agree to it and build support for it. so this is as much a failure of iraqi leadership as it is of american leadership, but to blame this on the iraqis does not excuse the fact that we had an enormous amount of influence with iraq's leaders and we did not exercise it to the fullest extent possible to achieve an outcome that was in our national security interest. in fact, in the view of many, they deliberately refused to come up with a number. they deliberately refused to engage in serious negotiation with the iraqis, with the

ultimate purpose of fulfilling the president's campaign pledge that he would get all troops, united states troops out of iraq. that's not a violation of sovereignty. that's diplomacy. that's leadership. leaders must shape events and public opinion, not just respond to them. starting in early 2009, with their desire to accelerate their withdrawal from iraq faster than our commanders to our hands-off approach of government formation last year to their record of delay in passivity on the question of maintaining a presence of u.s. troops beyond this year, this administration has consistently failed at the highest level to lead on iraq. i say again, perhaps this outcome should not have been a surprise. it's what the president has

consistently promised to do, and that decision makes good political sense for this president. such decisions should not be determined by domestic politics. the brave americans who fought so valiantly and given so much did so not for political reasons but for the safety and security of their fellow citizens, for their friends, for their families, for their children's futures and for us. this is a decisive moment in the history of america's relationship with iraq and with all of the countries of the broader middle east. this is a moment when the substantial influence that we have long enjoyed in that part of the world could be receding, in fact, is receding. we cannot allow that to be our nation's future. we must continue to lead. we must not let short-term political gains dictate our longer term goals. we need to continue to shape a

freer, more just and more secure future both for iraq and for the peoples across the middle east, because it is in our own national security interests to do so. over 4,000 brave young americans gave their lives in this conflict. i hope and i pray that these decisions made in large reason, in large part for political reasons. i pray that their sacrifice is not in vain. i hope that their families will not mourn the day that their sons and daughters went out to fight for freedom for the iraqi people. unfortunately, unfortunately, it is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of united states troops from iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests. i believe that history will judge this president's

leadership with scorn and disdain -- with the scorn and disdain that it deserves. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. blunt: mr. president, the house yesterday passed a bill that included an effort to move forward on the keystone x.l. pipeline project, and i want to talk about that project for awhile today and american energy

generally. we all agree that private-sector job creation needs to be the number-one priority in washington. and one of the best ways to jump-start job creation is simply through good energy projects, the shortest path to more american jobs is more american energy. unfortunately, the president and the administration have delayed one of the largest domestic shovel-ready projects until after the election next year. this is a project that's ready to go. the states where this project would go through have cleared the way for the project. there's no government money involved. this just takes a government okay, saying, yes, it's all right to create these jobs. and these jobs not only have the short-term impact of creating the jobs that are created to build the pipeline, but the long-term impact of all the economic activity that occurs because of this new north

american energy that we'd have access to. in delaying this program, the president is simply stalling the creation of thousands of jobs and postponing not only the growth in our economy, but also move toward more energy security. not too many years ago, i don't think you can say with a straight face that we really need to do everything we can to create something that closely resembles energy independence. and we are in a situation now with north american energy where we could do that. the numbers on the keystone x.l. pipeline project speak for themselves. this project would create 20,000 direct jobs during the construction phase. 20,000 jobs. that's why the labor union movement in the country supports these projects. 20,000 jobs to build the pipeline. it would generate 20.9 billion

dollars in new private-sector spending. it would generate around $5 billion in new state, local and federal revenue wh they project is being built and when this project is completed nationwide, the project would benefit 1,400 american job creators. the keystone x.l. project would reinforce energy security by reducing our dependence on other parts of the world. canada, our largest trading partner, is -- it's a miracle relationship, this large border that we don't worry very much about, all the back and forth economic activity that occurs. in fact, for every dollar we'd send to canada for that energy, they'd send 91 cents back. so this is a dollar we're spending to get 91 cents back and to be more of an energy

partner with our closest neighbor, rather with the biggest border. we have clearly a bigger border with canada than we do with mexico. to be an energy partner with our closest neighbor rather than to worry about energy in places where, frankly, they don't like us very well. fanned they do like us, they don't get the money back to us in the same way. in comparison of the 91 cents we'd get back for every dollars 1 we'd send to canada for north american energy coming out of the canada, we get 49 cents back from saudi arabia. that doesn't mean saudi arabia is a bad trading partner. it just means they're not as good a trading partner as the canadians are. we get 33 cents back from venezuela. so why would we want to send a dollar to venezuela or a dollar to saudi arabia for energy in we could send a dollar to canada and that dollar almost all comes

right back to us. domestically this project would encourage more oil production in the balkan formation in the upper great plains. the balkan formation i sure didn't know about 15 years ago, and i don't know that anybody did, is thought to be the greatest new energy development since prudhoe bay in the 1960's. i read somewhere the other day that north dakota, i think, has become the fourth or fifth energy-producing state in the country, passing oklahoma. this is a great resource right at the incoming border of where this new pipeline and all this energy activity would be. regardless of the white house decision to delay this project, the canadian oil sands will be developed. and it's not a question of whether there's going to be a market or not. it's who gets the market. the canadians have said, as they should, if we don't build a pipeline through the united states to the refineries in the

southern part of the united states, we're going to build that same pipeline in another direction. most likely the pipeline will go to the pacific coast and then the energy goes to asia. why would we want energy going to asia from a trading partner where we get 91 cents back rather than energy coming here? why would we want to buy more energy from the middle east and less energy than we could buy from our neighbor? why would we think for a minute that the security of the country, the energy security of the country will be better served in any other way than this one? so this is going, most likely -- if it doesn't go to asia, i guess it can go to the atlantic coast and go to europe. what everybody believes is if it doesn't come here, they just turn the pipeline to the west instead of the south and that oil, those oil sands, that great energy resource, goes somewhere

else rather than where it makes more sense for us to give it -- to get it or more sense for them to send it. this is as close to an energy no brainer as i can think of. but the majority leader says this project is dead on arrival in the senate. and i don't believe he meant just dead on arrival if it was part of a package that extended the payroll tax. i think that quote was that it's dead on arrival, that it's not going to go anywhere in the coming year at a time when we need those jobs. and eventually we all know as if i cannily as we can get it. we need tor more dependent on energy and less dependent on energy every where else. there have been reports to say the administration's timing here is in consideration for the reelection effort. this appears to be about one american job instead of more american jobs.

and we need to be concerned, mr. president, about more american jobs. some reporters have noted, or some reports have noted that the president's advisors -- and this is a quote -- fear that a decision in favor of the project would dampen enthusiasm among volunteers needed for door-to-door campaigning in battle ground states. i think that bus went to battle ground states. that should be enough. we should not have to worry about not having volunteers because we choose to make what makes sense for us in an energy situation. others have noted that -- quote -- "the president decided to punt on this project -- quote -- in order to placate parts of the coalition that elected him in 2008." americans are looking for jobs, not more of the same from washington. this isn't time for politics. we need to jump-start the private-sector economy.

again i'll say the quickest road to more american jobs is more american energy. for the better part of 60 years we have used more energy than we can produce. the marketplace is there, the consumer is there, the user is there. this is what capitalism is all about, what free enterprise is all about. figure out how to connect the product with the consumer. so we know the consumer's there. let's do what we can to connect that consumer with the energy needs that they have. according to a gallup poll, the sharp decline in the workforce last night may have more of a reflection on the large number of americans deciding to give up looking for work. let's do things that energize the economy and energize the american workforce. i'm glad to be a sponsor of the north american energy security act. the house, again, pursued this

week a similar policy as part of that effort to vote on a payroll tax extension with this as an toefrt create new jobs. whether it's the -- an effort to create new jobs. whether it's the keystone pipeline or utility mact rule which slows down people's ability to create jobs, or rules that make people think twice and three times and eventually enough times you don't do it, about job creation, or what we need to do to get to the oil and gas shales reserves of the -- or oil in the gulf of mexico. let's do what's necessary for north america. let's make north american energy work for america. and i don't know a better way to do that at less government cost or less government involvement than the keystone pipeline. mr. president, i'd yield the

floor and question the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to share my frustration. it's not just the frustration that you may feel, that i have felt presiding over this body when for hours at a time it is empty that when such precious work and important work we should be doing to get the people of this great country back to work, to lay the groundwork for a strong recovery to, deal with the hundreds of issues that this body should be dealing with. i am expressing my frustration at our inability to work

together and to make real progress. today i've had the blessing of being visited by a number of delawareans for lunch, for some business visits, for just some constituent catch-up. as i do almost every day, i commuted down from delaware this morning. as i've heard from folks on the train, as i've heard from folks in my office, as i've heard from folks who have written and called my offices in delaware and here in washington, they're puzzled and they're frustrated. they don't understand why we can't move forward. to paraphrase the good senator from missouri who just spoke, there is a no brainer right in front of us, and it's the extension of the payroll tax cut. it is something at least that apparently has the support of both parties in both houses. it is something that a number of economists have said is an important contributor to the modest but steady economic growth that is helping pull america out of this terrible great recession. so i ask, mr. president, why is it that we sit here stalled,

unclear on when we can proceed to a vote, to a consideration of a clean payroll tax cut? well, there have been a whole series of efforts to get us to the floor to a vote to an extension of the payroll tax cut. this is a simple enough matter. working americans all over this country, i believe 160 million of them, will be hit with an increase in their payroll tax rate at the end of this month. just a few days now away unless we act. my good friend, senator casey, of pennsylvania, suggested several versions of a payroll tax cut extension that would build upon and strengthen the payroll tax cut that the president proposed and this body passed last year. a casey compromise that has most recently been considered and debated in this body would put up the $1,500 in the pockets of hardworking americans across this country and contribute as much as 1.5% in g.d.p. growth in the coming year. but in the last two weeks we've seen our colleagues here on the

other side of the aisle four times block our efforts, through filibusters and dilatory tactics, to attempt to get to a payroll tax cut extension. the first republican version was opposed by 26 senate republicans. the second version opposed by 25. on some level, mr. president, i have to ask what are we doing? since when do republicans openly oppose tax cuts? i've been in the senate just over a year. as you know, i was sworn in last november. and in my freshman year you've seen many moments when we've been able to reach compromise and flirted to having to shut down the whole federal government because we couldn't reach a compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. now we once again stand here this wednesday knowing that unless we can act in partnership, we will shut this government down on friday without a continuing resolution. last night the house acted.

they passed this payroll tax cut extension and sent it over to us. and i'm puzzled as to why we're not moving to it on the floor today. i will tell you that when we get to move to it, i will vote against it. and i know many others here as well. why? because h.r. 3630, which passed the house last night, is not just a clean extension of the payroll tax cut bill. nasdaqin fact far from it. it is loaded up with things that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut extension, which house leadership had to do in order to garner enough votes to move it. so so today we should shall considering this bill isn't to us last night, the speaker asking us to take it up, and it has a whole series of provisions which i suspect many here and at home don't know about. so i'll briefly consider a few of them. it undermines health care reform by punishing low- and middle-income families whose

economic circumstances changed during the year. it cuts 40 weeks of unemployment benefits from the 99 weeks we would like to extend to 54 weeks t overrides the president's decision-making process on the keystone pipeline, in my view simply to embarrass the president. and it amends the clean air act to block e.p.a.'s proposed rules on toxic air pollution from industrial boilers. it would also freeze federal pay through 2013 and impose a triple contribution -- mandatory contribution -- to federal retirement programs, effectively cutting federal employee pay and taking more than $50 billion out of the pockets of federal workers. to me, in some ways most alarmingly, it alouse states to impose -- it allows states to impose drug-testing on employees who have lost their jobs and are seeking unemployment. in short, mr. president, what has come over us to from the house last night is the farnlingsest thing possible from

a cleaning extension of the payroll tax cut. it is a payroll tax cut with rider after rider sitting on the back of this horse that have weighed it down so a greatly that it can clearly hardly move. it is a terrible bill, and in my view we should move to it, dispose of it, and get back to the business of the country. last, i'm puzzled as to why we're not proceeding to it. my recollection -- and i don't have the joy of signature here on the floor all the time. but my recollection, from what i've read and heard is that the republican leader has twice called on us to move to this bill. i believe he did so twice earlier this weeblg. saying -- earlier this week saying that we should put partisanship aside and promptly take up whatever is sent over to us by the house. his comment was, the first thing we need to find out is whether there are the votes in the senate to pass what the house has passed, so i'm hoping we're

spending our time and energy trying to get this bill passed in the senate as well as in the house. perfectly reasonable attitude. we should proceed to this bill. we're here. we have the bill. we've been waiting almost literally the entire day without making any progress. mr. president, we need to extend tax cuts for payroll. we need to extend tax cuts that incentivize clean energy investments. we need to extend tax cuts that can inspire innovation, research, and development. there is a whole list of tax cuts that will expire at the end of this year without action. we need to pass the national defense authorization act. we need to pass a continuing resolution to fund this government and the rest of this year's appropriations bills. mr. president, there are so many important bills to which we must turn. my sole question is: why when we try to proceed to this bill this morning, did the

republican leader object? i'm just a freshman, but i represent a state that is deeply frustrated and puzzled. since when do republicans load up a tax cut extension with so many riders that they're afraid to even bring it to a vote on the floor of this chamber? i'm puzzled. i'm frustrated. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, first i'd like to ask unanimous consent that clay robbins, who is an intern serving in your office, would have the privilege of the floor for the -- and for the remainder of today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to speak today in support of the keystone xl pipeline. the keystone xl pipeline is one of the largest shovel-ready infrastructure projects in the united states. it would bring oil from north dakota and from canada to refineries along the gulf coast

and into the midwest. the pipeline would strengthen americans' energy security and create tens of thousands of new jobs. these are good-paying jobs, mr. president. but don't take my word for it. just consider what representatives of organized labor have had to say. the president of building and construction trades department of the afl-cio said quoaf, any n of the keystone xl project begins and ends with one word: jobs. he went on to say, without america's heartland, the keystone pipeline represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs, without one single dollar of government assistance." the general president of the international brotherhood of teamsters stated that "the keystone pipeline project will offer workingmen and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic

climate." and consider the remarks of the general president of the laborers international union of north america. he said, "this project is not just a pipeline but a lifeline -- a lifeline, he says -- for thousands of working men and women." house democrats also recognize the importance of this keystone xl project. this summer 47 house democrats voted in favorite bill to require a decision on the pipeline by november 1. well, on october 19, 22 house democrats wrote a letter to the president. this is what they told president obama. they said, "america cannot afford to say no to this privately funded, jobs-creating infrastructure project." and they went on to say, "it is in our national interest -- our

national interest -- to have a presidential permit issued for the keystone xl as soon as possible." senate democrats also support the keystone xl pipeline. senator baucus of montana has said, we need to put montanans back to work and cannot afford further delays to the keystone xl pipeline. senator tester also from montana say, "the keystone pipeline will create montana jobs and it should not have to wait 14 months for an up-and-down decision." senator manchin of west virginia says, "i'm for the keystone pipeline." he said, "all the trade unions, everyone is for it. it creates thousands of jobs." senator begich, senator landrieu have also written in support of the pipeline. well, until recently president obama suggested that he, too, believed the pipeline could be in the interests of the united states.

on april 6, the president held a town hall event in pennsylvania. there he received a question about canadian oil sands production. in response, the president of the united states discussed the keystone xl pipeline. this is what he said. he said, "importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly is a good thing." let me repeat. "importing oil" -- this is the president of the united states. "importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly is a good thing." however, now on october 10, the president reversed course and he showed a different side. after protesting from environmentalists, the president has decided to punt his decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 presidential election. many in the press say that the president delayed his decision so that environmental activists would turn out on election day

to support him. if true, the president's decision to delay the approval of the pipeline is not only political, it was also cynical. cynical because these virallal activists believe that they can shut down canadian oil sands production. they believe they can shut down the production by stopping construction of the keystone xl pipeline. simply isn't true and the president knows it. but maybe the president doesn't want to be honest with his environmental activists. maybe he just doesn't want to disappear them. doesn't want his political base to stay home on election day. but don't take it from me, mr. president. consider what austin goolsbee had to say. many members of this chamber know that he is the former chamber of the white house vick advisors. this white house council, president obama's council of economic advisors. this is what he saidment.

he said, "it is a bit naive to think that the s.a.r. sands would not be -- the tar sands would not be developed if they don't build that pipeline." he said, "eventually, it's going to be built. it may go to the pacific. it may go through nebraska. but it's going to be built somewhere. "again, mr. goolsbee was president obama's top economic advisor. so why are the canadian oil sands going to be developed? well, because the oil sands are a huge national asset for canada, and canada will not allow that asset to be stranded. so let's consider the findings of the canadian energy research institute. now, this is an independent, not-for-profit research entity established in 1975. it's mission is to provide relevant, independent, and objective economic research on energy and on environmental issues. well, this june they release add

report, and it was entitled "the economic impacts of staged development of oil sands projects in alberta." 2010 to 2035. 25-year future look. this report looked at a variety of scenarios, including one in which no new pipeline capacity is built. under that scenario, the institute estimated that the total impact on canada's g.d.p. would be about $2.3 trillion over those 25 years. it also estimated that the compensation for canadian employees will reach almost $650 billion over this same period. it estimated that the direct -- ththe indirect employment in canada will grow 390,000 jobs to a peak of 490,000 in 2020, just nine years from now.

well, it also estimated that the royalties to alberta will grow from approximately $3.6 billion in 2010 to a peak of $22.6 billion in 2020, in ten years, from $3.6 billion to $22.6 billion royalties toal bee to a. they made all of these estimates assuming no additional pipeline capacity will be built. so what do these estimates mean? they mean that canada will continue to develop its oil resources, whether or not keystone xl or any other pipeline is built? they mean that the environmentalists trying to shut down energy production are naive at best. they also mean that the president -- president obama -- is once again failing to lead. that he, once again, is failing

to be forthright with the american people. and that he is unwilling and failing to make difficult decisions. the president is showing that he thinks that his job is really the only job that matters. of course we all know that canada will not sit idly by. canada will add additional pipeline capacity, whether or not keystone xl is built. canada's prime minister steven harper has said that the decision to delay approval of key dean x.l. demonstrates, his words, "the necessity of making sure that we're able to access asian markets" -- asian markets, mr. president -- "for our energy products." that's what'what the canadian pr said. approval to delay decision of

the pipeline is a "clear reminder about the strategic importance of diversifying our export markets." "a clear reminder about the strategic importance of diversifying our export markets." in other words, canada has a tremendous amount of oil. and canada will ensure that its oil is brought to market. it may go to the united states. it may go to china. it may go to another country. but canada's oil will be brought to market. thus the question for president obama is very simple, very straightforward: is it in america's interest to reduce our dependence on oil from the persian gulf and from venezuela? is it in america's interest to create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time of 8.6% unemployment?

the answer is abundantly obvious. the answer, of course, is "yes." it is in america's best interest to reduce our dependence on oil from the persian gulf and venezuela. it is in america's interest to create tensions of thousands of new jobs at a time of 8.6% unemployment. it is time that the president started to say "yes" and stops saying "no" to jobs and to energy. "yes" to energy security, "yes" to tens of thousands of new good-paying jobs. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: roll be

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. and i ask unanimous consent to be able to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: as if in morning business.

mr. president, we're at a time in the calendar that usually is a time of excellent anticipation. christmas is coming, holidays are coming, people are trying to get their families in order and do the shopping and all the things that you have to do. and it would seem that this is a moment of fairly happy days. and the holiday season is here, but these aren't happy times for many americans. across our country, families are fighting to keep their heads above water.

some parents don't know how they're going to put food on the table tonight, much less presents under the christmas tree or during the hanukkah holidays. and that's why our side of the aisle is fighting to continue and expand a tax cut that has benefited millions of working families this year. this is a tax cut for people who really need it, families who depend on a paycheck. with a payroll tax cut the typical family in my state, the state of new jersey, would receive an extra $40 a week starting next year. and that's what a typical household in the northeast pays for gasoline or health care each

week. $40 a week adds up to $2,100 a year. and for parents who are struggling as many are to make ends meet, an extra $2,100 goes a long way to help buy groceries or pay the electric bill or purchase medicines. it can help pay for childcare, preschool, or college tuition. the necessities that help ensure children's success in life. to make sure that all working families continue receiving this much-needed relief next year, we're asking america's millionaires, people who earned over a million dollars a year, to pay their fair share of what the country needs to get

ourselves back into reasonable balance. but the republicans won't even allow us to vote on a bill that their colleagues in the house approved last night. i want to just spend a minute here. the house passed a bill last night, and it included the tax relief for some, and we should take it here and consider it, but the republicans won't even let us bring up the bill that passed in the house last night, and there's a question of why. why won't they let us do it? there's obviously a hidden meaning here. but what we see is the republicans are acting like scrooges.

the picture shows a mean-looking guy, as we see, and that's what they want to do for christmas. for g.o.p. scrooges, this isn't the season of giving, it's time to take things away. and he said no payroll tax cut for you this year. they want to take away the tax cut for ordinary working families. the republican scrooges want to take away unemployment insurance benefits for a million people. imagine. people who are dependent on unemployment insurance at times when they're out of work to help sustain their families, put food on table, to try and just keep their heads above water. but that doesn't matter to our friends in the republican side. mr. president, today in america

there is only one job available for each four unemployed people. this isn't the time to cut unemployment benefits. the republicans also want to weaken safeguards that keep our air clean, filling our atmosphere with poisons and endangering the health of our children. they want to weaken those safeguards. to add insult to injury, the republicans are also trying to ram through a massive pipeline that will carry toxic materials into our country. toxic materials. we are so conscious of what damage the toxic environment can do to our families, to our children, but they want to have a pipeline that will carry toxic materials into our country. they want to make it easier for

coal-fired industrial facilities to foul the air toxins -- to spew air toxins into our neighborhoods. it's hard to believe. instead of gifts, the republican scrooges wants lumps of coal in the stockings and coal pollution in our lungs. mr. president, many families, it's a tradition to teach children to welcome santa claus during the holidays. and this year we're going to tell our kids to hide away from the republican scrooges. we're not going to alarm our children and tell them that things that are difficult may be even more difficult if some tax relief that's proposed for working-class families isn't available to them.

the republican priorities are different. want to raise taxes on middle-class families, families who work for a living, to protect luxuries for millionaires, nice boats, airplanes, and i don't mind, they've made the money, what they buy for it. but at least carry the fair share of our financial needs in this country. the republican priorities say they're for lower taxes, but that only goes for the jet set. when it comes to cutting taxes for working families, the republican mantra is hey, we got to take care of the wealthy. we got to watch out for the wealthy, make sure they're

okay, don't ask them to carry more of the load, it's not a good time to -- to deal with them. after all, maybe they'll be big contributors to our political campaigns. let's not kid ourselves. american millionaires don't need help. they don't need the republicans' help. since 1980, our country's wealthiest 1% of the people, working people, have seen their average household income increase by 55%. let me just restate that. since 19 -- since the 1980's, our country's wealthiest 1% have seep their average household income increase by 55%. enormous. but the bottom 90%, average household income has not

increased at all. as a matter of fact, it's gone down because the cost of living has gone up much faster than even any raises that come through. and even though incomes are growing for the very wealthy, their tax rates are actually going down. their taxes are going down. we can also look at the chief executive officers to see how well the wealthy are faring. c.e.o.'s at the largest companies are now paid an average salary of $11 million a year. note that. the largest companies, c.e.o.'s are now paid an average salary of $11 million a year. that's 343 times as much as the average worker salary of

$33,000. this comparison is so hard to reconcile. c.e.o.'s of the largest companies, an average salary of $11 million a year, and the average worker, $33,000 a year. where's the equity in this? when we send the people out to fight, put on the country's uniforms, do the jobs, build the foundations, make sure the country is strong, $33,000 a year. that's tough. and just a few decades ago the pay gap between c.e.o.'s and workers was much more modest. the c.e.o.'s got, again the c.e.o., people at the top of these companies were paid an average of 42 times as much as the average worker. as we see it in this chart.

the chart demonstrates what in the 1980's the c.e.o.'s made 42 times the average worker's pay. so the difference wasn't that -- that obvious or that big. in 2010, c.e.o.'s made 343 times the average worker's pay. there's no equity there, mr. president. i come from the corporate world, and i know what big salaries are. i've seen it, in my own company. but the one thing you have to do is at least encourage the people who are working for you to understand that they have a chance in life to provide the things that we all talk about for our children -- a college education, a decent, prerkts of a decent job, prospect of being able to take care of your own family.

mr. president, the numbers make it clear. our goal should not be protecting millionaires. they don't need our help. we should be focused on protecting medicare, food safety, home heating for the poor and head start for little kids who have a first chance to learn, to learn, to understand education, to see how important it is to learn things, to start reading books at an early age, to start having conversations with their parents about what is going on in this world. i want to take those children out of the -- they want to thaik those children out of the head start facility, so many of them, 200,000, and has been proposed in some of the house budgets. take them out of the head start school. but our republican colleagues don't want to hear about that.

they continue asking the poor, the middle class, the elderly and our children to bear the entire burden of these tough times. the republicans now remind me of what accountants are like. they're people who are obsessed, obligated to deal with the bottom line. there's no soul, no humanity, no compassion. not around here. unless it's for the wealthy. they have compassion for themselves. let's be clear. it does not hurt those of us who have been successful to pay our fair share. mr. president, i remind those within my voice who hear me, we have two wars going on.

we've got people paying a terrible price to serve our country's needs. a terrible price. and this is no time for those who are fortunate enough to make above a million dollars to say hey, i want to help carry this burden, i don't want to ask people who are scratching for a living just trying to keep ends meet, i don't want to ask them to do more without saying i want to do my share. mr. president, i was lucky, i ran a very big company. i want to do my share. that's why i'm here and that's what i'm talking about. to those who make more than $1 million a year, i say look in the mirror, ask yourself if you can succeed without help from anyone else, or did your country help you achieve your prosperity? were the people who built the

buildings and built the infrastructure and manned the jobs all across the country, service jobs, they built the foundation upon which those who make $1 million a year build their futures, build their fortunes. that's what happens. but there's not the respect for the hardworking families that we like to see. so i ask our republican colleagues, think about the true meaning of the holidays. it's not halloween. it's not trick or treat, because otherwise that's what the game looks like. this time of the year is about coming together, caring about your fellow man. this should be a season of giving, not taking away the necessities that are from our country's most vulnerable. mr. president, we all remember

at the end of a christmas carol when ebenezer scrooge opened his heart and became a hero. we need the same kind of miracle here in congress. we need the republican scrooges to have a change of heart and work with us to help our fellow americans this holiday season. we need them to help us continue and expand the tax cuts for working families. we need them to help us continue unemployment insurance benefits for the jobless and clean air safeguards for our children. and we need them to help us protect the programs that benefit the people who need them most, who we need to keep our foundation strong. to our republican colleagues, we say come on, let's work together. let's do this. let's put the acrimony aside. let's put the selfishness aside and say those who work every day for a living and try to keep

things together -- and we have millions of people who are looking for jobs who can't find them right now -- let's work together to make sure our children and grandchildren inherit an america that's even stronger than the one that we inherited. show the heart of america. that will be the best gift we could ever give them. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, there are no more important issues for middle-class families across america than jobs and the economy. this is what they want their elected tperbls to be focused -- elected officials to be focused on and it's exactly what i think we ought to be working on every single day. that's why i've come to the senate floor again and again to urge my republican colleagues to stop blocking our attempts to extend and expand the middle-class tax cut so many of our families are counting on.

that's why i come to the floor once again today to discuss the urgent need to maintain federal unemployment benefits for middle-class families across our country. mr. president, this should be an easy issue. unemployment benefits provide a lifeline for millions of families, and it would be simply wrong to cut this support off while the economy continues to struggle and so many of our workers are having so much trouble finding work. right now there are more than four unemployed workers for every single job opening. if every opening was filled tomorrow, we would still have more than ten million workers across the country without a job to even apply for. additionally, nearly half of all unemployed workers have been out of a job for six months or longer, which is higher than we have seen for more than 60 years. so, millions of americans are unemployed today not because

they don't want to work and not because they don't have valuable skills, but simply because they found themselves in an economy that isn't creating jobs as quickly as we need it to. those unemployed workers are desperate to get back on the job, and unemployment benefits make all the difference for them and their families while they scour the want ads and pound the pavement and sent out resume after resume after resume. madam president, i recently sent a letter to my constituents asking for their stories about what these benefits actually mean to them and their families, and the response to that was unbelievable. within a few days i received hundreds of e-mails. people sent me videos. they sent me pictures of their families. and i received story after story from workers and families from across my home state of washington who are fighting to make ends meet in this very tough economy and who can't

afford to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. one of these stories came from a woman named vicky who lived in maple valley, washington. she was annoyed single mom, lost her -- she was an unemployed single mom, lost her apartment and has to share her room with her son in a relative's home. she made every effort going toent views, sending out a resume to hundreds of employers. still not able to find a job. she understands in this economy finding a job won't be easy, but she's going to keep trying. and the support she received from unemployment benefits kept her and her family afloat and made all the difference. she said those benefits allowed her to put food on the table for her family and gas in her car so she could go to jobbent views. she -- go to job interviews. she told me -- and i quote -- "if i lose my unemployment benefits, i don't know what i will be able to do to provide for my son." madam president, she's not alone. i heard from older americans

like judy. she's a grandmother of five. judy told me she's been working for 47 years before being laid off from her teaching job in 2009. she said that over the last 12 years she's worked to teach adults the skills they need to move into jobs as bookkeepers and receptionists and schedulers. in this economy, although she was an expert in her area, even she can't find a job in those fields. she wrote to me saying -- quote -- "i want to work, but nobody will hire older citizens, no matter how much experience they have. i started looking for jobs at the pay level i was at when i was laid off. but after being unemployed now for two years, i'm even looking at jobs for less than half of that. still i'm told my experience does not match the requirements." madam president, for judy, unemployment benefits are not the solution. she wants a job, but they provided her with some critical support while she looked for that last job before she can

retire. i also heard from a woman named sheila from belleview, washington. like judy, she's close to retirement but she was laid off last year from an engineering technician job that she told me she loved and now she's desperate to get back to work. after sending out over 500 resumes since then, she's had four interviews. in her e-mail to me, sheila wrote -- and i quote -- "i was devastated when i was laid off. i now look for work seven days a week. i've worked hard my entire life and i don't want everything i've worked for to disappear." she told me that's what would happen if her unemployment benefits run out now. finally, madam president, i received a video message from scott. scott told me after working at the same company for 20 years, he was laid off in march and filed his first unemployment claim in the 30-plus years he's been in the workforce. he said he always thought unemployment insurance was for the other people.

he never thought he would be the one collecting it. now he calls it a godsend for him and his family. in his video, scott told me about the uncertainty his family would face if his benefits expired before he could get back on the job. if this happens, scott said -- and i quote -- "i can't imagine what it would do to my family to lose our home. we spend our money wisely. we live well within our means. but if we lost our home, we would be just another statistic. the last thing i want to do is to explain to my wife and my daughter that we have to leave our home." and that's exactly what he said would happen if he loses his unemployment benefits in this tough economy. so, madam president, those are just a few of the many, many stories i received. there are so many of them out there. millions of people across america, including about 100,000 in my home state of washington, will stand to lose their benefits that they count on if congress does not act by the end of this year in just a few short

weeks. these workers are not looking for a handout. they don't want to be a burden. but they need support while they get back on their feet and back on the job. and in this struggling economy, maintaining these unemployment benefits is critical. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has said maintaining unemployment benefits is one of the most effective policy tools we have now to boost the economy and get money into the pocket of our consumers. if their cutoff -- if they are cut off it won't just be devastating for the families who count on this support, it's going to hurt our small businesses and communities to have billions of dollars pulled away from consumers who spend it every month on food and rent and khroe they think. so -- and clothing. madam president, we cannot afford to have this lifeline cut o. our great country has always been a place that stands with our families when times get tough and gives them the support they need to get back on their feet and back on the job and

contributing to their communities once again. so i urge all of our colleagues to stand with us as the holidays approach to maintain these unemployment insurance benefits that so many of our families are counting on and to keep working to cut taxes for the middle class and get our economy moving again and put our country back to work. madam president, on that last point, before i finish, i want to join our majority leader and so many others who call today on republicans to stop blocking their own bill and allow it to be brought up for an up-or-down vote. we know that the republican bill to pass -- that passed the house yesterday is going to fail. it's bad policy and many in their own caucus apparently don't support it. their bill takes some of the policies we're fighting for to support the middle class, including unemployment benefits, waters them down and then adds a whole bunch of tea party red meat to attract the republican support needed to pass the house. madam president, i am focused on

delivering the tax cut that middle-class families need and deserve, so i will vote against the republican bill if it's allowed to come up. but i can't believe that our republican colleagues are now preventing us from taking a vote on their own bill and then not allowing us to come together, which we need to do in these last few days before the holidays, to get a bipartisan deal and get it to the american people. they expect us to do this job. that's what's holding us up. madam president, i urge our colleagues to sit down, work out an agreement so that we can all celebrate the holidays with our families and the families out there who are counting on us will know we've done the job for them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business dirnl a.m. so, are we in a quorum call i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call being lifted and then i ask unanimous consent that i be a lollowed to eeoc -- be allowed to speak a speak as if in mornig business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: there are many things that people in the congress agree upon. one is that we need to be focused like a laser on getting people book to work, on creating jobs. that is something that i think there is universal agreement on here, and the other thing i think there's universal agreement on, ans that is that we ought to become more energy-independent as a nation. we ought to be looking for ways that our country can lessen that dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. we import a good amount of or or oil from other places around the world. that's why it's such a mystery as to why the keystone x.l.

pipeline project is running into such resistance from the administration. it's ironic in many respects because you have even the president of the united states several mofortses ago saying "we're going to have to import some oil and when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we've got to look at other nations like canada and mexico that are stable, and stead daindz reliable sources." that is the president of the united states earlier this year talking about that if we're going to get energy, if we're going to be importing oil, we ought to import it from countries around the world that are friendly to the united states, and i would argue, madam president, there is no country more friendly to the united states unanimous ou than our nee north, canada, which we have a very robust, bilateral trading relationship with. we do about $6 billion of trade with our canadian neighbors. and so to think that we might be able to get oil from canada as opposed to oil from venezuela or

oil from somewhere in the middle east seems to be a really good option for this country, a really good option that policy-makers here ought to be very supportive of. well, that again makes it an even greater mystery as to why the administration has insisted on blocking, eve blocking even a decision as to whether or not we can develop a project called the keystone pipeline which would take advantage of those oil resources that are available in canada, bring them into the united states, transport them through a pipeline, 1,700-long pipeline to refineries where that product can be refined and people here can benefit from it or it could be sold perhaps somewhere else. but nevertheless it would benefit the economy here in this country. and in the -- both in the initial stages when the project is under construction as well as later on, create lots of jobs. i mean, my state alone, the state of south dakota -- and the

pipeline would come through south dakota it is a makes its way down to the refineries and other places in this country -- would benefit from hundreds of jobs that would be created and half a billion dollars of economic impact -- economic activity created just alone in the state of south dafnlg that's during the construction phase, not to mention all the state and level tax revenue that would benefit many of the local governments across my state of south dakota and other states through which the pipeline would traverse. and so it is a -- it is increasingly a mystery -- i don't know how else to describe it, curiosity, something, but it is something to those of us who see the great benefit of getting our oil resources from a friendly country like canada as to why this administration would be so opposed even to issuing a decision on permitting this pipeline project that would enable that oil to come from canada through the united states to refineries here in this country. the other issue, as i said earlier, there's universal

agreement on is that we ought to be putting policies in place that create jobs. madam president, there is no greater shovel-ready project than the keystone x.l. pipeline t would have an immediate impact, 20,000 jobs created immediately, $7 billion initial investment, billions and billions more over the years as this project continues to be utilized and creates other opportunities for energy project development in this country. certainly the bac bakken oil wod benefit greatly. so it creates all sorts of other economic spinoffs and activity that would be good for jobs in this country. so you have something that lessens our dependence on foreign sources of energy by about 700,000 barrels of oil a day. creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country in america,

and enhances the ability of state and local governments to collect revenues which they desperately need for their own purposes and needs. and yet here we are looking at this project or at least it's a decision on this project being blocked by this administration for no apparent reason -- other reason, i would say, than politics. we are headed into an election year and i think what's pretty clear about this is that the delay hon a decision on this project for 18 months clearly was designed to get past the presidential election so that the president would not stro make a decision -- would not have to make a decision that splits his political base, because you've got labor unions that supports this, and environmental groups that oppose it. what's the more natural decision that this administration would make than to delay this? well that does not make sense

for the american people and for american workers. the president has said that he gets up every morning and thinks about what he can do to create jobs in this country. wwell, here's 20,000 immediate jobs that we could benefit from right away, not 20 mention the many jobs that would come as this project is billets. so, madam president -- as this project is built. so, madam president, as we look at the legislation that's been sent us to from the house of representatives, it includes this pipe stone -- keystone pipe stone -- keystone pipeline, x.l. pipeline language in this that would allow a decision to be made 60 days from its enactment so that we could accelerate at least the period in which this decision could be made. why is that important? because this project is going to go on, one way or the other. if it's not built here in this country, it's going to be shipped -- this energy is going to be shipped somewhere else around the world, perhaps to china or another country, and we, the american workers, the american economy, the american need that we have for energy is

not going to be met. we're not going to be benefited. we're not going to be advantaged by stlg project here. it's going to go somewhere else around the world that. makes no sense senator our economy, no sense for jobs, no sense for energy security, no sense for the many states who are in support of this project. and so i would hope that, as this debate gets under way on the proposal that was sent from the house of representatives, that the sticking point -- the thing that hangs it up -- is not the key to enx.l. pipeline. there are people who are probably going to have honest disagreements about various provisions in the legislation being sent us to from the house of representatives. but one thing that should not delay or in any way detour this from being considered in the united states senate is resistance to or objections over a final decision being made on the keystone x.l. pipeline. i want to just read ford you a few things, madam president,

that have been said by some of the folks across this country who think this is a good idea and many of them are -- represent working people across this country, labor unions. the teamsters put it this way. "the keystone pipeline project will offer working men and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic climate." the afl-cio, "for america's skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the keystone x.l. pipeline begins and ends with one word: jobs." you look at what's been said by the brotherhood of electrical workers, "at a time when jobs are the top global priority, the keystone project will put thousands back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the north american economy. our members look forward to being part of this historic project and pledge to deliver the highest-quality work to mick it a success." now, that's what some of the labor leaders in this country are saying. i want to read what you some key dmems congress have said about

this. these are just a few excerpts, madam president, from democratic members of congress. this is one. "america truly cannot afford to say no to this privately funded, $20 billion job-creating infrastructure project which would bolster our economic industry. to that end, we respectfully urge you to ensure that the presidential permit is issued for keystone x.l." "mr. president, america needs the keystone pipeline. it is in our national interest to have a presidential permit issued for keystone x.l. as soon as possible." and, madam president, the department of state's final environmental impact statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements. namely, that the keystone x.l. pipeline have have no significant impact on the environment. so you have a project that has been okayed by th environmental agencies in this country, the people who have looked at the environmental impacts. they have said this thing is

teed up, ready to go. you have the labor organizations who say this is important to jobs in this country, to getting people back to woncht and you have democrats in congress who have weighed in and sthaid this is a project that should move forward. there was a voted on this very language that was in a free-standing bill in the house of representatives here recently, and there were 47 democrats who came out in support of the keystone x.l. pipeline legislation. so you have 47 democrats on record -- yes? a senator: would the senator yield on this point? mr. thune: yes. mr. baucus: i have some sympathy for the position that i lair the senator enunciating. that the issue of the pipeline ought not to be the thing that prevents us from moving forward. i personally think that the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest. mr. conrad: it'll help us reduce our interest on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests.

the big question is, at least for this senator, would the language permit a rerouting of the line within the state of nebraska so that the question of the ogallala aquifer would not be -- would not be addressed? is it the senator's understanding that the language that has come to us from the house would permit nebraska to reroute the line to avoid the aquifer? mr. thune: my understanding is, and, madam president, if i may say through the chair to my colleague from north dakota, my understanding is that the legislation does permit that to happen and that is why i believe the state of nebraska, including the governor, and our colleagues here in the united states senate from nebraska have now come out in support of this. whereas previously there will been some concern about the ogallala aquifer. my understanding is that the

legislation allows for that issue to be addressed. i've got some statement here from the governor of nebraska expressing his support for this legislation. so it strikes me at least that that should not be an issue that in any way deters consideration of this pipeline and -- and that we shouldn't have to wait 18 months. i mean, all i'm saying to my -- to my colleague from north dakota, and i think he recognizes the value of this. he's from north dakota and obviously his is a state that could be favorably impacted by the economic activity resulting from this pipeline, that if we don't do this, somebody else is going to benefit from it. this thing is not going to wait around. there is -- there is -- there are vast oil sands, reserves up in canada. they're looking for a place where they can get this to a refine expri get it refined -- refinery and get it refined. and if the united states, if we don't move forward with this, some other country is going to benefit. mr. conrad: i would just say to my colleague, canada is going to

develop this resource. this oil is going to go somewhere. it, to me, is absolutely in our national interest for that oil to come to our country. and if the language is as the senator represents, that it permits the rerouting of the line within nebraska to avoted issue with the ogallala aquifer, then i, for one, on this side would hope that this could be part of a final package. and i hope that this is something we could work through in the coming hours. this should not be the thing that prevents us from reaching across the aisle, reaching across the divide between the two chambers and achieving a result that is critically important for the country. and i thank the senator for allowing me to ask these

questions. mr. thune: and, madam president, i appreciate the senator from north dakota's comments. i couldn't agree more with sentiment he expressed. i do believe that we have in front of us something that i think there is a lot of bipartisan support for, extension of unemployment insurance benefits with some reforms, payroll tax cut extension, fix for the physician reimbursements under medicare, a number of other things that i think this -- have been put into this with an eye toward not only addressing what are some very serious concerns -- many of these things expire at the enof the year -- as well as something that would really create jobs, that has a jobs component to it, that would do something positive for our economy. so i hope we can find a way to come together and that this does not become a deterrent to thi this -- the legislation that's currently -- or that's not currently but going to be before us in the not-too-distant future, the proposal that came to us from the house of representatives, i certainly hope that that doesn't unravel as a result of the keystone x.l.

pipeline language being included in there because i think the senator from north dakota has, like many of his colleagues on his side, many of the colleagues on our side, recognized -- recognizes the value and what this could do for scwhrooz this could do for -- for jobs, what this could do for our economy, what this could do with america's energy needs, and to be able to do business with a friendly neighbor to the north, canada, as opposed to continuing to do business with others around the world with whom we do not have that kind friendly and stable relationship. and i would hope that the president of the united states would make a decision not to get in the way or assert pressure on members on his side to vote against this simply because it includes this particular provision. it's good for america. it's good for the states that are impacted, many of the local governments who would benefit from this, and it's certainly good for jobs and the economy, as has been voiced by the various working -- the labor unions across this country who

work -- who represent working americans. 700,000 barrels of oil coming to america from canada creating economic activity and jobs here in this country versus 700,000 barrels of oil going someplace else around the world and some other country benefiting and us having to become even more dependent upon foreign services of energy. so, madam president, again, i don't know what to say. this is to me a no-brainer and i hope that the united states senate will find its way before we adjourn for the christmas holiday to enact this legislation and that has been put forward that would enable this project to be decided. it doesn't prescribe one way or the other what the president does. it says the president either has to approve it or give a reason why it's not in the national interest. and i see the -- the other senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, here as well. he's been a leader on this and involved in getting this legislation introduced. i think both my colleagues from north dakota and i recognize its importance and i hope that we can move legislation that will

get this -- this project decided one way or the other, in my view preferably an affirmative decision that would allow it to move forward. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: madam president, i want to come to the floor to discuss the question of extending the payroll tax cut ct dealing with unemployment insurance, dealing with compensation for doctors who treat medicare patients. also addressing the question of the alternative minimum tax and, of course, the other tax extenders as well. because these -- this is a key moment for the country. as i expressed earlier, as senator thune was addressing the body, i personally do not believe that keystone pipeline should hold us back. this is something upon which i think we could get broad agreement. and especially if the language is as the senator has

represented and as senator hoeven has assured me, that it permits the state of nebraska to reroute that line so the ogallala aquifer is not in danger, it is, in my judgment, entirely in the national interest to get the keystone pipeline advanced. so that should not be the thing that hangs us up. as we look at things that are holding back the economy, unemployment remains far too high, the housing crisis continues. we have weak consumer confidence and demand. that really is at the heart of our ongoing economic weakness. personal debt is still near record levels. we have tightened borrowing standards for businesses and consumers. i hear this very often, that even good businesses that have good track records at paying back loans can't secure the credit that they need to expand. and we have state and local

budget cutbacks continuing. madam president, as we look at the private-sector jobs picture, there is some good news because we have now had many months of expansion of private-sector payrolls. in fact, if we go back here to 2010, in about the middle of the year, ever since then we have seen private-sector payrolls increasing, to the tune of millions of jobs. so there is progress being made. and when we look at the reason there has been progress, i believe two of the most distinguished economists in the country gave us a background to understand why we are seeing this progress. after one of the greatest financial debacles in our country's history.

alan blinder, the former deputy chairman of the federal reserve, and mark zandi, who was an economic advisor to the mccain campaign, did an analysis of the federal government response to the financial crisis and the recession. here's what they found. "we find that its effects" -- this is tarp and stimulus -- "that its effects on real g.d.p., jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted what could have been called great depression 2.0. when all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policy-makers had not acted at all. if the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate, they were well worth their cost." madam president, we've got a debate going on in this country about economic policy, and our

friends on the other side believe they have the answer, that they have the prescription. i would just remind those who might be listening that it was their policy and their prescription that led this country to the brink of economic collapse. they controlled the economic policy of this country for eight years and they put in place a series of policies that they said would dramatically expand job opportunities in this country and strengthen the economy. but we know what happened. at the end of 2008, i was in the meeting here in the capitol with the secretary of treasury of the bush administration and the chairman of the federal reserve. they told us they were taking over a.i.g., the big insurance company, the next morning and they told us if they did not, they believed there would be a financial collapse within days. madam president, going back to

the same, tired, failed economic policies that put us in that position is a mistake, a profound mistake. hopefully we would learn from history. and i believe what is needed now is for america to act to take steps to strengthen the economy in the short term but to combine that with fiscal discipline over the mid and longer term so that we can get back on track, so that we face up to this debt threat. two of the more distinguished economists in the country, in addition to the two i've already cited, have just concluded work for the peterson institute for international economics. these are the reinharts, dr. carmen reinhart and dr. vincent reinhart. and this is what they concluded

following severe financial crises. they found that economic recoveries are shallower and take much longer. here what they said in their analysis. "real per capita g.d.p. growth rates are significantly lower during the decade following severe financial crises. in the ten-year window following severe financial crises, unemployment rates are significantly higher than in the decade that preceded the crisis. the decade of relative prosperity prior to the fall was importantly fueled by an expansion in credit and rising leverage that spans about ten years. it is followed by a lengthy period of retrenchment that most often only begins after the crisis and lasts almost as long as the credit surge." madam president, what they are reporting to us, after looking at long period of economic history and dozens of countries,

that after a financial crisis, recovery takes much longer than is typical from a standard recession. madam president, we now have a bill that is sent over from the house that i believe has serious defects. i believe that bill is a non-starter. first of all, the house leaders included extraneous provisions making it a partisan bill. president obama has said he will veto it. even the senate g.o.p. won't vote on it. so we have the curious circumstance that we have a bill sent to us by the house of representatives -- controlled by the republican party -- and the republican party in the united states senate won't permit a vote on the republican bill.

now, one might ask themselves, why would that be? perhaps the reason is they know there aren't many votes for it in this chamber, just as there weren't many votes for it when it was previously offered on this side. so, madam president, more than just extending the payroll tax cut is at stake. we also need to extend unemployment insurance and we need to fix the cut that is about to happen to doctors who treat medicare patients. that's the so-called doc fix. and we need a compromise, not just partisanship from both sides. both of us need to find a way to come together. i have tried to indicate on this side a willingness to cross the partisan divide with respect to the keystone pipeline.

some on the other side have said that is important for their support for this legislation. i have said, at least speaking for me, that i am prepared to support the keystone x.l. pipele keystone pipeline because i do believe it is in the national interest. madam president, as we look at the effect of allowing the expiring payroll tax cut to die, this is what goldman sachs said to us." should the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment benefits expire at the end of the year, fiscal drag will be intense in 2012." in other words, because there will be a reduction in demand in the economy, we will see lower economic growth, we will see lower job creation, we will even see a risk of returning to a recession. madam president, this is from

goldman sachs, the u.s. economic analysis, "what turns a stall into a slump." and they are telling us one way to turn a stall into a slump is to fail to extend the payroll tax cuts and to extend unemployment insurance benefits to those who have been out of work for extended periods of time. that's not just the view of goldman sachs. i wrote a letter to the congressional budget office that's nonpartisan, and i asked them for which of the policy initiatives that we could take would give us the biggest bang for the buck, and what they told us is number one would be extension of unemployment insurance. why? because the people who receive those benefits are most likely to spend the money. that means there would be increased demand in the economy. that would give additional lift. now, let me be swift to add. for those who are concerned about deficit and debt, i'm with

you, absolutely. because our long-term threat is this growing debt, but c.b.o. has told us in testimony before the budget committee there is no contradiction between taking steps in the short term to give lift to the economy and taking steps in the medium term and the longer term to rein in deficits and debt. madam president, j.p. morgan chase has said this on expiring payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits. the presiding officer: you have consumed ten minutes. mr. conrad: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent for an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: i thank the chair and i thank my colleagues. this is what j.p. morgan chase said with respect to the expiring payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits." for 2012, the more important

issue is what happens to expiring stimulus measures. together, the payroll tax cut and the emergency unemployment benefits have lifted household disposable income by about $150 billion this year. if they expire as scheduled, consumption growth early next year would be challenged. in our baseline view, the drag from tightening fiscal policy, including expiration of the payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits, could subtract 1.5% to 2% from g.d.p. growth next year." since g.d.p. growth is only forecasted at 2.5% to 3%, a reduction of 1.5% to 2% would be a dramatic reduction. madam president, this is what mark zandi, the chief economist of moody analytics said." if policymakers do nothing here, if congress and the administration just sit on their

hands and they do nothing, the odds are very high we'll go into recession early next year. we have a payroll tax holiday, all of us. we'd be in recession right now without it. if they don't extend that, at the very minimum, we'll likely go into recession." madam president, i hope very much that colleagues are listening. i hope very much that we are able to proceed to address this matter of extending the payroll tax cut and of extending unemployment insurance. i think i want to end as i began. if we had not had the government response in tarp and stimulus, zandi and blinder, two of the top economists in this country, one who is an advisor to the mccain campaign, one who is the deputy chairman of the federal reserve, have said we would be in a depression today,

we would be in a depression today with 16% unemployment and eight million fewer people having jobs. we ought to pay close attention to that advice. we ought to act on it, and we ought to do it together. we ought to find a way for principled compromise on both sides. madam president, this body is bigger and better than we're demonstrating at this hour. we have the chance to prove to the american people that we are worthy of their confidence and that we are able to respond and do the urgent business of the nation. i hope we don't disappoint them. i thank the chair and yield the floor, and i thank my colleague for the courtesy of the additional time. a senator: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak on the subject of the keystone pipeline. i would like to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague from the great state of north dakota. i thank him very much for his support for this very important project, as he has just again expressed. this is something we have worked on for a great length of time. it's something that we have quite a bit of background and experience with, energy production and the infrastructure needs that go with it, and again i want to 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, in terms that are very much appreciated that he feels that this is something that needs to advance, that he feels that as we work forward in terms of determining how to handle the payroll tax holiday issue that this is

something that can be helpful and constructive. mr. conrad: would the senator yield for just a moment? there is a leadership request. mr. hoeven: i will. mr. conrad: i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 7:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: again, i thank the senator for his courtesy. i would ask unanimous consent that this unanimous consent request appear following the senator's remarks so his remarks are not interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. again, my appreciation to my esteemed colleague from the state of north dakota. i'm here to speak in support of the keystone project. and 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, and i

want to take a minute to talk about all three aspects of the legislation. together with my colleagues, i have put forward the north american energy security act of 2011. essentially, that legislation clears the path to move forward with the keystone x.l. pipeline project. now, for those who are -- who may not be familiar with the keystone x.l. pipeline, i brought this chart that actually shows the route that it travels. it's 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's this blue line laid out on the chart. right next to it, we have another line, this red line. this is the keystone pipeline.

i will take just a minute to talk about that because it's important i think in the context of what we're trying to do with keystone x.l. prior to being elected to the senate, i served the state of north dakota for ten years as governor. during that time, we worked with many companies to develop pipeline infrastructure in north dakota as we produce 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. this pipeline, the keystone pipeline built by transcanada, as you can see, tracks from alberta, canada, all the way down to patuka, illinois. so it's similar in that it brings canadian crude into our refineries here in the united states which is refined and reduces our dependence on other foreign sources of oil. about 590,000 barrels a day flows through the keystone

pipeline right now. so when we talk about the keystone x.l. project, we're not talking about something that hasn't been done before. in fact, we just got done permitting this pipeline, which is almost identical, bringing oil from the same place roughly in canada down to refineries in the united states. that's already been approved by e.p.a. and the department of state. went through the requisite study processes. went through the proper processes with the department of state. it has been approved. 590,000 barrels a day coming into our country to reduce our dependence on oil from places like the middle east and venezuela right now. so when we talk about keystone x.l., we're really not talking about doing anything we haven't already done. this pipeline which would run just 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, and it's important to note 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 connecticut, 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. so we will put 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil, light sweet crude into this pipeline as well. so it's not just about moving canadian oil. it is about moving oil within our country. production from the bakken region in the wellstone basin down to our refineries. also you will notice the pipeline goes down to curb -- cushing, oklahoma. this pipeline will move oil from cushing down to the refineries, from texas and louisiana. so it helps to resolve

bottleneck issues, moving oil in our country which will help reduce prices to consumers as you eliminate some of these bottlenecks and price disparities. so again i go back to the point of my being here today, talking about this legislation, which is solutions-oriented legislation, problem-solving legislation, and 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's solutions oriented, what do i mean by that? the issue, as i think most people who followed this issue will recall, the concern or the problem was in the sand hills region of western nebraska, concern had been expressed about going through the sand hills of nebraska, that that's an area where we have the aquifer and there is concern there that that 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 sand hills region of nebraska. the legislation that 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 that the nebraska department of environmental quality can work with the e.p.a. and the state department to reroute the project into nebraska so that there is no longer an issue. we solved the problem. it's problem-solving legislation. so we say over as to the entire project that the administration, the state, the e.p.a., and so forth haso