used for the storage of existing artifacts and existing administration completely unrelated to the major military construction projects associated with the buildup on guam. you know, they get the benefits of $12.5 million in federal largess for a new museum which otherwise they couldn't get. i'd like to say that there are many good citizens of arizona who are out of work, whose homes have been lost and who would benefit from any sort of action by the federal government. holiday season is approaching in my home state, and all over america, where there's not enough money to fund the food banks, and we're going to spend money on school buses and cultural repositories in guam. that's not the end of the story. in this initial funding grant to guam of $33 million, there's

$9.6 million for the first phase of a mental health facility. they claim to have that somehow related to the proposed military buildup often guam. i'm still trying to sort that one out. not one additional marine or family being stationed on guam, how does a proposed buildup that won't come until years from now relate to a mental health facility on guam? it might not surprise you to learn that in money has nothing to do with any marines coming to guam. but is required to satisfy a current federal injunction that mandates the construction of a new facility. so take it out of defense, take it out of the -- the hardware and the operations and maintenance that our men and women in the military need. our committee did the research for these projects. we reviewed the working papers of the department of defense economic adjustment committee, excerpts of which i ask

unanimous consent to be inserted in the record, mr. president. and that this funding would not go -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain -- priorities and decided as a conference not to support their authorization. mr. mccain: this is not the way that congress is supposed to work. authorizing committees exist to provide specific congressional approval of federal spending. appropriations committees and subcommittees exist to take the available federal dollars and allocate them to programs consistent with the authorization as that have been provided -- nations that have been provided by -- authorizations that have been provided by the authorizing committee. no way do appropriations committees have the legitimate authority to override the specific direction of authorizing committees with those authorizing -- when those authorizing committees have spoken to a matter and denied authority for a specific type or level of funding. this is why the approval rating of congress is in single digits. the american people have seen through this. they see this kind of abuse and

waste and they've had enough it was. -- they've had enough of it. you don't understand the rise of the tea party, you can start by looking right here. it's not as if this issue was somehow hidden from the leadership of the appropriations committee. i wrote to the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations committee. let me just give you a few -- a few examples of what the appropriations committee has done. there's a program called meads. it's the medium extended air defense system. the program was supposed to have been terminated and originally proposed in the senate version of the bill. the defense appropriations portion of the bill is at $390 million, nearly the entire $406 million requested. so we found out that the appropriations committee was going to fund the program. i felt compelled to ensure that

the final defense authorization conference report prohibits any funding beyond 2012 and under the requirements imposed by the defense authorization conference report, this year's funding will be restrained by prohibiting the department from spending more than 25% until the secretary of defense provides a plan to either restructure the program in a way that requires no additional funding or terminates 9 program -- terminates the program. so this report from the secretary we wanted to get. what did the -- what did the appropriation committee do? the full $406 million. and i think my colleagues should understand. they have decided to never put this system, the medium extended air defense system, into -- into operation. they want to have a corporate memory, a memory of what they

have learned in spending what ends up to be a couple of billion dollars. there's a -- on the next-generation bomber, the president asks that there not be a -- money proposed for a -- the next-generation bomber but the appropriators chose to add $100 million. $100 million. and this is money for the next-generation bomber that was not requested by the air force nor was there any testimony by the air force leadership, either civilian or military, in support of this additional huge addition in funding. it magically appeared here. this morning, i tried to find out if this money would be wisely spent and the answer is no. we called the air force chief of staff. they said they didn't request the funding, they don't want it. the money is ahead of need, meaning it could not be applied to the program in an effective

or efficient fashion -- manner. the analysis of alternatives, which helps determine what the capability of the bomber should be, will not be completed for another year and a half. the capabilities requirement document, which is key to ensuring that the new bomber design is stable, which is needed to determining if increased taxpayer dollars should be invested in the new bomber, is not complete and will not be complete for a couple of years. finally, they wanted to use this money to sustain the bomber force they have. so why? why? why would we add a hundred million dollars when there is absolutely no way it could be used? well, i can only say that there are reasons for it and i will not make allegations but it's not magic. it's not something that just appears out of thin air. there's a -- there's a program called combat dragon.

the approximately 100 unrequested and unauthorized additions above the president's budget request found in the appropriations bill, one of the more interesting one is a $20 million allocation for an obscure aircraft program called combat dragon 2. the name is interesting, sounds pretty exciting. you won't find it in the president's budget request. it didn't appear in our authorization bill. so i gues asked my staff to fint what happened. the purpose of the program, combat dragon 22, is to lease up to four crop-duster-type aircraft and to outfit them with machine gun pods, laser-guided bombs, rockets and air-to-air missiles. so i asked if this requirement was justified, vetted, approved in any way. the answer was no, no, no. there's no urgent operational requirement for this type of aircraft. and after a little investigati

investigation, we found that this aircraft lease will not b be -- surprise, surprise -- will not be competitively awarded. and as such, is effectively earmarked for a particular aircraft manufacturer who has the corner on this particularly obscure part of the i hav aviatn market. c-17, defense appropriations bill adds $225 million. only $225 million for an unrequested, unauthorized c-17 aircraft that no one in the united states air force or the pentagon thought we needed. according to every strategic planning document, the air force has an excess capacity of large cargo aircraft and the air force already has 222c-17 cargo aircraft and more than 8

80c-5. the key reason for an overage of large cargo aircraft is because the appropriations committee, over the past several years, added 44 c-17's that were not authorized, that we neither needed or could afford, at a cost of $14 billion. above the department's request. the o.m.b., the five secretaries of defense, the commander of the transportation command, the current secretary of the air force have all unanimously stated they do not need nor can they afford to operate any more c-17 aircraft. in fact, the president appealed to the congress that the nation cannot afford anymore, and you'd think that after $14 billion and 44 c-17's averaging over $250 million each, would be enough of an earmark. obviously not so for the appropriations committee. there are others that are in

this. some of my old favorites are on it. $25 million for unrequested helicopter upgrades, increase to the civil air patrol program of $7 million, unrequested, unauthorized. $273 million in unrequested, unauthorized research on everything from parkinson's disease and h.i.v. to alternative energy and nanotechnology. speaking of although -- alternative energy, the appropriators took unrequested, unauthorized funding throughout a certain division of the bill. $130 billion ambiguously named -- quote -- "alternative energy resource" is scattered for the same sort of programs that brought us the recent achievement of the department of the navy which proudly announced the purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million. my friends, that equates to $26

a gallon. you'll be glad to know your taxpayers' dollars is now paying $26 a gallon for aviation fuel. but, no. no, they need more money. $262 million in unauthorized navy research programs, the list the navy adds is eerily similar to the army's. and as you would expect, it covers a familiar set of member items, nanotechnology, alternative energies and giveaway to home state interests. $53 million increase for space situational awareness. i repeat, $50 million in increase for space situational awarenesses. with two funding lines -- just two lines -- no justification, no argument for it. maybe it's good. may be good. but who -- we won't know. we won't know for months and

months and months and maybe years. so for those of you that are interested in the compelling national security issue of space situational awareness, you'll be glad to know that $50 million of your tax dollars is going to be spent there. the budget requested $86 million for operationally responsive space. this bill adds $26 million more just for fun. the armed services committee authorized and the congress will soon appropriate some $290 million for research into post-traumatic stress disorder, prosthetics, blast injury and psychological health. these are critical to improving our actual battlefield medicine. yet once again, the appropriators inserted unrequested money for medical research, this time to the tune of $600 million. let me remind my colleagues that these unrequested projects are

funded at the expense of other military priorities. i agree that research on multiple sclerosis is necessary, alzheimer's and cancer, but why should it have to come out of the defense funding? and i'll tell you why it does. it's the same reason why willie sutton robbed banks. when they asked him why, he said, "that's because the money is there." so this money, which may be meritorious to spend money on alzheimer's and cancer and other medical issues, they don't have any place in the defense appropriations bill. of course, the guard and reserve always comes in and gets additional money. they've got a billion dollars in unrequested, unauthorized funding for -- quote -- "miscellaneous equipment." a billion dollars for -- quote -- "miscellaneous equipment." i'm sure the states are on the

appropriators' short list will be very pleased to have the money directed their way. i'm not so sure about the taxpayers. so some have merit, some don't. none of them were requested that i talked about. and this is just in defense. and the tragedy of all this is except for the senator from oklahoma and me and a few othe others, all this will slide through and the american people, obviously, the taxpayer, will pick up the tab. we won't have a chance to address the issue of the -- of the bonuses that have gone to the executives of fannie mae and freddie mac that have cost the american citizen so many hundreds of billions of dollars. we're going to have -- let these people because they won't be appropriated, we'll let them take home annual salaries of $900,000 and bonuses of

$12.08 million while they ask the taxpayers for more in bailout money? mr. edward demarco, who said that that was the only way you could get good people to serve the country. i'm sure that the men and women of the military would be interested to know that that's what's required to serve. the base pay of a four-star general is $179,000. the chief justice of the marine corps makes -- chief justice of the united states supreme court makes $223,000. but mr. demarco feels that people who are spent -- are trying to -- are working in fannie mae and freddie mac deserve $900,000 and millions of dollars in bonuses. after all, they're doing such a great job. the alaskan native corporations is one of my favorites. we need to be especially mindful

of how taxpayers' dollars are appropriated. the army corps in light of a recent justice department investigation revealed what prosecutors called one of the largest bribery scandals in u.s. history involving army corps contracting officials and the contracting director of technology and a & c owned company. in the authorization bill, we are trying to have all of this small business funding issue, no matter whether it be a.n.c. or others looked at. of course we won't be able to look at the solyndra issue. private investors will collect the first $69 million that can be recovered from the company, taxpayers placed in second position by the department of energy. if -- if we had been able to amend this bill, i would have worked with my colleague, dr. coburn, restore much-needed

funding to the government accountability office. in a recent report released by dr. coburn, he highlights, and i quote -- "just this year, g.a.o. identified hundreds of billions of dollars of duplicative and overlapping programs that if addressed by congress could save money and improve services for taxpayers. for every 1 spend on the government accountability office, the agency provides $90 in savings recommendations. yet, instead of adopting those good government reforms, the senate appropriations committee has responded by proposing cuts to the government accountability office." now, i don't want to go through all this that i just described again, but we can afford all that, yet we're only to cut the only watchdog organization that really gives us an objective view of what we do here in congress. i'm sure that it is coincidence.

so here we are again. here we are again. same thing as last year. same thing for years. a few members of the house and senate making decisions of hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps over a trillion, and we, the other members, because of our desire, understandable to leave this body and return to our homes for the holidays will after a few hours of debate, no amendments, no changes in the bill, not having had the ability to even examine it, we will be voting. i wonder if my colleague from -- i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i would just mention, i would say to my colleague from oklahoma, this issue of the cutting of the budget of the government accountability office. it seems rather strange to me,

and i would be curious with this cut to the government accountability office, what will it be, what will the effect be on our ability to have this watchdog organization give us the reports and information we need as far as the functions of government are concerned? mr. coburn: well, i thank the senator for his question. i think the people need to know what the g.a.o. actually does. the g.a.o. is is nonpartisan. they are not democrats or republicans. they are accountants and they are investigators, and they are the most valuable tool we have because we won't do the oversight of calling agencies up here. i think the numbers are, we're going to lose 400 investigators and auditors out of the g.a.o. one question to ask is why is it we're cutting g.a.o. more than we're cutting our own budget? i end up -- let me just make one

additional point. things are not right in our country because things aren't right in the u.s. senate. when a 1,200-page bill that should have come out here appropriation bill by appropriation, 11 or 12 appropriation bills, and now we have a bill that's got over $3.5 billion worth of phonemarks in it -- we don't have earmarks anymore, they are phonemarks -- the corruption is still here. we're still pay to play game is going on in washington. now we just don't do it in the bill. we do it by telephone. and we threaten agencies that if you don't give this money to this person, your money will be cut the next year. so the fact is although we have an earmark ban, there is thousands of earmarks in this bill. and what do we do? we cut the very agency that's going to be required to help us

solve our financial problems over the next few years, we cut them more than we cut our own budgets. now, they can be cut, and appropriately so. everybody is going to have to share. but to cut the g.a.o., 6.4%, 40% more than we're cutting our own budgets. out of spite. they do the -- they and the congressional research service do the best work on the hill. they do better than we do. yet we're going to take away a tool that is going to help this country solve its very difficult financial problem. i think it's outrageous. it nauseates me. mr. mccain: i would ask my colleague, i identified $3.5 billion, either unrequested, unauthorized, not a hearing on projects, $3.5 billion. i wonder since dr. coburn has taken a broader view of things,

i wonder how many billions he would estimate totally there is of these unauthorized, unrequested projects in the entire bill? mr. coburn: well, i would just respond to the senator, i don't know for sure because we haven't been able to go through the whole bill, and the creativity associated with parochialism and getting re-elected by helping the very well-connected few in this country is unbelievable, so it's hidden and it takes a long time -- it doesn't take 48 hours. we got this at 2:00 tuesday morning, this bill, that's when we got it. and, of course, nobody is around at 2:00 tuesday morning, are they? so we will have 72 hours to read a 1,200-page book, and then we have got to figure out what's in it. and like you said, senator mccain, we're not going to know what's in it, not until the next solyndra comes, not until the next person goes to jail,

not until the next senator goes to jail. we're not going to know. the fact is what we're seeing is irresponsible behavior on the part of the congress with this bill. and if we don't break this cycle of protecting incumbency through spending money, we're not going to have a country left. it's not just wrong, it's immoral. it's immoral. i mean, you talk about research at the department of defense. there's good reasons to do good research at the department of defense, but we have the world's premier institute, the national institutes of health, and we're not increasing them significantly but we're markedly increasing the study of m.s. at a military research facility instead of through n.i.h. where we're spending $100 million already a year on it? so we're going to duplicate it.

we -- i've said it before. we have taken a stupid pill. we have either taken a stupid pill or a corruption pill. i don't know which it is. but i know that long-term effects of doing this kind of legislating at this time in our history when we have the greatest difficulty and the greatest land mines ahead of us financially for us to do what we're doing here today, to please the very small group of congressmen and senators who happen to make up the appropriation committee and to address their election concerns and they are knowing better than what the authorization committee -- you know, it won't surprise you, senator mccain, that in this bill, this conglomeration of what i will call an omniterrible, is over $400 billion in spending that is unauthorized, that has never been authorized, or the authorizations have expired long ago and the authorizing committees don't reauthorize it

for a reason, yet we keep spending the money. so i think it's amazing that we have had as high as a 9% approval rating, and i am saddened, not just for us, i am saddened for the future of america that we would now right before christmas, because we're running on a deadline to go home, we're going to pass a bill that is essentially irresponsible, inept and loaded with political favors instead of doing the best right thing for this country. you know, the g.a.o. in march -- late february and early march put out a report on duplication in the federal government. most of my colleagues applauded it. it was a great deal of work that they spent a lot of time on. the second component of that, the second and third of the federal government is coming out

this february, and in it was hundreds of billions of dollars of duplicative programs. not in one place in this bill that we have been able to find so far have any of what the g.a.o. said should be eliminated should be discontinued, none of it has happened. what's the consequence of spending $200 billion of borrowed money, money we don't have on what the g.a.o. says are things we don't need? what's the consequence of that? what is the consequence of that is impoverishment of our children. it's the theft of opportunity from our children. that's what it is. so i don't say the word corruption lightly. when you're stealing opportunity and you're impoverishing those that follow, that is corrupt. it's alsowith anything to do wir nation's defense. so i hope that the senator from

oklahoma won't give up. i certainly won't. but i think, frankly, that the american people deserve a lot better than they're getting out of this process. and if they're cynical and if they're angry and if they're frustrated, they have every reason to be so. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i guess i'm one of several senators who doesn't know for sure what's going to happen tonight or tomorrow. i do know that we have one very contentious issue in the pipeline. several people have been talking

about this. and i'd like to give perhaps a different, maybe an historic perspective on this issue as we're looking at it. i think it's, with all the talk and all the demagogy on the fact that people think that they want us to be independent from the middle east producing our energy when in fact we have the recoverable resources here in the united states to be totally independent. the north american continent could be totally independent in providing its own energy. and we're the only country in the world that doesn't exploit its own, its own resources. we have more recoverable reserves in oil, gas and coal than any other country in the world. and yet, we -- it's a political problem because there are people who do not want to exploit our own resources. they don't want to go offshore and they don't want to go into

84% of our onshore public shrapbd off limits -- public land is off limits so we can't drill there. it's very disturbing when you look and you see the real reason. we have an administration that doesn't want to us exploit our own resources. we have a secretary of energy who said we're going to have to get the price of gasoline at the pumps comparable to central europe -- that's $8 a gallon -- before people are going to realize we want to go another direction other than fossil fuels. the assistant secretary of treasury who said we want to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. all this green energy stuff and all that's fine. and someday when the technology is there, we'll be able to do something with it. but it's not there. in the meantime you've got to run this machine called america. and so here, the rest of the world is laughing at us and looking at us and saying why is

it we are the country that doesn't use its own resources? it's pretty mind-boggling to me. the first effort that this administration, in order to hide this agenda of not wanting to provide our own energy, was to do away with hydraulic fracturing. a lot of people don't know what that is. hydraulic fracturing is a technique that started in my state of oklahoma in 1948. there's never been a case of ground water contamination in over a million of these applications since 1948. yet when the president would make a speech, as he made about circumstance months ago -- as he made six months ago saying we need to use this good clean natural gas, it's cheap and we should use it. we've got to do something about hydraulic fracturing. you can't get into any of these formations for oil or gas without using hydraulic fracturing. a perfectly safe process.

just last week, they came out, the e.p.a. said it's like an endangerment finding that we have now said, in the state of wyoming, this very shallow well up there, only 600 feet, that somehow there's some contamination and it was due to hydraulic fracturing. it isn't. hydraulic fracturing is done one, two miles down deep. that's one of the efforts. the second thing that we're addressing tonight -- and this is significant because it's almost as if with all the majority they have supporting the president with 2011 elections -- with 2012 elections coming up, i'm in shock that a lot of my colleagues on the democratic side are following president obama off this plank and going along with these efforts to kill fossil fuels. the most recent one is the one we're talking about tonight, and that is the pipeline. on november 10 the obama

administration state department announced that it would delay the keystone x.l. pipeline decision until after the 2012 elections. this delay came shortly after the head of the sierra club, the executive director, michael brune tied their political support to president obama's reelection to the keystone decision, and they went along with it. that's what we're facing right now. it's something that is very punitive not just to our whole country not just in terms of the fact that we can't use our good, cheap energy that we develop right here. but the number of jobs. the keystone pipeline is estimated to add more than 250,000 permanent jobs for u.s. workers. twod add -- it would add more than $1 billion in total ventures to the u.s. economy. during the construction phase it would generate more than $585 million in state and local taxes. i'm particularly interested in this. my state of oklahoma, if you --

i didn't bring it with me but there is a map that shows where this pipeline would go in order to get into the tight formations in alberta and bring it down. you'll notice two-thirds of the way down there is a town called cushing, oklahoma. it is kind of the intersection of all the pipelines. right now it's clogged up because it's full. and we can't open it up. oklahoma alone, it's expected if they would open up the keystone pipeline, would have some 14,000 new jobs. just in my state, in oklahoma alone. the construction of the pipeline would expect to add about $1.2 billion in new spending in my state of oklahoma. and we've heard the senators from nebraska and from north dakota, south dakota talk about how it would affect their states. but just in my state alone, once operational, it's projected that it would add more than $667 million in property taxs to

oklahoma. so cushing, oklahoma, is a very important part of this. it's mind-boggling when i go back to oklahoma, which i hope we go back sometime tomorrow and people ask the question yes? why is it we want cheap oil and gas fright our continent, the north american continent, and why would they stop a pipeline to carry it? and they do do it because appliesally they don't want that to happen. i really believe it's important to look at the other aspects. jim jones, a lot of us knew him, he's a four-star general, served with a lot of dignity and very successful. but he became the national security advisor to president obama. he said, this is a quote, "in a tightly contested global economy are securing energy resources is a national must we should be able to act with speed and agility and any threat to this project by delay or

otherwise would constitute a significant setback." he ties this in to national security. he further said the failure to move forward with the project will prolong the risk to our economy and our energy security. and send the wrong message to -- to job creators. one of the opponents of the pipeline think that stopping the construction would prevent canada from developing its tar sands. you have the far left environmentalists who think somehow they can stop this activity up in canada when we know what will happen if we continue to stop the transportation through pipeline back down from -- all with the way from alberta into texas. according to austin boulsby, the former obama chairman of the council of economic advisors -- keep in mind he's on their side -- he said -- quote -- "it's a bit naive to think the star sands would not be developed if they don't build that pipeline." he went on to say "eventually

it's going to be built. it may go to the pacific, through nebraska, but it's going to be built somewhere." and they go ahead and talk about the fact that they have already approved a way of getting it to the -- out to the west coast of -- of canada, and be shipped to china. so this is something that is -- is -- there just is no justification for stopping it other than the political justification. other than that administration looking at the far left environmentalists and all started up in nebraska, they said there's one little area that might not want it, so what do they do in nebraska? they got together and changed the routeing of it so it goes through an area where there's no opposition. and still no pipeline. so i think that, you know, even if we were to have to stay here, i'm the last one who wants to stay here any length of time, a key issue right now is getting that back open again. with that i will yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks the senator from ohio, senator brown, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. this morning it was announced the former officers of freddie mac and fannie mae will be prosecuted for their misrepresentations of the liabilities those those institutions posed to the american congress and the american taxpayer. last year when we passed the d.o.d. frank amendment on mortgages and on risk retention we exempted freddie mac and fannie mae from the liability every other company has to go through. we find ourselves in a situation where fannie mae and freddie mac are have cost the american taxpayer at least $171 billion.

that number is rising because of the exemption from d.o.d. frank, they're the only act in town. a week ago i introduced a piece of legislation to deal with this issue. a piece of legislation that will terminate freddie mac and fannie mae and create a bridge or transition from where we are today to a privatized mortgage security and guarantee program. i want to briefly address how that takes place. in the end it will pay the american taxpayer back, put freddie and fannie out of business and we'll have a robust mortgage market available to the american people as the housing market begins to recover in this country. first of all the legislation creates a new entity called the mortgage finance agency, whose director is appointed by the president with approval by the senate. its directors deal with financial institutions and financial regulation. it will have advisory groups for people affiliated with housing and be established to the following goals: within a year be up and running so it can be a guarantor of quality residential

mortgages and i underline q.r.m., quality residential mortgages. the mortgage disaster america has today was a failure of underwriting. we didn't make good loans, made high-risk loans and securitized it on wall street. today our economy scuffs because of it. the new mortgage finance agency would be able to guarantee and wrap high quality residential mortgages. in those wraps and in those guarantees they would receive a fee which would go into a catastrophic fund to back up the risk on those mortgages. but in addition to that the q.r.m. requirements would make it absolutely essential that no loan was made higher than 95% loan to value. any loan above 70% would have private mortgage insurance on the amount up to 95%. and within 36 months the agency would be required to have supplemental insurance coverage to take the risk down to 50 cents on the dollar. it would be required by the fifth year to have a game plan

established and a plan of liquidating the asset and privatizing the guarantee to the private sector. that's a very important process because it's the bridge to the end of freddie and fannie and taxpayer guaranteeing of residential mortgages. but you would have a situation where with a down payment of 5%, private mortgage insurance of 25% and supplemental insurance of 20%, the risk to the government would be 50 cents on the dollar. and the great recession values fell 31%, in this recession they've fallen 33% so the government's coverage would be a 17% in addition to the liability that exists today. a very good place to have the government and to build an entity that brings us back to a mortgage market in the united states of america that is viable and that works. i don't like freddie mac and fannie mae and i don't like what happened but it has happened and i know everybody wants to terminate them and i do, too. but we've got a difficult housing market in america that will only come back when this

robust capital flowing into the mortgage markets and that will only take place if we get ourselves out of the current dilemma we're in and on a path towards privatization. the american private sector is a tremendous entity. it's proven it can find the solution to most all problems we have but we've got a create a bridge to that privatization, create an entity that works, an ept at this time that is self-sustaining and change some of the principles of lending back to where it used to be, the credit score scoar indicates they're going to be make the payments, the house appraises and the underwriting is sound and most importantly of all the borrower has skin in the game, there's insurance on the mortgage above 70% and the supplemental insurance down to 50%. when you do that, you have qualified residential mortgages, an entity that in the beginning can secure those and can guarantee those. and can at the end of ten years have an institution that can be privatized. here's the real kicker. upon privatization, the money

that's made by the government on the sale of the entity goes to pay back the taxpayer for the $171 billion or more they've lost and any excess money which there more than likely would be goes to reduce the debt. so i hope n this body will look at the mortgage finance agency proposal i introduced last week. whenwhen we come back next year instead of griping about the problems we've had let's start looking to the sliewtions solutions that take us back to the america we love economically and the housing market that is absolutely critical to our country. i yield back my time and yield to the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you. i thank senator isakson for his -- for his words and thank him for yielding the floor the way that he did. mr. president, we ask a great deal from our first responders

from firefighters, from police officers, to keep our neighborhoods safe from violence and drugs. we ask them to put their lives on the line, to save people from burning buildings, to track down armed criminals. we ask and they give each day, each night. that's why we can't just honor them through parades and memorials, honor them by speeches on the senate floor, honor them by showing up at various kinds of festivals. but we honor them by the priorities we set in our federal government, in state legislatures, in santa fe and columbus and atlanta, in city halls and county -- in county buildings, county courthouses. earlier this year ohioans overwhelmingly rejected issue two which by have curtailed the ability of first responders, firefighters and police officers, not just to organize and bargain collectively for their wages and benefits but much more broadly than that, to have them sit down and negotiate

with their employers, with cities, with counties, with the state, with taxpayers, to bargain for safety equipment and adequate staffing. this was a victory for them, the defeat of issue two, it was a victory for hard-working men and women in ohio valley ohio. it was the only time in american history when the issue of collective bargaining was on a state ballot for a statewide vote and voters voted more than three 50's, 61% to 39% to preserve collective bargaining rights. again, collective bargaining not just for themselves in terms of wages and benefits but collective bargaining, police officers, safety vests for firefighters, right kind of safety equipment. for teachers organizing bargaining collectively at the negotiating table for class size. way more than about them. that's why the voters of ohio such a resounding numbers voted to preserve collective bargaining and what it meant to public employees and what it meant to our way of life for

those who are not public employees. we must continue to fight. that's the state level. the federal level we must continue to fight to ensure that these brave public servants have the resources necessary to safely perform their jobs. that's because so many give the ultimate sacrifice. the last ten years, 47 law enforcement officials representing 35 ohio agencies were killed while on duty. 47 law enforcement officials were killed while on duty just in a decade. according to the f.b.i., 48 law enforcement officials across the country were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2009. more than 57,000 law enforcement officials were assaulted while performing their duties. this past week -- this past may during national police week i attended a police officer memorial service in huntington park in cleveland. i met sarah windfield of

mayoriesfield. her husband was a deputy in the sheriff's department in a north central ohio community when he was shot and killed while on duty. but in her grief the widow with two young sons to care for has become an advocate ensuring those who protect us are protected themselves. that's why i cosponsored legislation introduced by maryland democrat ben cardin that would create a national blue alert system aimed at apprehending criminals who kill or injure law enforcement officials, modeled after the amber alert. it would disseminate information about suspected criminals to the public and the media. when someone has gunned down a police officer, police departments all over the region, the state, and the country need to know about it. blue alerts would be broadcast on local media and on messaging signs, would include a detailed description of the suspect, the

vehicle and other identifying information. it would encourage state and local governments to develop additional protocols to help apprehend suspects. 11 states already have such a system, but if it's only on the state level, in that -- and the perpetrator who killed the police officer escapes to another state that doesn't have it, it doesn't work so well. that's why senator cardin's national blue alert bill is so important. ohio doesn't have this, i'm encouraged that the ohio senate recently passed a version of this law but again, it needs to be national so that it goes across state lines. and we can obviously do that as police departments are talking to each other more than they ever have through technology. i have spoken with police chiefs from across ohio like my city of lower rain -- lorain, ohio, who says a blue alert system would be critical to track criminals and protect law enforcement.

it would be made possible by existing community oriented policing systems, the cops program, funded by the department of justice. i remember 15, 18 years when the cops program began by president clinton and the congress in the 1990's, which made such a difference in helping local communities, small towns, big cities, rural areas, suburbs to be able to staff up in a better way with community police officers. it's these types of federal investments that are so critical for communities facing significant budget shortfalls. too many communities are forced to make cutbacks in essential public services, reducing staff size, scaling back investments in safety equipment. these choices are difficult, they're made with great reluctance. that's why federal grants like the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, so-called safer grants, are the assistance for firefighters grant, are critical to help communities hire more firefighters as well as recruit

and retrain first responders. the omnibus bill we're considering now will provide much-needed investment that will help communities do that. while i fought for stronger investments, it's clear every little bit helps. earlier this earlier this week, this is an amazing story, the chillicothe fire department received a grant through the a.f.g. program. it follows a safer grant that not only helped hire personnel, it saves lives. fire chief steve gallagher, whom i've spoken with prior to this, was off duty when he experienced a pulmonary embolism or a blood clot to the lung. without a grant that kept his neighborhood firehouse open, and without the medic who was hired because of the a.f.g. grant, the chief said he would have died. these federal investments literally helped save chillicothe's chief's life. 40% of deaths among firefighters

occur due to cardiac arrest. he wrote to me, "when i helped write the grant application, i knew it would save lives, but i never imagined that one of those lives would be my own." with reduced tax revenues, with increased need of vital public services like fire and police, it's critical we help our communities carry out the most basic and lifesaving duties. we can keep fire responders and firefighters and officials on the job. we can establish an alert system to warn us when criminals seek to harm law enforcement officials. these are actions -- bipartisan actions that can help communities across ohio and throughout the nation. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: mr. president, at

this late hour, as the senate continues to try to do its work, there is word that maybe, as the good book says, "come let us reason together." maybe there is some movement in bringing about some consensus-building, so that the people's work can be done and that these issues that have kept us apart for so long can finally be resolved, maybe only for a temporary basis but at least we would be in a situation where we did not allow the tax cuts for social security payments that would be such -- if those tax

cuts did not continue that there would be an immediate amount more that people would have to pay out of their pocket. maybe those will continue. it is certainly the right thing to do. those payroll tax cuts. it's also the right thing to do to keep unemployment compensation going in a time of a recession when so many people are out of work and they do not have the opportunity to get work or what they can piece together is not enough to sustain their families. that's the right thing to do. certainly passing the funding bills to keep the government going past midnight tonight is clearly the right thing to do instead of extraneous issues

from holding us up, having us all wound around the axel where we can't even fund the government of the united states. so maybe some reasonable minds are coming together to start working out these issues. i certainly hope so. in the meantime, what i want to speak about is something that is even more pernicious, and that is making it harder for our people to express their constitutional right of casting a vote. we have seen a pattern in 14 states -- 14 states enacting new election laws that basically are a i suppression of voter rights.

and one of those states that is glaringly, dubiously at the top of that list as being the most severe in cutting back on people's ability to vote, to know that that vote that they have cast is going to be counted as they intended it, and in the first place making it so that they can register to vote, that that very fundamental constitutional right for merntioamericans is being thread through these laws in the states, including my state, of suppressing the right to vote. now, if you look at the similarities of the laws in the

14 states, you will obviously see a pattern. but in my state of florida, we see the most severe assault on the rights of voters of all the 14 states. the present issue is joined in a court in the district of columbia, a suit ironically brought by the state of florida against the department of justice over the voting rights act of 1965 and its implementation. and a part of that suit actually questions the constitutionality of the voting rights act of 1965. that's a rather brazen attempt, but i think the courts will take care of that in short order.

but the very issue, as brought in this new florida elections law, does a number of things to cut back on the rights of voters. in the first place, the league of women voters, which has been registering voters for years, has stopped its registration of voters because of the new law. why? because the old law on the books for decades said that, once an organization, such as the league of women voters, registered the new voters, they had ten days to turn that in to the respective supervisors of election in the 67 counties. the new elections law amended that to 48 hours.

and they attached to that the possibility of a fine that could go up to $1,000 per person doing the registration, if they did not turn the names in in 48 hours. and, of course, we had the two cases of two civics teachers in two different parts of the state who, as a -- being a good teacher in their government class, registering their students to vote and did not meet the 48 hours, and the state of florida is looking at the possibility of fining these teachers. now, that's the height of hypocrisy. theals the height of an assault -- that's the height of an

assault on the right of people to vote by impeding their ability to register to vote. and the intended result is there. the league of women voters is just one organization. there are many. but it shows what has happened that all of the registrations that would occur of people being encouraged to participate in the political system, that that's not being done and won't be done until this issue is settled in the courts, and that's probably going to be late-summer. and so for the period of over a year since the passing of this new law in florida, voters will not be registered by organizations such as the league of women voters.

now, that's a sad commentary, but in fact that's what's happened. that's what's happened in the state of florida. all right ... but that's not all. let me tell whales the law does. -- let me tell you what else the law does. you remember how college students got so active for the first time in a presidential election? when the presiding officer and i were coming up through college, we were taught that public service was one of the highest callings that a person could have. we were also taught to be a participant in our democracy was a civic responsibility. but over the years intervening, after the vietnam war, after a number of other circumstances,

young people got turned off to politics and government, and we saw them in this past presidential election become energized once again, and they went down in the cities where they went to school and they registered in great numbers, and then on election day they turned out in great numbers. you know what the state of florida did in passing the new elections law? they changed the law that said that when that college student goes down there on election day to vote and they bring out their identification to show that they are who they say they are and they compare their driver's license identification, and address to the voter

registration in the college town, and if that driver's license, which is likely, shows their parents' address, if it is in a different county, they will not give them a ballot. they will give them a provisional ballot. and, as a result, we saw in the last presidential election in florida half of the provisional ballots cast were not counted, mr. president. now, this is a blatant attempt to cut out a certain element or to make it more difficult, all under the guise that they're trying to weed out fraud. we really haven't had a lot of voter fraud in our state of florida, and i dare say you'd find the same in the other 13 states that enacted these very repressive laws. but that's not all.

the law further goes on to restrict voters' rights by cutting back on the number of days of early voting. now, why did we have early voting? well, you know, in our state, we went through a trauma of the presidential election of 2000 when there was so much confusion and so much whether or not the ballot was intended to be this way and about people that were confused with the way the ballot was constructed, and it went on and on and on, and we know the high drama that ended in the supreme court of bush v. gore. well, because of that traumay ce florida law did, from 14 days to

eight days, they're limiting that ability and they cut it back instead of the sunday before the tuesday election, the last day of the eighth day will be the saturday before the tuesday election. and on the basis of the experience of the last decade, mr. president, guess who voted in record numbers on sunday before the tuesday election after church? certain minority groups. in record numbers. and, therefore, it is, again, an attempt at suppressing that particular vote. now, why can't we use walking around common sense that would

say that we want to help people to facilitate people to make it easier for them to cast their vote, make it easier for them to register on vote and then once they've cast that vote, to do it in a manner that they know exactly what they're doing, lessen the amount of mistakes and have the security of mind of knowing that the vote was going to be counted as they intended it. and yet we see laws have been passed in a number of states to the contrary. it is my hope, it is the hope of a lot of people across this country who care about one of the most fundamental rights of being a citizen of the united states of america, the right to vote.

a right, a constitutional right that casts us in contrast to a lot of other countries on the face of planet earth. it is my hope that as the court deliberates and renders its judgment, that the constitution of the united states will be upheld. mr. president, i would yield the floor and i'd suggest the absence -- no. before i suggest the absence of a quorum, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. recess:

>> german chancellor address the lower house of parliament earlier this week on the ongoing euro zone crisis. last week, chancellor merkel and nicholas sarkozy presented proposals for a new european treaty that would limit data sets and strengthen euro zone. britain rejected the new treaty

payment is not in their best interest. chancellor merkel reassured members to write to prime minister's rejection of the treaty, britain would remain a very secure partner in the european union. germany has the largest economy in europe. [applause] transcode mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, and my government statements december 2nd among others, i said that for a few months ago would have said at the end of 2011 would have started very seriously, we would have embarked the way of the european fiscal union would've been declared insane. today we see that we are no longer just talking about our fiscal union, but we have already started to create it.

[applause] >> translator: this was the aim of the federal government at the meaning of the council of ministers last week. we have reached our goal. it should not be underestimated. the vast majority of member states of the european union have decided to call on this new path towards a new treaty. we have decided to correct the construction that prevailed during the creation of the monetary union. the path to a fiscal union will give us a more stable union and of course we are far from beyond. while we have only started. and i think it's irrevocable great britain did not want to go

along with the vilification of the european treaty of all 27 member states. at least i didn't want to go with the conditionality that were accepted by the other 26. of course the answer to the situation couldn't be waiting to eat. it could not be either just patching up the tools that we had. this would not have correct that the craze says and it would not have been responsible. the answer had to be different. and that's the reason why we have decided to go for a new treaty, where the vast majority of all 27 members of the union would join at least the 17 members of the euro zone. ladies and gents demand, this is the very day we created the

european monetary union with the treaty. we are opening today a new path. the european monetary union will be strength and by this new treaty on the basis for the treaty should be ready in march and then it should be ratified at the different member state parliaments. the institutions of the european union will have a stronger role, especially the european commission and the european court of justice. this will allow us to have a much tighter cooperation with all 27 member states. the european parliament, also will be participating from the very beginning, for instance, from sending observers during the process that will create this new treaty.

every european member states who wishes can join this new treaty. we want to make sure that as soon as possible at this new treaty will be translated in new government rules and therefore we will have a new treaty with stronger -- and saying it. i regret it great britain decided not to join us. i regret all said that great britain 20 years ago chose not to join the euro. but for me, it is absolutely true that great britain in the future will remain a very important partner in the european union. [applause] great britain is not only important for foreign affairs and the security of europe. great britain is also a partner

in many other fields in a competitive sector from the single market for a trade with protection of the environment and we have just seen how important we are in turbine on this subject. and great britain has a huge interest for the era overcomes its debt crisis. it won't happen overnight. the federal government has already said it. the debt crisis will not be cured by magic wallets. this magic bullet is none exists. there is no quick and simple solution. overcoming this debt crisis is very hard and i will repeat it. it is a process. it will not last for. it will last for years. and in the future will be obstacles. go back track. what is important is not the

links. what is important is much more whether we will be discouraged by backtracking or if we go forward. and i am convinced that if we have the necessary patience, if we are not discouraged by obstacles, if we pursue our path towards monetary and fiscal union, and then we will complete the fiscal and monetary union and we will have overcome our goal is. and then we would reach the object did, not only will europe survive, that europe will combat this crisis much stronger than he was at the beginning. [applause] >> translator: and then we will have a new hero that is moore's able. ladies and gentlemen, we have

opened the path for this new europe and alaska obliques. figure that is more stable and full of solidarity and has more trust. the german government work a lot of fat. we use all the measures we could and we requested not only solidarity in europe, but also that each government takes its own responsibility. as long as the member states are responsible for their own budget. and it is in the current treaty. and as long as it takes the responsibility seriously, then we will all make it. one's own responsibility as the first pillar of the new path. some progress has been accomplished and we recognize it and we will reward it.

ireland for instance has made huge efforts to regain the trust of the market. they have had structural reforms. they export more in portugal. they have a huge consensus to perceive the reforms. and the latest data we have from portugal is quite encouraging in terms of the deficit. in greece, and they are working on a bipartisan way to fulfill their duty to strength than their finances. italy a few days ago has taken huge reforms and they have strength in their object does to have a balanced budget by 2013. and i have talked with the future prime minister of spain and he assured me again that in

spain they are going to pursue the reforms in the last government. even the members that are not yet members of the euro have made huge efforts on their side in order to contribute to this new structure. let's not forget that it is the citizens who are going to have to make huge efforts. we are asking a lot of them. they do that so that their countries in the euro zone and general will be more stable and that deserves all of our respect. [applause] >> translator: and people have to be responsible. those who are responsible can count on the solidarity of the other members. the solidarity of the second pillar of this new treaty and some elements are important. number one, with direct gets

adopted at the end of november, we are going to increase. and last week at the council, we have decided that the central bank has decided to support the eff with its expertise and its tech to call possibility. i think this will be very yeah, you cannot clap, you can applaud. you can applaud. [laughter] [applause] >> translator: yes, you should be better informed. these are good possibilities and good chances for we who have guaranteed all of this to the and i think he should we

underestimated 250 billion. the dsm, the mechanism will be ready in 2012. when we do that, all member states, including ice will have to pay n. this mechanism. all other states will have to put money in. this is a big difference with the eff. and it is an important capital. capital will not be available. and this increases the credibility. the number three, the i am off to have a fund with a data row

contributions with these bilateral contributions will be about 200 billion other members of the international were invited to contribute to this new imf fund. and when that's done we'll be in the imf, they will be managed without the strict rules that make elation. the german government has decided yesterday about the modalities of power going to contribute. before, since the private sector wants to contribute, we are going to stick to the press is that the imf in terms of private sector contributions to the sovereign debt. the same causes are going to be

implied and on the one hand we will have agreed. .. the normal majority. yes. and it will be a very last resort. in the euro area the crisis is not only a crisis of the debt,

but also a crisis of credibility, of trust. and the politics and politicians are responsible for that. first we committed mistakes in the very construction of the eurozone, and this was aggravated when we added more mistakes. and the principle, we are not even respected, not applied or nobody stuck to it that there would be applied. i can only undermine politics in the past caused all these mistakes. finally politics decided to correct it and to overcome the crisis of trust and to draw the conclusion that had to be drawn. it is only this way that we are going to come out of the huge

crisis. also, we need to take prevention measures so that we don't go into the next crisis which could be a lot worse. so we have to take preventive measures. preventive measures. we wanted sustainable stability and have new rules. the rules the ran the stability pact will be respected and control and the breach will be punished. these rules should be anchored in the national launch for, perhaps, and the different constitutions. we are going to have duties that are going to be at the european level.

they will have to be respected with a hesitation. the translation of the european law in the national all will be supervised by the european court . this is very important. the court of justice in the european central bank has opposed to politicians. it to the institutions that have kept the credibility. therefore perry disappointing. in the future we are going to be a lot tougher on the procedure. countries that go above the 3 percent will fall under the deficit procedure. unless the majority of countries decide against it, it is exactly the opposite of what was in the literature.

we will apply that in the procedures. in the next steps all this will be dramatic. we will have to enter into reform partnership with a detailed reform in order to consolidate the finances. it is no longer the sanctions that were mentioned earlier in the form of fines. now in the future it will be binding steps with the condition that is to say it will be the conditionality such as we have today. the commission and council will see to it that all these rules are respected and we will report apply.

these in sentiment, we all feel it. the crisis has already changed. and today we're also getting all the neglect in the past. the european council is not committed yet.p!0!0!0!p!p!p!p3 quick solution, a simple0c0cpar! solution. but it does not got the roots of our problem. they're not appropriate as measures to say to solve the problem. the enormous importance of the euro. the euro is survived. much stronger. we have profited, and this is

only true of big companies that also are small and medium enterprises. the euro is much more the currency. it is a symbol for the depth of the union we will be much more united than ever before. this is true especially for the franco-german cooperation. it goes further. we want to use this process to prove ourselves. the european council last week. the european union members, you're not more tightly united

for better european future. the decisions, i have discussed it with my colleagues, and i felt. we have this new feeling of unions. this will keep way beyond the crisis. it is nothing less than the vision of a real political, the first contours' are showing now. so sketch. it is much more than just is stability mechanism. political union means that we're going to grow together with sustainable growth, growth that is turning toward the future and which will create more jobs.

and therefore the agreement that we had will be even more important, but i repeat, we all have to fill our task. and all of us have to have laws that take into account other countries' situations. every national following is at a point now where they have to change their mind. they have to take into account the situation of the other. we have to take lessons from each other. we have been through it. we're going through one of the worst crisis, we're going to be stronger. we don't know where the origins of the crisis. we are all in agreement that what weight to pursue.

this was unthinkable just a few months ago. i am convinced that it is much bigger. it is a historical path. the way to overcome this crisis is long, hard, but at the end we are going to have the eurozone that is durable, stronger, strengthened, and this is the objective. this is the best condition for good future for europe, a good future for germany. the federal government working and i invite you to allau h contribute to it as well. thank you. [applause] [applause]

the short-term extension into month and a longer-term extension. earlier today the house passed a $915 billion spending package for the 2012 fiscal year, and the senate still needs to act on that legislation as well. they are expected to get pulled back in at some point tonight, and we will bring you live coverage from the floor of the senate right here on c-span2. today the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade

examine the impact of energy companies searching for sources in more stable areas and countries such as canada. the main focus of the hearing was the keystone xl pipeline project. one energy experts said the u.s. cannot afford not to capitalize on canada's oil stance from an economic and energy standpoint. this is an hour into minutes. >> this hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. the title of this hearing, changing in the energy market, u.s. national security, energy has become the national security . one of the realities that we have to explore is the impact that energy has on so much of the trade issues, terrorism issues, even not put to the proliferation issues, all of

these are in the realm of responsibility of the subcommittee. this house passed sanctions aimed at the energy sector. and nuclear-armed braun would easily damage security in the gulf. just a reminder of the role played by us. the reality that the united states is in a situation with china, energy prices in china are 20% higher than here in the united states. and yet the question is going forward, are we going to be able to access energy at a lower cost , or are we going to foreclose those possibilities? we sit here today at this hearing at a time when you already have plans in the united states related to working with the keystone pipeline project.

last week 60 americans lost their job as a result of the president's decision not to give the green light and go ahead with the keystone project. we sit here in the united states today. some of my colleagues are really talking to the canadian embassy. we saw the reaction. after the president made a decision not to go forward with the pipeline. that reaction was embraced as a long-term strategy of looking to asia or exports from canada. we know there was a meeting with prime minister harbor brought the idea of having the oil from alberta shipped, not here in the nez states, but, instead, to china, to chinese refineries. with china seeks to reduce the cost of energy.

she we compete with china. it is going to impact jobs in the united states of energy costs goes down in china. so we have an opportunity. the united states has this opportunity of being a nephew exporter and are able to access. the oil sands from the alberta. legal for the keystone pipeline. the first time in six years our country would have the opportunity to be independent of the current circumstances where the depend upon the opec cartel and shift our dollars into the market. we should ask ourselves.

are we better served, circulating those dollars, sending money to an ally, canada , 80 percent of what we spend in canada according to economists is back here, are we better served closing that option and allowing china and canada to cement the deal that allows those resources to go instead to china. end we continue to be bent on sending our dollars into saudi arabia and venezuela and two other states that are either unreliable or hostile to the united states. we can continue with that trade imbalance with respect to the opec cartel, or we can have our dollars staying at home and not being shipped to saudi arabia and venezuela.

from the standpoint of american jobs we can create those jobs in china. that is our decision. right now the president is making a decision to lay off americans. already laid off as a result of this decision. instead have those jobs go to china. you can have american jobs and governments will assist. there is a reason why unemployment is under 4 percent in north dakota. that is because of the booming energy sector there. that is because the administration has yet to find a way to shut that down. greater u.s. manufacturing is a major issue.

the explosion in natural-gas production has given this united states an advantage here, but only if we can access that advantage. if we curtail that and shut off that possibility were not going to be the beneficiaries. get things are only going to happen if those in washington make these decisions and in our state capitals will let them happen. i will go back to the keystone pipeline. 1700-mile extension that would transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from alberta tar refineries here rather than china by the chamber estimate it is 200,000 indirect jobs.

yet we faced delay, delay, and now delayed until the next election. energy is in piped into texas refineries. it is going to go instead. it would include the concept, the argument that prime minister harper made after the administration rejected. he laid out the argument that it would -- this was long range. we can only hope president obama drops his opposition and turned to the ranking member. >> would you like to take a statement? >> i think the ranking member for his graciousness. i think it for the opportunity

as interrelated. it is the promise of a debate on the payroll tax bill, like you, mr. chairman, i will focus my comments primarily on that issue . the international energy agency recently issued its outlook was retained one notable piece of good news. dependence on foreign and middle eastern oil as projected to decline. the contrast, according to the iea the prairie reason is the adoption of aggressive efficiency standards which will increase standards of the year 2025. projected increase of domestic oil production also will make foreign oil dependence. according to the i u.s.a. that increase in production by the much smaller impact than actual vehicle efficiency standards.

proponents of the keystone xl pipeline have argued it will increase access to oil. while this position has been intuitive, it deserves further examination. five major oil pipelines already transports as oral into the united states. these pipelines now terminate in oklahoma, illinois, and michigan providing much of the united states with an ample supply. industry analysts note that they have produced an oversupply of oil in some parts of our country creating low gas prices for some americans. the keystone pipeline would provide an export outlet and actually reducing supply by allowing those companies to sell higher-priced markets elsewhere in the world. in the abstract members of this committee can agree boosting domestic oil production is beneficial so far as it could

reduce our dependence on oil. we discussed the subject in this committee, and as i said at the time, i support such efforts to boost domestic production and consumption. therefore when legislation to enhance the pipeline can to the floor i introduced, as i said i would hear, a simple amendment requiring that oil to be produced in america. that amendment would have insured americans enjoy it affordable gasoline and national security benefits as a result. obviously those sentiments evaporated. over a companies simply export. i was surprised and disappointed , mr. chairman. the house majority rejected that simple amendment calling into question the motives underlying the push to approve the keystone pipeline. alberta energy and mr. said if there was something that kept me up at night it would be the fear that for too long we're going to be landlocked.

but canadian other companies might increase the profits, such exports, at the expense of american consumers and american national security. if we are in conceptual agreement that there's a relationship between domestic while supply national security, then perhaps we should acknowledge that hemorrhaging overseas would undercut those benefits. proponents of the pipeline have argued it would create jobs. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the washington post fact check article noting that many jobs have been. in reality the pipeline will produce at most some 6,000 annual temporaries' obstruction related jobs and as few as 50 permanent jobs. compared to the half million public-sector jobs that have been lost this is an anemic job boost at best.

irrespective of whether one is a finely to nighter or acceptor, all of us can agree additional oil transported by the keystone pipeline should stay in the united states. absent legal guarantees likely will not. with that i yield back. thank you. >> we will turn out to mr. johnson from ohio. >> think you, mr. chairman. i am happy to hear back a minute of my time. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. logistically year -- that just really here is that china has already invested in canada's oil canada prime minister, as a result of this decision has already said it is a necessity that we are able to access asian markets.

the question is not if we bring these products here in the estate's. i mean, the economics is such that and just going to quote from the department of energy. the department of energy says that gasoline prices in all markets served by these refineries, because we're talking about the keystone pipeline project, would decrease gasoline prices would decrease. gulf coast gasoline prices would decrease, and the east coast and gasoline prices would decrease here in the united states in the midwest. not everybody agrees that a falling price for gasoline is necessarily, you know, -- it depends upon your perspective, but i will tell you this. from a competitive standpoint the standpoint of the jobs here

as opposed to china : this is an important issue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also appreciate our witnesses being here today. the lack of stability surrounding our energy markets today has potential for even greater instability in the future. not only to stop the growth of our economy but jeopardize our national security. by importing oil from nations such as saudi arabia and venezuela the rest is funding the spread of terrorism and foreign activism that stands in stark contrast to our foreign policy objectives. as a world increasingly looks to the west for its energy needs we have an opportunity to alter this course and spur growth in our struggling economy. thanks, in part, to breakers in safety and technology, the united states is on track to become the top global oil and gas producer by 2020. in fact, the u.s. tops russia, saudi arabia, and china and

combined energy reserves including oil, coal, and natural gas.