beyond. but not just write a blank check to keep them here forever. but to change the law and have the procedure in place to detain them, not to release them, and to quickly effectively bring them back to their home country. that's what happens in a much more routine way for illegal aliens from border countries like mexico and canada. that's what happens effectively in those situations. we need to mirror that. we need to copy that and make sure that happens effectively when the illegal alien is from a border state. i wrote a letter to d.h.s. secretary johnson back in january of this year regarding this very issue before it became the current crisis.

and regarding reports detailing actual d.h.s. assistance an in e completion of smuggling illegal alien minors, in that case a child in many cases would transferred to illegal alien parents actually by h.h.''s office of refugee sext in those cases, the federal government was completing the object of a criminal conspiracy, was not stopping the smuggling, not punishing the smugglers, but completing the operation. now again, it's another classic case of sending exactly the wrong message, a message that will increase the flow and increase the problem, not decrease it. and ultimately, that goes back to the humanitarian issue, too, because encouraging human smuggling enriches drug cartels,

allows them to continue to use violence as a means to and he, and it wages war on mexican and american citizens alike as well as the folks involved from central and south american countries. we need to change that basic message. we need to turn around those basic incentives. and the only way to do that is to have the law and the execution of the law better reversing that flow, better apprehending these folks, better treating them huma humanely andt have quickly and effectively returning them to their home countries. that's the only message. that's the only visual that will stop this mounting wave and that will address the humanitarian -- horrible humanitarian problems that flow directly from it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i just came to the floor for the last minute of this debate to support shaun donovan's nomination to be director of the office of mapght and budget. i have worked very closely with him and i know he has the skills and experience to work with congress in creating jobs and tackling our long-term budget challenges fairly and responsibly. in his role as secretary of housing and urban development, secretary donovan has approved time and again that he has focused first and foremost on strengthening our middle class by expanding opportunities for feamenfamilies and communities. for his work following the housing market to reinforcing the age agency's role in providg affordable housing, to ensuring communities that are hit hard by natural disasters have the resources they need to get back on their feet, secretary donovan

has been a highly effective and responsive leader and a great partner to news congress, democrats and republicans alike. and, madam president, secretary donovan's nomination passed through the budget committee with bipartisan support. i'm confident he will bring these strengths and many more to the o.m.b. and his leadership will be critical because while we have made progress on our budget challenges, there is a lot of work yet to be done. so i look forward to working with secretary donovan to strengthen our fiscal outlook over the long term and ensure we can make critical investments in jobs and opportunities to support our families, our workers, and the economy. i know that secretary donovan will be a great partner in addressing these challenges. i urge our colleagues to support his nomination. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on the donovan nomination.

is there a sufficient second? is there a sufficient second to the yeas and nays? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 75. the nays are 22. and the nomination is confirmed. there's now two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the silliman nomination.

without objection, the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. now there are two minutes of debate prior to the vote on the smith nomination. without objection. the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider are considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session.

the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i know that the senator from minnesota was going to be recognized first. she is not in the chamber, so i'll go ahead and then we'll get back in order if that's all right. i ask unanimous consent that i be considered for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. inhofe: madam president, i think it's about time to be talking again, as we did five years ago, about what's happening now that the results are in on what i consider to be the greatest failed policy, foreign policy that we've experienced. when you look around the world and you see what happened and what's going on now, this is kind of, in my opinion -- this may be a narrow opinion but is a

result of what was a, the apology tour that president obama took immediately after becoming president of the united states. i remember standing at this podium at that time and saying you just don't go to the muslim world and say that we are not going to -- i will not make a speech until we have the muslim brotherhood coming in with required numbers. these are not things that were good. this is a deviation from what we've always stood for, and certainly that was a slap in the face to our best friends in the middle east, israel. and if you look at israel today, just two weeks ago three of the israeli teenagers were found dead in shallow graves in the west bank village, and it was such a tragedy. of course reciprocity has taken place since then. hamas launched over 365 rockets

indiscriminately into the israeli civilian population. and i have to say this, i look at some of the things we work on together with israel -- the iron dome, for example, performed very well during that period of time. and also i would say that prime minister netanyahu responded with some 700 or so airstrikes using primarily f-16's and doing it very well. but all of that was taking place, it started five years ago and we've had unrest in that area ever since then. the israeli defense minister said this week. this is a quote. he said -- quote -- "we are preemg -- preparing for a battle against hamas which will not end in a few days." that will strongly support our greatest ally in the middle east and so often we do what we can to directly and indirectly continue that support. in israel, unrest, something that is dated back five years

ago or six years ago. in iraq, the -- we sent letters to the president. this was some time ago. this would have been in 2013, saying when you leave iraq, be sure to leave the intelligence, logistics. you can't walk out. and, yes, we have great trained fighters there in the iraqi security force, but they can't be just totally on their own. they needed to have i.s.r. support. i.s.r. is intelligence and reconnaissance, and this is something that we've got to learn a lesson to make sure we don't make the same mistake in afghanistan. but nonetheless, we did. and now al qaeda is -- al qaeda inspired terrorists returned taking over key cities. isis right now, which is the most terrifying terrorist group

that's out there, they have taken over towns like mosul, tikrit, ramadi and fallujah. i have a guy who works for me as a field representative in my state in oklahoma. his name is brian hackler. prior to the time that he came to work for me, he was in the marines. he actually was deployed twice to fallujah. if you remember, fallujah was the closest thing that we had to door-to-door combat that was like we had in world war ii. and we lost a lot of lives. when i called him up, he had not heard yet that we lost fallujah after they took it over. and he actually physically cried. he said the blood, the sweat, the tears of all his friends, and yet we had that secured and we have now lost it. and we're doing everything we can now, and i am glad that the obama administration now is doing what we asked them to do

two years ago. while we'll lose lives in the meantime, hopefully we can keep the terrorists from having a safe haven in that area. so i'm very much concerned about what has happened in iraq. and while the president continues his assessments which leads me to believe that what are the people doing over there that have been there all the time in our embassy, we're empowering russia and iran to lead and become key influencers in the region. iran reportedly has two battalions, the iranian revolutionary guard core, the irgc in iraq. it is kind of funny, now a lot of people are saying iran in this effort is our friend. let's keep in mind it's iran that our intelligence determined quite a number of years ago that by the year 2015 would have the weapon and the delivery system for that weapon.

well, 2015 is on us now. so i think if anyone out there is naive enough to think that we can depend on iran to help our situation, they're sadly mistaken. so we have a very serious problem now in iraq. while the united states most recently provided some equipment intelligence, this is what we should have been doing and preparing for two years ago. since january prime minister maliki has asked for help, and the president waited until it became a dire crisis. then there's afghanistan. we know what's happening in afghanistan. currently the presidential election in afghanistan has taken place. the primary took place. the runoff took place. but the problem is that it's obviously a sham. the election is not an honest, transparent election. i really believe that there's no greater threat that we could

impose to us by allowing the people of afghanistan to look at an election and find out it's a rigged election. let me give you an example. while we've not taken sides in this country between abdullah abdullah and ashraf, i personally would fall on the side of abdullah and i look at the, it seems like all the real problems in that election end up benefiting ghani. in one province, the zwardak province, 17,000 votes were cast in april. the runoff came along and 170,000 votes were cast. you stop and think about it, that is mathematically impossible. so you know that is rigged. and then while everyone agrees that ghani's support is in the rural areas, i defy anyone to

come on the senate floor and point out an election that has ever taken place where you have a much larger percentage of rural votes as opposed to urban votes. logical reason. rural votes have to walk a long ways to get to the polls and it's something that can't happen as easily. now, the results of the runoff -- listen to this, madam president. 75% turnout in the rural areas as opposed to 24% turnout in the urban areas. that couldn't happen. and it must be, we're going to have to have an audit. and i think everyone agrees we have to have an audit but it has to be a thorough audit. it has to be a transparent audit. we have to make sure the people of the country, when they determine the outcome of this election, that the afghan people know it was a legitimate election and they can rejoice in that. and i think right now, as i think most of us know just a matter of hours ago abdullah

declared victory in spite of the fact that the first county just described showed him as losing. so we have this problem right now. it's a problem that i hang on president obama and his administration because we told them in advance what needed to be done to avoid this type of thing happening. so, we're now looking at a situation there that is one where we can act now and preclude something happening there as is happening as we speak in iraq. well, the -- then we remember the taliban, the things that took place in terms of the five taliban terrorists who were released. you know, we really thought, and i felt all of the time that this very controversial thing, a lot of people wanting to close gitmo, guantanamo bay, something

i discouraged strong feelings against. we need to have that facility and we need to have that resource which i'll explain a couple of things about. but when the president turned loose the five taliban leaders, these were the most brutal, the most heinous of all of the terrorists that were in gitmo. there were five of them. you might remember that the -- they were celebrating in the areas when they found out that they were doing it, one of the top people who was on the other side of the taliban, he said when they released the five, one of them was referred to as the toughest of all of them, and he said -- this is a quote now -- "this is the taliban rejoicing that the president has turned loose five of the terrorists that were incarcerated in gitmo. they say -- quote -- "like putting 10,000 taliban fighters

into battle on the side of jihad, now the taliban have the right lion to lead them in the final moments for victory in afghanistan." we all knew that we shouldn't have, he should not have done it. anticipating that the president was going to do this, in the last bill we passed, ndaa bill we passed before the current one which is on here, we put language in there anticipating that the president, in order to reach his goal and ultimately close gitmo, might take some of the worst of the individuals and turn them loose, so he put language in there that said -- it's in section 1035-d from our 2014 defense authorization act, said the president had to notify us 30 days in advance if he was going to release or make any transfer from gitmo. he blatantly broke that law and did not do it, and everyone was on our side in terms of why we should not let this -- what they

referred to as the taliban dream team go to be turned loose. right now supposedly there is some kind of a deal made where they are in qatar for a period of a year, but even if they were able to enforce that, stop and think about the theory behind this. the president is saying in essence, all right, we're going to turn you guys loose, but you have to promise not to kill americans for a period of a year. because it says for one year, they have to remain under some level of control by a country that hasn't even told us how they're going to do that. consequently, i have no doubt what they are free to go anywhere they want. so we had reviews conducted by the department of defense, the department of state, the department of justice, homeland security, the national intelligence and all the rest of them that say these five people were too dangerous to release. leon panetta was the secretary of defense at that time. leon panetta made the same statement.

he said that these people were too dangerous, as did general dunford. by the way, general dunford who is a commander in afghanistan was not even notified in advance that this was going to take place. so you have all of these things that are going on right now, you have the law that was broken, and i think that my feeling has always been as we're getting down midway into the president's second term, looking at -- he is going to have for a legacy, one of these desired legacies would be to close gitmo. he has talked about that for a long period of time. i think the american people now have caught on because there is a poll, just on june 13 by gallup, 66% of the americans do oppose the closing of gitmo. so this has changed now. why is it important? there is no place else anywhere in the world that we can put these enemy combatants.

see, these guys are not criminals, they are enemy combatants, they are terrorists. when the president came up with the original idea of putting them into our prison system, we had to go and make sure everyone was aware that terrorists are not criminals. they are people by definition. they teach other people to be terrorists. if there is anything we don't want in our prison system, it's for all those criminals to learn how to become terrorists. now, gitmo is a facility -- we have had gitmo since 1903. it's one of the few good deals that we have. now, we pay a little over $4,000 a year for that facility down there. you stop and you see the advantages that we have in gitmo as opposed to the -- all of the -- putting them someplace elsewhere they could either get out through jailbreaks, as has been happening, or if they were to be intermingled in the united states with our prison population. one of the places incidentally that the president first wanted

to send the inmates at gitmo was to fort sill in my state of oklahoma. i went down to fort sill, and they all said look, we don't have the capability here to get this done. so what we want to do is -- in fact, the person -- the lady who runs the facility at fort sill said i don't know why it is that individuals don't understand. she said she had three deployments to guantanamo bay. she says it's the perfect institution for these people. they are well taken care of. everyone, the red cross and everyone who goes down there talks about yes, the health facilities are better than they have ever had before. the food is the best they have ever had. it's a facility we need to continue to use, and then lastly i do want to mention before i completely run out of time, i will jump ahead a little bit and mention the benghazi thing. i think it's important for us to understand. there are four people in our system who advise the president of the united states. you have the c.i.a. director.

at the time this happened, benghazi, that was john -- i have forgotten his name. anyway, the c.i.a. director. the director of intelligence. that is james clapper. the secretary of defense. that is leon panetta. and of course the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. all of those people, all of them said they knew unequivocally that benghazi when they found the annex, it was an organized terrorist activity. and i think right now people are now realizing that was the real issue. it's not who was responsible for it. it's the fact that we knew it was going to happen. our ambassador who was killed gave us ample warning for about well over a month and a half before it took place that it was going to take place. so i think that we understand now why gitmo is important and that we understand the whole reason that this is taking

place, and i'm certainly hoping that we can stick together and make sure that we don't -- don't end up losing one of the most valued facilities that we have in this day of the terrorists by -- by having to close it down. with that, i just want to wind up and say we have got a serious problem, and i think if there is anything that we should be learning from this, it's, number one, we have a valuable institution called gitmo, but number two -- and what's really important is that we don't let happen this year what happened last year. last year we didn't get the ndaa bill until december. if we had gone through december p 31, there would not have been hazard pay. but we ended up at the last minute getting it done. i have talked to both the majority leader and the minority, talked to them about the advisability of bringing the ndaa to the floor of the senate,

and consequently we now have invited members to send their amendments down. we have almost 100 amendments that are already on the floor. so i'm hoping that during the next week we can come down with a specific date, hopefully before the august recess, where we can bring up the ndaa and let the people know, the kids know who are over there risking their lives that we are going to be here to support them and we are going to be putting together an ndaa bill. my time has expired. i see the other party has not yet arrived. for that purpose, i will yield the floor. absence of a quorum quite yet because no one has arrived. i think when we -- going back to the issue of -- about the -- the

fact that everybody had the information on benghazi, i neglected to mention that we also had general hamm who came in and testified before us. again, he was one of them who was fully aware of what had happened. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i come to the senate floor today to speak about the recent heavy rain storms in minnesota that have caused significant flooding in our state. this wasn't a one-day disaster. this wasn't a sudden flash flood like we saw in did he luge a few

days ago or a tornado coming n this was a disaster that occurred over a series of weeks where we had rainfall after rainfall after rainfall from the canadian border downward. it has damaged infrastructure and caused significant crop damage in some of our counties 40% of the farmland is under water. these storms have led to states of emergency being declared for 51 of minnesota's 87 counties. we haven't seen anything like this for a whoil. it tended to be in the past that we had a corner of our state that would see trouble, but here we've 51 of minnesota's 87 counties being declared a state of the emergency. over the past few weeks i have visited many of these affected areas and seen the damage firsthand. the city of norwood young

america saw nearly nine inches of rain in one night dawesed more than $1 million in damage to its wastewater treatment facility. i saw how water-covered roads strained communities, how washed-out railbeds have caused another setback four the rail system and how closed township bridges have further delayed shipments of agricultural products. in southwest minnesota, along with senator franken and governor dayton, i met with farmers who were among those hardest hit by the storms. up until a month, a the same crop and pasture land in southern minnesota that is now completely under water had been under drought conditions since 2011. and now not only are these farmers dealing with damage to crops, buildings and fences due to flooding, but they also experienced losses in the past from a devastating hailstorm. in rock county in southwestern minnesota, initial estimates

indicate 100,000 acres of corn and soybeans are damaged, and the official u.s. department of agriculture number will likely be even greater. the extent of the crop damage is really not yet known. excessive moisture can kill crops altogether or stunt their growth or put them at risk of subsidizes at lower yields. this disaster has repercussions that will be felt for months to kovmencome. i talked with farmers in laverne and mankato who are worried about how they will make ends meet and recover losses. farmers may have no hope of getting a crop out of their flooded fields. u.s. department of agriculture officials are still assessings damage and crop insurance adjustors are out in full force so that accurate reports can be filed. this is a critical step to ensure that farmers and ranchers are not left out of the disaster

assistance process. farmers operate at the mercy of the weather, listening to stories of the great financial risk that these small business ownerrers face every singles day, our state is a state of many small farms, madam president. it makes me proud of the work that we did in the senate and the work that i did as a member of the senate agriculture committee and conference committee to fight for permanent disaster programs with mandatory funding in the farm bill that we authorized earlier this year. if that was not in place, these farmers and as a result our food supply would be facing -- minnesota being one of the top agriculture producers in the country -- would be facing very uncertain future. these programs in addition to the farm bill's improvements to crop insurance, will help provide a safety net for the farmers and the ranchers affected by the flood. last week secretary vilsack visited our state. he was up in the moorehead area and senator hoeven and senator heighheitkamp met with him aboue

conversation issues up there with flooding, which they're one of the areas that has some floodings. they usually have the most flooding. when he was there, he committed to me that the farm service agency will do everything they can to provide any necessary resources and support for our farmers and ranchers. and just yerksd the minnesota f.s.a. executive director informed me that she has directed county f.s.a. offices to immediately begin holding community meetings to ensure that farmers and ranchers impacts by these floodwaters have the information they need because here we have a new farm bill, while it is very similar to the last one, there are new rules in place. they have to make critical decisions about whether they replant, if they can get emergency loans, what they should plant, if their fields have been devastated, including cover corntion and what's going to be happening in the next few months. they need the information. floods have a devastating impact not only on farmers but also on families and small businesses.

the damage that these storms caused will not be undone overnight. there's still a lot of hard work ahead of us, and the long cleanup process has already begun. but we've already seen a swift and efficient response on the part of state and local officials. and in our state, fema may be a four-letter word, but it is a good four-letter word, madam president. when we saw what had happened in grand forks, the nation was riveted many, many years ago by the flooding in north dakota and minnesota. that is recovered. those are booming areas now. you look at fargo/morehead also experienced significant funding. fema was significant in addressing the work to be done there. it's critical that the federal government do its part to ensure that the resources these families, businesses, ant communities need are there. two weeks ago i spoke directly

with the president in the white house about the flood damage across the state and he assured me there would be an immediate federal response. that's why the action by governor dayton yesterday to formally request that the president issue a major disaster dhairgs was so important -- declaration was so important and that's why we sent a letter to the president, our entire congressional delegation, all of the eight house members and two senators, urging swift approval of this request. although work to assess the damage remains ongoing, so far nearly $11 million in eligible damages have been documented in just eight counties. that is, just eight counties. one county has $9 million in damage. this is well above the $7.5 million threshold that minnesota has to meet to get the 75% federal match for those counties that have $3.50 per capita damage. we imagine a the love these

counties will be getting federal help at the 75% mark. believe me when i say that minnesotans just aren't sitting around waiting for help. the hard work of assessing the damage continues this week and is even expected to extend into the following week. and even though the damage across the state has reached a level high enough to trigger eligibility, each county is doing its damage assessment. in some states, as i say, they've had problems with fema. but in our state for the most part, we have been happy with the work they have done. and in my time as a senator, i've seen the 35-w bridge kol larynx i've seen the federal government step in with inordinate help and get that bridge real estate built in less than a year -- rebuilt in less than a year. i saw a tornado come into minnesota and literally pick up a high school like it was in the wizard of oz, the bleachers land ago mile away. in that town, because of federal assistance and alerting the citizens about how to use the emergency systems, because an

alarm system and a siren that worked, despite the fact that their high school looked like a bomb had hit it, a major, large high school, not one person was killed. there was a high school lifeguard watching over 40 little i had cans it at a swimming -- kids at a swimming pool. the sirens went off. the few kids that were left ran over with the lifeguard who had the presence of mind to stay in the neighbor's basement that they dints eve didn't even know. not one person died because the siren worked, people practiced, because they knew what to do. that high school is now rebuilt, along with that high school being rebuilt, there is a beautiful new company that was rebuilt that is in the farming area, in the farming financing area. their company was devastated. they have a basement. all they had was one safe. that day when the tornado hit, there were four employees on duty. they went into the safe.

that was the only thing that remained of that business. when that man rebuilt, he bought a big enough safe for all 206 2f his employees. few things are more humbling than that. natural disasters are humbling because they remind us that nature is still more powerful than all the technology that we have. but they are also humbling because they bring out that best in our communities. what i've seen in our state from those emergency responders diving into the mississippi river over and over again to look for survivors in the 35-w bridge disaster or what i saw in fargo-morehead where a man was volunteering to give out food and lunches at the time emergency center and i said to him, oh, thank you for volunteering and i said, what brings you here? he said, i lost my entire house. and i said, you came to volunteer? he said. it's the best thing i could do with my time. those are the things i remember. what i remember from these

floods across the state again despite this incredible damage, not one person died in our state from this flooding. i think remember again those first responders in the and the normal citizens a this got up and helped their neighbors. we saw the spirit of solidarity when a 911 call came in from a woman who was driving home to inoka, minnesota from sioux falls when her car spun out of control and was swrept away. water was inching up to the windows. state trooper brian buning pushed through the rushing water. he got her out of the car and held on to her until help arrived. the car ended up in a field a quarter after mile away. a boat tried to rescue them, but the current was too swift. finally two firefighters from laverne, minnesota, tied themselves to a semi-truck and got the woman and the trooper to saivment rather than running from disaster, those first responders bravely ran toward it and that's my state for you.

in the face of ice storms, historic floods, tornadoes, even the collapse of the bridge, minnesota doesn't pull apart. minnesota comes together. when disaster hits our state, we hit the ground running and don't stop until we have the resources in place to ensure that our communities are made whole. that means local and state help but that also means federal help. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: madam president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed 30 minutes for colloquy for myself and senator king and senator barrasso. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you. we're here today to talk about energy, energy for our country but also energy for our allies. and this is a discussion not just of energy, but it's about jobs, good-paying jobs. it's also about economic growth. it's about generating cash revenues to help reduce the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. and it's about national

security. not only our national security, but also working with our closest friend and ally, canada, as well as our allies in europe, the european union, and working to help countries like the ukraine that very much need energy supply from sources other than russia. with the current events going on in the ukraine, it's very clear that we need to play a long-term game, a long-term strategy deploy a long-term strategy when it comes to helping our allies. not only, again, in terms of our national security, but working with our allies to make them stronger, their strength, their national security, the national security of our allies also contributes to our strength and our security here at home. so that's what we're here to talk about. we're here to talk about the north atlantic energy security act legislation that we are introducing today.

myself, senator barrasso, senator king and senator murkowski. i'm going to take a few minutes to talk about this energy production, transportation, and export in terms of building our energy future in this country and working with our allies. senator barrasso is here who will be talking about the specific legislation. and senator king will join us as well to talk about the national security issues and implications. so if i could start with the first chart, very simply, what we want to do is continue to produce more energy in our nation, in the heartland of our nation and throughout our country. we want to transport that increased production to market. that includes not only markets domestically but also markets where we can export it to our friends and allies in the european union, to the ukraine, and to japan. that's the simple equation we're

working with. and again, it is about energy. it's about jobs. it's about a growing economy. and it is very much about national security. so that gas is produced throughout our country more and more all the time. right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, and we only use 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. so we're already producing more than we consume, and that number is growing. so what happens? when you produce more than you consume, you don't have a market for that gas. so in places like north dakota, we're flaring off that gas. right now we flare, just in my state alone, $1.5 million a day of natural gas. $1.5 million a day. that's natural gas that we need to capture, we need to get in gathering systems, we need to

transport to market. and we need markets for that gas. this is just commonsense stuff. so how do we move gas from north dakota to places like ukraine, where they very much need markets? well, we need both interstate and intra state pipeline systems. on this chart, you can see that the purple is the interstate. that's how we move gas across state lines. but we also need intra state gathering systems awvment those wells, oil wells -- all those wells -- a lot of oil wells produce natural gas as a by-product. other wells are just gas wells. but you need gathering systems. the blue systems that go to all those wells put in the interstate system and move to markets, markets throughout the united states and markets overseas. as i said just a minute ago, we

produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, states like north dakota, states like wyoming and many others. and that number is growing. we produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year but we only consume 26 trillion. so we're flaring off that gas. we need markets. as we work to build those gathering systems and those interstate pipelines, how do we get markets? well, we move that product to markets overseas as liquefied natural gas, l.n.g. that natural gas is cooled and condensed, put on ships and moved to other markets, european union, ukraine, japan, by ship. but we need the l.n.g. facilities to do it. we don't have them. so that's a problem; right? well, it is except we've got many companies that are not only ready, willing, but anxious to build the facilities.

here's 16 right here, 16 applications of the 26 applications that are pending, many of them have been pending over a year, waiting to get approval from the department of energy and from the ferc. so here we are flaring off natural gas as i showed you just a minute ago, $1.5 million a day in my state, flaring it off because we produce more than we consume, we need markets and these applications are just sitting there, and have been for more than a year. if they get approved, what happens? let's take an example. here's one by a company that everybody's heard of. the exxon company. exxon has an application. as you can see here, they have had an application in for over a year, waiting to get approved. they are at sabine pass, texas, which is right down in that gulf

area. they are ready, willing, and able to spend $10 billion right now today to build that deficit. and, oh, where are they going to move the gas? they are going to move it to the united kingdom so it can go right into the european system. and we'll touch on that european system and how it gets to places like ukraine in just a minute. but if they can get approval, i've already talked to their c.e.o., mr. tillerson, rex tillerson, he recommends within 36 to 40 months of approval they can be moving gas into the european market. does that sound realistic? it certainly does. it is a large company with the capabilities to do what they say they're willing and want to do. here's another example. here's chenier, same place. this is one that did get approval. this is one that did get approval. and if you look, they intend to be delivering gas into the european market by the middle of next year.

middle of next year. so this isn't something that's going to take forever to happen. and you not only have the fact that we can start moving gas over here in a very reasonable -- natural gas in a very reasonable amount of time. but think of the bact on the markets in europe and the impact on russia when they know it's coming. so i talked about -- i am going to ask senator mccain to step in here, but i mentioned just a minute ago that application that i showed you that's pending from the exxon company. they want to move that natural gas to market right here in the u.k., and what this chart shows you is the pipeline network throughout europe that will enable them to move that product throughout europe and even into eastern europe, including places like the ukraine. right now, where's all that gas coming from?

russia. all these pipelines are coming down from russia and providing that gas to the european countries. to the european union, to the ukraine. and of course that makes them dependent on russia. that enables russia to engage in the kind of activity that we have seen. and we can't always be reacting short term. we need a long-term strategy to break that hold. here's some of the numbers. this shows you. not just ukraine, but look at the impact on other countries. nato members like lithuania, estonia, latvia, 100% of their gas coming from russia. think of the leverage that gives russia in this situation. so the last chart. north atlantic energy security. quite simply, we're going to produce more. we are going to cut the red tape

that's holding up production and infrastructure. we're going to redues. we're going to expedite l.n.g. he can port to our friends and allies. countries like the european union, to ukraine, to japan. we reduce the red tape that is holding up production. we're producing 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and we can produce a lot more, but we have got to cut through the red tape. we also enhance and expand our ability to build the gathering systems that moves that natural gas to market, and we allow export -- we have an expedited process so that we can export that gas to the markets we need, to our friends and to our allies. again, this is about energy but it is about creating jobs, it is about growing our economy, it is about the national security of our country and our allies, and it's about having a long-term strategy that works, not going

from crisis to crisis. and with that, i'd like to turn to my colleague, the senior senator from arizona, to comment on some of the national security implications. mr. mccain: i thank my colleague. i would ask unanimous consent the colloquy between the three of us be allowed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i want to thank my two colleagues from north dakota and wyoming. there are no two members of the senate that know more and have worked harder on this energy issue. there are no two senators that have worked harder to try to bring to the american people the fact that if we could export energy to these countries, it could literally change the world. not only when it actualli' reserves, but when vladimir putin gets the -- actually arrives, but when vladimir putin gets the message that within

three years -- and i understand the senator from north dakota's comment. within three years, we could be sending energy to the living rooms, if you will put the number back up of the countries and their dependence on russian energy. that within three years, the people in those latvia, estonia, members of nato would no longer be reliant. and it gets pretty cold up in those baltic countries as well. it can have a significant effect on the entire world. and i would also point out if that energy -- and i would ask my colleague from wyoming or north dakota, if that energy could get to a living room in kiev, which right now the senator showed the different pipelines that cross ukraine and we could get that into the living room in kiev, that has a huge effect, a huge effect. and i would ask my friend from wyoming to comment, you know, we have threatened the russians time after time after they

absorbed crimea in violence of of -- violation of an agreement they made in budapest to respect the territorial integrity of the ukraine, they absorbed crimea. they continued to provoke unrest in eastern ukraine. they have been threatened time after time by the united states and europe, and i would argue that the handful of sanctions that have -- on individuals has had very little effect whatsoever on russian behavior. so i -- i guess i want to just ask the senator from wyoming as well, this is not only about the fact that the united states of america will be an energy exporter, which is huge effect on our economy, but this could have a huge effect on the entire european continent, because if vladimir putin understands that

this energy is coming from a friendly ally, the united states of america, as opposed to them being dependent on russian oil and energy, i would argue it can change the entire shape of the world as we know it. i would yield to my colleague from wyoming. and again, before i do, i just want to thank both of them who have been involved in this issue for literally years. i don't know how many times both senators have come to the floor, and i might just say that i don't claim to be an expert on energy like my two colleagues, but i will say that the presentation the senator from north dakota just made should be understandable and i believe is understandable to every american citizen. how we can within three years, as i understand it, achieve a level of energy independence and that for europe that could literally change the entire equation in europe and the united states. mr. barrasso: madam president, my friend and colleague from

arizona is absolutely right. the three of us have traveled together to the ukraine. we have traveled together to latvia, to lithuania. what we hear everywhere we go is please sell us natural gas. please sell us energy. please help us undermine what putin is doing to us. energy should be used as a geopolitical weapon, and it is the advances in technology in just the last decade that have made all of this possible. the senator from arizona and north dakota are both correct. we are producing more now than ever. they are well aware that throughout europe and through the baltics and to the point that lithuania is even in the middle of acquiring a -- an at-sea platform to change liquefied natural gas into natural gas to warm it up, if you will, for use, and it is

called the independence. that is the name of this platform. it is to give them independence from russia. that is what they are investing in, and now they are saying to us please send it our way. the technology has changed so much, madam president, that in 2005, a book came out called "beyond oil," and it was sent to every university of wyoming first-year student, coming in, invited to read. there is a whole section on liquefied natural gas. at the time, the technology wasn't developed enough for us to be so blessed in the united states to produce it that they were talking about actually building terminals, louisiana, texas, to import liquefied natural gas from other places. now we have reversed it. we are now at a position where we have such an abundance of liquefied natural gas, as my colleague from north dakota said, we're flaring it off, burning it to the point of

of $1.5 million a day the value of that gas. and there is also tax revenue that's not being collected because this isn't being sold. so our states could use the revenue. the federal government would benefit from us selling this rather than burning it, but yet we don't have the opportunity to do so because of the specifics of -- of the laws with which we are faced. we need to change the law. we need to be able to export. we need to be able to have permits to export. we're seeing a lot of foot dragging done by this administration, which is why there are bills on this floor, bipartisan pieces of legislation to help us use our energy abundance as a geopolitical weapon to undermine vladimir putin's ability to use energy as a weapon of his own, a club against -- as we have traveled ukraine, mall dove a, latvia -- moldova, latvia, estonia, all of these areas that are so dependent on russia for their gas and would rather buy it from

us. it would be an opportunity for us in america to become an exporter in a way that would help our balance of trade, our balance of payments. we would bring cash back into the united states, and it would be so much less dependent on the middle east for sources of energy. we should be row lying on that at home. so i look to my colleague from arizona and say you are absolutely right in your leadership and in your direction and in the global view that you have seen and your incredible service to this country, and you have seen the shift and you have seen the future and you know that the future success for our country comes in exporting liquefied natural gas to europe, to our nato allies, to ukraine, and that's why we bring to the floor today the north atlantic energy security act, which we believe will help our country, help globally and help us not just economically but help us geopolitically as well. so i turn to my friend from either arizona or north dakota

to continue in this discussion, and then i will get back to some specific things that are happening around the world. mr. mccain: i would just like to say to both my colleagues, the senator from north dakota, that americans understand, i believe, that we need to do what we can to help our european friends become independent of vladimir putin's russian source of energy, and they also are beginning to understand that the united states of america is going to be an exporter of energy, which will obviously change our dependence on middle eastern energy, on other forms of energy. but the way that the senator from north dakota has described this, i think every american, if they saw it, would say why don't we move in that direction? why don't we believe the major energy companies that say within three years, we could -- and beginning, i understand, next

year with some of it, within three years, we could be supplying these countries with energy, which would then give them not only the ability to have energy without dependency, but it also sends a huge message to vladimir putin and to europe that we are no longer -- that they are no longer dependent on his largess, and there have been times in the past where vladimir putin has shot off the energy -- shut off the energy. in the wintertime. and it gets very cold in some of these countries in the wintertime. and i think it also might send a message to vladimir putin himself that he's not going to get away with the kind of behavior that he has. i just -- i would just ask the senator from north dakota what does it require? suppose that i am just an average citizen. what does it require to capture that natural gas that's being burned for a million-some dollars a day?

what does it require to capture that and then get it down to that port where it's going to be exported? and could i just finally say i intend to go every place i can in america in the next few months and give the same presentation the senator from north dakota did and help the american people understand that we really don't have to do a lot. the energy is there. the question is do we have the national will and legislative will to take the action necessary to get that energy to the people that need it so badly that are literally under the threat of freezing cold this coming winter? mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from arizona for his comments and for his leadership and his willingness to work on this vitally important issue, and in terms of responding to his very about okay, what needs to happen, i want to take a minute to give an overview of the legislation and then ask the senator from wyoming to comment in more detail.

as i said at the outset, i actually have said several times, this isn't about more energy. it's about job security, about the growing economy, about national security. it is also very much about environmental benefits. i showed you gas being flared off a well. this gas is just being flared. not only is that wasting -- wasting a natural resource which recan capture and get value for, but when we capture that, we also create environmental benefits. nationally, we flare or vet, burn off, 212 billion cubic feet of gas a year. 212 billion cubic feet of gas a year are now being burned off. to convert it, it's -- it's billions, right. i mean, it's in the billions of dollars, but i don't have the exact number, but it's a huge amount. it's $1.5 million a day in my

state alone. so you can see we're talking billions of dollars. and so there is also tremendous environmental benefits as well. but let's go to the legislation for just a minute because this i think is responsive to the senator from arizona's question about, okay, how do we make it happen? the reality is we're producing the energy now and we can produce more, and this doesn't cost taxpayer money. this creates revenues without raising taxes. this is going to create revenues to help address the debt and the deficit. this is enabling and empowering the private companies to make investments, to create jobs, make investments, produce the energy. go back to this chart right here. exxon wants to invest $10 billion today creating thousands of jobs and a tremendous amount of revenue for the federal government to reduce the deficit and debt. so it doesn't cost a penny.

that's what it's about. it is about streamlining the regulation, cutting the red tape. that means making sure that we streamline, expedite the process to get wells approved, expedite the process to get wells approved. that's the first area of legislation. that increases our production onshore. we can do it offshore as well. but we're talking about more production in addition to, as i as i said say, we're already producing more than we consume. second, it is about building those gathering systems. but it requires building permits. if you can't build the gathering surgeon general what happens? you burn off the gas because you can't get it to market. so that process is being held up -- again, it is about cutting through the red tape, reducing the regulation and bureaucracy. doesn't cost anything. and the final piece, same thing: getting aapproval to export

l.n.g. right now, there's one that's got final approval. there's 26 applications pending, 26. one has final approval from the d.o.e., department of energy, and the ferc. six have conditione conditional. 26 are pending. so it's as simple as getting the approvals and cutting through that red tape. this is not about spending taxpayer dollars. it is about generating -- mr. mccain: could i just ask one additional question of the senator from north dakota and maybe the senator from wyoming would comment on it, too. what about the environmental aspects of using natural gas as opposed to other forms of energy, whether it be coal or oil or other forms of energy? mr. hoeven: i would respond to the senator from arizona and then turn to the senator from wyoming both on that issue, as well as as more detail on the

legislation. he has tremendous expertise in this area and has been work on it for a long time. clearly it is a double win because not only are you no longer burning off or flaring that natural gas, bus are but ye using natural gas which is a very, very clean resource for a whole range of energy uses, whether it is powering homes or many other use. so it is a huge environmental win. mr. mccain: i'd think the e.p.a. would be out this in front arguing for it, argue for this legislation. mr. hoeven: absolutely. absolutely an environmental win. mr. barrasso: and it is interesting, to the senator from south dakota and the senator from arizona, we were both reviewing this article in today's "wall street journal," headline "in the arctic: shipping route is set to supply l.n.g. to asia. " there is a map of the glab. "shipping companies in china and japan said they would start a regular service to carry siberian natural gas." siberian natural gas "across the

arctic ocean showing how it is reshaping global shipping routes. asia's reed manned for natural garks japan's move away from nuclear power, china's struggle with pollution. this is an opportunity for us to use a resource that we have in the united states and export it in a very profitable way for our country, for putting people to work, increase tax revenues to the states, increase tax revenue to the nation, improving our balance of trade, and the technology is now allowing us to do it, but the government is not. and that's the biggest problem that we have here. bureaucratic federal government that is not allowing what we have and what we have learned to use and the government is blocking it. that's why we come to the floor today to try to encourage additional exports to europe and support the north atlantic

energy security act. mr. hoeven: i would -- madam president, i would turn to the good senator from arizona for any final comments. seeing that he doesn't have any also, i want to thank him and i want to thank the good senator from wyoming. any final comments you might have on the legislation? you've been an author of much of this legislation. thank you for that tr tremendous work and for being part of this effort. mr. barrasso: the legislation is bipartisan. we have republicans and democrats alike who realize there are incredible values us to as nation to be exporting liquefied natural gas at a time when the technology is there, the will is there. wands to get a vote -- we need to get a vote on the senate floor. i offered the amendment before. i bring it again today as legislation. the north atlantic energy security act. it is about that -- energy, security, our economic security, energy security, and our opportunities on a geopolitical stage to use our resources to the best advantage of our nation

and our nation's citizens. so thank you very much, the senator from north dakota, for your continues leadership. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from wyoming and, madam president, we yield the floor. mr. leahy: what's the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the pending question is 2363, the sportsmen's bill. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent to proceed for niefns as though in morning business. -- for five minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: last week i chaired a field hearing of the senate judiciary committee. did i it in burlington, vermont, on an issue of critical importance: preserving an open internet. our committee heard testimony about the need for concrete, fundamental protections to ensure that the internet is not abused by those who control how we connect to the net.

the timing of the hearing was not a coincidence. i convened it during a week when americans were gathering to celebrate what our founders put in motion more than 200 years ago. no one at a time could have imagined the internet or how important it was going to be, but the sentiment and priorities expressed at the hearing would have made our founders proud. we heard from hardworking business owners and consumers about the role of the internet in enhancing free expression but also a free and open marketplace for competition drives innovation. i brought the judiciary committee to burlington to show the federal communication commission and congress that the decisions we mak make on this ie aren't just for decisions here in washington, but they affect people throughout the country. and witnesses at this field hearing warned of how the

f.c.c.'s proposed approach to new net neutrality rules would actually harm small businesses, community institutions, and consumers, the people we have in every one of our states whom we represent. i'll give you an example. the proprietor of the vermont country store. he testified that this company started off as just a local general store in vermont, now as has an e-commerce site. that accounts for 40% of its overall ref niewvmen revenue. but a third of their 450 employees support those internet transactions. these are a lot of people hired in our little state of vermont because they have open access to the internet. mr. horton was clear about his

concerns. he said, we're not asking for special treatment or incentives or subsidies. all the small business community asks is simply to preserve and protect internet commerce as it exists today, which has served all businesses remarkably well. i have to agree with him. another vermont small business owner explained that her company, logic supply, cement money building a -- spent money building a quality project. they spent money building a project, not in purchasing preferential internet access. she ailed i had said without an open internet, our business wouldn't even exist today and yet it's one of the best small businesses in vermont. both of them testified that the success they've achieved with their online business would have been difficult to accomplish if the internet had been a pay-to-play world when they initially launched their sites. think of all the companies

whether in vermont, mass marks or any other state or next year, the year after, the year after, the year after that when they start suddenly the rules are different for them than for companies that ha have lots of money. or a state librarian, martha reed testified about the need to ensure equal access for those who rely on public libraries for their internet access. many of those are people in rural areas. vermonters know the love i have of the library i frequented growing up. i had my first library card there and went there when i was four. i went there to learn, not just to read. ms. reed testified that all americans, including the no, sir dis-enfranchised citizens, those with no way to access to internet without the library, need to be able to use internet resources on an equal footing.

and ms. reed's testimony is supported by former f.c.c. commissioner michael cox who explained that "an internet controlled and managed for the benefit of the haves discriminates against our rights not just as consumers but more importantly as citizens." close quote. these are testimonies from individuals offering a relevant selection of the real-world experiences that have to be heard by the f.c.c. and congress as this debate continues, and that's why i took the hearing 500 miles from the setting so they could be heard. i don't want to see an internet that's divided into the haves and have-nots. i agree with the vermonters who testified. i do not want to see an internet where those who can afford to pay muffle the voices of those who cannot, or an online world

that spends the fast line to the slow lanes. that runs against everything from which the internet was founded. so last night i joined congresswoman doris matsui to introduce the online choice and competition afnlgt that requires the f.c.c. to ban online pay-to-play deals. open internet principles are the bill of rights for the online world. we have to get this right. if we only get it right, i guarantee you, madam president, we will not get another chance and we will not have these companies growing and starting up throughout your state, my state, and all of the states. i see the distinguished senior senator from montana here and i yield the floor. mr. tester: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. back in 2012, the people of

montana stood up against the influence of corporations and big money in elections. by a 3-1 margin, they called on their congressional delegation to introduce a constitutional amendment overturning the supreme court's citizens united decision. that ruling paved the way for more secret money in politics. it allowed corporations to make contributions to political campaigns. on the grounds that corporations should have the same right to free speech as any individual. in response to the overwhelming vote by the people of montana, i proudly introduce this amendment which affirms what we all know: corporations are not people. they do not have the same rights as you or me. two years later, americans are realizing that montanans were pretty forward-looking. that's because in montana we value independence, we value our individual rights, and we don't think a faceless entity should

be able to tills what to do. we don't like it when secretive, shadowy groups tell us how to vote, and we don't like it when corporations dictate our health care decisions. but that is exactly what happened with last week's hobby lobby decision. the supreme court decided that corporations can limit their employees' health care options, thereby restricting our individual freedoms sms. that is un-american. affording corporations the same constitutional rights to speech and now to religion that montanans and all american people cherish is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers envisioned. this is not freedom. it is a slippery slope to granting large corporations greater power over everyday americans' lives. with the hobly lobby decision, the supreme court found that corporations can hold religious-based objections to providing insurance coverage for certain medical care.

the but corporations do not have religions. people -- the first amendment was meant to protect individuals' religious freedoms, not those of corporations. now the religious beliefs of corporations will dictate the health care options of people. h contraceptive care, but where does it end. it is clear that the supreme court is putting the rights of corporations over the rights of people. so much for treating all americans equally. if you're a corporation with money, you can influence our elections to a far greater extent than ever before. now if you've got a corporation, you can influence our access to health care too. or, as justice ginsburg said in her dissent, the decision would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs