but i do support an energy policy that is truly all of the above. i represent farmers and consumers who want access to affordable, reliable energy.d i represent iowans who would rather get their energy from friend and ally like canada rather than venezuela or unstable parts of the middle east where they will take our money and probably use it to train people who want to kill americans. i represent iowans who actually know that this oil will be developed regardless of this pipeline and they know that it's just a question of whether it will come to the united states or if it's going to end up in china. i represent iowans who understand the economic and national security impact of this pipeline. they want to see the government get out of the way of this

shovel-ready private sector infrastructure project. how many times were we promised in the stimulus bill that we were going to create "x" number of jobs that were shovel ready, and most of that $800 billion went to public employment, not to shovel-ready jobs. in fact, the president even admitted that. this pipeline is shovel ready. it's time toned th time toned tl delay. i yield. a senator: mr. president? i'd like to thank the good senator from iowa who i think has made the case so well. mr. hoeven: and i look to his experience in energy issues and ag issues and his understanding of what it truly takes to have an all-of-the-above energy policy. and as he said so well, it's not only needed infrastructure but it's jobs. here we are talking about getting the economy going and getting people back to work. this doesn't cost one penny --

not one penny -- of federal spending. yet it puts people to work and it creates hundreds of millions of revenue to help reduce our deficit and our debt. so we're talking about putting people back to work. we're talking about energy for this country. we're talking about revenues to reduce the debt. and the administration refuses to make a decision. it's almost beyond belief. and so i turn folks in the senatoturn -- and so i turnnextm alabama. the senator from alabama is actual you will the ranking member on the budget -- actually the ranking member on the budget committee and he speaks regularly and well on our need to reduce our deficit and debt, to get our spending under control. so here we have a project that without spending one penny will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues to help reduce the deficit and debt while we put people to work. and those statistics are statistics provided by this

administration's state department. that's not -- those aren't our statistics. those are the statistics that come out of the environmental impact statement put together by the state department of this administration. and so i turn to the senator from alabama, somebody who has led on the need to get this economy going, to create good-quality jobs and to reduce the deficit and debt. and i ask the good senator from alabama, won't this project help do all of those things? mr. sessions: thank you, senator. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: thank you, senator hoeven. you're exactly right, it will do all of those things. it's a step in the right direction in every area. i appreciate my leader on the judiciary committee and ranking member, senator grassley. i'd like maybe, senator grassley, to ask a question of you, just a rather simple question that ought not to be

forgotten in this process. if a pipeline is produced and an additional source of gasoline is brought into the midwest or wherever it's hooked up to, if it's not cheaper than the gas that's already being supplied, isn't it true nobody will buy it? and so won't this mean an opportunity for people in your area and the whole country to be able to have another source of fuel that would be less costly and help bring down the cost? mr. grassley: mr. president, i'm glad to yield. i think that's very basic economics. you increase supply, you reduce price. and the other matter is, though, it makes us more energy independent, because we send hundreds of millions of dollars every day to import oil, and there's no sense of doing that when you can get it right here in north america. mr. sessions: well, i thank you.

and, senator hoeven, thank you for your steadfast, consistent, principled leadership on this important issue. you've been there consistently. i don't think there's anybody in this body that understands the details of this issue more than you. and it's just a positive thing for america. it just is. and i just want to thank you for that effort. we've gone now reviewing this for five years. five years of review. and not just -- i want to say that legally, as i see this situation, it's this. there's no federal law at this time dealing with this issue. presidents have issued executive orders that created a mechanism that allowed the state department to give a review of it, but clearly there is no doubt that congress has every right to legislate on this

issue. just because we haven't yet doesn't mean we never will or never should. and i strongly believe that with the leadership or failed leadership of president obama on this question, we're going to have to pass legislation. it's just that critical. now, so the secretary of state has essentially asserted that under these executive orders, they have to decide various questions that the environmental issue is not a negative. they've -- they've dealt with that and they've satisfied that process. there's a question left of the national interest. so if we don't have a serious environmental issue, which i don't think we do -- and pretty

clearly we don't -- then the question is, what is in the national interest? well, you're on the board of canada, senator hoeven. we have good relations with canada. let me ask you this. if we approve this pipeline -- well, first, let me say, i don't think there's any nation in the world with which we need to maintain and enhance our relationship more than our good partner, canada. first. secondly, let me ask you this. you're close to canada. you know the situation. if this pipeline is not approved, will it weaken and harm our relationship with our good neighbor, canada? or will it make it better? mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. i mean from north dakota. mr. hoeven: the president -- or the prime minister of canada, prime minister harper, said on a

number of occasions how important this project is to canada. the ambassador from canada to the united states, gary dewer, somebody who was formerly the premier of manitoba, somebody i worked with when i was governor of north dakota, we worked together for about a decade on all kinds of issues. and as you said, canada is our closest friend and ally and they're a huge energy producer. and we're producing more energy. so think about it. here's a project incredibly important to canada, it's an opportunity for us to get our energy from the more energy that we're producing and energy from canada rather than the middle east -- something that the american people very much want -- and if we don't approve it, what are we saying to our closest friend and ally when they've said very clearly and repeatedly, this sproj very, --t is very, very important to them. and to add irony to that indignity, they'll still produce the oil but they'll be forced to

send it to china. so we'll import oil from the middle east and force our closest friend and ally to import -- export their oil to china, creating more greenhouse gas emissions, not less? that's what happens if we don't approve the project. now, if the president refuses to do it, then we have the responsibility to step up and do it. and, yes, you're 100% right that it is not only an issue that our people very much want -- a project that our people very much want approved, but it is also something that canada, that the people of canada, that the government of canada very much wants approved. so you're right on. and i would yield the floor back to the good senator from alabama and encourage him to bring in our esteemed colleague from south dakota and the senator from south carolina as well into this important discussion. the presiding officer: the

senator from alabama. mr. sessions: well, i think you're so correct. in my time here in the senate, this is one of the most inexplicable actions by a president i've ever seen. and he's persisted in this after months and years have gone by and when the facts continue to come forward that justify this pipeline for jobs in america, for lower-cost energy in america, for importing oil from our ally, canada, where the people buy a great deal from us. any wealth that goes to canada we can be sure a lot of that will come back to the united states because they purchase a great deal from us. but does vens produce a lot -- -- venezuela produce a lot from us? or saud-- buy a lot from us? or saudi arabia or others? no. so this is a relationship that benefits both parties and i just

am astounded that it's not -- it has not been approved to date. "the washington post" wrote this week on a major editorial that the decision to delay the keystone pipeline was -- quote -- "absurd." this is an independent liberal leaning newspaper. they care about the environment. so it seems the president is clearly acquiescing in the favor of special interests. i know senator thune is familiar with mr. tom steer, eier, a forr hedge fund manager and environmentalist who says le he will spend a hundred million dollars -- he'll going to give $50 million himself and raise $50 million in matching funds -- to defeat republicans to promote environmental issues. a hundred million dollars.

and so he asked for some things from this president if he's going to put up a hundred million dollars. so i'm not happy about it. i believe the public interest, the people's interest of this country has been subordinated to either an extreme environmentalist agenda or plain money. there's no other rational basis for the position we find ourselves in. it's really tragic. and i -- we need jobs in this country. we had the fewest percentage of people in america today that are working in the age groups that work since 1975. median income has dropped over $2,000, $2,600. we're not doing well. these are high-paying jobs. it creates growth and productivity here in the united

states and in north america through our partner. and i just will wrap up because others are here and it's great to see others who are so interested in this issue. but i feel real strongly that we should move forward with this. it's the right thing to do. it's not politics. it's the right thing. a lot of democratic members favor this pipeline. union groups favor this pipeline that tend to be democrats. it's not a republican-democratic issues. it's an extremism issue against common sense issue. 62 senators have voted for this budget amendment that had this in it. so, senator hoeven, i -- have you ever heard of the -- my good staffer, jeff wood, discovered

dickens' story about the circumlocutian office. dickens wrote about it. he said, "whatever was required to be dorng the circumlocutian was before all the particular departments in the art of receiving how not to do it, with projects for the general welfare, which in slow lapse of time and agony, had passed safely through other public departments, got referred at least to the circumlocutian office and never reappeared in the light of day. boards sat upon them. secretaries minuted upon them, commissioners gabbled about them, clerks register, entered, checked and ticked them off and they melted away. in short, all the business of the country went through the circumlocutian office except the business that never came out of t." chapter 10 of "little door"

of 1855. i would just say this, in my opinion, this bill would create thousands of good jobs if it's passed and if pipeline is built t. would strengthen, not weaken, our relationship with canada. it would bring a new flow of oil into the united states and the midwest which would provide competition which would reduce cost, be a competitive source. it would make canada as a good trading partner. they buy a lot from us. oil would be sold somewhere else if it's not sold in the united states. and, by the kauai g way, pipelines are everywhere in this country. my state of alabama, pipelines crisscross the state. we don't have any problems with that. the idea that we can't build another pipeline in this country is about as ludicrous as you can imagine. so i just would say, senator hoeven, thank you for the great leadership you've provided. i appreciate the opportunity to join with you in it. it is the right thing for the people of this country. we need to get this done. and i would yield the floor.

mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator? north dakota. mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the distinguished senator from alabama not only for his outstanding arguments but for his passion and for somebody that -- who truly, truly cares about getting this economy going. and i would turn to the distinguished senator from south dakota and also distinguished senator from texas, and i would like to ask that they both engage in this discussion starting with the good senator from south dakota. in south dakota they understand thousand creathow to create a gs climate. they understand what it takes to create a good environment so that businesses will invest and grow and create jobs. i'd like to ask him how that relates to this discussion to the keystone x.l. pipeline rand to the senior senator from texas, clearly texas knows energy production. i ask for his thoughts in terms

of how important this infrastructure is for energy development and production in our state. first i'd like to turn to the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: let me just say to my colleague from north dakota, we'd like to have more of north dakota's energy south dakota, of course, have some of the direct benefit from that. but we do really focus in our state on jobs. that's what this is all about -- jobs, jobs, jobs. the president's own state department says that this project would support 42,000 jobs, 16,100 jobs including direct construction. that's not us. that's not the senator from north dakota, the senator from texas, the senator from oklahoma, the senator from missouri on this side. that's the president's own state department saying it would create jobs. $3.4 billion contribution to the u.s. economy. and you think about the states that are impacted. the state of north dakota directly. my state of south dakota would

be traversed by the pipeline. but we've got a lot of local governments, state governments that would benefit. in the first year of operations it would generate $56 million of tax revenue, which means that when you talk about what that can do in terms of infrastructure, what it can do in terms of providing to build schools, public services, those sorts of things, it takes the pressure off the local property tax owners, area ranchers, businesses, that's another impact of this. i would also say to my colleagues on the floor that will it will strengthen energy security. 830,000 barrels a day would come through that pipeline. that's half of what we import from the middle east in about total what i we import on daily basis from venezuela. so you look at how much we can ship through that pipeline and how much that lessens the dependence that we have upon areas of the world that are much less favorable to the united states than is our neighbor

canada. that's a very real consideration in this debate. finally, i would say to my colleagues and the senator from north dakota -- and i thank him for his leadership on this issue -- that the time to act is now. we have -- this has been studied and scrutinized and reviewed more than any project in history. five and a half years, 2,048 days as of tuesday, today, april 29. five environmental reviews, all have concluded the pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment. just when you thought that the process couldn't be dragged out any longer, this administration has once again decided to block construction of this project andly did thanddelay the nationt determination process. sean mcgarvey called this latest move -- and i quote -- "a cold, hard slap in the face for hardworking americans who are literally waiting for president obama's approval and the tens of thousands of jobs it will

generate." end quote. that comes from a labor union leader in this country. the unions want t businesses in this country want t the american people want it by overwhelming margins much the only people that don't want it are some of the president's political supporters, who as the senator from alabama has pointed out are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, tense of millions of americans -- one quote is $100 million, just as the senator from alabama pointed ow -- pointed out. that's what's holding this up. it is an offense to the american people to have a project like this that could help the millions of americans look for work and simply have it be held upgy the president of the united states. i hope the senate democrats and republicans will join together to support legislation to force this lippipeline to be built whe president agrees to it or not. i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the distinguished senator from dodg south dakota and turno

our colleague from the state of oklahoma, a state that understands energy production and understands how vital this pipeline infrastructure is for energy production. so with the indulgence of the senator from texas, i would ask we turn to the senato senator fm oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i appreciate that. i appreciate the senator from texas yielding at this time. every time i hear people talk about the jobs that are at stake here, i think about my state of oklahoma per capita probably has more jobs in the state than any other state does because we are -- cushing, oklahoma, is the crossroads of the pipeline throughout america. this chart right here -- just over two years ago president obama dame t came to cushing toa speech. you can see the tubes there, talking about how this is a major breakthrough that we're going to -- quote -- "cut through the red tape, break through bureaucratic hurdles and make this project a priority, to

go ahead and get it done." that's his quote right there. yet he's done nothing but obstruct this ever since that tiesm the southern leg of the pipeline may be finished but that was part of the project the president dissents hav didn't hy in. the president could do something when you cross international lines but he could not do it from that point south. it is completely stalled because the president has delayed making a decision. for five years now. to me, the keystone pipeline is the tip of the pipeline. today we have heard great speeches from many of my colleagues and they're heighting the great impact of the keystone pipeline's construction and when it would have on the economy. we know that it would directly create 41r.2,000 jobs and thousands more would be supported if by the overall manufacturing materials and processes that are required to

complete the project. but the real impact of the president's failure to act on keystone can be seen in this chart. this chart number two shows the potential -- just look at this -- the potential around this country -- these are in federal lands of what all would be involved here. it is incredible that we have a president who talks about being friendly to oil and gas, denies his wore against fossil fuels, and while we've had an increase in state and private land of some 40%, on the federal land we have had a decrease in production of 16%. i don't know how that's even possible. but the midstream infrastructure, the a pipelines in particular, are one of the most important things we need to fully need to develop these resources. we need to be able to move oil and gas from areas where it has been developed to areas where it is refined, processed, and consumed. and the need for infrastructure expansion is astounding.

i.c.f. international, did consulting firm, they release add report that said the u.s. companies need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years in infrastructure to keep up with the growing oil and gas production. that's just what they know about right now. if you add to that the -- what would happen if they were able to hope all of this up, and end the war on fossil fuels, look at the potential we'd have. the increase in oil and gas production we've seen over recent years has occurred solely on state and private land. there are many things president obama qom d could do to make the numbers far higher. we could have total energy independence in a matter of months, not a matter of years, if he were to lift his ban on federal lands. so he's continued his war on fossil fuels. the president's efforts have been intently focused on hurting the production of oil and gas resources and be the stahl

tactics to establish confusing complex and confusing regulations on hydraulic fracturing process. every way we turn we see president obama trying to put oil and gas out of business. the keystone pipeline is the impel weather of energy policy today. -- bellwether of energy policy today. i know many of my colleagues have talked about and have the information, as the leader of our group here today, on what we could be doing in this country and yet there is some kind of asowm on this this if we don't complete the pipeline, they will stop processes in canada, inial beer tavment they are going to continue to do it. it is gb to be china and other countries that will benefit from t u.a.e. pplaud four the great work you're doing. we've got to let the american people know the potential bev got in this country. i appreciate the senator from texas for yielding to me . mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the senator from oklahoma

for his work on this important issue and turn to the senator from texas, the state that us proproprocesses more oil and gan the union. mr. cornyn: i appreciate the leadership of the senator from north dakota. he has been a champion for this important program that enjoys the support of a huge bipartisan majorities all across the country because they understand the importance of energy security, they understand the importance of getting this energy from my friendly country like canada, they understand the jobs that go along with it, they understand the need for hardworking american families to have affordable energy, whether it is gasoline, heating fuel, or the like. so this makes sense on so many different levels, but i have to say that really the biggest obstacle is the federal

government itself. not approving this pipeline makes exactly zero sense m. now, i know some people are put off a little bit, i'd say to the senator from north dakota, by the idea of a new pipeline, as if this is some novel -- novel creation. but just as an exercise in my own personal edification, i happened to google -- or maybe it was bing or some other search engine -- oil and gas pipelines on the internet, and i was astonished at the huge, complex interplay of oil and gas pipelines all across the united states of america. and most americans aren't even aware they exist because they safely owrpt and move this oil and -- operate and move this oil and gas around the dmun a way that benefits our economy and creates jobs and helps us put

people back to work, which is the most important thing that we can do. so we know since forbe the last five years -- since the great depression, we've had an economy characterized by stubbornly slow economic growth, persistently high unemployment. we've got the smallest percentage of people actually participating in the workforce since world war ii. we've seen a decline in median household income, so average, hardworking families have seen their income go down. and we've seen this nagging sense of uncertainty about the future, not just because of the economy but because of the obstacles the federal government puts in it's way. but i would just ask the senator from north dakota, i know that north dakota has had some experience here. by not building this pipeline, what are the other ways that this oil is being transported and what's the risk and benefit associated with that?

because people may think this is sort of a -- this is an either/or. either have the oil flow or novment but thnot.but the truthe other alternatives, but they're not necessarily in the public interest or as safe as this pipeline might be. mr. hoeven: to respond to the good senator from texas. of course, by not having needed pipeline infrastructure, we're forced to move the oil in other means. that means primarily railcars. it is overburdening our rail system. we've had accidents and it's just the over burdening of the current capacity of our rail system. in north dakota we produce a million bearl barrels of oil a . over 700,000 now has to move by railcar because we don't have adequate pipelines. this isn't just about bringing canadian oil to the united states. it is about moving oil from

montana and other stats to the retineries in the most efficient and safe way possible. the day the keystone pipeline opens, will take 500,000 trucks a day. so it is clearly a safety issue. the state department says if this pipeline isn't built to move that amount of oil, you would have to move 1,400 railcars a day. that's 14 unit trains of 100 railcars a day. clearly we don't have that rail capacity so we need this vital infrastructure. we can't develop the energy in this country and work with canada to truly become energy independent without vital infrastructure like this project represents. mr. cornyn: i know there are other senators who wish to speak and i'll just conclude on this point. it is with some sense of appreciation that i note that the two lowest unemployment rate

cities and regions in the country are, i believe, bismarck, north dakota, and midland, odessa in texas. not coincidentally, those are the sites of some of the shale gas, oil and gas production that you're seeing that is thanks to modern drilling techniques and innovative practices that produce this american renaissance in energy for which we should be enormously grateful. this is the way to get our economy back on track. this is the way to extract ourselves from dangerous parts of the world and unreliable sources of energy. and this is a way to get americans back to work. so i thank the senator for his leadership on this and am happy to participate in this colloquy. thank you. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the esteemed senator from texas and turn to the senator from missouri for his thoughts on the importance of this project and the need for our country truly

to become energy independent. a senator: i thank my friend. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: the senator from south carolina, mr. scott, is going to speak for a few minutes before i do. then i'll be glad to enter into this discussion. it's an important topic. nobody has been a greater leader on this than my friend from north dakota. and i thank you for organizing as many of us as want to come down here today and talk on this critical issue. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i turn to the senator from south carolina and would welcome his comments on this important project. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. senator hoeven, thank you for your strong leadership on that which is obvious to most of us: the need to move forward on the keystone pipeline. senator hoeven, i'm not sure you knew that i was a businessman before i arrived here in congress, and our goal in business was to do the right thing. and as a senator, i want to do

the right thing for all of the american people. thanks to your strong leadership, senator hoeven, we have an opportunity to do just that. and yet this administration continues to ignore policies that would help hardworking, hard-hit american families. i think back several years ago when i was growing up in a single-parent household. i think about the very difficult choices that my mom had to make between food and gas, energy consumption. what a horrible position for any american family. and yet every single day we delay a decision on the pipeline, we say to struggling families, not now, not here, but maybe later. that's not the right message to send on the broader topic of energy -- of this energy economy. the fact of the matter is if in fact your income is under $30,000, 25% of your income goes

towards energy consumption. what a difficult position to find a single parent, struggling to make their ends meet. and yet we have an opportunity not only to address that issue in the broader topic of the energy conversation, but to specifically address the issue faced by millions and millions of americans, and that is an issue of unemployment. you see, the pipeline is not an issue of politics. it is an issue of the american people. the fact is that over 42,000 jobs will be created, and we would pump billions of dollars into the nation's economy. and yet, the administration simply says after five and a half years, after several studies, we should wait just a little longer, as if we have not waited long enough for those 42,000 american families that can be positively impacted by going back to work.

how long should we wait to see this administration do the right thing? i support this proposal. i support the legislation. i support congressional action to move this administration into a position where 61% of the american people already find themselves. they're already saying let's move forward on the pipeline. they're ready to see action on constructing the pipeline, because they understand that if we can't solve this simple issue, where there's already bipartisan support, how do we address the deeper challenges in the energy economy? i don't find myself often in the position to quote from members or even presidents of labor unions. i have to gulp when i make my next statement because it is so rare, so foreign to me. but i will tell you that terry sullivan, terry o. sullivan,

general president of the laborers international union of north america, he got it right when he said this is once again politics at its worst. here we see an amazing collaboration between labor unions, democrat senators, republican senators and conservative groups all coming together asking, even begging the president to do the right thing. i don't know exactly what it will take to get the president to do what he said during a lunch meeting with all of us, the republican senators, when he said you know what we should do? by the end of 2013, we should find ourselves with the decision coming out of his office, his administration. and yet, this is 2014. it does remind me a little bit of obamacare. they continue to move the deadlines. we need action for the american people, and we need action for the american people right now.

let me close, senator hoeven, by thinking through where we are today on such a simple, simple decision. i believe it was 62 senators in this body during the budget resolution supported moving forward on the keystone pipeline. is that correct, sir? mr. hoeven: that is correct. mr. scott: i believe we've had a number of votes over the last two years where many senators have said, have voted and have written letters asking for action on this pipeline. i think that's correct. yet, if we can't solve a bipartisan issue on the energy -- on the pipeline today, how do we start solving the broader issue of energy, things like offshore energy production? how do we get ourselves into a position, senator murkowski, we could have a conversation about offshore production. my state alone could see 7,500

new jobs, $2.2 billion annually added to our economy and $87.5 million of new revenue generated from my state. but we can't solve the simple bipartisan-supported effort of the keystone pipeline. i thank you, senator hoeven, for your strong leadership, and i hope that we'll find it possible to move this legislation forward quickly and let's get it done. thank you, mr. president. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from south carolina for putting this issue in very human terms, what it means for people in this country who want a job. i thank him for his passion on this important issue and turn to the senator from missouri for his input on this important issue. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: thank you, senator. i thank the senator from south carolina for pointing out that

bad economic policies have the most impact on the most vulnerable among us. that number he gave for the percentage of income with families that have less than $30,000 of income per year, how much of that already goes to energy? an administrator says the all of the above energy policy, but that appears to be all of the above energy unless we know it works and unless we know it's available, unless we know we can get it, in this case from a friendly source but somehow we're not for that. we're for all the above until we know what's there and what works and until our current energy needs are met in the best way. the pipelines are an example of something that would decrease our country's dependence on nations where we can't rely on quite as heavily. it increases our trading relationship with our very best trading partner. that oil is going to be sold to

somebody and a pipeline is going to be built. the question is is the pipeline built to connect to the most logical partner and best trading partner and come south. or does the pipeline go to the west and the oil goes to asia. this is not whether or not the oil comes out of the ground, not whether or not about a pipeline gets built or not. it is about whether we do the thing that makes the best sense. on april 18 the state department once again said we're going to wait a little while long. how many dead hrao*eupbs do we have to -- lions do we have to blow by. in the last few months when people left the administration, when the secretary interior leaves and is asked about the pipeline, he says of course we should build the pipeline. when the secretary of energy leaves, he says of course we should build the pipeline. everybody knows the logical, commonsense to do is to build

this pipeline and let us benefit from this energy. it has become an example of a common sense decision versus regulators out of control, regulators who don't want to us use the resources we have or the resources next to us. the national security implications of canadians with oil is pretty easy to figure out. the economic implications of doing business with somebody who does business with us, every time we send the canadians a dollar, for decades they've sent us back at least 90 cents. every time we involve ourselves in that trade and strengthen their economy, they turn right back around and strengthen our economy. why wouldn't we want to do that? just the cost of the pipeline alone, building the pipeline, talk about a shovel-ready project. 20,000 jobs, not a single taxpayer dollar involved. in fact, the company immediately starts paying taxes to state and

local government as that pipeline is extended through communities in almost all of our states. another 830,000 barrels of oil a day, roughly 6% of all our daily imports come from this one new source. but as others have pointed out, that pipeline then becomes available for other things as well. the bipartisan determination on this floor has been op -- obvious that we should build this pipeline. we constantly talk about private-sector job creation, and believe me it is not just the job creation to build and produce more american energy. they are the jobs that were created, the jobs created when we have a utility bill we can rely on and a delivery system you can count on, people will make things in the united states again. the right kind of american energy policy becomes immediately the right kind of

american manufacturing policy. the pipeline has almost become the tip of the iceberg that everybody has their eye on, but it's the example of the problem we refuse to do things that would make our economy stronger, make our families stronger and create jobs in america that have better take-home pay than the jobs that people have seen none of in the last five years. the take home pay of american families has gone down and down and down in every one of those years when you look at the surveys. this is a fight worth fighting for. again, nobody has been more dedicated to that than the senator from north dakota, who understands what a difference energy can make in a state. he saw that happen as governor. we've seen that happen in the state he lives in. the right kind of american energy policy can do so many of those exact same things for the

united states of america. and this is one of the easy examples to talk about of a volume of examples of the administration clearly headed on the path that makes no sense when you really look at the national security impact, the economic impact, or most importantly, the impact on american families. i again, thank you for leading this fight, senator hoeven. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from missouri and turn to our ranking member on the energy committee, the senator from alaska, somebody who deals with energy issues every day. ms. murkowski: mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i'd like to thank my colleague from north dakota. i had an opportunity to go to north dakota and see firsthand how in senator hoeven's state they are embracing this energy renaissance that we are seeing in this country, a renaissance that is truly allowing to us move forward with jobs and

economic opportunity not only for the good of this country, but really for the good of so many others. when we're talking about our neighbors to the north in canada, or if you're from alaska, our neighbors over to the east there, there is a recognition that the united states and canada are really joined at the well, if you will. and that's a term that i have used quite frequently. but when it comes to energy issues, there are 17 operating oil pipelines between the u.s. and kaepbt. there are another 30 electric transmission lines. there's 29 natural gas pipelines. and these are all energy infrastructure that cross the border with canada, whether it's into montana, whether it's to washington, whether it's north dakota, michigan, minnesota, new

york, vermont, idaho, maine. you -- you have to wonder, you have to wonder, aren't these all in the national interest here? what is so unique, what is so compelling about this keystone x.l. pipeline that it is not only taking the five years of study that is already done but is now on indefinite hold for yet further study? so it causes one to kind of go back in time. let's look at some of the -- at some of the pipelines that have been already determined as being in the national interest. back in august of 2009, the department of state signed off on enbridge energy'sal tbear clippeenergy's albertaclipper p. and when you look at what they did on signing off on that, mr. president, it's exactly what we're talking about here with the keystone x.l. they said -- and this is coming

from the national interest determination on the alberta clipper. and i would like to submit that application for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: but some of the things that the alberta clipper line provided would increase the diversity of available supplies. it shortens the transportation pathway for a sizable portion of our crude imports. it increases crude oil supplies from major non-opec countries t- countries. it allows our countries to cooperate on best practices and technology. and then finally, approval of the permit would send a positive economic signal in a difficult economic period about the future reliability and available of a portion of the u.s. energy imports. these aren't from the keystone x.l. pipeline. this is coming from the alberta clipper pipeline, approved back in 2009 for exactly the same reasons, mr. president, that president obama should sign off

on the keystone x.l. pipeline and sign off now. it's in the country's best interest. it's clearly in the best interests of our friend and ally and neighbor to the north, canada. i think we recognize that there is so much opportunity for us but we need to get out of the way of the stops and the hurdles that have been placed by this administration limiting our jobs, limiting our economic opportunities and truly working to restrict our energy independence. and with that, mr. chairman -- mr. president, i'll yield the floor, as i know several other colleagues wish to speak in the time remaining. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i've conferred with the good senator from illinois and begged his indulgence and he's offered three minutes for each of our remaining speakers. i'd like to thank him for that and ask for the chair's

indulgence. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hoeven: again i'd like to thank the senator from illinois and turn to the senator from south carolina for his thoughts on this important issue. mr. graham: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i have been to the canadian oil sands and i would recommend every person in this body go visit. the canadians are being very environmentally response whibl it comes to extracting the oil sands. this is an equivalent to a saudia arabian oil find from our canadian friends. here's the choice and here's the debate. they're going to sell the oil to china or they're going to sell it to us. how many people in america really have a hard time figuring out what we should do? it's not like the oil is not going to be sold and extracted from the ground. it's going to be sold, to us or the chinese. if we buy oil from canada, it's like buying oil from your cous

cousin. we trade with the canadians. they're very reliable partners. there's less oil to buy from russia and venezuela and you go down the list. what's at stake here is that the people who object to this pipeline -- i don't doubt their sincerity -- they would not allow us to buy oil from anybody or explore for oil here at home. the people objecting to this pipeline do not have an all-the-the-above approach when it comes to emergency energy f. you left it up to them -- energy. if you left it up to them we'd be doing windmills, solar, no nuclear power. so the president of the united states has turned this issue over to the most extreme people in the country when it comes to politics. they're trumping the unions. they're trumping the speaker, the former presiding officer. they are locking down developing an energy source that we need as a nation, and i just really regret that the president's let

them take over this issue at a time when we need more oil from friendly people and less oil from people who hate our guts. dirty oil to me is buying oil from people who will take the proceeds and share it with terrorists. this oil content from canada is slightly greater in carbon content than the -- than the mideast sweet crude, the same level of oil as we find off the coast of california, and has less sulfur. so the environmental argument i think does not bear scrutiny. so at the end of the day, we're not going to get this oil from our friends in canada because of the upcoming elections because obama, president obama's, afraid of turning off environmental support so he's turned off the pipeline. very bad for america. i yield. mr. hoeven: mr. president? i would like to thank the senator from south carolina and turn to the esteemed senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president? i thank the senator from north

dakota and i acknowledge and thank the distinguished majority whip for allowing us extra time to talk about a subject he probably would prefer us not to talk about but i appreciate it very much. i'll be very brief and succinct. for this administration and our country to not build the keystone pipeline or delay it, at best, is mall program. and there are three reasons for that. we are a county that 30 years ago was held hostage by opec. prices went through the roof and there were long lines and businesses went out of business. with the keystone pipeline and added to the shane shale, ameril be truly independent in its energy and never be held hostage again by somebody like opec. that's number one. number two, it's important for our diplomacy around the world. soft power and always preferable to hard power and one of the best soft powers you can probably have is have energy. think about it for a second. if russia was not a factor in the ukraine because america

could supplant their natural gas, think that would do who to have what's happening right now in that part of the world. we need it for our soft power and for our diplomatic power. and, lastly, it's environmentally the thing to do. that oil is going to be refined somewhere in the world and it's going to be delivered in some way. the safest and most environmentally sound way to deliver it is in a pipeline, number one. the best country in the world to refine it is the united states of america, number two. and, number three, and most importantly, it's environmentally sound because you keep trucks off the road, trains off the track, the oil goes underground, does not generate any carbon and go into the global warming or any other part of our environmental threats. it's the right thing to do and it's professional malpractice for us not to be doing it for our people, for our country, for our dip ploam expheas for peace around -- diplomacy and for peace around the world. and i thank the distinguished senator for the time. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the good senator from georgia who is just putting forward common sense.

and i'd like to turn, in closing, to the senator from wyoming, who's a senior member of the energy committee and truly understands energy issues. the senator from wyoming. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: it seems that the president's decision is absurd to delay the keystone x.l. pipeline, and that's not just me, that's "the washington post," thursday morning, april 24. "keystone's absurd delay. president obama should approve the pipeline project now." they say, "if foot-dragging were a competitive sport, president obama and his administration would be world champions for their performance in delaying the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline." they go on to say, "the administration's latest decision is not responsible, it's embarrassing. the united states continues to insult its canadian allies by holding up what should have been a routine permitting decision amid a funhouse mirror environmental debate that got way out of hand." they conclude, saying, "the president should end his

national psychodrama now, bow to reason." think about that -- "boy to -- o reason, approve the pipeline and go do something more productive for the climate." that's not just "the washington post." we see all the "wall street journal" wednesday, "keystone uncensored" and they talk about a labor leader, calling the administration "gutless, dirty, and more." so why would a union leader who endorsed president obama in 2008 as a candidate, endorsed him again in 2012, why would he say this thing? he actually went on to say, "it's not the oil that's dirty, it's the politics." to get an answer to that, you have to look at an article that "politico" last thursday called "the left's secret club. "said, "some of the country's biggest democrat donors, including tom steier, are huddling behind closed doors next week in chicago to plan how to pull their party and the country to the left.

the meeting will be held of the ballroom of the ritz-carlton. politico describes the group as a "secretive club of wealthy liberals." so whose sympto who is tom steia hedge fundbillionaire who said he's willing to spend a hundred million dollars to impose his extreme environmental agenda. nothing wrong with the legal participation in elections f. a hedge fund billionaire like mr mr. steier wants to spend his money talking about his views, he is free to do it. i disagree with his views but i would never come to the floor of senate and denounce him as un-american. but that's exactly what the majority leader, senator reid, has done repeatedly coming to the floor to criticize and demonize people who don't share his views. i haven't heard senator reid demonizing tom steier or any other wealthy liberal donors. now, according to "politico" the

majority leader is actually scheduled to attend a fun fund-raising dinner at his home a few months ago. so the coincidence to me of the administration's announcement right before this big liberal political event remains suspicion. the silence of the majority leader about one person's spending when he's been so out spoke been the spending of other people is certainly suspicious as well. maybe that's what the union head meant when he said, "it's not the oil that's dirty, it's the politics." whatever the reason, the important thing is that president obama continues to turn his back on thousands of middle-class families in desperate need of jobs. that's what needs to change. the administration and this bo body, controlled by senator reid and the democrats, can no longer put politics ahead of policy substance. it's time for the administration to do the right thing and to approve the keystone x.l. pipe line, no matter what the democrats' secretive billionaires say. thank you, mr. president. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'll close. it's time for the senate to vote on this important issue. with that, i'll turn to the senator from illinois and again thank him for the additional time. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have listened as my friends -- and they are my friends -- and colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the keystone x.l. pipeline. it turns out that what america needs more than anything else -- more than an increase in the minimum wage, more than paycheck fairness so that men and women are paid fairly in the workplace -- more than anything else we need one more pipeline coming in from canada. if you listen to the other side, you would think the jobs that will be created by the keystone x.l. pipeline will finally turn this economy around. well, how many jobs are we talking about? 2,000? 2,000 construction jobs? that's at the high ends of estimateend ofestimates i've he.

how many jobs at the refineries in texas to process this oil and ship it overseas? it's not for sale in the united states. i'm not sure. but it really is amazing to me that they continue to focus on keystone x.l. as if it is the only issue when it comes to the american economy. and here's what i find particularly curious. for the record -- and i'm glad that my friend, the senator from north dakota, is still here. the keystone x.l. pipeline is not the first keystone pipeline. the first keystone pipeline from alberta came into the united states and ended up in wood river, illinois, at the conoco refinery. it is shipping canadian tar sands down to be refined at the conoco refinery. and then after it's refined, in a pipeline it's distributed all across the united states. if no keystone x.l. pipeline is ever built -- and i don't know whether it will or won't be -- there will still be a steady flow of canadian tar sands into

america for refining. just this week senator kirk and i met with the president of the -- the north american president of b.p. they have a huge refinery in whiting, indiana, the south end of michigan. they are refining canadian tar sands into oil. it can be sold in different products. and i asked the head of the north american operations for b.p., what's going to happen to that refinery when it comes to canadian tar sands? and he said, we are going to triple, triple our capacity to deal with canadian tar sands. he didn't say contingent on the keystone x.l., because you see there is a vast network of pipelines moving canadian tar sands to the united states already, and they are already going through a refinery, many of them, even the b.p. refinery in northern indiana. so this notion that we are somehow turning off the canadian

tar sands coming into the united states, if someone is suggesting that, i ask them to bring proof to the floor. we're not. what the president is doing is trying to make a decision on what's best for this country and our economy, and he's trying to weigh it in a thoughtful manner. there is an element here that needs to be part of this record. the president is trying to take into consideration the environment, and i think he should. i think it's his responsibility. we had a debate several weeks ago on the floor of the senate here, and it was about global warming and climate change. it went on through the night. many of my democratic colleagues stayed up all night to talk about it. brian schatz of hawaii, sheldon whitehouse, the state of rhode island, spoke at great length with their colleagues about the issue. i came up early in the debate and simply made one point. i believe the republican party of the united states of america is the only major political

party in the world, in the world that denies climate change and global warming, and i have asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle give me an example, tell me where i'm wrong. somebody said well, there may be a party in australia. that's where they have to reach to find any other political party in the world that agrees with their position on global warming and climate change. so it's no wonder when we discuss energy and the future, they don't want to talk about what's happening to our environment. the extreme weather situation we're even seeing this week, the devastation from storms at a magnitude we have never registered since we have kept records. what the president is trying to do is to take into consideration not just energy but also our environment so that ultimately we leave a world to our children and grandchildren which is safer and cleaner than the one we have

today. my friend, the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, came to the floor and talked about what he called a highly secretive high-level meeting in chicago, and then he proceeded to say at what hotel it was being held. it's not much of a secret if he knows where it is being held. and it's true that there are meetings of people who oppose the keystone pipeline and support candidates that support it as there are meetings of those that support the pipeline and support the candidates who join in their position. that happens to be the nature of the political scene. he even suggested the person opposed to the pipeline was going to put $100 million into this campaign. well, i for one would like to see an end to big money in our political campaigns. i'd certainly like to see transparency and where it's coming from and how it's being spent. but the reality is the citizens united decision in the supreme court across the street changed the rules and people can play

with big money now, a lot of their own. what he didn't mention was the koch brothers, and i'd like to mention them for a moment because they are relevant to this discussion about the canadian tar sands and the inkeystone x.l. pipeline. -- the keystone x.l. pipeline. the koch brothers are very wealthy, billionaires, and they come to play when it comes to the american political scene. in the last cycle, we were able to identify over $248 million these two brothers spent on political causes and campaigns around the united states, and we are told that they are going to spend considerably more than that this time around. do the koch brothers have an agenda when it comes to this issue? let me give you an illustration. it was about three months ago that i went into the southeast corner of the city of chicago, an old steel mill neighborhood. happens to be the neighborhood where barack obama, fresh out of college, was a community organizer. they are modest homes, frame homes, primarily hispanic and african-american populations.

they called me down to this section, the southeastern section of the city of chicago to show me something. what they wanted to show me was piles of black soot. it's called pet koch. pet koch is what's left over after you take the canadian tar sands, ship them to the pipeline , to a refinery, making diesel fuel, gasoline, what's left over, this black gunk substance is called pet coke. it turns out that the p.b. refinery was selling the pet coke to a company owned by the koch brothers, and the koch brothers were shipping this pet coke into the neighborhoods of chicago, and the mothers with their kids were calling me to their homes and schools to show me what happened when the wind blew. when the wind blew, this nasty black stuff flew through the air. it was all over window sills and

buildings. nasty as can be. the city of chicago is doing something about it. they are kind of changing the equation in terms of pet coke and what you have to do to store it, but if the other side's coming to the floor and saying, you know, our people are pure of heart, they just want to see the keystone x.l. pipeline, the fact is the largest benefactor to the republican party in the united states today, the koch brothers, have a financial and commercial interest in these canadian tar sands, at least in the disposal of this pet coke. and the way they were doing it in the city of chicago was the height of corporate irresponsibility. to just pile it and let the wind blow it across the neighborhood. it's going to be criminal when it's all over after the city of chicago changes its laws to prohibit this kind of conduct. but those are the things that are at stake in this conversation. i hope at the end of the day the president makes the right, thoughtful decision, not just in terms of energy but in terms of

our environment. does the best thing for america. i hope that we also understand that if we do nothing with the keystone x.l. pipeline, we are still going to face the challenge of these canadian tar sands. coming down through the united states, being refined and sold in our country and around the world. it's a challenge we have to face honestly. i believe -- i may disagree with some of my colleagues on the other side. i believe that if we want to leave a world for future generations, our kids, our grandchildren that is a cleaner and safer world, we have to accept some responsibility in our generation, in our time to clean up the mess of this environment. it may call for some sacrifice, as individuals, as families, as businesses, but i don't think it's too much to ask. god gave us this great world and asked us to keep an eye on it for the next generation. are we going to do it or are we going to ignore it and say there is money to be made. you can just start bringing in any source you wish.

that to me is irresponsible. madam president, i'd like to make a statement now at a separate part in the record, without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, robert kennedy once said the purpose of life is to contribute in some way to make things better. around the world and here at home, dedicated american citizens are living by this principle trying to improve the lives of those in greatest need. sadly, on april 24, we lost three americans from my home state of illinois who were killed at the cure international hospital which focuses on maternity and pediatric care in afghanistan. dr. emanos john gable and his father gary gable. both doctors were working to help the afghan people receive health care. in a country still coping with the legacy of decades of terrible conflict that devastated the medical infrastructure of afghanistan, they were helping by volunteering to address the real needs of the afghan people and improving the lives of those

that they assisted. this is dr. emanos whose picture here is an indication of this young, dedicated, idealistic man who lost his life. he was dedicated to helping kids. after he finished his residency at the children's hospital in michigan, he could have made some money with his training, but instead he decided to help those who needed a helping hand. he worked for years at an amazing place that i visited, the lawndale christian health center in the city of chicago. it's one of those neighborhood health centers which just makes you feel good about the world where great professionals like dr. emanos give of their time, make very little money and help the poorest of the poor. he was an important part of that community. they loved him. not only his patients but his colleagues as well. he worked to help so many in chicago who otherwise didn't have a chance for quality health care. he followed this calling to

afghanistan where the needs of people were even greater. he was dedicated to making a difference there by helping the afghan people, by teaching, by making certain that the next generation of afghans had a better life. the breadth and depth of his work is testimony to his love for and commitment not only to the people of afghanistan but to the needy. what a loss that his life was taken from us. john gable was a man who cared for others and made a real difference in the lives of those he touched. he used his skills to run that health clinic in afghanistan to help address the glaring needs of health care with the afghan people. john was working in other ways to help build a better tomorrow for the people of afghanistan. he used to teach at kabul university where he was remembered as a great teacher and a great friend. he used his expertise in computer science, not to enrich himself but to teach others. perhaps it's not surprising that john was so focused on helping those in need when you consider

the example of his parents, gary and betty gable, who also dedicated their lives to others. tragically, gary gable, who was visiting his son and his family in afghanistan, was lost as well in this senseless shooting. gary gable helped his community in and around arlington heights, illinois, an active member of his church. he had a commitment to helping those most innocent and vulnerable members of our society, our children, and he worked with church youth groups. he provided a strong model to his community and his family of a man committed to helping others. i'm sure my colleagues join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to family and loved ones of those lost and injured in this tragic attack as well as the countless people whom they have helped, all of whom join us in mourning their loss. they represent the best of which we are as a people and make this world a better place. madam president, i ask that the statement i am about to make be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, tomorrow we're going to have an important vote. it's a vote that's going to be

watched carefully by over a million workers in the state of illinois and millions across our nation. the question is whether or not the united states of america and its government will increase the minimum wage for workers all across the country. it's an important vote. it would raise the minimum wage, the federal minimum wage, from from $7.25 to $10.10 in three steps of 95 cents each. if we pass it this year, the final increase would occur in the year 2016. this is a 39% increase in the minimum wage, roughly the same percentagewise as the last minimum wage bill that we enacted over the same period of time. it provides for automatic future increases in the minimum wage based on the cost of living so we don't have these lurches from one level to two or three dollars above it. it raises the minimum wage for tipped workers for the first time in more than 20 years. people find it hard to believe that under federal standards, tipped workers receive $2.13 an

hour as their base wage. they are expected to make up the difference with their tips. we raise it to 70% of the minimum wage, phase it in over six years. we extend some business expensing rules to help businesses invest in their equipment and what they need to grow the business, and we do this in a fashion to incentivize small businesses to grow. this increase in the minimum wage really brings us down to a very fundamental question as americans, and the fundamental question is this -- if someone is willing to get up and go to work and work hard every single day, should they receive the compensation that lets them get by so they don't have to survive from paycheck to paycheck? or should they be put in a position where the only way they can survive is with government assistance? food stamps, snap program, child care subsidies, things that we provide as a government to

people in low-income categories. keep in mind we are talking about workers. you see them in chicago early, early in the morning. they are the blurry-eyed travelers on those buses headed off to the workplace. they are the ones you see on the trains, quietly moving from their homes to where they work and repeating the reverse journey every single day as they head back home at night. can you imagine the frustration of going through that day after weary day and never, ever catching up, living paycheck to paycheck, falling further and further behind? that's what's happening to too many of them. it's amazing to me when we hear the critics of minimum wages step forward. in our state of illinois, there are two prominent politicians, both of whom happen to be multimillionaires, and their views on minimum wage are amazing to me. one of them, who made $53 million last year, has said he adamantly opposes raising the minimum wage.

he made $53 million last year. he adamantly opposes raising the minimum wage. another one of them worth millions of dollars himself has said, well, i'll agree to raise the minimum wage but only for people over the age of 26. over the age of 26. he just eliminated half of the people earning the minimum wage in america today who happen to be under the age of 26. and let's think about the people that he wants to keep on a subminimum wage. well, it would include all college students under the age of 26 trying to work their way through school. he would want to give them a subminimum wage. it would include single moms raising their kids who are -- the moms being under the age of 26. they would get a subminimum wage. and it would include veterans coming back, struggling to find a job, if they haven't reached the age of 26 he would give them a subminimum wage. i have one basic question. what are these politicians

thinking? have they ever left where they live and where they work and really met up with some people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck to get by? tomorrow we've got a chance to raise the minimum wage here on the floor of the senate but we cannot do wit democratic votes alone. if there won't be five or six republicans across the yield and join us in this debate it will fail and that will be a sad day. because for a lot of these workers, this is their only hope. that they will get a decent increase in the minimum wage through the law. i hope that my colleagues on the other side will take into consideration that so many of these workers are women, so many of them are even over the age of 35, and still rely on minimum wage jobs. and these are not lazy people. these are hardworking people, people who are working hard every single day for a paycheck that they know is not going to

cover their expenses every single week. it's time that we give them a chance and give them a break. it used to be -- i can remember it very well. a bipartisan issue to raise the minimum wage. president ronald reagan when he was president raised the minimum wage. he understood it. if you value work and you value working people, you should give them a wage which respects the integrity and decency of work. that's what this is about. that's what this minimum wage is about tomorrow. without the help of republicans, it will fail. if it isn't done on a bipartisan basis it will not go forward. i might add one other thing. a minimum wage is injected into the economy literally millions of dollars of purchasing power. people who are living paycheck to paycheck spend those checks as fast as they can for food, for clothing, for shoes, paying the utility bills, paying for a cell phone, putting gas in the car.

the money goes right back into the economy. so i ask my colleagues tomorrow on the other side of the aisle, break with some of the extreme team ech people in your party, join us in a bipartisan fashion, raise the minimum wage. it only fair. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: before the senate leaves i'd like to ask a quick question if i could. he talked toward the end of his comments and i'm going to speak on minimum wage also, but he mentioned president reagan but i think the last time the minimum wage passed also was under president bush. again, a bipartisan approach. is that correct? i wasn't here during those times but i know you have served in congress a long time. mr. durbin: i'd respond through the chair to the senator from alaska, there was a time there wasn't that much controversy associated with this. people had fallen behind in their earning potential, we had to pick the right number and moved forward on a bipartisan basis. now things are so partisan and poisonous around here that even

something as basic as raising the minimum wage for hardworking families turns out to be a little lift. in ben and the $10.10 wage is just getting to the poverty level. is -- that's what i understand, why i cosponsored this legislation. mr. durbin: basically it does for some. what i found if you are a family with two kids, for example, have you to make almost $15 an hour to get beyond the poverty level. we're talk about $10.10 phased in and many of those people will still qualify for a helping hand from the government because they're still in very low-income categories. mr. begich: thank you very much for allowing me to ask those questions. madam president, i rise today to discuss the important issue just as we were asking back and forth some questions that could help 49,000 alaskans. raising the minimum wage. the bill before us would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. the minimum wage as mentioned by my colleagues earlier has lost

its purchasing power by one-third over my lifetime. the increase will lift millions of americans out of poverty, reduce their reliance on the safety net, and literally pump billions more into the economy. i know, i look at this differently, i come from the business world, i come from the small business world, my first business was the age of 14, i've been in it ever since in some form or another and you can name the business, retail and real estate and i've been a pun lisher, owned different companies, even owned a small, very small percentage of a restaurant, i felt like i was a 100% owner at one point because it's a tough business. i'm in there moving the slop buckets, doing the remodel to the kitchen on a saturday night and i'm there like everyone else working double time to get the job done. i've seen it. my wife is a small retailer. selling smoked salmon on a counter or a cart no bigger than two of these desks here selling

smoked salmon and building her business, now to five retail stores, some 30-some employees. which i might note none of our employees are paid the minimum wage, they're paid above minimum wage. and i know some people concerned about minimum wage that will cut into business, no question in my mind wait does and that is when you increase the minimum wage it is actually good for business. because you help consumers have more resources to put into the economy that then churn back to the business world. and along with this this bill, another provision that people don't realize, the minimum wage is one piece, a significant piece but also a provision that i requested to be put in this bill is what they call a 179, a business tax deduction, something that is important for businesses that are growing, expanding, building new businesses, small businesses mostly. this is the number-one priority of the business community that i talk to.

not the politically driven business communities but the ones that actually do business. and actually work with small businesses. the ones that look at their local communities and try to figure out what's important in legislation and one is to make sure they can write off some of their improvements at an expedited which which in turn puts more money into their business for reinvestment. that's another piece of this bill so it not only has an important part for the hardworking folks that are making minimum wage to raise that amount, but also helps the hardworking small businesses ensure they can continue to put money back in their businesses, expand their business, and then receive some benefit from that. as we know, we look at the whole issue in alaska a little differently, our minimum wage is 50 cents higher than the federal level, $7.75. there's a reason because it's expensive like, madam president, it's not cheap in your state, hawaii and -- hawaii and alaska, the cost of living is greater.

but for folks to have a decent living we pay more and play it off of the federal legislation. but still it's a problem in keeping the wage competitive to the cost of living. when you look at alaska, and you look at the cost of living, alaska, ang raj -- anchorage specifically, 30% higher than, fairbanks 40% higher. so, again, having this higher ratio for us is very important. it doesn't mean all the time that the dollars go so far. when you look at in the whole country, the terms of buying power, what you can buy for the dollar you earn, alaska has three of the cities at the bottom 11. when you look at the whole list, 11 at the bottom, alaska has three of them. juneau, kodiak, fairbanks. because the dollar can't go far enough. that's why raising the minimum wage will help them be able to purchase more, enjoy a better quality of life. i tell you, alaskans like

hawaiians, we know challenges and we have tough challenges because we're kind of isolated lots of times and sometimes forgotten that we bale, actually, exist in the union and we have to make that point more than once but it doesn't matter if we're doing drilling on the arctic which is a great challenge or dpish fishing for crab in the bering sea which is an unbelievable test of capacity and ability, but we know how to overcome challenges. we just don't want more challenges and the minimum wage increase will help reduce some of those challenges. minimum wage is truly at the rate it is today is an obstacle to trying to get people to move forward because we don't have it at the rate it should be. $10.10 in a lot of minds is an easy step over two or three year period. and it's also one we can fix. we can fix it tomorrow. we just need a bipartisan approach like has been done during the reagan administration, happened under the bush administration, again

to remind folks who may not be familiar with those presidents, they were republicans. we did it, i want here but democrats, republicans sat down and said let's figure this out. because it's important for the working people of this country that are working hard every day. but here's another group it impacts in my state of those 49,000 alaskans, 1,700 are veterans. veterans in our country. veterans in my state. that will get a boost. what does that mean? when you calculate it by family members, it's about 3,000 families of veterans will benefit from raising the minimum wage. as i said earlier, it's 49,000 alaskans, this is one subset. more than half of the alaskans are women. about 5,000 alaskans will be boosted right out of poverty with this change. and it means they will be on less government programs.

like food stamps. i would think, you know, we're all here to try to make government run more efficiently and improve terk and -- teerk and create jobs, what we attempt to do every day, but one of the things we do try to do is if we can get people and raise them above poverty that means less government programs, which means less government tax dollars, which means they're living on their own and they have their own capacity to make it in thorld this world. you would -- this world. you would think this is a unique opportunity for republicans and democrats to be joined together. why wouldn't we want less people on food stamps? because they're making a living now and take care of themselves. that's what we all work toward, to be -- have the american dream, to buy that home or live that quality of life, have a great education. all the pieces to the equation. so, again, i cannot believe that we're having a struggle trying to get just a few -- we don't want them all. we get there's some that are

opposed to anything about the federal government but why not support this effort to raise people up like president reagan thought about, president bush thought about. now it's this moment. giving these people a fair shot, a fair shot to have their american dream come true. $10.10 doesn't seem like a big stretch but it seems today it is by some politicians. in fact, when you look at this and i know the complaint on the other side this will hurt business and, again, as i said earlier, this is good for business. you're talking to someone who is a small business person who pays pooch minimum wage. i understand the value of making sure that my employees, my wife's employees have a good, decent wage because when they leave the workplace they get their paycheck, they will spend it in the economy. this will help grow the economy. now, i know some will talk about the c.b.o. report and all these government reports, but let me put it this way. the last two times those minimum

wages have been raised, the economy didn't collapse, people weren't fired. actually the economy grew. i don't understand that comment and debate. i know they'll whip out these reports and i'm appreciative of those and the work that c.b.o. does but i can only go on history and what's happened. raise the minimum wage, jobs are created, the economy gross grows, the next issue is businesses are revefg, more commerce, more profit means more investment. this is not only a fair shot for the people working, it gives an opportunity for small businesses and businesses across this country. to give it in perspective, businesses hire for those that, you know, to my colleagues who are never been in small business or run a business, the reason you hire people is because you have demand. demand is created by expenditures. expenditures by consumers. the reason you lay off people is because demand has gone down. because there's not expenditures

by consumers. raising the minimum wage gives more opportunity, more investment, more people making more money and more return. let me give you a national statistics and this is about making sure we give every american especially those making the minimum wage today to raise their minimum wage, to give them a fair shot to be part of american dream. the bill will help 30 million americans earning an additional $51 billion back into the economy over the next three years by this raise. huge. the family that can -- today can't afford the new car can maybe look at a new car or maybe they're chiezing between dwroas ris and paying their heating bill. now they have the opportunity to pay these bills and enjoy life a little bit more. the higher minimum wage would help 12 million people in our country to get out of poverty. 12 million people. it could lift 4.6 million out of

poverty immediately. this is about empowering families. giving them, again, a fair shot, a chance to, again, achieve the american dream. helping parents make ends meet and to raise children in a healthy home and an opportunity for them. more t -- more than a fifth of all children in our country have a parent making minimum wage. 56% on the national level are women making minl. right now thousands of americans make minimum wage and struggle to put food on the taifnl that's why raising the minimum wage will be helpful to those families. it saves the government money by helping people get off food stamps. also higher wages could cut, as said, the food stamps but they estimate by $4.6 billion a year. i'll tell you, we've been very good on moving the deficit down. d 1.4 trillion deficit annual

lismght i think we all want to see it go to zero. programs like this engage the private sector and their responsibility at the same time lowering the cost to government. also i will -- an interesting statistic. it also increases the wages obviously by the minimum wage going up, so it increases and strengthens social security because now they're paying into social security. social security contributions from an extra $51 billion in wages would go right to the trust fund. since benefits are tied lifetime earnings, workers will earn larger checks when they retire. right now an average minimum-wage worker with 40 years paying into the system receives only $900, give or take a few bucks, at the age of 65, well below the poverty line. so why wouldn't we want to raise the minimum wage, move people out of poverty, get less people off the food stamps, save the government some money, and, oh,

by the way, help strengthen social security and giving families and individuals a fair shot to meet and reach the american dream? why wouldn't we want to do that? i think, again be, under the reagan administration, the bush administration, they seem to think it was a good idea. and i agree with the senator from illinois who is on the floor -- who was on the floor just a little bit ago. if we weren't in this toxic political environment where everything has to be politicized until the last man standing, we would probably do this. it probably would not be very -- you know, we'd be down here together talking about how it would help our folks in our different states and our communities and our country overall. but instead everyone wants to just kind of get the scorecard. this is not about a scorecard. this is about giving a fair shot to americans, to alaskans so they have chance to make a living and live and reach the american dream.

this is a simple thing for us to do. and we could do it tomorrow. now, i don't know what the house will do, but maybe if we act in a bipartisan way here, maybe the house will see that, maybe they'll wake up and see that this is a good thing to do. because if you want to build an economy, if you want to make a difference, as i said -- and i'm talking as a small businessperson, grow the amount of money that consumers spend bhaik sure they make a good living and the net result is every business mernperson benefs and then in turn everything from manufacturing to shipping to the retailer to the large business, small business, all benefit. so again, madam president, it just is amazing to me that we debate these issues. actually i was not planning to come to the floor until last week when i thought, well, this should be easy. why -- why are we not doing this? again, republican president prew

it as a good idea. now it's been a long time coming, and now it's time. now, i know some don't like the current president. i have my issues with him -- i havcantell you that. the list is long. but we should not get caught up this the personalities. when i get a piece of legislation that a member is opposing, look at the content of the bill. if we like the bill, we sign on. we participate. because too much we spend time here about who's sponsoring what, who's on the list, who made the comment. who cares? if it is a good piece of legislation, then we should do t and racing the minimum wage, in my state, we'll have this on the november ballot because alaskans signed an initiative -- 35,000 or 40,000 -- said this is the right thing to do. for alaska. i think it is the right thing to do not only for alaska but thor this cufnlt and it is important that we do this because it is

our obligation to make sure alaskans, americans, we don't create obstacles for their ability to reach the american dream. we make sure that they have a fair shot at anything they want to do in this country. so, madam president, is thank you for the time. i four th thank you for the oppy to come to the floor. i hope tomorrow we'll have a different outcome than -- maybe the pundits are hoping it will fail. i hope not. if we don't get enough votes from the other side, it is not that we lose the battle today. the american people lose. alaskans lose. the 49,000 alaskans that i mentioned will lose. the 1,700 veterans in my state will lose. let's try to do something to make them winners and give them a shot. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i think that many of my colleagues feel very add home with this image, which is a reminder of a household name, ramona and her father, a great story written by beverly cleary, a prize-winning story, part of a series, written this particular story in 1968. in 1968 and in this story, ramona's dad is struggling with dorothy -- his name is robert -- to get by and keep the family together on a minimum-wage job, which in 1968 paid $1.60 an ho

hour. today the minimum wage, if it had kept pace with inflation, would be $10.71 an hour. we know, many of us -- and probably many of my colleagues who have read this story -- that robert and dorothy quinnby are engaged in a quiet struggle to make even ends meet, even as ramona is engaged in all kind of antics and play. he is working as a grocery bagger at a store, ramona's mother is working, two -- and early example of a two-family household, two-income family -- and they're able to keep their family afloat on that minimum wage in 1968. $1.60 an hour in 1968. for millions of americans who

read ramona's story today, the idea of minimum wage enabling a family to stay afloat, keep a roof over their heads and food on the table is a storybook fiction. very difficult today to believe that robert qwimby, as a bagger in a grocery store, could enable ramona and her sisters to have the life that they did and in fact it would be impossible because today the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. the minimum wage today is $7.25, nowhere near what it would need to be, in fact, to keep pace with that rise of the cost of living.

that's why we're here today, to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 -- still below the $10.71 that it would have been for robert qwimby making minimum wage in a grocery store, if it had kept pace with inflation. and, in fact, it is well below what's necessary to enable families to continue a normal life. that's why they are living in poverty. working men and women living in poverty, despite being paid the minimum wage. that is a travesty and a mocke mockery. it is a moral outrage. it is bad for a our economy. it is bad for our families. it's bad for the i fabric of our sesociety. it is bad for america. and i'm proud to support an increase in the minimum wage. i'm proud that connecticut has

decided that it will raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, still below that $10.71 that is needed to get by today. we know the impact on families. we know the impact on children. we see them in our school, millions of children, 14 million children in families that are paid less than the minimum wage. we know the impact on our veterans. half a million or more are paid less than the minimum wage. that is itself an outrage, men and women who have served and sphaiks fo-- whohave served ande back to civilian life and are paid less twhan they need to stay oust poverty, working and

working hard but still making less than the minimum wage. veterans who have served our country, who have put their lives on the line and put themselves at risk, coming back to a society that rewards them -- rewards them -- with less than what they need to survive. i've talked to a lot of business people and some of them are apprehensive, no question about it. but a lot of them say, our workers are more productive because we pay well above the minimum wage, and many who will be impacted by this law, if it is passed, say that it's the right thing to do and they support it. i am a talking about, for example, max cathari. for 25 years he along with his wife have owned and operated star hardware in hartford, one

of the oldest heart ware stores in the state of connecticut. he support supports this measuro raise the minimum wage to $10.10. and so does doug way, who operates one of the oldest dairy companies in the state, started by doug's great-grandfather in 18923. wade's dairy in bridgeport. he supports raising the minimum wage. 1,000 business people have signed a statement and petition -.we mentioned it this morning that supports raising the minimum wage. and when they say is, it's a fairness issue. it's simply a way to give folks a fair shot at the american dream, a fair shot at a quality of life that's good for their families and children, good for our society. and, by the way, it's also good for our economy.

$35 billion would be added to consumer demand because folks who make the minimum wage, if it's e.a.s raised to $1230eu $1t going to phut yo put it under tr mattress. they're going to purchase stuff that creates demand and more jobs and business for max cathary at his hardware store and for max wade at his dairy. this kind of reasoning is not advanced economic theory. it is common sense. that's why americans support raising the minimum wage as a matter of fairness and enlightened self-interest economic lymph it is theconomic. the argument that's made against it are without basis,

rationalely and economically. the ones who suffer from the minimum wage as it exists right now are not teenagers. i know there is a myth that they are part-time workers or teenagers. just not true. 90% of minimum-wage workers are adults. they're disproportionately women and women of color and workers with disabilities, and they'll be helped disproportionately by raisings the minimum wage. but they are not teenagers or part-time workers. and they are deserving for the hard work that they do of fair pay and a fair shot. that's all the minimum wage would really do is give them a fair shot at economic opportunity. and those veterans, they deserve more than a fair shot. they deserve a hand up, not a

handout. there's nothing about i think minimum wage that is an entitlement. it's simply fair pay and a fair shot. we've trapped a half a million of those veterans in poverty. 3,800 veterans in connecticut alone will benefit from the $10.10 minimum wage. but we should guarantee this great land, the greatest in the history of the world, that people like robert quinby, ramon in a's dad, and dorothy quimby and her sister are getting at least what they were paid in 196 in today's -- 1968 in today's dollars. that's the way to keep families together, the way to keep the

dream that all americans have that they will have a fair shot. no one who works full time should live in poverty. no one who works should be so poor that they can't put food on the table or provide clothes to their children or give them the erasers that robert quimby did his daughters, pink erasers as a gift. to enable 14 million children in america to have a better life, let's pass this measure. and let's make sure that if it fails this week -- and it shouldn't -- but if it does, we bring it back, and we continue to bring it back as long as necessary to assure a fair shot for all americans who work hard and play by the rules. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia.

mr. chambliss: i ask unanimous consent to be recognized for two minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: let me step in to do something we don't dough enough of -- don't do enough of in the united states senate. this friday a man from georgia will retire. william bill kathcart, 29 years as general manager, 29 years as a firm will be saying goodbye to his leadership of wtoc, one of the leading media stations around our state, a station i've dealt with often and a station i've found to be professional, fair, and thorough. in fact, even as i speak on the floor of the senate today, georgia, my state, has already had a bad shooting incident this morning, terrible tornadoes this afternoon and bad weather coming in in the evening. it makes me appreciate the broadcast network and the people who come together to let our citizens know about things happening, give them early

warnings about bad weather and report the news fair and straight. bill kathcart is a great georgian and great american. he has done a tremendous job for our state and wtoc in savannah, georgia, and i wish him the best in his retirement and thank him for all he's ever done for me, and i yield back the balance of my taoeufplt. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, tomorrow about noon we'll be voting on something in the united states senate that i dare say a lot of americans will be paying close attention to. partisan reason they're going to be paying close attention to it is because that vote will affect them and their families in the future in a very big way. that vote will be on whether or not we will actually bring debate to a close and vote on increasing the minimum wage in

america. because if we do, if we were to bring it to a vote, if we could pass that, the president would sign something like that in law in six months, the minimum wage would go up by 95 cents an hour. then next year it would go up by another 95 cents and the year after that another 95 cents to $10.10 an hour to where it is now at $7.25. what we're going to vote on tomorrow is going to have a drastic effect on millions of american tpaeplts and it's going -- american families and it's going to have a big effect on our economy because it will boost our economy and get the wheels going again because people will have more money to spend. they'll spend it on main street, and that's what's lacking right now, is consumer demand, consumers with enough money to spend on main street. all the economists will basically tell you that, that

it's the lack of aggregate demand that's really keeping our economy from moving ahead. so tomorrow at noon we'll have a vote on that. tens of millions of american families are struggling, trying to make ends meet to give their kids a little bit better life. and, quite frankly, a lot of them on low wages are on public assistance, which is costing american taxpayers nearly a quarter of $1 trillion every year in food stamps, earned income tax credits, temporary assistance to needy families, child care subsidies. add all those up, it's about $243 billion a year. so taxpayers are subsidizing a lot of these companies are paying very low wages. many of the companies that pays

these low wages are large, multibillion-dollar companies raking in big profits and showering their c.e.o.'s with wealth. i just was looking up the average c.e.o. pay of a standard & poor's 500, of the 500 companies in standard & poor's was 21% more last year than in 2009. in other words, from 2009 until the end of last year, c.e.o. pay at the 500 companies went up an average of 21%. however, since 2009 the minimum wage has not increased one penny. the c.e.o. pay averages now about $11.7 million a year. that's the average c.e.o. pay of the spaoe -- s&p 500, $11.7

million a year. the average minimum worker a year today makes $15,000 a year. that's working full time all year, no time off. they make $15,000 a year. so it was pointed out to me that a c.e.o. earns that $15,000 by 11:30 a.m. on the first day of work of the year. imagine that. the c.e.o. by 11:30 a.m. on january 2 -- assuming they don't work on january 1 -- by 11:30 a.m. makes $15,000. a minimum-wage worker has to work the rest of the year just to make that $15,000. and many of these companies are just paying the minimum wage. the families are getting hurt. this is just wrong. this is not what america's about. we want people who get up and go to work every day to be able to rely on that work to support

themselves. working families want that too. they want a paycheck that supports them, gives them a fair shot at being a member of the middle class, a fair shot at achieving the american dream. so now we can do something about it. we know raising the minimum wage will help tens of millions of workers. when you raise it to $10.10 as our bill does, the bottom fifth of the workforce, nearly 30 million workers, will get a raise. by the time it's fully phased in $10.10 in three years, nearly seven million people will be lifted out of poverty. you want an antipoverty program? we got it tomorrow when we vote on raising the minimum wage. seven million people will be lifted out of poverty. and guess what? it won't cost the american taxpayers one single dime.

and taxpayers basically will save money because we won't be putting as much money out for public assistance like food stamps. i thought it was kind of interesting that the ryan budget that the house passed cuts food stamps by about $4.6 billion or $4.3 billion. that means that people would be cut off of food stamps. our bill, in raising the minimum wage, would save about the same amount of money, about $4.3 billion in the first year not by cutting people off of food stamps, but by getting their income up so they don't have to rely on food stamps. so under the ryan budget, people are kicked off of food stamps. and they still get their minimum

wage. you get a raise in the minimum wage, and you don't have to rely on food stamps and you save about the same amount of money. i guess i'm just, again, mystified by how vehemently my republican colleagues oppose raising the minimum wage. certainly they must know the polling data that the vast majority of americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. but it seems to me that my friends on the republican side are just sort of locked in to some philosophy or ideology that says that there shouldn't be a minimum wage. in fact, some of my colleagues on the republican side actually believe there should be no minimum wage. no. nothing. well, we got over that seven years ago or more -- 70 years ago or more, when we first

passed the minimum wage law in america. again, we hear from the other side that by raising the minimum wage over this massive loss of jobs. that is simply not true. it's a myth. but it's brought up every time. i've been in congress now 40 years, and we have raised the minimum wage several times during that period of time under both democratic and republican presidents. every time it's come up, we hear that same old song. it's going to cost jobs. and guess what? every time we've raised the minimum wage, there's been no loss of jobs. so there's no historical facts that my republican colleagues can point to to show that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. now they do refer to the congressional budget office study -- actually that's wrong. it was not a congressional budget office study. they didn't do a study

themselves. what they did is they looked at the literature out there going back many years on potential job losses. well, on some of the old studies it showed there would be a job loss. under new studies it said there wouldn't be. what c.b.o. did is they took and averaged them all. they said here's the average. and they didn't say specifically 500,000 jobs would be lost. they said somewhere between zero and a million jobs could be lost, so we'll pick the midpoint at 500,000. but again, there is no historical evidence for this in terms of looking back. we can go back and we can look at what happened to our economy every time we raised the minimum wage, and there has not been a massive job loss. there's been shifting of jobs. people have been raised out of poverty. working families do better. but there's been no massive job loss. so this is just another myth.

as i said historical evidence is there's not been any job losses generally, not among teenagers, not among restaurant workers. in fact this year there's been more job growth in the 13 states that raised their state minimum wages at the start of this year than in the states that didn't raise their minimum wage. let me repeat that. there has been more job growth in states that raised their minimum wage beginning in january of this year than in the states that didn't raise their minimum wage. well, now why is that? well, a lot of businesses are now understanding this. they understand that as economists will tell you, it's the lack of aggregate demand. not enough customers. people don't have enough money. my republican friends want to give more money to the top, more tax cuts for the wealthy.

they get more money. millions more a year. they don't necessarily spend that on main street, you know. they may go to paris. they may buy a new jet, a new big yacht. they can do things thraoeubg, but it doesn't -- they can do things thraoeubg but it doesn't really put money on main street. what businesses know, small businesses, and most economists know is when you raise the minimum wage, those people who get that raise aren't going off to paris. they aren't buying a private jet, that kind of thing. they're spending it on main street in their local stores, their local businesses. and that gives a great economic boost to our whole economy. so when you focus on the best research, the latest research that's been done, it unequivocally shows that raising the minimum wage does not cause a job loss. again, 600 economists, including

seven nobel prize winners have endorsed a minimum-wage hike to $10.10 an hour. six hundred economists, including seven nobel prize winners, signed this letter, "we urge you to act now to enact a three-step raise of 95 cents a year for three years which would mean a minimum wage of $10.10 by 2016 and then index it to protect against inflation. these will also raise the tipped race to 70% of the regular minimum. the evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of a minimum-wage workers. even during times of weakness in the labor market, research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy, as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings