that area, and the application is very precise as to where it would be located. >> great. but now for the further part of it, you have no knowledge exactly where the precise, about the preciseness, is that correct? >> generally speaking, we do on a map. and when we see the whole delineation of the pipeline from north to south, but if it doesn't fall within public land jurisdiction, it's not going to pertain to blm. >> okay. would you like to respond, and then i want to return to my colleague. >> can you repeat the question, please? >> just does it make sense, does the army corps of engineers typically provide permits for projects when the route of the pipeline is unknown? >> no. we only evaluate permits for applications that have been submitted by project applicant that have a project. ..

>> and don't pay any taxes for doing it. step four, americans get higher gas prices and no increase energy security. and step five, transcanada and the sheiks in saudi arabia laughter all the way to the bank. that's pretty much what this spill allows. make no mistake, this spill is

not about energy security. it's not about jobs. it is about oil company profits, plain and simple. this spill just turned the united states into a middleman, animal time national deal between south america, transcanada, and china. drill here, drill now, pay less. now we are leading candidate drill here, she appeared, and re- export so all we have to do is pay more from both in terms of money at the gas pump and cost to the environment. today, i a long with mr. waxman and congressman cohen and connolly and welsh will introduce a bill to require that if this pipeline is permitted, the oil will stay here to benefit americans. if we're going to go to the extreme lengths of legislating the construction of environmental destructive pipeline to benefit a canadian company, we should at least be

sure that we in the united states can realize the energy security and consumer benefits that we have been told the project will bring. let's play it straight about the strait of hormuz. without my bill, this pipeline will not do anything to enhance the security of our country or of our brave men and women stationed all over the world for purposes of protecting our fossil fuel interests. we need a bill that guarantees the oil from this pipeline stays here in the united states. the ceo of transcanada sat right there and said he would not support that legislation. that's all we have to know about our relationship with his transcanada company. this oil is to be exported around the world, not to keep prices lower here in the united states. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> i might say all u.s. petroleum products today we are truly exporting less than 5%. at this time, -- >> been no one export for united states in 2011 was oil petroleum

products. that was the number one export. >> we want to increase our exports do not a boil, not of we'll. that's not security. >> all of the members are gone. we still have a vote on the floor. so i'm going to release this panel, ms. gaffney-smith, thank you for being here. mr. pool, thank you for being here. we will recess or about i would say 35 or 40 minutes and then we'll come back and we will begin with panel two, thank you. we are in recess. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> i will call veering back to order, and before i introduce the witnesses, as we were finishing up with the first panel that was a lot of back and forth about whether not we're going to release the first panel. and in consultations with the majority, a decision was made to release them but i had already told mr. bilbray, before he left, that he could come back and ask some questions. and since they are not here, i am going to recognize mr. bilbray for three minutes to say whatever he wanted to say about the corps of engineers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. chairman, i appreciate you giving me the time. it is frustrating that you, you know, think you have an agreement, and i think some of these questions are important but i will raise them with the army corps here because i've got a little experience. i was cited or given my miranda

rights for a potential violation of the 404 permit because i was involved in damning of sewage coming up from mexico and they constituted a sewage break as possible navigable waters. so it is very near and dear. also, mr. chairman, there's a lot of talk here in washington, d.c. about certain jobs, job programs by the federal government. the tennessee authority was one of them that's been cited begin and again. and i'd like to point out to everybody that the tennessee authority, though it crossed thousands of so-called navigable waterways, it never received 1404 permit because there was no such thing as a 404 permit. when we talk all of these great job programs, ways of steely the economy that were in the past, we've got to remember just how much regulatory oversight and regulatory obstructionism de facto has occurred since then. there were things were done in the past that would not be legal to do under today's regulation

and we need to address that. the other issue i wanted to raise was the fact that though it takes a 404 permit to build, put a pipeline over a navigable waterway to transport oil, there is no 404 permit required to transport the same oil by truck over a bridge that's dan's a navigable waterway. the same way there's no requirement for a 404 permit for a train to go across a bridge that spans a navigable waterway, even though statistically the risk of having spills caused by truck and train transport into those navigable waterways is much higher. there's also the issue of the fact no one talks about as a look at the risk of the pipeline but don't look at the gnome project option risk that if you transport the same oil, that 1700 miles, it is 87 times more dangerous to human life, that an accident whitaker than transport by oil. so when we get into these issues, as somebody has worked

in our middle agencies, have had the privilege of being a regulator i think the environmental impact of a new project option is one that any reasonable person who really cares about the environment has to understand. and the fact that the state department has admitted that the transport of this oil by alternative sources on the same route, or in any route related to it, would be many times more polluting than the use of a pipeline. i am shocked at the same state department cannot quantify how many megatons a year would be emitted by going to those other alternatives, transport, the pipe, the truck and the train. i mean, coming from california working on air support we would tell you down to the minute of what it is because we use good science to make those decisions. the state department admits that the air pollution impacts for transport by the alternatives are higher than the transport of this pipeline. so i think in all fairness, the adverse environment impact of

the no project option has not yet been given a fair hearing, has not been identified, and quantified in a responsible way. and before you start turning down these projects, you've got to look at what is going to be the impact to the environment before you do the. and let me just close, one of the things i am concerned about is candidate is being treated like we can't trust canada with their entirely. i think their history on environment issues is something that really puts into question why we approved many crossings to mexico and were holding up this will be can do. i yield back. thank you, mr. bilbray. >> mr. chairman? >> yester. >> i understand mr. engel would have to of his three minutes on our side as well. and i hope he can be recognized. >> absolutely. you're recognized for three minutes. >> would the gentleman yield would the gentleman yield jimmy? >> yes. yes, i will yield to -- >> i thank you for yield and because this last statement by my colleague from california

made no sense to me. he's criticizing the different alternatives of bringing these tar sands down from canada and singh if it's done by railroad, as opposed to the pipeline. the real issue is whether they're going to do these tar sands at all because if they can't bring it into the united states, they are not going to develop the tar sands. and in developing those tar sands, which is the dirtiest source of coal they have to spend so much energy to refine it sufficiently to have it go through a pipeline, and maybe on a train. at some point is going to have to be refined. the energy used to refine it adds to the greenhouse gases. so i just want people to understand it's not just a question out it's going to be transported. it's going to be transported, high point is the way we often used to transport these things. we have pipelines, by the way, i'm not against pipelines, by any pipelines ought to be reviewed by the appropriate

agencies and the two witnesses we had on the first panel who are going to be taken out of the opportunity to review any proposal, and, of course, this spill isn't about pipelines. it's only about one specific pipeline that's going to be given treatment, and no other pipeline has had. and that's, nobody reduce it. they have 30 days and they've got to come up with the right conclusion. that is a special interest bill, earmarked for this one project, and it's really troubling because we have had, we will be adding to the greenhouse gases which not just affects canada but the whole world, at a time when we out to be reducing greenhouse gases. we will be committed to that source of energy, where we out to be looking for other ways to use less energy and make us more independent. i think our witnesses on the second panel have more to say about that issue. i thank the gentleman for yielding part of his time. >> i would like to reclaim my time, and say you know, i have an open mind in general about

the whole issue of keystone. but i have, i'm very concerned about this. removing all federal review of all agencies except ferc and then mandating ferc issues the permit to me doesn't sound like we are really weighing the pros and cons. we are rushing to make a decision on one side. the health and safety of the american people is paramount, and if we are not going to take that seriously, it really troubles me. the other thing that troubles me is that i have, you know, i would feel much more comfortable if i knew that the oil that was coming down to be refined from canada, to be refined in texas, went for domestic consumption in the united states. i sat through hearings this committee has had and i'm still not satisfied or convinced that that oil isn't going to get shipped to china or some other place. so those are some of the

questions that i have about this. >> just for the record, i said the word cool. i didn't go. i meant oil is the '30s source of oil in these tar sands and that's what i meant to say. [inaudible] >> i wouldn't want to take you on on that issue. >> at this time i would like to introduce the panel, second panel. we have with us retired brigadier general steven anderson, united states army, he was originally from california. and we have mr. randall thompson who is a rancher in nebraska, and we welcome you to the hearing. we appreciate your being here very much. and at this time, general anderson, i will recognize you for your five minute opening statement. and i think a little box on the table there, a red light will come on when the five minutes is up, so you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm steve anderson, a concerned citizen and part owner of service disabled veteran owned

business based in knoxville, tennessee, but i'd like to begin by thanking the subcommittee for this opportunity to thanking my president for the courageous decision he made to deny the keystone xl pipeline. frankly, as a political conservative and a longtime registered republican, i don't often agree with president obama, but on this matter he absolutely got it right. i strongly oppose the keystone xl pipeline because it would be great our national security. the critical element is simply this, the pipeline keeps our great nation addicted to oil, a dependence that makes both strategically and operationally vulnerable. as retired general officer with over 31 years in service, i believe i'm fully qualified to comment on both of these vulnerabilities. the pipeline will keep us depend on outside sources to meet most of our energy needs. in reality, keystone only addresses a symptom of our illness, the source of our

illness. it does nothing to cure the disease in itself, which is our over reliance on oil. and as nations like china and india continue to demand more of themselves, competition will increase at its international tension threatens our security and stability that we enjoy today. additionally, continued carbon-based energy consumption drives co2 emissions that will lead to climate change and increasing the catastrophic weather events. the potential instability puts us all at risk. furthermore the pipeline keeps a strategically vulnerable because our economy will remain technocentric. many thousands of companies adopting clean energy technology and providing for renewable energy solutions won't grow capacity and capability as quickly as america needs. i believe keystone will set back the alternative energy in this country 20 years. two weeks ago i read that dubai

will invest $2.7 billion in solar energy next year. dubai is surrounded by the world's largest oilfields. their economy is 250 times smaller than ours. yet they are an astute enough to see the consequences of an oil dependent economy and are willing to invest now in renewable energy in a big way. why aren't we? and because we're not fully committed to developing renewable energy capabilities, our soldiers in harm's way are operationally vulnerable, too. serving for 15 months as general petraeus senior legislation in iraq and i struggle with providing three main towns of fuel every day to sustain our force. i suck huge impact of not having any renewable energy systems and be completely dependent upon oil based power generations. in consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel in a combat zone, taxpayers have been

spending well over 30 billion annually for our fuel needs. that is what they be, billion. now that pakistan is cut off her access to pakistan it will be even higher this year. but the dollar cost doesn't concern me as much as the human cost. over 1000 american troops have been killed during the wars in iraq and afghanistan, executing fuel missions. we should all be outraged by this loss of life. and to make matters worse, our oil addiction is empowering out enemy. our long supply lines divide convenient targets and the revenues from our oil habit ring the enemy the resources they use and kill us. imagine the benefits of our military if you're fighting a much less capable enemy. imagine leveraging solar, wind and geothermal technologies to end the war sooner to save billions of dollars and soldiers lives.

now, i also to comment on the jobs issue associate with is partly. as a former soldier i am extremely concerned of the high an opponent rates for our vets. of course, i want more employment opportunities and my brethren, but they need jobs with staying power. they need careers. america is best served by an economic climate that generates climates for vets for one or just, not 100 days. eight produce a clean energy economy to produce 1000. bottom line, the pipeline feeds in addition that makes us less secure and enables our enemies. now is the time to make the hard choices and deal with this disease head-on and put our future economic prosperity in the capable hands of middle america, rather than big oil. i stand before you today absolutely convinced that the national mission and focus that put a man on the moon 42 years ago can once again prevail. stopping this pipeline today will help set the conditions needed such that our innate

american will to win and entrepreneurial drive will succeed in breaking our terrible addiction to oil. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, general anderson. mr. thompson, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> turned that on. >> you can tell i'm used to testifying in congress. my name is randy thompson, i'm from nebraska. i'm here as a nebraska citizen and landowner. i'd like to thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to be here today. i'd like to start my testimony today by thanking president obama for making the right decision by denying the permit for the keystone xl pipeline. i'm proud to think that the voices of nebraska and had an impact on his decision. those of us who live and work along the proposed half of this

pipeline applaud him for placing our welfare ahead of the interests of big oil companies. as a lifelong nebraska and i can honestly tell you that i have never witnessed any project that is stir the emotions of my fellow nebraskans like the keystone xl has. contrary to what you may have heard from some of our elected officials, i can assure you that the dust has not settled in nebraska on this issue. transcanada has build a mountain of distrust among the ordinary citizens of our state, and even with their voluntary agreement to move the pipeline out of the sand hills, we remain very skeptical. many nebraskans, including myself, viewed transcanada as an overly aggressive company who thought they could come in, intimidate and bully their way across our state.

and having witnessed transcanada's actions during the application process has made us weary of what they would do if they were empowered by premature permits. and i fear that an early permit would place a tremendous amount of pressure on the state of nebraska to hurry through its review process. transcanada has been granted plenty of free passes, and now yet they seek another. they want their political allies to free them from the tangled mess that they themselves helped to create. perhaps it's time for the free passes to come to an end. if the keystone xl truly has america, then it should be able to withstand the rigors and comprehensive review that it deserved and has not gotten. if this pipeline is built, thousands of us in the heartland's will have to live

and work next to it for the rest of our lives. and probably for the rest of my kits and my grandkids lives. it will cost hundreds of our waterways from our lakes and streams, and it will only get riskier with the passage of time. short-circuiting the review process would be an injustice and, in fact, a growth -- gross injustice to all of us that have to live and work along the proposed path of this pipeline. many of us feel that approval of this project would strip us of our individual property rights. we do not view that a foreign corporation has any right to take our land for their private use and gain. especially when there has been no determination that this project is in the national interest. we have seen no evidence that this pipeline is anything other than an export pipeline

providing access to the world oil market for canadian tar sands. outside of providing a few months of temporary employment for some americans, yet yields few other benefits, mr. kerry himself in a speech a week or two weeks ago, in a state of nebraska, said there would be no more than 30 permanent jobs as a result, in the state of nebraska, as result of the pipeline project. and we are being asked to risk some of our greatest national resources. and a lot of folks livelihood, and we're going to get 30 permanent jobs. completion of the pipeline would actually increase the price of the oil we are currently importing from canada. this is an undisputed fact. i and really, does this make any

sense wrecks we help them build a pipeline, and as a result we end up with higher oil and fuel prices in the midwest? why don't we just take a gun out and shoot ourselves in the foot? that would make more sense to me. perhaps it's just my nebraska logic, but from my perspective it appears that the united states is getting the short end of the stick on this deal. candidate and the big oil companies are reaping all the rewards, while americans are being left behind to fix the fences. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. thompson. appreciate your opening statement to i'm going to defer my five minutes of questions, and at this time recognize mr. pompeo of kansas for his five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i begin by asking in his consent to enter into record an article that appeared in "the wall street journal" february 1 written by ted olsen. thank you.

you know, i understand that mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. he told visiting. he he asked for witnesses to come, but the incredible political nature of it became apparent when he had his chance to as question. he had five minutes. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. so he brought to folks out from the united states government, brought to you this way, ostensibly because he was keenly interested. he thought it was absolutely critical that this committee hear from them, and he got between two and two and have questions been on how you count the 29 seconds. it didn't appear to me that there was anything but blatant politics, a chance for them to speak a little bit more about the folks who are constituents of my. he supplied as the standard mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation apparently is that you decided piece of legislation depending on who benefits. mr. chairman, i want to make a point of order to i know the rules of the house floor would not permit the german to make

such a personal attack -- >> i apologize -- >> members motivations or actions. i'm happy to answer when i get my turn, but if i answered it and don't have enough time for questions to these witnesses he was i didn't ask them enough question. i think it's inappropriate. and i make a point order that his words be stricken. >> mr. waxman, i -- in with a gentleman hold for one minute? >> certainly. >> unless the jump and wants to withdraw those comments, he can go on the unhappy to withdraw them so we can proceed this morning. that's fine. i'm happy to withdraw the comment. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> certainly.

we have now the standard as apparently been applied old across the aisle. folks across the aisle, we try decide whether their personal data come whether someone would or would not benefit. from a particular sense. this is a private investment. $7 billion private investment. but, you know, i was nearby to watch this committee last year as we were debating and discussing a little different. we didn't have hearings like this very often, but i watched them on the floor debate obamnicare and the stimulus package. there was no discussion from the left about who might or might not benefit him those takings from the taxpayer. those enormous government programs. and i just think, i just think it is intellectually desperate, dishonest, to now, for us, have this different standard. we should have a standard of a policy. we ought to all do that and not have a standard where we say hey, we're looking to see who benefits and who does not benefit from some particular piece of legislation. with that i yield back my time.

the gentleman years back about of his time this time a readiness the gentleman from california for five minutes for questions. >> mr. chairman, before the two questions i want to point out that since it's been coming finding political, the chairman of the subcommittee raise the issue of whether the president is in the full campaign mode trying to respond to these extremists to the environmental side, so this is all presidential politics. and suggested that perhaps we ought to look at a train that could take this tar sands hike oil down to texas instead of using a pipeline. my point was never that -- [inaudible] >> excuse me, the other guy that you don't like, mr. buffett. so i consider that a political

kind of argument. but my republican colleagues and the american patrolling institute makes several arguments of building this pipeline. they say we need the oil. it will lower gas prices. it will make us more secure as a nation. but the facts just don't support these claims. the energy information agency which is part of the department of energy, is projecting that america's oil consumption is no longer growing. is no longer growing. the reason it's no longer growing is because we have insisted on more efficient automobiles, that have better fuel mileage, the standard for these model years 2017-2025 will further reduce our oil dependence. so with growth and consumption now in check, i don't think we have to these didn't get into something like this oil tar sands deal from canada. this type line will not reduce gas prices. in fact, last year transcanada admitted to the subcommittee that the pipe line will raise

crude oil prices in the midwest. there's a debate over how much it will raise those prices, but certainly it won't lower them. so that leads to the question of national security, as a reason why we need to go along with this pipeline. and we have general anderson -- could you just briefly stayed what your experience, military experience has been? >> thirty-one years service in the army. i'm a professional logistician, most recently served in the pentagon for two years as a chief of logistics operations and readiness to the pentagon. and before that i was general david petraeus is senior logistics officer at the multinational force iraq c-4. in your same you said you didn't think this pipeline was international center to interest interested you said a america's oil dependence threatens our national security. is this a controversial view among national security expert? >> i don't think so. certainly, although i'm not sure

if i would come as a national security expert, i am an expert in regards to experiencing the operational impacts of our oil addiction in iraq and afghanistan. i still do work in afghanistan. i have spent quite a bit of time over there with my private interests, and i can tell you that we haven't changed at all in 10 years over there. we're still incredibly wasteful and inefficient and we don't have any of the renewable energy technologies that i believe we need to save soldiers lives. >> this is not oil coming out of canada that is going to be put through a pipeline, through the united states. this is a different kind of oil. it comes from tar sands, and therefore can have problems in the pipeline. transcanada has already one pipeline, it's been around for i think a year and a half, and they've already had 14 spills over the last year and a half.

so a lot of people consider the safety of the pipeline, but that's a pipeline that does not carry this crude oil tar sands. if i understand it, the situation, it's not going to carry this kind of tar sands. and to get the tar sands ready to go through any pipeline there has to be such a use of energy to refine it sufficiently to go through the pipeline that it's going to cause us more greenhouse gases, adding to climate change problems. is that the way you see a? >> that's exactly the way i see it, and i think it's very detrimental to this nation to continue the co2 emissions that we are doing, and will no doubt do with the encouragement of this pipeline. because i believe that ultimately brings about climate change and global instability. and when that happens i think the likelihood that soldiers like myself will have to fight and die in order to protect the

stability of the world, is much more likely. >> the threat of tar sands oil spill some transcanada's pipeline is another reason a lot of people oppose. mr. michael klink is an engineer, safety inspector for transcanada first keystone pipeline, and had those 14 spills, wrote an op-ed in the lincoln journal star, which i would like to put into the record. he describes seeing the first keystone pipeline constructed with cheaper foreign steel that cracked when workers try to will do it. i'd like asking in his consent. >> without objection that i also have a letter -- this is in addition to his op-ed. i also have a letter that i would also ask unanimous consent to be put in the record be met without objection been at my been at my time has expired that i want to thank the two gentlemen, mr. thompson, general anderson for the tesla.

i think we are to be another side of this issue, not have it railroaded through the congress, not have it given the special interest treatment. this is a big decision to we'll be living through the consequences for maybe 50-100 years, and it's the wrong direction it's going to take our nation in terms of greenhouse gases, in terms of carbon emissions, in terms of pipeline safety, in terms of danger to the people around the pipeline, and the taking of the property for those people whose property is going to be taken for the special interest purpose to i yield back the bounce of my time. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate you gentlemen take your time to be with us today. we may disagree on some of this but do appreciate you all as americans to exercise your right to speak to your government and do commend you for being here. i do have some issues with some

of the comments about jobs, unicom we can always argue over the numbers but one thing that i find this really interesting is that if you accept the argument that folks are going, the oil is going to come in and the oil is going to go out to other countries and this is just a pipeline to us in the oil somewhere else, if that argument is accepted, you also have to accept the argument that before go to the other countries it's going to be refined in the united states, thus adding value. to do that yet to add jobs to add that value. and when you add that value, you add strengthen our economy in tax dollars. so i recognize the situation you have a star thompson, being personal and the property rights involved, and i have not personally look at that. but what i do see is significant situation where it's been studied for a long time, and a deeply that there are jobs that are created by having the keystone xl pipeline, and i think a lot of the opposition, not necessarily yours, but others, are folks who do not

feel that we should continue to use carbon-based energy. i think the general falls into that category, and i don't agree with that, coming from a cold rich and natural gas rich area in the united states. i would be remiss if i didn't tell you that i think at least for the foreseeable future we're going to need to use oil, we will need to use coal from we need to use natural gas year while we should be looking at green energy sources long-term, i sort of would want to put us in a situation where our military had to rely on solar panels in order to provide it with the energy that it needs to move forward, certainly something we should look at long-term but i think over the next 20 years we will still need our carbon-based fuels. and with that mr. chairman, i yield back if the gentleman yield back. at this time a recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the witnesses, and i'm going to agree with my colleague that if

you're exporting fuels, the refined product from what we received from canada, exporting is good. the balance of trade creates jobs and such. the real question then comes as to how you refined, not just dashed onto my my college on the other side of the other we attempted to make sure that we did it in a more cleaner fashion, a more safe fashion, and that they oppose this every step of the way. we were able to get a bill out of the house, but we have never been able to conclude that. so i'm hoping that they recognize the necessity of safe and clean refining industry in this country, and the way we can accomplish and meet all of the demands of the country. you know anderson, is that rice because yes, sir pic again, thank you for your service first of all, and that you for being here today. thank you, mr. thompson. it's good to hear from you. i understand what you're saying, and then going to agree with

you. this is my fear. i in for tea so. i'm from texas so, you know, i still believe in fossil fuel. the question is how much longer will we still require a reliable source of fossil fuel in this country? i understand that many of the studies that are published come from the oil companies, and they will tell you that we are going to have domestic dependence for some years to come, and globally even for a longer period of time. i share your fears, that my support of keystone may well simply expand the duration of the time that we may be still dependent. my position is we will be importing because we needed. and i would rather get it from canada and mexico than anyone else our national security purposes, but that doesn't mean that we should not continue to aggressively view efficiency and conservation renewables and alternatives. so i agree with you.

there has to be a healthy balance to be able to accomplish this. and my college on the other side of the fence, fence -- the problem is that you truly just have almost 100% dedication to fossil fuels. as much as i understand that they have to be part of the fix, i'm going to give you a quote from john quigley, former secretary of pennsylvania, department of conservation and natural resources, in making reference to how we explore today for fossil fuels and such. he says we are burning the furniture to heat the house. and that's the caution. that's the cautionary tale to all of us. be realistic about our needs in the future, how we been ourselves from the dependency on fossil fuels. everyone is going to tell you that exploration production and refining of fossil fuels is a twilight industry, but i'm here to tell you that it's a real

long twilight. we can't afford to be caught without an adequate supply and be depending on individuals, countries, that will be in jeopardy and in a flux for years to come. so i do agree with you, and i thank you again for your observation. mr. dobson, i do have a question picked on a lot of complete about regulation and such in this country about its' owners, overburdened at the greatest exercise the governmental regulation is eminent domain, and yet make reference to that. so i want to know, have you been approached by transcanada to negotiate anything regarding some possible use of your property? >> absolutely. >> can you tell me about that experience? >> yes. when i was first notified verbally that they intended to use eminent domain, if we didn't go along with the offer that they have presented us for the use of our property, we

definitely declined to do, enter into any kind of agreement with them. so, they followed up with a written letter, expressly stating that if we did not accept the terms of the agreement that they had sent to us, that day, if we did not accept those terms within 30 days, that they would then immediately proceed to take our land through eminent domain. and my problem with that, sir, they were still in the permitting process at this time. and yet they are threatening me with eminent domain. and they did this throughout the state of nebraska. and i'll guarantee you, sir, that many, many easements that land owners signed was due to the fact that transcanada told

them, threaten them with eminent domain. and there's not too many ranchers, or any other ordinary citizens that are willing to take on a multibillion-dollar corporation as we all know. >> my time is up. i hate cutting you off but i think you, and thank you, general. i yield back. >> i'm going to continue to defer my questions and i'll recognize the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. first of all, general, i appreciate your concerns about global an environment of issues. you are concerned about this pipeline, and its short-term and long-term impact i think is very, you know, is what we want to talk about. do you feel that the construction of the alaskan pipeline in the '70s was detrimental to the national security? >> i think at that time that was

the right thing to do. but different, much different situation, of course. now the world has changed, and greenhouse gases and climate change and world instability, all these things that are much more in the forefront than they were 40, 50 years ago when i contemplated the alaskan pipeline in general, do you think that, you know, the physics of environmental reality and reality of political instability in places like the middle east have changed dramatically since congress voted on that pipeline? >> i'm not sure i understand what -- >> i'm just saying, again, do you believe that the physics of environmental impact, issues like climate change, issues like emissions, toxic emissions and everything else, and the

situations that have historically been unstable in the middle east, that you think that there wasn't those issues, weren't at least if not proceed, weren't reality at that time also? >> no, i don't think that they were -- there were were as devout as they are today. and as apparent as they are today. i don't think we knew back then the impact of co2 emissions. >> that's my point. we might not have no come but the fact is they were still there, wouldn't you agree? >> i would continue that point, yes. >> dvd -- do you believe the use and/or development of nuclear power is a contributing to the national security, or do you think that it is a detriment? >> i agree. i consider nuclear power to be clean energy, and i support it in i appreciate you using that because one of the frustrations

i have as someone who's worked in clean air, is people mixes the word renewal as it is all clean. as you know, another one purchaser of nuclear reactors in this country is the united states government. and i appreciate that. do you belief that the mandated use of ethanol aids in the security of this country and its long-term environmental and economic and military stability? >> not really. no, i don't really believe that. in other words, you go along with those of us that address the issue in california that ethanol is not only a very expensive nonsustainable option, but it's also a polluting option and related issues that would not clarify when the mandate occurred here in washington? >> i would agree with that. >> even those passionate even though those of us in california tried to warn those in washington? >> i would agree to with that,

although i'm not an expert in national security. been that we're getting back to this issue about energy policy affects it. would you agree that giving ethanol all of the benefits or the overwhelming majority of benefits like tax credits, while denying other entire middle options such as algae, the same package them is counterproductive to the stated purpose of national energy independent? >> i would agree with that. >> i want to thank you very much for your testimony, and i appreciate that we approach the challenges. i would ask that the record show the general very clear about the fact that what some people perceived as being environmentally damaging in washington may not be perceived by the general or myself of being, not only damaging but maybe a fully essential for environmental and national safety purposes. i yield back you at this time

around is the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, for five minutes. >> the keystone pipeline would carry some of the dirtiest oil in the world right through the middle of our country. it is a double barrel threat to the environment, pumping out millions of tons of the pollutants that cause global warming, while also risking oil spill's into our groundwater. we have been repeatedly told that approving this pipeline would lower gas prices at the pump, even though transcanada projects that oil prices and its profits would rise because it can charge more for keystone oil in the gulf than it does in the midwest. we have also been repeatedly told to get over our concerns, because the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly middle eastern nations. but it turns out that these

energy benefits may be a complete fiction. many of the refineries with a keystone crude will be sent, say they will reexport the refined fuels. they are also located in port arthur, texas, which is a designated foreign trade zone. this means that when these refineries we export the keystone oil fuels, they won't even have to pay u.s. taxes on those exports. and andy someone asked the president of transcanada whether he would agree to ensure that the oil and refined fuels stay here in the united states, instead of being re-exported, he said no. general anderson, last month canadian prime minister stephen harper said that quote, when you

look at the iranians threatening to block the straits of hormuz, i think that just illustrates how critical it is that supply for the united states be north america. general, do you think that this spill to legislate a permit for the keystone pipeline is guaranteed to reduce our dependence on oil transported through the straits of hormuz, if we don't have some provision which insures that the oil stay here in the united states? >> no, i do not believe that it will guarantee energy security at all for our nation. >> the american petroleum institute has sided our friendly relationship with canada, and polls find americans would prefer to import more oil from canada. under this spill, are there any guarantees that all of the friendly canadian oil that is sent to the pipeline will be sold here in the united states? >> know i'm not aware of any guarantees that will happen be

back so, what i'm hearing you saying then is there's a threat because they are extracting the oil from tar that there's a greater likelihood of a dangerous warming on the planet, and that the benefits if the pipeline goes through our country are not certain in terms of the oil stay here in our country to break our depends on imported oil. and so, what is the benefit to the american people out of such a proposal to? >> there is to benefit. i believe it is a detriment to the american people can summarize why it is a detriment? >> it's a detriment because it keeps our addiction to oil, and our addiction to oil makes us strategically and operationally vulnerable. >> mr. thompson, there was a transcanada originally proposed would have gone through nebraska's sand hills, even if a new proposed route would avoid the sand hills won't it still goes through the ogallola

aquifer? >> well, we don't know where they are proposing a new routes so that the problem. from what i've heard, and what initial proposals they were talking about, it would still cross the ogallola aquifer, even though -- >> what is the risk if that happens if there is a still? >> absolute there is a risk if that happens in it and what would happen to the water table? >> well, if i could quickly explain it, our water table is so high that the pipeline would actually be buried or submerged directly into water. in many places. ends with any type of leak come it's going to go into our water supply be and what would the impact of that be? >> well, it could be from small to tremendous. i mean, you've got all kind of small communities, and like myself, i have livestock watering well, closer to the pipeline. betacam contended, that probably has become virtually useless

been and how do you feel about that in terms of the impact it could have upon your life and the lives of all the people in those smaller communities? >> to put it bluntly, i'm angry as hell. when people want to play political football games with my livelihood. >> we agree with you. we want nebraska, the university of nebraska to have a football team but we don't want oil companies play football games with people in nebraska. we can see how their public health could really be in jeopardy. >> i just think, you know, so in this process we need to take a look at people of america that are actually going to be impacted by this, it's not all about money and this and that. there's people's livelihoods at stake you. and dining thousands of us. and our resources. so that needs to enter the debate somewhere in the process. been thank you for being here. thank you, general, for being

here. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i when i recognized myself for five minutes. and the first thing i want to do is read from a memorandum from carmine giglio, ph.d, deputy assistant secretary for policy analysis at the u.s. department of energy. and in this memo he specifically talks about the issues that mr. markey raised, and that is this oil coming from canada is going to end up export it out of the u.s. and i'm going to read this verbatim. he said them in this memorandum provides data and analysis about a number of issues. it concludes that refineries in u.s. will likely consume additional canadian oil sands well in excess of what would be provided by the keystone xl pipeline. it also concludes that exports of canadian oil sands, port arthur are highly unlikely.

now, when you hear this argument that, as the president stated in his decision not to make a decision, he said that one of the reasons he was not going to make a decision was that he did not have sufficient information to make a decision and congress did not give him enough time. as i had stated in my opening statement, this pipeline has now been under study for 40 months. in the fall of 2011, a supplemental draft of environmental impact statement was issued by the state department after months of public hearings, along the proposed route, the state department issued its final environmental impact statement, and in that final environmental

impact statement between two options, one, not building the pipeline versus two, building a pipeline, they indicated that the preferred option was to build the pipeline as proposed. now, a person just on the outside not paying attention to this, everyone expected they would make their final decision sometime in the fall of 2011. and then all of a sudden announced they said that they would seek a new route through the state of nebraska, and undergo another round of studies that would not be complete until the first quarter of 2013. and that was the stated reason for president obama not making his decision, was that, because of this new route through nebraska.

now, when some of the political leaders and nebraska realized their concerns were being used by the president to stop this project, they had a special session of the legislature was called. and a new law was passed to give the nebraska department of environmental quality the ability to cite and evaluate the new route for the pipeline within nebraska's borders, in have the timeframe frame that the state department envisioned. so, taking that the government into account, the keystone provision that was put into the temporary payroll tax cut extension act allowed the president to approve the pipeline, while the state of nebraska completed its environmental review. the final environmental impact statement that the state department issued in august 2011 was deemed satisfactory of all

national environmental policy act's requirements. and no additional federal review should be required. because the route modification of this long pipeline is in, in nebraska is not an interstate modification, there really was no federal role. and since the rest of the pipeline route outside of nebraska and its evaluate environment impact remained unchanged, there was really no reason for the white house or state department to believe that there's not enough time to make the decision of the pipeline by february 21. i simply wanted to talk about that, because when people hear, o, the route is changing that's why we don't have enough time, but there was a clear explanation of all of this, and i think i clearly stated. in concluding i would just say that general anderson, we generally appreciate you being here. i would also like to thank you

for your support and service to our country. and mr. dobson, we appreciate you being here and speaking out on your personal views about this issue and nebraska is in the big ten now, right or big 12? okay. so we know they will continue to do well. we will keep the record open for 10 days for any additional material that might want to be submitted, and with that we will conclude the hearing, and thank you all very much for your assistance in helping us out. with that hearing is concluded. [inaudible conversations]

>> the senate is about to gavel in for the day. members will be in a period of morning business to give general speeches until 12:30 p.m. eastern when they were recess for weekly party lunches. when members return they could begin debate on a built-in with surface transportation programs. live coverage of all the senate activity here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

gracious god, from whom comes every good and perfect gift, we turn our hearts to you, our refuge and strength. lead our senators today in the ways of peace. plant peace in their hearts, freeing them from selfishness and enmity and strengthening them with generosity and kindness. bring peace to our world, so the weapons of destruction will become tools of construction and people will experience a shared destiny of hope and prosperity.

in a special way, bless the members of our armed forces and their families. sustain them with your everlasting arms. we pray in your merciful name amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 7, 2012. to the senate:

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid:, mr. the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 today. republicans control the first 30 minutes, the majority the final 30 minutes. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for our weekly caucus meetings. we'll begin consideration of a number of matters including the surface transportation bill during today's session. in this country, owning a home means more than a roof over your head. it's the centerpiece of the american dream. for many responsible americans, the dream of homeownership has become a nightmare. when wall street collapsed in 2008, the housing market also

collapsed. that meant free-falling home prices and foreclosures. california was hit extremely hard, michigan, arizona, florida. for five consecutive years nevada led the nation in foreclosures. the foreclosure rate in nevada is 400% the national average. behind those statistics are people, whether it's nevada, arizona, florida, michigan, or anyplace else in the country. statistics are people. families that bought homes where they could raise their families and enjoy life. many nevadans, like other americans who worked hard, saved money and shopped responsibly are now so far underwater they can't see a way out. so who's responsible? there's plenty of blame to go around. brokers sold loans that could never be repaid. buyers bought houses they couldn't afford. banks bought bad loans to sell to investors. regardless of who's at fault.

millions of homeowners who did everything right are still on the hook for a financial crisis they didn't cause. many of them never missed a payment. unlike some republicans, i don't believe the answer is to throw up our hands and do nothing. homeowners who watched their equity evaporate don't have time to wait for the market to reach rock bottom as one republican presidential candidate suggested. congress and president obama have taken action to ease this crisis. not everything we've done to ease the crisis has worked, but we need to continue programs that are working to -- and fix ones that aren't. i support the president's effort to reduce the hurdle to refinancing. nearly 15 million americans could benefit from refinancing their loans at today's historically low prices. i should say low interest rates, mr. president. we must keep those who have lost their jobs from losing their homes as well. this proposal will help them reduce their monthly payments and save thousands of dollars every year. for families who owe more than

their house are worth will help them rebuild the equity they lost because of the collapse in the housing market. red tape should no longer be responsible for refinancing their homes. red tape should no longer keep responsible homeowners from refinancing their homes. some afrblgd a do -- some advocated a do nothing policy. they couldn't be more wrong. here's one example. my nevada posted several foreclosure workshops. people have taken the opportunity to sit down face-to-face with their lenders often for the first time. several thousand have got hen help -- gotten help from caseworkers. they have gotten together to save homes from the auction block. there is supposed to be another workshop in las vegas this saturday. we can't help everyone, but we must do more to help those we can. it's time for more federal action. it's time to give homeowners in

every state the tools they need to hold on to their homes and hold on to the american dream. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i want to make a couple of observations this morning about the bipartisan support that exists for extending the payroll tax holiday. i'll start with the obvious. republicans strongly support extending this tax cut for the rest of the year. americans have suffered long enough as a result of this president's economic policies. they don't need to suffer more because of his failure to turn the economy around three years into his administration. but the fact of the matter is any solution requires both sides to engage in good-faith negotiations. when my friend, the majority leader of the senate, comes to the floor and says that republicans in congress are only willing to extend this tax cut

if they're allowed to poison americans' drinking water, then i think it's pretty safe to say that it it's time for fewer partisan attacks and more efforts to finish the job. when a tax hike that has been rejected repeatedly by members of both parties over the past year is the opening bid in a negotiation, i think it's safe to say that democrats are more interested in scoring political points than in scoring a tax cut that millions of middle-class americans are counting on. when the majority leader of the senate suddenly announces that he's working on a proposal of his own to extend this tax cut even as a conference committee is in the midst of negotiating a bipartisan solution that everybody can support, i think it's pretty obvious where the problem lies. it's with the democratic majority and a president who we thought were elected to lead.

i think most americans would expect that at a moment like this when a solution to a pressing problem is sought, that the majority party bears the responsibility to find it. it's worth noting that in the house the majority party did its work and passed a one-year extension. yet, all we get from the democratic majority in the senate are exaggerated claims, ad hominem attacks, and false accusations aimed at delaying a solution rather than achieving one. and so i would remind my friend the majority leader that the particular piece of legislation he railed against yesterday as an effort to poison people has broad bipartisan support, including 12 democratic cosponsors here in the senate, and rightly so in the middle of a jobs crisis. we should seize every opportunity we have to help job creators at a time when more than 13 million americans are looking for work and can't find

it. the only thing controversial about this proposal -- the only thing controversial about this proposal is the idea of opposing it. i would also remind the majority leader that the federal pay freeze received more than 300 votes in the house and that he himself already agreed to spending cuts during negotiations this past fall that would cover the cost of extending this payroll tax cut for the remainder of the year. so let's allow the conferees to finish their work, get this payroll tax cut extended for the rest of the year. that's what republicans want. that's what the president says he wants. there's no reason we shouldn't be able to get this done. the democratic majority in the senate should be leading that effort, not rooting for its failure. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of

morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i see the distinguished senator from oklahoma, and i know he's waiting to go. i appreciate his courtesy that i might go first. mr. president, i speak in my capacity as chair of the senate judiciary committee. two weeks ago when the senate confirmed only one of the 19 judicial nominations which were delayed from last year when the

republican leader decided to block votes on them last year, i urged senate republicans to join with senate democrats and take long overdue steps to remedy the serious vacancy crisis on federal courts throughout the country. nearly one out of every ten federal judgeships is vacant. throughout the country. that means that people who have to depend on the federal courts, whether they're republicans or democrats, they've got at least a 10% chance of finding a vacancy in the court they want to go over to. nonetheless, i'm concerned that senate republicans are refusing to consent to votes on consensus nominees who could fill many of those vacancies without further delay. these are nominees who have been supported by every republican and every democrat on the senate

judiciary committee, supported by the senators in their home states, democrats and republicans. they are well-qualified judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by the judiciary committee many months ago. and there's been no explanation why they are being delayed. in my 37 years here in the senate, i have never seen anything like this. during the last two months, senate republicans consented to vote on only 2 of the 23 judicial nominees that are out of the committee ready for final senate action. of the 19 judicial nominations now waiting a final vote by the senate, 16 were reported by the judiciary committee with the support of every senator on the committee, democratic and republican. no senator can or should have any reason to oppose these nominees in the senate. in the past they never did.

when you had nominees who were reported unanimously. month after month and year after year senate republicans have found new reasons and new tactics to delay confirmation of consensus judicial nominees for no good reason. i have never seen anything like this, certainly not in 37 years here. these delays are a disservice to the american people. they prevent the senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty. but they're damaging to the ability of our federal courts to provide justice to all americans around the country. regrettably, the last two weeks is evidence of more of the same, a continuation of delaying tactics we've seen for years as senate republicans continue their across-the-board obstruction of president obama's judicial nominations.

by nearly any measure, we are well behind where we should be. three years into president obama's first term, the senate has confirmed a lower percentage of president obama's judicial nominees than those of any president in the last 35 years. the senate has confirmed just over 70% of president obama's circuit and district nominees, more than one in four not confirmed. that is stark contrast to nearly 87% of president george w. bush's nominees who were confirmed. nearly nine out of every ten nominees he sent to the senate. in fact, we remain well behind the pace set by the senator in president bush's first term. by this day in president bush's first term the senate confirmed 170 federal circuit and district

court nominations, on the way to 205 and lower judicial vacancies to 46. by the time americans went to the polls in november 2004, we reduced vacancies to 28 nationwide, the lowest level in the last 20 years. in contrast, the senate confirmed only 125 of president obama's district and circuit nominees. the judicial vacancies remain over 85. the vacancy rate is double what it was in the bush administration. i remind my colleagues of something. in the first 48 months of president george w. bush's term, republicans were in charge of the senate for 31 of those months. democrats for 17 of those months. during the 17 months that the democrats were in charge during president bush's first term, i

was chair. we confirmed 100 of president bush's nominees the republicans worked hard. in the 31 months they were in charge, they confirmed more. they confirmed 101. we did 117 -- and i did this not withstanding the fact that the republicans pocket filibustered 60 of president clinton's nominees in the few years before that. i wanted to change that attitude and start moving judges. so in 17 months -- i think i became chairman in july. up to that point republicans had not held a single confirmation hearing on president bush's nominees. i quickly moved -- quickly moved 100 of them. i wonder when i hear some republican senators claim credit for progress on nominations,

this is not progress. they point to what they call positive action. this is not positive action. it means you have to ignore the 19 judicial nominations being blocked for no reason. i wonder how they can claim progress for the american people when judicial vacancies remain well above 80 now more than three years into president obama's first term. and this after years of delay and lack of real progress, it is troubling to hear senate republicans are already talking about how they plan to resort to the strom thurmond rule to shut down all judicial confirmations for the rest of the year. obstruction has already resulted in the senate having to confirm 45 fewer judicial nominations after three years of the obama administration and after three years in the bush administration we have a long way to go to

catch up in the lower judicial vacancies, a long way to go to catch up to the pace we established during a republican president's administration. so i wish, ace said earlier, that republicans would abandon their rhetoric and do what democrats did. we worked to confirm 100 of president bush's judicial nominees in 17 months. 100 in 178 months. in fact, we continue to tworbg reduce judicial -- continue to work to reduce judicial vacancies by considering and confirming president bush's judicial nominations late into the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008. we reduced the vacancy rates in those years to the lowest levels in decades th-fplt kind of object -- decades. this kaoepbd of -- this kind of

obstruction, the costs are borne by the american people. more than half of all americans, nearly 160 million, live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy. let me emphasize that again. nearly 160 million americans living in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy, and they can be filled today, this morning, if senate republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations to be reported favorably by the judiciary committee. the irony, mr. president, if those nominees can be brought up for a vote, it would be probably be a 100-0 vote on all or most of them. so i think it's wrong to delay votes on these qualified consensus judicial nominees. the republican obstruction began long before president obama's recent recess appointment of a handful of executive branch

nominees needed for the consumer financial protection bureau and the national labor relations board to function. if people are honestly concerned about those recess appointments, there is a simple way out of it. if the president renomination -- renominates them, we'll have a vote up or down within two weeks. the american people will get to see us what we're paid to do, vote yes or no. not maybe. when you block something from coming to a vote, you're voting maybe. actually despite these three years of debate and across-the-board obstruction of his judicial nominees, president obama has not apopponent add single recess judicial nominee. president bush did, but not president obama. senate democrats that year were

set to consider noncontroversial judicial nominations, confirming a total of 205 -- when president bush was here, confirmed a total of 205 circuit and district court nominations in president bush's first term we lowered the judicial vacancies dramatically. when you have senate republicans blocking votes on 18 of the president's judicial nominees since last year, either of the judicial nominations republicans were blocking were reported unanimously by the judiciary committee in september or october of last year. another five nominations reported in november, four in december. all of these could and should have been considered by the senate last year, but let's vote them up or down now, today. it is easy to do that. i suspect most would not even require a roll call vote.

you know, when the republicans held up scores of nominees in december -- and, again, keep in mind many of these are in judicial vacancy courts where all the people within those jurisdictions, republicans and democrats, are being damaged by this obstruction. they said they were doing this to punish the administration for not assuring them the president would not use his recess appointment power. rather than delaying this one or two months, somehow taking revenge on our judicial courts, our federal judiciary. the judiciary has always been thought of as being outside of politics. let's stop playing politics with the federal judiciary. this hurts the country by engaging in more obstruction.

instead of exacerbating the conflict and this destructive conflict that's hurting the federal courts so much, senate republicans should reconsider their tactics, moderate their use of filibusters and stalling. the president has reached out to work with senators from both parties with respect to judicial nominations. every one of the 19 judicial nominations awaiting final senate action has the support of his or her home state senators, republicans as well as democratic. there's no use for continuing to stall president obama's consensus judicial nominees. courts and the country can't afford another year of across-the-board delays of president obama's judicial nominations. mr. president, i think as senators know, i've worked with both republicans and democrats to help them get their nominees

through. they'vedom mean and said they had a nominee they wanted to get through from their state. we've done it. it's a sorry precedent not only for the senate, but a real destructive one for our federal judiciary, an independent federal judiciary, the model really of the rest of the world. if we continue playing partisan penning -- playing partisan ping-pong with our federal judiciary. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i see the junior senator from connecticut here. if he would like to speak, as it is my understanding this is democrat time now, if he would like to go before me, that is perfectly all right. i would ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of his remarks that i be recognized as if in morning business because i do want to talk about the

transportation bill that's coming up. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i thank the distinguished senator from oklahoma for his courtesy and his leadership on so many issues, and i want to particularly say to my colleague from vermont how much i appreciate his leadership of the judiciary committee where i serve and leadership really is the mark of his work there. he brings together members of both parties on so many issues, including this one involving the federal judiciary, and it is, as he has said so eloquently, one of the marvels of the world, one of the historic accomplishments of our republican democracy that we have a truly independent judiciary that exemplifies the qualities of professionalism and scholarship and integrity, and,

yes, independence. we are here today because we have a crisis in our judiciary. it is a crisis not created by our judges but by this body. it is a judicial vacancy crisis because nearly one out of ten -- i repeat, one out of ten judgeships in this country is now vacant. the vacancies are double what they were at this point in president bush's first term, and every time i go back to connecticut, as i'm sure happens to the president in his state of west virginia and to senator inhofe in oklahoma, people ask me yp can't you do better in washington? why can't you bring both parties together and avoid the waste and

the acrimony and the rancor and the gridlock that is the reason for this judicial vacancy crisis. we need to come together and avoid the kind of paralysis that has such lasting and damaging effects on our judiciary. the president has done his work in recommending qualified nominees to this body. the judiciary committee has done its work in reporting many of these judicial nominees to the floor, in many cases with unanimous support. despite that unanimous support, those nominations languish here. as we speak, 19 judicial nominations are still pending on the senate's executive calendar. 16 of those nominations were reported unanimously to the floor, and all but two of them are consensus nominees that

receive strong bipartisan support in the judiciary committee. they have been blocked by the republican minority. they have been blocked by up-or-down votes. they have been denied those up-or-down votes. and that is unfair not only to them but to the american people. it is damaging to this country. it undermines the independence of the judiciary, its credibility and respect. it causes delays in the decisions on cases that vitally affect ordinary men and women who come to our federal courts for justice, and the old saying, justice delayed is justice denied holds true whether it is the great historic cases of this country or the ordinary, mundane , routine cases that

involve injuries to individual plaintiffs or defendants. and it discourages qualified people from permitting their names to be placed in nomination. the uncertainty of those delays. they need to put their lives on hold, when they are lawyers in private practice or judges serving on the bench now causes a severe disincentive that deters qualified people from beginning this uncertain process. outside of washington, there's a clear consensus that the senate must do better. outside of the senate, there is a clear consensus that we need bipartisan cooperation. not just among politically elected leaders, but the chief justice of the united states

supreme court, members of the bar on both sides of the aisle all agree that we must move these nominations. and so i call on my colleagues as the chairman of the judiciary committee has just done to do better. president obama has nominated qualified members of the bar to serve on our district courts, including most recently michael shea of my state to replace judge droney who has just been confirmed as a member of the court of appeals. now, judge droney's nomination waited here on the senate calendar for 130 days despite the clear consensus in his favor, and eventually he was confirmed by a vote of 88-0. that delay in turn caused a delay in the nomination of a district court judge to replace

him. i am hopeful that michael shea will be confirmed expeditiously. we should never minimize the importance of careful vetting and scrutiny when it comes to these nominees, but once that process is complete in the judiciary committee, blocking these nominees can only be bad for the american people as well as for the 160 million americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies whose nominees are sitting on the senate calendar. they should not have their ability to access justice denied or delayed. we should reduce the burdens on our courts as quickly as possible so that our system of justice will continue to be and justifiably regarded as one of the great marvels in the history of democracy, of governance, in

this world, on this planet. our nominees deserve prompt and fair consideration by the full senate, and i am hopeful that the united states senate will do better. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, we are going to be considering today and i think the rest of this week and probably go into next week one of the most significant things that we are supposed to be doing here, and i would like to start off by saying that in endorsing and encouraging a highway reauthorization bill, i want people to know this is coming from someone who is a conservative. i think there are a lot of conservative organizations out there that have mistakenly thought of this as being a big spending bill without realizing

that this has been since its inception back during the eisenhower administration an approach to build roads, highways, infrastructure that is necessary in this country and to have that as a top priority. now, there are some problems that have come up with the highway trust fund, and i want to share that with my colleagues, but first of all make sure everyone knows who might be watching and particularly some of the organizations that are conservative organizations that these words are coming from me. i have probably been recognized as the most conservative member of this body, as much as anybody else has, maybe more, and yet i have always said, even though i am a leading conservative, there are two areas where i am a big spender. one is in national defense and one is in our infrastructure. and for that reason, i say to the chair that i -- when i was first elected back in 1994, i

selected two committees to be on. one is the armed services committee where i could try to keep a strong national defense, and the other was the environment and public works committee. i am now the second ranking member on the armed services and the ranking member of the environment and public works committee. now, back when republicans were a majority, i was actually the chairman of that committee. that's when we did our last bill. our last bill that we did a highway authorization bill was 2005. it was one that went through the process and was very successful and conservatives, liberals alike joined in and said this is a major function of america. this is what we're supposed to be doing here. a strong defense in our infrastructure system is one that's not going to be done by anybody else. it's going to have to be done by us. if we want to make sure that we maintain, which this president has not been doing a strong

national defense with the cuts that he's made -- actually, we could have as much as a trillion dollars in cut in our defense budget over the next ten years, all due quite frankly to one person, and that's president obama. so he doesn't really care that much about defending america, but in putting the resources there. and here's a president that in his own budget has proposed a deficit each year for four budgets of over a trillion dollars each year. now, you would think with these huge deficits that we wouldn't be having a problem in defense spending as well as in -- in our roads and highways and coming up with a -- with a -- a bill that would be a transportation reauthorization bill. the transportation reauthorization bill of 2005 where i was the sponsor of it because i was chairman of the committee was a $286.4 billion bill. it was one that even at that time just barely maintained what

is out there already. and certainly, i don't have to tell the occupier of the chair from west virginia that i have been through his state and there is a lot of room for improvements in the road system, and i know that he is a strong supporter of this. but this is certainly in my state of oklahoma -- it happens in my state of oklahoma, it is tied the last time i checked with missouri dead last in the quality of our bridges. and we have actually had deaths in oklahoma. we had a lady not too long ago in a -- in oklahoma city. she was the mother of three small children. was driving and a chunk of concrete came off a bridge and killed her. i mean, this is -- this is serious stuff, you guys. this is what we're supposed to be doing here. so we had this bill back in 2005. now, since that time, we have been operating on extensions. we have done eight extensions, and it's kind of complicated. i want to explain how this works. if you are relying upon the highway trust fund, the proceeds of the highway trust fund, they come from the gas tax, about 18

cents when you buy gas at the pump goes to maintenance of the highways and that -- and bridges and that program. the problem has been that in recent years, it started about ten years ago that we had surpluses on the highway trust fund. and so other people wanted to get their deal in on the highway trust fund. so we have things that have nothing to do with transportation that are there. that's one of the problems we have, but the other problem we have is that through the efforts to encourage people to use electric cars and better mileage and all that, we don't have a -- we don't have the proceeds that we have had in the years past. i think probably if we had been smart initially, we would have had the highway trust fund funded by a percentage as opposed to a centage. if it's 18 cents, it doesn't make any difference, it's going to be 18 cents.

but if the price of fuel goes up, if it had been a percentage, then we wouldn't be faced with the situation we're in today. so that's what we have, and i applaud -- i thank senator harry reid, the leader of the senate, for wanting to give it the -- the attention, the priority and getting it on the floor so we can talk about it. in a minute, i will also be very complimentary of -- of senator boxer from california. this is something that's kind of interesting, that's unique, really, in transportation only. here i am, ranked always in the top three most conservative members. senator boxer from california is a very proud liberal. you know, one thing i -- i don't mind people being liberals if they are -- if they are proud liberals and admit it, but she does. she is a liberal. she feels the government should have greater controls in some of the things we do. consequently, she is doing essentially the same thing as the current chairman of the environment and public works committee as i would be doing if i had been still chairman of the environment and public works

committee, and that is coming up with a -- a highway bill. but we're looking at it right now, and i have to share with my -- with my colleagues on the -- on the right, the republicans, the conservatives, of what we are looking at. senate committee unanimously, and all the republicans and the democrats all voted for it, and it was a bill because i have to say that senator boxer was -- worked very closely with us. we had reforms in here. now, going back to my comment about extensions, if we don't pass a bill, we have to operate on extending the current legislation, the current bill, the remnants, i might say, of the 2005 transportation reauthorization bill. now, if we do that, you don't get any reforms. so one of the things that we did

in this bill that gained the support of the republicans on the committee and most of the republicans here were the reforms that we have. for example, we gave in this bill, the bill that's up for consideration now, more flexibility to the states. i have long believed -- and i served many years ago in the state legislature -- that the closer you get to home, the more responsible government is. i can tell you right now, giving the flexibility to the states to make these determinations, who are we to say that we in our infinite wisdom and knowledge in washington, d.c., are smarter than they are at the state level? we're not. we don't know the needs like the states know the needs. so we have this situation where we are now giving this this legislation, we are giving more flexibility to the states. we're reducing the number of programs. this is a big thing. i can't tell you exactly how many programs are because i don't have that in my notes but i do know we have reduced the number by eliminating and

consolidating programs that might be duplicative of each other, by two-thirds. in other words, we only have one third of the programs that we had before. that's in this bill. that's a major, major improvement in it. i -- in looking also at the streamlined -- streamlining of project delivery, we have a thing called nepa. nepa looks after the environmental concerns when you're building roads and bridges, and this expands -- this bill expands the number of categorical exclusions available under nepa and allows for steps in the lengthy nepa process to be combined so we can get things done. you've heard the stories, i'm sure you have, problems with everything from endangered species to other environmental concerns that caused these things to drag on and on and on and expenses so much greater. we're eliminating a lot of those

categorical exclusions or increasing the number, so that we will able to get that much more done. we have -- another thing that is -- is in this law, this is very complicated. it's called enhancements. i opposed back years ago when they started putting enhancements on the -- on the highway bill, i've always said that it's a moral issue. when people pay their 18.4 cents a gallon and it goes into the highway trust fund, they are led to believe that that money is going to be going to transportation, to improving the roads and the bridges. that's not quite true because the other deals have kind of moved in so that they're involved with it and they passed this thing called enhancements where 2% of the total highway funding would have to go to what they call transportation enhancements. a lot of people say 10%, it's 10% of the states' surface transportation funding or 2% of the total highway funding.

now, i would like to do away with enhancements program altogether, and, unfortunately, that means we couldn't get a highway bill. we're with senator boxer and with the democrats in the committee, we came up with the perfect solution. you don't have to eliminate enhancements because the solution under this will allow the states to make the determination how they're going to spend that 2% of their total highway funding. instead of doing it for museums and other things that have nothing to do with transportation, you are under the provisions of this bill we're talking about you're able to use that money -- use that money for any other requirements, unfunded mandates and there are plenty there such as endangered species mitigation, wetlands mitigation, 35 a part of every project. so you can take that 2% and apply it to enhancements, you can offset the requirements that are there so for all practice purposes like in my state of

oklahoma, we're not going to have any of that 2% for enhancements. it's not there. we've solved the problem but we put that in the hands of states. and so there will be amendments wanting to do away with enhancements. you don't have to do that now because we've reformed that process. it is a little bit complicated. because you're merely saying that you have a block of money which is -- constitutes 2% of the total highway funding and instead of that going to things that you hear about that have nothing to do with transportation, you don't have to do that anymore. that will be up to your state. however some states might feel differently and if they do, that's their problem, it's not my problem. so that's the type of thing that we are doing in this bill that hasn't been there before. now, if we don't do it, we'd be cutting highway spending down to the highway trust fund receipts, that would be -- calculates into a 34% cut to the

states' road and bridge funding. now, right now to put this into perspective so people will hopefully understand and hopefully listen, we need and we are in the process of getting an additional $7.2 billion in order to be able to fund this bill as we passed it. $7.2 billion. stop and think about that. if you go back to the $800 billion stimulus bill that president obama had, i know that senator boxer agreed with me, more of that should have gone to highway funding. only 3% of it, 3%, went to highway funding. so the money, you're talking about $800 billion spent, we're trying to come up with $7.2 billion. and i have to say -- hate to say this and bring it pup, you remember the $700 billion bailout, a lot of republicans ended up voting for that and right now we're down to the cost is probably going to be leveling out at $130 billion. that's the bailout thing that was passed.

well, $130 billion when really all we're looking for now is $7.2 billion. and you can't say it's not there. as i said when i opened up, this president in his budget was -- has had over a trillion dollars of deficit each year for four years in his budget. and again, that's not the democrats, not the republicans, it's not the house, it's not the senate. that's president obama. that's his budget. that's the way it works. i've often said that when you look at these hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and yet one of the prime functions we have of recognized and highways, we're just $7.2 billion short and i think they've come up with, i want to applaud the finance committee who has been working on this and recognize it in terms of priorities that we ought to be able to do it and they've come up with a package now that again this is not in my end of it, this is in the finance committee. a lot of people think it's all -- that the highway bill is all in the environment and public works committee. it's not.

you've got the commerce committee, the budget committee, the finance committee, and our committee. so -- but that end of it is in the finance committee. they've worked diligently and i appreciate the hard work that's come from the democrats and the republicans on that -- on that committee. now, in the event we don't do this, we'll go back, it will be our ninth extension. when you have an extension, none of these reforms that i've just now talked about, none of them will end up being done. it will just be major cuts in programs. and by only ask this: i would ask any member of the united states senate before you draw yourself into a box where you're going to be posed to this what you need to do is call your oklahoma -- call your state departments of transportation, talk to them about it. talk to the chambers, talk to the labor unions back in your state and see what they say. this is one of the few issues where they're all in agreement and i say, you know, labor,

chambers, all of them, they realize we have to have infrastructure in america. i know that my state's not the only state that has road problems, but i'm more familiar with them because that's where i live and raised by 20 kids and grandkids. so i would hope that we look at the opportunities that we have in the -- in this -- what's called map 21, that's the transportation reauthorization bill that we have under consideration at this time. and that we will take the -- to do the responsible thing. if we do rely, by the way, on extensions our highway trust fund will be totally depleted by this next december. then you're going to have to do an extension, you'll be forced to bail out the highway trust fund. we don't want that to that. we can preclude that from happening. all we have to do is be responsible today.

again, let me just say that this is one of the few areas where back home, not just -- organized labor as well as business, they're all for it, and here you have extremes like senator boxer from california and myself. we both agree that this should be -- one of the two primary functions of government. this is our opportunity to do it, and i hope that there won't be people on the outside looking at this and completely disregarding these hundreds of billions of dollars that in my opinion have been wasted and not pay attention to one of the prime functions of government, that is doing the infrastructure for the united states of america. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: