account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. our observing systems is just inadequate. despite this, ipcc has continued to say that global warming is continuing to happen." the media outcry from these e-mail leaks was surprising because you didn't hear as much about it here in the united states as you did in the u.k. and other places. it seemed to be the mainstream press organizations who have been partners with the global warming activists, alarmists began to question their competence in the whole premise. here are some quotes. keep in mind, these are from legitimate organizations, publications, major publications that are credible. christopher booker, the u.k. telegraph, "the u.k. telegraph" is one of the largest papers in the united kingdom. they said what has happened with

climate-gate, and they are talking about falsifying information to make the public believe this is happening. the u.k. telegraph said it is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. that's pretty serious stuff there, i say to my friend in the stuff. the worst scientific scandal of our generation. clive cook, that's the financial times, the closed mindedness of these supposed men of science is surprising even to me. the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. that's from the financial times. we're all familiar with that publication here. a prominent ipcc physicist said climate-gate was a fraud on a scale i've never seen. a u.n. scientist dr. phillip lloyd said the result is not scientific. "newsweek" said once celebrated climate researchers feel like used car salesmen.

none of the ipcc's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of the unchecked activist brochures. that's "newsweek" magazine. george mornboith -- he said -- quote -- "it is no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. the e-mails extracted by a hacker from the climate unit at the east -- at the university of east anglea could scarcely be more damaging. i'm dismayed and i deeply am shaken by them. i was too trusting of some of those who provided evidence of championed. i would have been better -- i would have been a better journalist if i had investigated more closely. that's one of the strongest supporters of global warming. last night we heard more and more things, and now we get the

rest of the story. that would be the thing that is most important -- i say this is the most important thing because many years ago, this would have been back about 2002, when almost everyone believed that the world is coming to an end, there's global warming, it's all causing it, they all talked about how this must be true. frankly, i thought it was true at that time until we did some checking to find out what would it cost to regulate greenhouse gases. even if it were legitimate, the problem is destroying this country, what would it cost. well, the first reports that we got were from, i think, charles rivers and from the wharton school, some of their economists came up with it. the range is always between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and this is based off of a regulatory threshold of 25,000 tons. this is pretty tough here. i have a good friend, senator ed

markey, that was in the house with with me for some time, we disagree on this issue. but the last bill that came up, the last legislation that forced tough a type of cap and trade was based on capping these people who emit 25,000 tons or more. now, that's -- that is based off the regulatory threshold of 25,000 tons. only the largest facilities like oil refineries and power plants would have been affected. doing it by regulation what they cannot do by legislation, they have to do it under the clean air act. this is kind of in the weeds but it is very important. the bill that i thought was too costly for the american people would regulate those who emitted 25,000 tons or more. but the clean air act would regulate those 250 tons or more. that's every school, every church, every small shop would be covered, apartment buildings

in america. you stop and think about it. this would never have been able to calculate. no one disagrees with the fact that if we did it through regulation, it would cost between $3 billion and $4 billion a year. for those people listening now, $3 billion and $4 billion a year may not mean too much. every year i calculate my state of oklahoma. how many people, families do we have that file a federal tax return? then i do the math. that would amount $3,000 to each family in the state of oklahoma. so it is a big deal. that's what it would cost them. and while they're extremely costly, the agency is busy doing other things that also include other types of regulations. the owe tkoepb, for example, their -- the ozone, for example, their regulation, hasn't gone through yet, all 77 of my counties in oklahoma would be out of he attainment. that would be seven million jobs

lost in my state, 7,000 jobs. utility mact, something already implemented, that is what put coal out of business. $100 billion in cost, at one.6.5 million jobs. boiler mact, already implemented also. every manufacturing company has a boiler and so they would regulate those boilers. the cost of that $63 billion, costing 800,000 jobs that were lost. that's already implemented. the b.l.m. fracking regulations would be about $100,000 a well. here's the thing on fracking. i can remember when hydraulic fracturing was something not many people knew about. i did because the first hydraulic fracturing took place in phao*eu state of oklahoma. -- in my state of oklahoma. it was 1948. i remember when the last director of the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson,

she made the statement when i asked her the question live on tv, i said is it causing groundwater contamination, she is the one who said there's never been a documented case of groundwater contamination by using hydraulic fracturing. well, the president, president obama, in his effort, in his war on fossil fuels, is trying to stop them. you've heard him say several times, well, we have good, cheap, abundant, plentiful natural gas to take care of our needs, our energies in america. that part is true. the next thing he said was we've got to stop hydraulic fracturing. without hydraulic fracturing you can't get one cubic foot of gas. what we try to do is let the public know the cumulative impact of all these regulations. a lot of people think of regulations as only affecting large corporations. if you talk -- you talk to tom

buchanan in the state of oklahoma, he was recently elected president of the oklahoma farm bureau, and you ask him what the most critical thing is for the farmers in the state of oklahoma, he'll say the overregulation by the e.p.a.. he said the overregulation by the e.p.a. is much more significant to the ag community in oklahoma and across the country than is anything in the farm bill. so their cumulative impact of all these regulations so far is about $636 billion annually and about nine million jobs lost. i would only say that last night they had a good time talking about these things, and the same story was told over and over again using a slightly different sign on it. in terms of the cost, this is the thing. this is the reason that they tried ever since the kyoto convention, the first bill was introduced in 2002 and several of them since then, they were

never able to pass a bill through the house and the senate on regulating greenhouse gases because cap and trade is so costly. but here's the thing that people have to realize. i know right now as i speak there are a lot of people out there that really believe global warming is happening, really believe the end is world coming to an end, really believe that we'reing about to have to do something about it, so we start right here in the united states. so knowing that these people are out there and there are even people in my state of oklahoma who have bought into this thing, when lisa jackson who at that time -- she is not there anymore -- she was obama's pick and was the director of the environmental protection agency, i asked her the question on the record live on tv in one of our committee hearings, and she -- i said let's assume that we pass legislation and that we imposed a cost of $300 billion to $400 billion on the american taxpayer. if that is the case, if they did

that, would that have the effect of reducing greenhouse gases worldwide? her answer: no, it wouldn't because the problem isn't in the united states. the problem is in china and india and mexico and other places. you can carry out that argument even further and say that those people who want to do away with emissions on cap and trade in the united states, that could cause it to have actually more, not less, emissions of co2, because we would be chasing our manufacturing base to countries that didn't have any requirements. if you really believe it, then still it isn't true. and i will end with one more quote. richard lindzen, dr. richard lindzen of m.i.t., the guy we talked about a minute ago, when he was asked the question, why is it so many of the bureaucrats, the very liberals who want government to be controlled from washington, want our lives to be controlled from washington, why is it that they

are so concerned with carbon regulations? his answer was this -- quote -- "richard lindzen, "controlling carbon is a bureaucrats' dream. if you control carbon, you control life." it's unfortunate there are a lot of people even in this body who believe that we should have much more power in the united states senate, and i can assure you the problems we're facing right now are problems because of too much power being concentrated here in washington, d.c.. with that, mr. chairman, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i've taken this floor many times to talk about the chesapeake bay, the largest estuary in the northern hemisphere, a hat treasure declared not only by president obama but by several u.s. presidents. for the 17 million people that live in the chesapeake bay watershed, it's part of their life. from the residents of smith island, which is the last inhabitable island in the maryland part of the chesapeake bay, to those who enjoy fishing for rockfish in the bay, to the oysters, the crabs, the

over11,000 miles of shoreline created by the chesapeake bay, the 150 major rivers that feed into the chesapeake bay, one trillion dollars to the economy, the chesapeake bay is truly part of the life of those of us who are privileged to live in the chesapeake bay watershed. and i've spoken about this bay many times because it is being threatened. over 30 years ago maryland, virginia, delaware along with e.p.a. and other partners entered into a chesapeake bay agreement. now that has grown, mr. president, to six states, including west virginia -- the presiding officer's state -- and other governmental entities and the private sector. the chesapeake bay agreement has been revisited over time, and the most recent effort to update this agreement was a draft

submitted by the obama administration on january 29 of this year. that's what i want to talk a little bit about to my colleagues, about that draft agreement. the development of policies to restore the chesapeake has been a top priority of mine over my career in congress. i've been fortunate to have great partners in congress representing the bay states. together we have worked to develop effective conservation and ecosystems restoration programs in the farm bill, the water resources development act, wrda, the clean water act supporting a sraoeurt of conservation and ecosystem restoration approaches across tkefrpb sectors. the army corps, usda are not the only federal agencies doing important chesapeake bay restoration work, noaa, the u.s. fish and wild will have services, national park services are also important federal partners in the broader effort to restore the bay. president obama's may 2009

chesapeake bay executive order recognized both the national interest in restoring the chesapeake bay and improving the federal coordination of restoration efforts, the cause of a wide ranging involvement of different departments and agencies of the federal government. the coordination of several jurisdictions, hundreds of local communities, seven cabinet level federal departments and stakeholders of all stripes necessitated the development of the chesapeake bay agreement to affirm the conservation goals of everyone involved in this effort. i want to stress the importance of broad involvement of all stakeholders in the effort to restore the chesapeake bay. the populations living and working in the bay watershed must realize that we're all in this together. the major stakeholders in regards to our conservation act, actions include farmers. and, mr. president, farming is not only a way of life in the

chesapeake bay watershed bay, but there are certain challenges as a result of farming as it relates to the sediment issues, nitrogen in the bay and sediments. developers are proud of the fact that people want to live in the chesapeake bay watershed. we've seen a major increase in population but with that comes the challenges of storm runoff. we've got to do a better job of preventing storm runoff, dumping pollution into the bay and municipalities have to deal with how they traoeft wastewater -- treat waeufrt and facilities plants need to be updated so we can have maximum results in removing the pollution that otherwise would end up threatening the future of the bay. the bay agreement outlines a fairly comprehensive approach to continuing efforts to restore the bay that is dependent upon all stakeholders doing their part. the draft agreement is a good

outline, but there is room for improvement in the draft agreement as well. i hope that while the agreement is in this period of public comment that the final bay agreement will be improved. the chesapeake bay program partnership was formed in 1983 with the governors of maryland, pennsylvania, virginia, the mayor of the district of columbia, the chair of the chesapeake bay commission and the e.p.a. signed the first chesapeake bay agreement. for more than 30 years these entities remained committed to the goals of restoring the chesapeake bay as the science have determined and the interest of the bay stewardship has broadened this partnership has since expanded to become a basin-wide effort with all six states in the basin parties to the agreement. working together to achieve the various goals of the agreement is what we will, will help ensure what the chesapeake bay will leave for our children is health kwrur tomorrow than it is today.

agreement does acknowledge it cannot agree every goal in the agreement instantaneously. all the goals are achievable and some, i think, should be more ambitious. they are based upon best science. we think science needs to judge what we can do as far as cleaning up the chesapeake bay. the agreement widely suggests action be taken in strategic and cost-effective manners. we want to make sure that this is doable. we understand the burdens that can be caused. we want to make sure this is layered in a way that achieves best science results but does it in the most cost effective manner. the principles laid out in the agreement, i want to acknowledge the partnership's commitment to transparency and consensus building. we want all the stakeholders involved in the process. we want local involvement. we think local governments know best as to how we can best achieve our results. the goals of agreement deal with very sensitive issues like natural land preservation,

nutrient pollution reduction and others. the process must be fair and open. these strategic development process and achieving conservation goals must be provided in a manner open to the public so that all are included in the process. there is a great deal of skepticism in certain communities about the government's role and its actions to protect and restore the bay. i've heard that skepticism from certain subsequent -- constituencies. i've heard having an open dialogue with stakeholders listening to concerns and answering questions goes a long way towards building acceptance and consensus. the agreement acknowledges the role the bay, tmdl's play. the majority of the waters of the chesapeake bay are within the state of maryland's boundaries. thousands of maryland watermen make their living on the bay. the property value and tourism

draw communities up and down the western shores of maryland not to mention that the marylanders who swim and fish in the bay all depend upon a healthy bay. but there is no degree of action that maryland can take on its own, no matter how drastic that will improve the bay quality, not without the other five states and the district of columbia and the watershed doing their part as well. the tmdl assures that all bay states are coordinated in their efforts to improve bay water quality. the agreement acknowledges the importance of the tmdl. mr. president, the tmdl gives us a level playing field so that we can make sure that all stakeholders and all geographical areas are treated fairly in achieving the goals of reducing the pollutions in the bay. i support the fisheries goal of the agreement.

restoring the iconic maryland blue crab in the bay is important for so many reasons. the agreement sets the goal of maintaining a population of 215 million female adult crabs through 2025. blue crabs are a vital part of the food chain throughout the bay's ecosystem, and they are at the heart of maryland's, the midatlantic multibillion-dollar seafood industry. restoration of native oyster habitat and replenishing the bay's oyster population is critical from both an economic and water quality standpoint. the agreement sets the goals of restoring native story habitat and populations to the ten tributaries of the bay by 2025. the oyster population is a fraction of its historic level. the oyster not only is an important cash crop in the bay, it also acts as a filter to the pollution in the bay, restoring bay water quality. bay oysters are another important seafood commodity for

watermen making their living on the bay. oyster is important to improving water quality. oysters have bivalve monthly -- mollusks. habitat restoration efforts led by the army corps, the growth of oyster farming restorations and virginia farming efforts are helping oysters rebound across the bay which is good for the economy and water quality of the bay. the agreement's wildlife habitat and ret lands water restoration goals are in my opinion too low. i would encourage the partnership to consider setting more ambitious goals. wetland restoration is critical to flood protection and water quality as well as providing important duck habitat and fish spawning habitat. reauthorizing the north american wetland conservation act that i

am a cosponsor of and was happy to see the senate environmental and public works committee recently report with unanimous support from the committee will provide additional financial and technical assistance to help achieve and improve wetland conservation in the chesapeake bay watershed. programs like the north american wetland conservation act, the corps' chesapeake bay ecosystem restoration program and the farm bill's partnership program along with numerous state efforts to restore wetlands and habitat across the six state region are why i believe the agreement can do better. i also believe the agreement's goal to improve fish passage along the bay's rivers and tributaries could be more ambitious. the agreement aims to open up an additional 1,000 stream miles to fish passage. the revision to the continuing authorities program in wrda will help fund critical dam removal projects around the watershed that will improve fish passage.

if the decisions to remove dams and other barriers to fish passage are strategically made this goal could be far exceeded which is why i think the goal should be revised based upon the execution of strategic fish passage projects. this would include improving eel passage on the cono weeko damn. with respect to agreement genomes on forest buffer and canopy i believe there is room for kpwraouplt. -- improvement. it sets the goals of 900 miles of forest for year and extending tree canopy by 2,400 acres by 2025. this seems to be low given the opportunity that exists to grow more trees in urban areas because of how desirable trees are to improving the quality of life and the character of urban communities and tree's

importance to reducing storm water runoff in urban areas. the agreement sets the goal of protecting an additional two million acres of land throughout the watershed. this is critically important to stem important land use planning and sprawl by also establishing lands that serve as critical water quality improvement mechanisms. one emission from this land conservation goal that i think is important is to ensure public access to lands conserved by the state, local and federal government. public preserved for the purpose of protecting habitat and improving the ecosystem within the watershed is important. but so is providing outdoor recreational access to the public. after all, ensuring public access to conservation lands and encouraging people to experience these lands is critically to building the type of public understanding of the environment and developing appreciation for conservation efforts around the

watershed. in maryland we have what is known, and my colleague in the house, congressman sarbanes, has been very instrumental in the leadership of no child left inside. by that we mean education of our children include getting outdoors to understand the importance of the chesapeake bay, understanding what they can do to help the bay. access to these restoration projects by the public, by our students, by all help build the support base we need to get these programs moving forward and also the understanding of what we do here in the watershed, the importance it has on the future of the chesapeake bay. lastly i want to talk about a couple issues that the agreement does not address, reducing the presence or improving the secure storage of toxic chemicals that are in use around the watershed is a growing problem. as the presiding officer knows about the recent spill in west virginia, the chemical spill in west virginia cass not -- was not in the chesapeake bay watershed.

the incident does highlight risk facilities like the one that failed in charleston. in the chesapeake bay watershed there are dozens of facilities that use toxic chemicals on a regular basis. improving security and reducing contamination risk from these facilities should be part of the chesapeake bay agreement. the agreement also makes no mention of the single greatest threat to the bay and the world over, that being to the effects of climate change should also be part of the bay restoration plan. i talked about this earlier today, as many of the senators came to the floor to talk about climate change. the rising sea levels pose threats to the chesapeake bay communities and to the millions of people that live in the chesapeake bay watershed. aquatic acidification poses a long term threat to all species including the blue crab,

oysters, and another hallmark species of the bay. if the fish and shellfish go, so does a way of life for many families around the bay. let's deal with these problems. we have a chance in the chesapeake bay agreement to be more ambitious in dealing with the facts of acidification in our ocean and in the bay. as we must adapt our water infrastructure to handle the effects of more intense weather events in the bay region to reduce water quality impacts of these events and to protect individual properties. the agreement is an important step toward the restoration of the chesapeake bay. billions have been spent and progress has been made and i want to stress that. we've made progress. we've done a lot of good things in the chesapeake bay. but a resource as large and fragile that faces unprecedented pressure is going to continue to take increased resources to restore and protect for future

generations. so the good news, mr. president, is we made progress, we can do much more. we can preserve the iconic chesapeake bay for future generations so people and our children and grandchildren can enjoy the fishing, the crabbing, the swimming and sheer beauty of the chesapeake bay, and can benefit from its economic importance to our region. we can do this for future generations. let's be more ambitious in the chesapeake bay agreement, let's work together, use best science to be practical but let's be on a constant path of improving the chesapeake bay. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: this morning i talked on the floor about energy, about a need for a states-first, all-of-the-above energy plan that will produce not only more energy, in fact, get us to energy security within a very short period of time but that also will help with environmental stewardship, that will, in fact, help us deploy the technology that will not only produce more energy and do it in a dependable, cost-effective way but at the same time that same technology

as we deploy it will help us produce that energy with better environmental stewardship. that's the right kind of plan for america and we have legislation that i've submitted along with my colleagues, both on the republican side of the yield and the democrat side of the aisle, to accomplish that plan, including a good friend of mine, the senator from west virginia, a democrat. i'm a republican. but yet we've been able to work together on legislation, legislation that will empower private investment, hundreds of billions in private investment into the energy sector to produce more energy, more cost effectively, more dependably, more efficiently, more reliably and with better environmental stewardship because it employs the new technologies that not only will make a difference in this country but adopted by other countries around the globe and that means lower cost

energy, that means more energy and at the same time better environmental stewardship. that's the right approach. that's the right approach to a comprehensive energy policy. and the fact is we don't just have one bill then to do that, to do what i'm talking about. not just one big monolithic federal approach but rather we have a whole series of bills that would create a step-by-step approach to a comprehensive energy plan for this nation that would truly create a states first, all-of-the-above approach. it would create more jobs, it would create economic growth, it would create tax revenue to help address our deficit and our debt without raising taxes through economic growth, it would create more domestic energy. and more domestic energy means national security. not being dependent on oil from the middle east. this country does not want to be dependent on oil from the middle

east and there's no reason we should be. together with our closest friend and ally, canada, we can produce more than enough energy for our needs. and that means national security. and as i said with the new technologies, better environmental stewardship. as i said, i've put forward legislation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish just that. this isn't one big, comprehensive, thousand-page bill that you have to pass to understand what's in it. these are individual bills that are very understandable, that are common sense. that's legislation includes things like approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline. as i said this morning, the administration has been reviewing the keystone x.l. pipeline for more than five years. this congress can approve it and it should. it includes things like the domestic energy and jobs act which has already been passed by

the house. includes a whole series of bills that would help us develop a strategic plan, a comprehensive plan and goals to make sure we're producing more energy in this country on public lands both on shore and off. the empower states act, empower states act makes sure that states have primary responsibility for regulating high drawlg -- hydraulic fracturing. it enables us to tap new areas of energy we never thought we would be able to develop. coal ash recycling legislation. together with my good friend from the great state of west virginia we have a coal ash recycling bill. this bill not only will help us recycle coal ash for building materials, for building roads, but it will also help make sure that when we landfill coal ash that it's done with good

environmental stewardship. that's a win-win. this is something e.p.a. is working on, they have to have a solution in place by the end of the year and we've worked with e.p.a. to actually come up with something that's clear and understandable and works. not only to make the landfills safer but to make sure that we can recycle coal ash in a way that reduces the cost of our roads and our buildings. again, just common sense. another example, the domestic fuels act. the domestic fuels act which allows marketers, gas stations, to not only sell oil and gas products but actually makes it easier for them to sell renewable fuel as well, ethanol, biofuels, hopefully hydrogen and other fuels of the future. it makes it easier for them to get permitted and to use the statement equipment to sell a whole variety of different types of fuels. what does that mean? that means consumer choice.

that means more competition that helps bring down the price at the pump. this is the same kind of comprehensive plan that we developed in my state of north dakota. we called our energy plan in north dakota empower n. d., empower north dakota and the idea was to unleash all resources, both traditional and renewable. that is why our state is now an energy powerhouse for the nation. the only state a that produces more oil for this country now is be texas. we're closing in on a million barrels a day of oil and producing it in new ways with new techniques that people thought weren't even possible a few years ago and with a smaller footprint and better environmental stewardship. that's what the technology does, when you create an environment, that unleashes the energy and does it with better environmental stewardship. we did that as a state, we can do it as a country.

it builds on, if you will, the very foundation of how our government works. the states in our great country are the laboratories of democracy. what i'm proposing is that we also make the states the laboratories of energy development. and we do that by giving them the primary role in how they develop energy, how they develop their energy resources and how those energy resources are regulated. so whether it's oil or gas or nuclear or biofuels, hydro, wind, solar, biomass or whatever else may be an area of strength for that state, they decide and they figure out how to develop it. and who's going to be more concerned about good environmental stewardship than the people that live right there and deal with it every single day? states first, all-of-the-above, comprehensive plan for energy development for

this country. that's instead of the current approach that we have, an approach now where too much regulation, taxation and restriction by big federal policies, this one-size-fits-all approach is in fact preventing investment in energy development in this country. i give you keystone x.l. pipeline as a case in point. $5.3 billion investment, not one penny of federal spending but $5.3 billion held on the sideline now for more than five years. in 2011 the chamber of commerce put forward a study, they cited hundreds of project across the country totaling hundreds of billions of dollars that were being held up that would create energy and jobs and economic activity for our country. if you think about it, if you think about it, you can't

regulate -- the federal government cannot regulate our way to a solution. think about it. even if you put out regulations, if the obama administration can say okay, only these kind of energies can be produced and have to be produced this way. if that worked in this country, what about the rest of the globe? this is a global issue. so instead of holding up the development and deployment of these new technologies with regulatory barriers, we need to empower that investment. and as you empower that investment and produce that energy and you deploy those new technologies, you get the better environmental stewardship and it doesn't happen just in this country, it doesn't just happen here, it will happen in other countries, too. why? because they will adopt that technology we develop. that's how it works. when somebody develops a better technology, then other companies, other countries adopt it. that's how it works.

so let me contrast that with what's going on right now. one of the things that i've worked on both as a governor and now here in the senate is getting the keystone x.l. pipeline approved. it's been more than five years, more than five years and the administration still refuses to make a decision. that's defeat by delay. that's sidelining $5.3 billion of private investment. private investment that by the administration's own studies show will create jobs. the final environmental impact produced by the department of state said the keystone x.l. pipeline project will create 42,000 jobs. not o -- not one penny of federal spending. $5.3 billion in private investment creating 42,000 jobs at a time when we need to get the economy going and create

jobs. it also will create hundreds of millions in revenue to help address the deficit and the debt at the local, state and federal level. it also creates hundreds of millions in revenue over many years at a time when we have deficit and debt, and that's without raising taxes. and it also strengthens national security. there's no question when you go to the public and say do we want to get our oil from the middle east or would we rather get our oil from right here in the united states and canada, if we can get it from -- if we can produce it ourselves and get it from canada, is that what we want or do we want to continue to rely on the middle east? obviously that's a pretty easy answer, isn't it? and that's why once again in the most recent public poll performed last week, at least i believe march 7 by "the

washington post" and abc, most recent poll two-thirds americans support building the keystone pipeline. 22% oppose. so after five years, after study after study, the administration still can't make a decision yet two-thirds of americans know what we need to do. two-thirds say, build the pipeline. what are you waiting for? 22% oppose. final environmental impact, i think it's either the fourth or the fifth environmental impact study done by the obama administration. came out again, no significant environmental impact. that was released end of january. inspector general's report released end of february says no conflict of interest by the company hired to do the work for the environmental impact statement. yet still we wait. yet still no decision. so you wonder, why is that? and you look at our economy and

you say, why isn't our economy growing faster? why isn't our economy stronger? why isn't unemployment going down? why is there so much investment capital sidelined? why aren't businesses growing? why isn't small business across this country hiring people? and then you see regulation that's holding up approvals for more than five years. maybe that's the answer. you know, america's always been the place where everybody came to do business, where it was easier to do business. so our economy's always been the greatest economy in the world. but when we have a government now that can't even make a decision on a regulatory approval to approve a project billions of dollars after its own agencies come out time and time and time again and say that there's no reason not to go forward, maybe that's the problem. obviously the people of this country know.

that's why when you go out and ask them a commonsense question, they give you a commonsense answer. build the pipeline. and so you use the arguments about, wait a minute, no, no, no, we can't build the pipeline because of co2 emissions, because using oil from the oil sands in canada, in alberta will create co2. but the reality is, and as the environmental impact study, done by the state department, clearly shows, you have more co2 emissions without the pipeline than you do building it. so how does that make sense? how does it make sense to hold it up on the basis of co2 emissions when you have more co2 emissions without the pipeline than with it? and, of course, the net result is instead of the energy coming to the united states, it goes to china. and what do we do? we keep importing oil from the

middle east. so what i'm talking about is commonsense legislation. that's just one example. i can give you others. earlier this year we passed a bill that i put forward with others. it's the b.l.m., bureau of land management, streamlining bill. simple, commonsense bill. simply says that b.l.m. offices can work across state lines. so, for example, the b.l.m. office in miles city, montana, can work across the line into north dakota and that just made sense because we have so much oil activity in our state. and that they could not only work across the line into our state but also in the reservation. we have three reservations, very large, in our state. incredible oil activity going on. but they have that got tbut thee bureau of land management permits to drill too, and the b.l.m. couldn't keep up in our

state on the reservation. now they can bring people in from other offices to help. so when you look at this, it's not just about producing more energy, isn't it? that simple, commonsense act which we passed, both this chamber and the house -- it's now law -- not only helps us produce more energy in our states, like north dakota, montana, wyoming and other places, but it also helps our reservation. we now have incredible activity on the three affiliated tribes' vereservation. they have tremendous employment, tremendous growth. they're getting revenue from their oil wells that they can use for their social programs to help needy families, to pay for education, to use for roads and vital infrastructure. tomorrow, along with senator barrasso and senator enzi of wyoming, we'll be introducing another similar kind of bill that makes it easier to build gas gathering systems both on reservations and off. so instead of flaring off gas at

the wellhead site, you're able to build gathering systems and get that gas to pipelines and get it to market and use it. again, that's not just about producing more energy. there's better environmental stewardship right there. so by putting these commonsense measures into place, we create economic fifth and more energy. but as i've said from -- economic activity and more energy, but as i've said from the outset, we get better environmental stewardship. and i mentioned the jobs act right at the outset is to have the states first all-of-the-above energy approach for our country but that legislation will help us produce more energy, both onshore and offshore on our public lands. well, that's good, again, for all the reasons i've identified. but think about it in this context, too. by producing more energy on public lands, we'll also create more revenue for the federal government.

without raising taxes, we create more revenue for the federal government. that's important to address our deficit and our debt. but we have something else coming up that we're going to have to find a revenue source for and that's a highway bill. the highway bill about september expires and we're going to have to have a new highway bill and we want a five-year highway bill that's a very strong, well-funded highway bill to address the infrastructure needs in this country. and whether you talk to republicans or democrats in this chamber, they will tell you we need to address infrastructure across this country. but to do that we have to have a way to pay for it. how are we going to pay for it? how are we going to pay for that next highway bill? right now the trust fund doesn't have the money to do it so we're going to have to find a source. well, how about we tap in to more knowledge our federal lan lands, onshore and offshore, and so without raising taxes we've got a revenue source so we can actually pass a five-year pas ey

highway bill. we can use that and fund the highway bill and address infrastructure in this country. this commonsense approach to building an energy approach in our country, and, again, it's not that big, thousand-page, one-of-a-kind -- one-size-fits-all federal approach where everybody doesn't have to do everything that doesn't work, it's a step-by-step comprehensive plan that empowers the states to build on their strengths and make things happen. and we can do it. and it has all of those benefits. and, again, as i mentioned, it even comes down to our national security. and i'll close on this point. think about what's happening in europe right now, in western europe. so we have a situation where russia, president putin has decided that he's going to invade the ukraine. and he's going to take crimea

and he's going to put it under russian rule. and maybe more. we'll see. so what do we do? what does the european union do? well, one of the decisions that the european union has to address is they're looking and going, okay, what's the energy situation in europe? right now 30% of the natural gas that the european union utilizes comes from russia. and half of that goes through the ukraine. particularly acute issue for west germany. so what do they do? are they going to be willing to get tough with putin when they need to, when they're dependent on russia for their natural gas for their energy? what decision do they make? same thing for our country. what decisions do we make when we continue to get our oil from places like the middle east and

venezuela, when we say no to getting oil from canada and force our closest friend and ally to turn to exporting that oil to china how do we deal with china? how are we dealing in that situation with our allies, like canada, that wants to work with us, and how are we dealing with countries that have different interests than we do? see, all of these things tie together to a good energy plan and a good energy policy. we all want better environmental stewardship but we want solutions. the american people want solutions. they want commonsense, real solutions to address these problems. we've put forward an approach that can make a big difference for our country, and i call on my colleagues to join with me and to work to put that in place for the good of our country today and for future generations. with that, madam president, i

yield the floor and ask that -- for a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:.

quorum call:

quorum call: