Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for 6 long years the Obama administration has been dragging its feet on the Keystone Pipeline. For as long as anyone can remember one Senator has worked harder than any other to ensure that those feet are always held to the fire; that is, our friend the senior Senator from North Dakota.

Senator Hoeven has been a tireless advocate for the shovel-ready jobs project. The people of North Dakota are lucky to have him in their corner. Similar to the experts, Senator Hoeven knows the Keystone Pipeline will create literally thousands of jobs, and similar to the experts, Senator Hoeven knows the Keystone Pipeline would have almost zero net effect on our climate, and similar to the people we represent, he understands that the Keystone Pipeline is just common sense. He has done just about everything possible to make the administration come to grips with that obvious point.

Senator Hoeven, along with leaders in the House, such as Congressman Cassidy, succeeded in assembling and leading an impressive Keystone coalition that literally crossed party lines. That is why the opponents of Keystone have been so afraid to allow the Senate to take a free and open vote on it, because they feared Senator Hoeven and Congressman Cassidy were right; that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for ending the President's blockade of these very good jobs.

After so many years of obstruction, we finally get the vote. After 6 years, we finally get the vote. We can credit the people's choice of a new Senate majority for finally getting these gears turning. But we never would have gotten to this point without the tireless leadership of Senator Hoeven in the Senate and Congressman Cassidy over in the House.

I wish to thank Senator Hoeven for all of his great work on this matter. We hope we can soon celebrate a well-deserved victory for the American people.

I understand we have colleagues on the floor as well, and I will be happy to yield at this time for any thoughts or questions they may have.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have a question, if I could ask the Republican leader.

Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from North Dakota have a question? I believe I have the floor, and I believe Senator Hoeven is going to ask a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the minority leader, but I ask him to repeat his question.

Mr. McCONNELL. As the Senator from North Dakota was engaged in conversation, I was talking about his leadership role in this endeavor the last 6 years and the difficulty of getting action here in the Senate. It almost seems to me as if it took an election by the American people to choose a new majority for next year to begin to get the attention of the current majority to go forward on the issue that Senator Hoeven has been talking to us about on a virtually daily basis here for 6 years.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the minority leader. That has been the case, that we have worked for some time to get a vote on this important issue. We actually had passed a measure back in 2012 attached to a payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline project on the basis of the route in Nebraska. So that work has been done. It has been rerouted.

Some time ago, we put together a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I drafted and wrote. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana agreed to cosponsor it. We have all 45 Republicans on the bill, and we have 11 Democrats. We have 56 cosponsors on the legislation, but we have not been able to bring the bill to the floor. So I really had anticipated that we would have to wait until the new Congress in order to get a vote on the bill, because as the minority leader said, the American voters spoke. And particularly with the new Members we have coming, we will have more than 60 Senators who support the legislation. So I had anticipated that we would have to go into the new Congress to get a vote on the bill.

However, the cosponsor on the bill, Senator Landrieu, yesterday requested that we call the bill up, and she worked on her side and we have worked on our side to get unanimous consent to get a vote on the bill. So we are certainly happy to vote on this important issue for the American people. We will have a vote in the House on the very same bill. They now have taken up the very same bill. I believe it will pass easily tomorrow in the House. And then on Tuesday, we will have a vote on our bill here, S. 2280. We will have 45 Republicans, and we hope to have 15 Democrats. And if we do, we will pass the bill and send it to the President for signature.

If we don't get to the 60 votes, I believe we will still be able to bring the bill back in the new Congress and have the 60 votes. So I believe we will now be able to advance this bill to the President. The question is, What will the President do? The indication was from one of his spokespersons traveling with him yesterday that he may well veto the legislation. If that happens, I still think, again, based on the fact that the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation, that we will be able to come back, work with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis and perhaps make this legislation part of a broader energy bill, or attach it to an appropriations measure. But I think we will be able to find other legislation that we can attach approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline--this bill--to. That makes it very likely that we could either override a veto or maybe the President wouldn't veto it. Because at the end of the day, what this is all about is more energy for this country, produced here and working with our closest friend and ally, Canada.

This is about jobs. By the State Department's own environmental impact statement, 42,000 jobs. So it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about the infrastructure we need to build the right kind of energy plan for our country. Whether one comes from North Dakota or Kentucky or Texas or Louisiana or wherever, we have to have infrastructure as part of our energy plan.

It is also about national security. Americans do not want to have to depend on getting oil from the Middle East. They want to produce it here at home, and they want to work with our closest ally, Canada, and we want the jobs and the economic activity that come with it.

So that is where we are. That is the game plan, to get this important legislation passed, and that is what this is all about. This is about moving forward on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. When asked, the American people in the polling showed anywhere from 65 up to about 75 percent overwhelmingly support it. So that is what this issue is all about.

Now is our chance to show that we can move forward, and in a bipartisan way, and get this done for the people of this great Nation. We are hopeful that we can get it in the lameduck. That is great. We have cleared the way to get a vote, and if we can't, then we will be right back to work on it in the new Congress.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I could, it strikes me that there was some intervening event here between the difficulty of getting a vote over the past few years and the apparent ease of getting a vote now. It strikes me--and I would be interested in the observations of my colleague from North Dakota--it strikes me this intervening event was the election and it could be that the voices of the American people have already altered the agenda in the Senate even before the Senate officially changes hands in January. Maybe the voices of the American people have finally been heard on this important issue that the Senator from North Dakota has been speaking about week after week after week for a very long time.

I would say to the Senator from North Dakota, when there is a new majority here, if we come up short between now and the end of the year, we will be back and back and back, looking for ways to make sure that the voices of the American people are heard, and all of these new jobs are created.

So I hope--the Senator from North Dakota has indicated we will come to a favorable conclusion sooner, but I assure the Senator from North Dakota that we will come to a favorable conclusion later, if not sooner.

I see the Senator from Texas.

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCONNELL. I will, yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader that our leader on this issue for years now in the Senate has been the Senator from North Dakota, and North Dakota is a big energy-producing State--second, I must point out, to my State of Texas, but they are making some rapid developments in that area, and a lot of Texans have gone temporarily to North Dakota to help them with the technology, and they are doing a great job. Believe me, it is creating a lot of jobs. These aren't minimum wage jobs, these are high-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, there are labor shortages, and what we need to do is train more people to qualify for these good, high-paying jobs.

But I wonder whether the Republican leader--or really I would be interested in anybody's point of view--beyond the election, I think there are going to have to be some changes of heart on the other side of the aisle, because as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota pointed out, we have gotten close, but never quite achieved that 60-vote goal. So if we are going to vote on this now as a result of the intervening election, there are going to have to be some folks on the other side of the aisle who are going to have to have a change of heart and vote for the bill, which I hope they do.

But this has been the main impediment--no opportunity for a vote--because the majority leader, Senator Reid, has refused to grant a vote up until this point. He has changed his mind. That represents progress. But I think we have two impediments. One is the need for additional Democratic votes to actually meet that threshold; and then, as the Senator from North Dakota points out, we don't know whether the President has been chastened or has learned anything from the election, or if he is going to be influenced at all in his decision.

I know the Senator from North Dakota has been a bulldog on this issue. He is not going to let this one get away from him, nor should he, for all the reasons mentioned earlier, including the 42,000 jobs. Also, a lot of this oil, if it doesn't come in this pipeline across from Canada to the United States, most of it is going to be refined in southeast Texas and turned into gasoline and jet fuel, which is going to help bring down prices, because we will see a glut of additional supply. But if we don't use it in the United States, this is going to be shipped to China or other places that are rapidly buying natural resources.

So I would be interested if the Republican leader has a view of how we get over those final hurdles of getting Democratic votes next Tuesday to get to that 60-vote threshold. Then, how do we get the President to sign this, for a President--at least so far--who has refused to listen to the American people?

Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend, we were both in an election this year and there is no question that this jobless recovery is the biggest issue in the country. Here we have had a project which has cleared all of the environmental hurdles, it has been sitting around for literally 6 years, and--I don't know what the latest estimate of job creation is. I would ask my friend from North Dakota, what is the latest estimate on that? How many new people would be put to work constructing this pipeline--ready to go to work?

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, there have been a whole range of numbers offered. But I think to cut through to a number that people should be able to accept and to agree on is to take the number the State Department has put forward in the environmental impact statement. As a matter of fact, I think there have been either four or five environmental impact statements done on this project over a 6-year period, going all the way back to starting in September 2008 when TransCanada initially applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is the sister pipeline to the Keystone Pipeline, which was already built--permitted in 2 years and built in 2 years--and that happened when I was Governor. I actually started working with this project when I was Governor and it continued when I came to the Senate. But TransCanada originally applied for their permit back in September of 2008. So for 6 years this has been going on, and in the final environmental impact statement, which stated the project will have no significant environmental impact--it stated that very clearly--they also said it will create about 42,000 jobs. And these are good-paying jobs, construction jobs and other types of jobs that are good-paying jobs.

So here is a project, when we include Canada, about $7.9 billion. It is not going to cost the government one penny--not one penny. By the State Department's own admission, it will create 42,000 jobs. It will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help the States and help with our deficit and debt, and it is to move oil not only from Canada, but from my State of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in Texas and Louisiana and other places that need the crude, and right now that crude is coming from places such as Venezuela or the Middle East.

It is a job creator, and there are all of these other benefits. Again, it is an excellent example of the kind of infrastructure we need to build the energy plan this country needs.

I ask the minority leader if I have answered his question adequately.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, it strikes me what the administration is best at is either destroying jobs or preventing new jobs from being created. In my State, as a direct result of the Environmental Protection Agency, we have lost 7,000 coal-mining jobs during the Obama years. For every coal-mining job, we lose three more jobs. We have a literal depression in eastern Kentucky, largely caused by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency. So you begin to get the picture.

Whether it is preventing 42,000 people from going to work or taking the employment away from up to 21,000 Kentuckians, what this administration seems to be best at is either destroying existing jobs or preventing new jobs from being created. I am happy there was an energy bill in Texas and an energy bill in North Dakota. I am pretty darn unhappy we don't have an energy bill in Kentucky. We have a depression again as a result of this administration and its Environmental Protection Agency.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Texas.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask the Senator from Kentucky--I think you described how the administration appears to not just have a war on coal but a war on hydrocarbons, a war on anything other than wind turbines and solar panels.

The President said he is for all of the above. We are a big ``all of the above'' State. We have a lot of sunshine and wind. We actually produce more electricity from wind energy than any other State in the country, but it is hard to understand this ideological battle against coal and oil and gas from anywhere other than just an ideological perspective.

I think the Senators have pointed out well--both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Kentucky--that these are good, high-paying jobs. One of the biggest problems we have had in the country for the last 30 years has been stagnant wages.

The middle-class wage earners are not seeing their wages go up. One of the surefire ways to make them go up is to develop more domestic energy, whether it is coal or whether it is oil or gas, because these are good, high-paying jobs.

I can tell you not just in North Dakota, where I am sure it is hard for restaurants to find people to work there because there is so much demand in the oil and gas business, but the Permian Basin, in the Midland Odessa area, where I know the Senator from Kentucky visited many times, there is a shortage of labor, and wages skyrocketed because of the demand as a result of taking advantage of this natural resource.

I would just ask--obviously the Members of the Senate who have been vitally interested in this issue under the leadership of our friend, the Senator from North Dakota--it has been acknowledged, but I think it is only fair, wouldn't the Senator say, to acknowledge the leadership in the House of Representatives of Congressman Bill Cassidy. As a matter of fact, the bill that the House will pass tomorrow and send over here is chiefly the work product of Congressman Bill Cassidy.

Mr. McCONNELL. It certainly is. We commend him for his good work and that bill will be headed over this way. I would also make the observation with regard to the President's approach to energy, the announcement in China yesterday which, as I read it, gives the Chinese 16 years to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions while we are going full speed ahead here, visibly destroying American jobs or trying to prevent the creation of new jobs in North Dakota.

My goodness, as I said earlier, it seems to me what this administration is best at is either destroying existing jobs or preventing new jobs from being created because of this obsession, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, with hydrocarbons of any kind.

I see the Senator from South Dakota here as well and wonder if he may have a question.

Mr. THUNE. Yes. I would say to my colleague from Kentucky--and I appreciate the leadership of our colleague from North Dakota in constantly, persistently trying to get this in the Senate for a vote. My State of South Dakota, similar to so many others, stands to benefit enormously from this. We wish we had the direct energy production that the Senator of North Dakota has. We have a lot of indirect benefit from that. In fact, the State Department, the President's own State Department--not the oil companies--the State Department has said that in my State of South Dakota it would create 3,000 to 4,000 jobs, add $100 million to the economy, and generate $20 million in property tax revenue.

I happen to come from a county through which the pipeline would pass, a small rural county in South Dakota. My father still lives there. He is 94 years old. The school district there is very concerned about staying open. They know that when this pipeline is built, the easement they will have to get will generate property tax revenue that very well could keep the school district going. So many of the local governments out in my area in the State are very supportive of this important project.

I guess as I have looked at this--we have now had plenty of time to look at it since it has been kicking around here for about 6 years and five now environmental impact statements, all of which came back and said they have minimal impact on the environment.

If we are serious about job creation, and we have all talked on our side about the jobs this would create, the economic activities it would create, and the lessening of the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy--I have to say one other thing about my State; that is, we have a rail crisis. We have been battling now for a long time with the limited capacity in rail and much of the oil moving out is going on rail.

That makes it harder for us to get our agricultural commodities to the marketplace, and so what is happening is that we are consistently stressed. The one thing the pipeline would do in addition to moving Canadian oil down is it would allow for about 100,000 barrels a day of that--what do you call it--sweet light crude--to be put on the pipeline and therefore not on the rail car. That saves about a unit train a day, which is significant.

I guess I would say to my colleague from Kentucky--and I appreciate the arguments he has made not just with respect to this specific issue but also with what the administration's policies are doing to energy production in this country and the cost of energy and what that means for middle-income families, what that means for businesses, and what that means for jobs. It is like an all-out assault.

The Keystone Pipeline is one example of many of policies where this administration is in a position to do something good for the economy, something good for jobs, and something good for energy development in this country, lessening the dangerous dependence we have on foreign oil sources of energy.

I would say to my friend from Kentucky and I would ask him in terms of--the Senator doesn't have the direct and indirect benefit we have in North and South Dakota, but I know he has an awful lot of energy development in his State--what these policies are doing to jobs in a State such as Kentucky.

I know the Senator hears every day from his constituents about this administration's assault on the industries that are so basic and so important to our economy, so important to jobs, and providing a better, stronger, if you will, future for middle-income families in this country.

I would be curious to know if the Senator from Kentucky shares the same concern about the jobs and economy and cost of energy and everything else that I do and that we do in the northern part of the country.

Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from South Dakota. I think the energy revolution is wonderful and we ought to embrace it. As I was saying earlier, what has happened in my State as a result of the war on coal, 90 percent of our electricity in Kentucky comes from coal-fired generation. We have been among the top five of the lowest utility rates in the country in any given year for as long as anyone can remember.

The war on coal is not only a war on coal miners. It is a war on all of Kentucky because our utility rates are beginning to go up, which is going to make the energy less affordable for people on fixed incomes in my State and make us less able to compete for other industries.

I repeat. I am thrilled at what is going on in North Dakota and what is going on in Texas. We would like to have some of that job growth ourselves and calling off this Environmental Protection Agency which seems to be just hell-bent to take coal out of the equation.

It is a heavy price to pay for this ideological crusade which the President seeks to lead on a worldwide basis and says to the Chinese they don't have to do anything for 16 years while we take away our own jobs and opportunity.

Mr. CORNYN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for one last question. I see the Senator from Alaska, and I hope she will join us in this discussion.

To follow up on a very important point made by the Senator from North Dakota that hadn't been explored a lot, he talked about the implications of more North American energy self-sufficiency and what that might mean in terms of geopolitics.

We know, for example, that Vladimir Putin used his energy as a weapon in Ukraine and Europe to try to intimidate people and to keep them from resisting his invasion of independent republics such as Ukraine.

I think it is significant because for so long we have been dependent on imported energy from the Middle East, which we know has been a real challenge because of the instability there, millennia old conflicts and sectarian strife.

I would be interested if the Senator from Kentucky or perhaps other Senators have observations about what this means in terms of the safety and the security of the United States as we become increasingly North American energy self-sufficient. We haven't even talked about New Mexico. They are just now beginning to open their domestic energy production to the kinds of things we are already seeing in North Dakota, Texas and Alaska and elsewhere.

It promises not only jobs but a great opportunity for us to become a safer and more stable source of this necessary energy supply.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, obviously what is happening is America is on its way to being energy independent in natural gas and oil. We have the ranking member of the energy committee on the floor as well. I wonder if she had a question.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, and to our leader on the floor and to the colleagues who have come together to talk about this important issue for us as a nation from an energy perspective--and we mentioned the jobs and the benefits that flow to our Nation's economy. When we talk about the issue of energy independence, there was a time when people would scoff at the notion that as a nation we would ever have a level of independence. I guess I look at it and say energy independence to me is a place where we are no longer vulnerable for our energy sources from those who would wish us ill. What has happened to this Nation in the past half dozen years has been transformational.

We talk about the shale revolution. We talk about a renaissance. What this means to us is that we are truly approaching that point where we are more energy secure and from a national security perspective. The vulnerability we once had is greatly lessened because of our own ability to produce our own resources for our people.

It is not just within the continental United States. It is Alaska as we point out, but it is North America. We are talking about North American energy independence and what that entails and what that means. When we think about where we have come and the fact that next year we will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, who would have thought that the United States would be in this perspective. Who would have thought we would have a conversation about energy abundance rather than energy scarcity.

It hasn't happened because this oil has just suddenly migrated to North America. It has always been there. It has been our technology. It has been our ingenuity that allows us to access it. Think what we can do when we partner with our friends and neighbors whether it is Canada to the north or Mexico to the south. So when we talk about energy independence and energy security, the Keystone XL Pipeline is kind of that corridor that helps connect us as two nations. The benefits that derive to both of us are quite considerable.

We are talking about jobs for America and we should be. I think we also need to recognize that when we are talking about the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is about a trade relationship with our closest neighbor and truly our closest ally and the benefits that come to both of us because of this relationship.

There is a phrase that is used. We say the United States and Canada are joined at the well--literally joined at the well. This is something the Congressional Research Service actually says.

There are currently 19 cross-border oil pipelines that are already operating between the United States and Canada or Mexico. This is in addition to all of the dozens of natural gas, electric transmission lines. These are oil pipelines that are crossing the border with Canada into Montana and into North Dakota, into Michigan, into New York, into Washington, into Vermont.

One would think this Keystone XL was the first pipeline to ever cross the border from the north to the south. It is some new precedent setting. There were 19 cross-border oil pipelines.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Back in 2009 this administration, this Obama administration, came to a decision about the Alberta Clipper project. This was yet another pipeline from Canada to the United States. There were arguments for and against. But ultimately Clipper was approved just as Keystone XL should be approved. So when we are talking about plowing new ground here, I think it is important for people to recognize there is no new ground that we are plowing here. This is just a reticence and a reluctance from an administration to do what I think people across the country believe is the right and the reasonable thing, not only from a jobs perspective, from an economic perspective, but from an energy security perspective as well as a relationship with our closest friend and ally.

I know my colleague from Kentucky had an opportunity to serve with our former colleague here, Senator Ted Kennedy. I am not going to ask the Senator whether he recalls the quote, but I think it is important to kind of put this in context. We have not as a nation always been opposed to importing this crude from Canada. As I mentioned, 19 cross-border agreements are in place today. But back in 1970 the Nixon administration announced they were going to place a quota on Canadian oil exports. This was when things around the country were getting dicey.

It was Senator Ted Kennedy who led the fight against this. He said--and this is a quote from a Senate hearing back in March of 1970. Senator Kennedy said:

The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and politically secure as our own and thus there can be no national security justification for limiting its importation.

So not only is this an issue that has been going on for a long time, both sides of the aisle recognize that there is an imperative when you come together with your allies for a resource that we recognize is a benefit to all, creates jobs for all.

So I ask my colleague from Kentucky, because he has not only served in this body for considerable years, but he has been through these debates over the decades. The question is: Why is this Keystone XL Pipeline being held out to be such a groundbreaking initiative that this President would put a hold on it for 5 years?

Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Alaska, I am as perplexed by that as she is. The Senator pointed out that having a cross-border pipeline is not exactly something new. As our chairman, Senator Hoeven, has pointed out repeatedly, it has cleared every environmental test. We cannot figure out why this has happened other than some misplaced ideological crusade the President wants to lead, not approved by Congress.

We all remember what it was like here in 2009 and 2010. Our friends on the other side had 60 votes. They could do whatever they wanted to. They could not pass cap-and-trade when they owned the place. They passed ObamaCare. They passed the stimulus. They passed Dodd-Frank. They couldn't pass cap-and-trade.

The President obviously feels so strongly about this, he is willing to give the Chinese a 16-year pass, ignore Congress and go full speed ahead. Part of that ideological rigidity is reflected in the challenge our friend from North Dakota has had here for a number of years in getting a decision made, which by any objective standard ought to be a no-brainer. My goodness, this is about as close to a no-brainer as you will ever run into.

I came out here for the specific purpose of praising the great work of the Senator from North Dakota. Without him we would not be where we are today on this issue.

I wonder if the Senator has any further question or observation to make?

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to thank the minority leader. I would like to thank all the Members of our caucus for joining on this bipartisan legislation. You know, we are continuing to work across the aisle to get 60 votes. At the end of the day, you have got to go back to what this is all about. This is about building an ``all of the above'' energy plan for this Nation. You cannot build an ``all of the above'' energy plan for the Nation if you do not have the infrastructure to move that energy around the country. We are seeing what is happening. Because we have been blocked on building these pipelines, now we are not able to move our grain to market, because there are so many rail cars now trying to move crude oil--700,000 barrels a day out of our State alone, and it is growing.

Keystone alone will replace 1,400 rail cars a day that are now carrying oil. That is 10-unit trains. So, you see, this is about so many aspects of our economy, strengthening our economy and creating good-paying jobs that people want. That is why the American people--and that is who we work for, that is who we represent. That is what this is about. That is what we heard loud and clear in the election, is that the American people want us to work together. They want us to get jobs going, get this economy going, build the right kind of energy future, get our budget deficit under control.

That means we have to do the fundamentals. When we talk about building infrastructure, we are talking about the fundamentals. That is what is going on here. This has been 6 years. We need to get this economy going. That starts with common sense. This is common sense. This is common sense because it is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about growing the economy, it is about national security, it is about not having to get oil from the Middle East, and it is about doing what the American people overwhelmingly time and again have told us they want us to do.

Again, I want to thank the minority leader. I will turn to him and again say: You know, I believe we can find a way, either in this lameduck or in the next Congress--and I would ask the leader--in the next Congress, and I believe it to be true, as the majority leader, he will make this a priority as part of an energy plan for this country.

Mr. McCONNELL. Let me wrap it up by thanking again the Senator from North Dakota for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and assure the American people that we will be back. Hopefully it will be approved and signed by the President sooner. If not, he will have another opportunity later.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source