Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the historical and unprecedented wildfires that burned through southwest Kansas last week. We had fires in 21 of our Kansas counties, roughly one-fifth of our State. High winds and dry conditions caused fires of the highest classification that blazed across central and western Kansas some 30 to 40 feet high, burning more than 700,000 acres of land, making this the largest wildfire in our State's history. The Kansas Division of Emergency Management has said it could take weeks to determine the full extent of devastation from the fires. Clark County, KS, officials--that is the county that was the hardest hit--estimate a devastating loss of anywhere from 3,000 to 9,000 head of cattle. That is just in one county. As I indicated, Clark County was the hardest hit by the windblown fires, with over 85 percent of the land in the county consumed by these prairie fires. This is hundreds of thousands of acres in one county and over 700,000 in regard to our State.

On Friday, I drove south from Dodge City, KS, through range and ranchland I didn't even recognize. What used to be gently rolling prairie, dotted with herds of cattle and crisscrossed by fencing, is now reduced to blackened dust. Friends of mine lost their ranch when a 40-foot wall of fire roared out of the valley over the bluff and burned out their operation. We have unimaginable damage to land and property, but also heart-wrenching scenes of cattle and wildlife burned, wounded, and wandering.

Many Kansans lost everything. According to Sheriff John Ketron of Clark County, 31 houses and over 440,000 acres were burned there. We have longtime friends there, John and Carol Swayze. We have known them for years. John said with tears in his eyes: ``Pat, it took me 43 years to build up this operation, and it took about an hour to take it all down.'' Riding with Sheriff Ketron, we were assessing the town of Ashland, where a volunteer firefighting force managed to save the town when it became surrounded in flames. Some volunteers were fighting fires elsewhere in the area and learned their own homes had been engulfed and lost.

I met with brave people in the towns of Englewood and Ashland, KS, in the heart of Clark County, who had just come through frightening experiences fighting the unpredictable and unstoppable fires. Some were out driving cattle away from the fires and had become separated from loved ones. When the flames turned, they were left to pray for their safety.

Kylene Scott, with the High Plains Journal, calls it ``the worst day of her life.'' She wrote a courageous and honest account of the day. I will read her words now:

I think I had them going the right way, then the wind

switched. Now I just don't know. When I heard the crack in my

husband's voice yesterday afternoon, I knew it was bad. He is

normally the calm, cool, collected one.

A family friend alerted him to the fire in Clark County

very near the Scott farm after we'd returned home from

burying my Dad yesterday.

Coming back from a funeral.

When they said the closest neighbor was being evacuated he

went as quickly as he could fearing for the cattle herd he'd

worked the last five years to build following the death of

his own Dad. I stayed behind with the boys at our house 40

miles away.

When the wind switched at my house from south/southwest to

the north, I began to worry even more and called him. At this

point he was waiting out the fire and smoke in the wheat

field, helplessly watching the house and barn burn. I wanted

to be at the farm so bad, but there wasn't much that could be

done. When he made it home unscathed I was pretty happy, but

sad at the same time. Knowing there was nothing we could do

to fix what it took for Mother Nature mere minutes to

destroy.

Fifty-two cows are on the farm, with about half or \3/4\ of

them with young calves. Most are accounted for. All the grass

is gone, as is the hay stockpile. He went and hauled water to

the cows this morning and some are scorched and others have

udders with burns. One cow was bawling for her missing calf.

``Those poor mommas,'' was my text reply to him this morning.

I made my way early this afternoon to see the farm or

what's left of it with my own eyes. As bad as I wanted to be

down there, a piece of me dreaded the drive. The closer I got

to the farm, the worse it got. Blowing dirt, darkening skies

because of the dust and awful winds. I pulled in the drive,

like I had done a hundred times in the nearly 20 years I have

been part of the family, and I had to stop my vehicle. The

tears came and the heartbreak overwhelmed me.

I thought of the old white farm house with the wonderful

front porch, where my husband spent a large majority of his

childhood in and around. My fondest memory is when we'd stop

and see my husband's Grandma Pauline. She'd always have

something sweet to eat and a cold drink at the kitchen table.

The home had been around for 100 years and still had a large

portion of the family momentos in it. It was reduced to ashes

and rubble. All that's standing is the chimney.

I couldn't see the barn around the trees, but I again had

to stop and sit when I pulled around the corner. The barn.

The old barn with its red siding. I remember when my father-

in-law had it painted and how proud he was because it looked

so good. I remember when he laid the brick in front of the

tack room and built a new door for it. My boys explored every

inch of it when we worked calves last fall. You could

``almost'' hear the horses munching in the stalls decades ago

when you stood in the center alley. Now it's just a charred

pile of tin.

I realize the house and barn are just buildings. Things can

be replaced. But dang, it's so hard to see it all reduced to

ashes and rubble. To see part of the Scott family history,

more than a hundred years, just be gone. Just like that. It's

hard.

We've had incredible friends and family offering help, hay

and feed, and it's heartwarming to know how much people care.

Like I heard an Ashland, Kansas resident on the news this

morning being interviewed, it's just what southwest Kansas

people do. Help and survive.

Here is a picture that was taken on Kylene and Spencer Scott's wedding day in 2009 up here. It is a beautiful sight. Off in the distance is the Clark County Lake. It is rolling hills, cattle country, cattle, and grass. Looking at this picture now, it is not hard to wonder how this land will come back to provide for so many, as it has for generations of Kansas farm and ranch families whose sweat and blood have produced for Kansas, our Nation, and, yes, the world, as well.

There is the other picture. They got married here. It was the happiest day of their life. They saw this, and that became just about the worst day of their life. And yet, having seen this devastation firsthand, I don't wonder about Kansas and our ability to rebuild. It is in our State motto: Ad astra per aspera--to the stars through difficulties.

In one of the emergency management centers I met Joyce Edinger. When I asked her what I could do to help, she just said: ``The Lord will provide.'' She had lost virtually everything. I think that pretty well sums it up. The faith of Kansans gives us courage to rebuild--the courage to come through fire. Ashland banker Kendall Kay emotionally said:

Senator, we are going to need help. We really don't want

it, but we are going to need it.

I am so proud of the people of my State who have come in with that help before they were even asked. I had been in contact with all of our producer groups in Kansas--the Kansas Livestock Association, the Kansas Farm Bureau--who along with our State agencies had been leading the voluntary relief effort. I commend them for their efforts in collecting hay for cattle, as well as monetary donations, coming in from all parts of the United States, and volunteer coordination for repairs to property and fencing.

With Congressman Roger Marshall of the First Congressional District, and my colleague here and friend in the Senate, Jerry Moran, we have been in touch with the Department of Agriculture with regard to assistance that should be available to farmers and ranchers in counties that have suffered losses.

Here is what we are trying to fix. This fellow is walking across here to that bluff that overlooks that valley that Spencer and Kylene looked over, and this fellow here is Chad Tenpenny, my top guy in Kansas. That is me with my hands in my pockets. It is pretty rough to see ground like this that was grass and to look at the utter devastation. Folks, when that wind blows and when that dust starts up again, we could be in for even more trouble. So cleanup is under way, but we are trying to get help to cut through the redtape and get a disaster declaration.

I talked to the Governor this afternoon. Primarily, it is the Emergency Conservation Program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, that are the key programs. It won't make people whole by any means, but it will give them hope. So cleanup is under way.

Kansas is a bootstrap State. It is not just about building new fencing. We have families who have lost the farmhouse and all the equipment they need to rebuild. Many livestock producers have had the gruesome task of euthanizing cattle that have been badly burned. We have to remove the carcasses. We have to find land for the survivors to graze. And we have a lot of uncertainty. How long will it take for the grasses to come back? When can we get rain to avoid a dust bowl? It is really too soon to tell. But we have been through disasters before. Almost 1 year ago, we had the Anderson Creek fire, and we have come through tornadoes and ice storms. Recovery from disasters of this magnitude, however, requires us to cut through the redtape. It requires getting the right information to producers so they know how to apply for aid and then to expedite it. Yes, it requires us to look at our programs to see where we can improve them.

Now, this fire has not received much attention in the national media. You see, we are a flyover State. All we do is produce food and fiber for Kansas and our Nation and for a troubled and hungry world. But I do want to commend members of the press in Kansas, especially photographer Bo Rader of the Wichita Eagle, who took this photo of my State Director Chad Tenpenny and me walking through rangeland outside of Ashland.

The Wichita Eagle has gone out of their way to show the world what this fire looks like to real people. The Hutchison News, the High Plains Journal, and the Dodge City Daily Globe have all told and are telling this story. The same is true for the TV and the radio crews who have helped get the news of town evacuations safety notices to our people. This is what they do.

Rest assured that, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am committed to the Kansans I serve. They know me. I know them.

I know that Clark County and the other 20 counties will come back. We will ensure they get the help they need. Ad astra per aspera--to the stars through difficulty. It is not just a motto; it is who we are.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 115th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Stabenow, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I believe that to continue to delay confirmation of Congressman Mike Pompeo to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency would be a real disservice to the Nation and to the security of the American people.

It was 2 weeks ago that I had the honor and privilege of introducing my colleague from Kansas during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee--a committee I once had the privilege of chairing. More than enough time has passed for all Senators to really acquaint themselves with the pertinent qualifications of the President's nominee.

As a long-serving Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike has the merits for the job. He has the experience, he has the knowledge, the judgment, and the skills necessary to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. Mike is Army strong. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point and then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

After completing his military service, Mike attended Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Because he is an attorney, Mike understands the law, as emphasized by my distinguished colleague from California, a long-serving member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein.

Aside from the many questions posed to Congressman Pompeo, this is the salient point. He will respect the limitations we have placed upon our intelligence services, and he will preserve our constitutional values.

After practicing law, Mike returned to his mother's roots in South Central Kansas, running several very successful businesses in Wichita before making the decision to run for Congress in 2010.

Mike came to Washington with a strong desire to serve the people of the Fourth District. Ready for a challenge, he sought a seat on the House Intelligence Committee at a time when intelligence-gathering methods were under fire.

Again, a salient point, as an experienced legislator, Mike Pompeo understands and respects the role of Congress and the need for vigorous oversight, again demonstrated by the remarks of the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

I know he will provide the House and Senate Intelligence Committees with candid and honest assessments and provide the information the committee needs necessary to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. I know he will also demand that of everyone who serves at the CIA. In so doing, I know--and he knows--the difference between intelligence reporting and an intelligence product with salient input from all within the intelligence community, thus making sure our intel community does not become mired in assessment failure or any political controversy. We have certainly seen enough of that.

There are few positions in government of greater importance than that of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. At a time when democracy and freedom are under assault by radical elements fueled by hatred, our intelligence-gathering services must have a strong leader who will guide their mission and ensure the safety of the American people and not be swayed by any political interference.

We must demonstrate the respect we have--all of us in this Chamber have--for the men and women of the intelligence community by giving them a leader that will have their backs while, at the same time, will demand excellence of each and every one of them. Mike Pompeo will be that kind of leader. I strongly urge every one of my colleagues to support his nomination. We have had ample time for debate. Now it is time to confirm.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, for his very comprehensive review of where we are with the economy and the need for the Keystone Pipeline to pass. As always, Senator Thune in a very articulate manner made the case for our country to become more energy independent and also touched on national security and the stagnant situation we face with our economy.

I thank the Senator for his remarks.

Mr. President, in this new Congress we have an opportunity and a responsibility to address an issue of utmost importance to every American: the current dysfunction at the Internal Revenue Service.

I do not use the word ``dysfunction'' lightly, but I reach that conclusion when I see the agency systematically suppress the political activity and free speech rights of American citizens. I also reach that judgment when I see the agency unable to effectively police its personnel, as seen in the tax delinquency levels of the agency's staff, when bonuses have been awarded to these same employees. These are critical issues we must address, particularly as we in Congress face our obligation to reform our tax system.

The IRS targeting of conservative and other groups that came to light way back in May 2013 is neither a trivial issue, nor one we can ignore--no more back burner. This is a front-burner issue.

We have hit many roadblocks in this investigation, and it is certainly premature for us to reach any conclusions or to make concrete recommendations on how to address the IRS targeting. That being said, we have a pretty clear sense of what happened. In my view, this egregious conduct and the condescending response by the top IRS officials should come to a screeching halt. For over 2 years the IRS targeted conservative and many other groups applying for tax-exempt status with inappropriately intrusive information requests. The IRS also delayed processing these applications, and according to recent reports has continued to delay processing applications. It hasn't stopped--amazing, simply amazing.

When the targeting came to light, senior members of the agency tried to cover up the IRS' actions by providing incomplete and misleading information to Congress about what was being done. Very recently we learned the agency has found tens of thousands of pages of information relating to the targeting. The review of these documents has not yet begun.

The good news is that the inspector general for the IRS has these records now. The bad news is that there are technical difficulties processing those records. The Senate Finance Committee has yet to receive this information as the investigation continues. There is no doubt the review will lead to further interviews with officials in the IRS and other government agencies.

The actions of the IRS and its leadership have profound implications for reform of our overly complex and antiquated Federal tax system. Let me quote from the Internal Revenue Service mission statement: The IRS tries to provide America's taxpayers ``top quality service'' by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities. They are meant to do all this--this is the underlying, this is the one statement the IRS should remember every day--``with integrity and fairness to all.'' With integrity and fairness to all.

Now in the targeting scandal, I believe the IRS is no longer the neutral tax collector its mission states it to be and that the IRS is inappropriately open to a partisan political agenda of the White House and its allies, if not to working as a direct tool or means of suppression to the right of free speech.

The other issue with the IRS also showing its dysfunction relates to the tax compliance of IRS employees and in fact the compliance level of Federal employees all across our government. As of September 2013, Federal employees were delinquent on $3.4 billion in taxes. Yes, that is right--1,500 Treasury employees were delinquent, owing close to $10 million. While in the grand scheme of Federal finances it is a very small amount, it is tremendously galling and sends a terrible message to taxpayers to know that many of these employees were awarded bonuses--they were awarded bonuses--even though they owed back taxes.

Let me be perfectly clear. Any employee who deliberately ignores the process and procedures for fulfilling their tax obligations like every other American must be held accountable. This is a basic principle upon which I think we can all agree. When these public employees serve at the IRS, their lack of willingness to pay their tax obligations calls into question the integrity of the agency. It is unconscionable that there are tax delinquents working as tax collectors.

In these two matters, it is very clear that the IRS is again not conducting itself with integrity and fairness--far from it. The crux of the issue is that neither the Congress nor the tax-paying public can have any confidence that the agency acts in an evenhanded manner or with the best interest of the taxpayer at heart.

This is a very troubling at a time when the IRS's role in the economy and in people's lives has been greatly expanded by ObamaCare. From the very first, the idea of using the IRS to implement and enforce ObamaCare is an anathema to common sense.

It is bad enough now when taxpayers are audited. Nobody likes to hear that knock on the door or receive a telephone call or email after being targeted for their political beliefs and blocked from exercising their free speech rights. But to expand the role of this agency into everyone's health care decisions is just plain wrong. That is a box canyon we should not ride into.

Tax reform presents us with the opportunity to look at these issues much more closely. When we have completed these investigations and have issued reports, I will review the results very carefully to see what legislative fixes to the IRS and the Tax Code may be necessary. Make no mistake about it, I am not going to let this slip from the radar, and we should not let this slip from the radar with regard to the Senate Finance Committee. There are too many blips on the screen--large blips.

I hear from Kansans every day who are fed up with the IRS. I think most Members in this body feel the same way. There is a lot of discontent with the tax system and its enforcement, and there are regular calls for even scrapping the whole collection apparatus. I agree we need to take a hard look at tax reform in the agency.

Of course we have an immediate obligation to take up tax reform, and the Finance Committee will do so, but the question remains: If we are successful in reforming the Tax Code--truly climbing that mountain--how can we turn a reformed code over to an IRS that is so rife with scandal?

The other action we must take immediately is to block the IRS from taking any further steps to restrict constitutional free speech rights. This is why just yesterday I joined with my colleague from Arizona Senator Flake to again introduce legislation to prevent the IRS from moving forward with a regulation project on the political activities of social welfare groups, the 501(c)(4) regulations.

It is completely inappropriate for the agency to move forward with this project until we understand what went on and what structural and procedural changes are needed at the Internal Revenue Service to prevent the targeting of political opponents from ever happening again. Senator Flake and I have proposed a very straightforward and commonsense approach to this challenge. We simply halt further action on the proposed regulations until the congressional investigations into the IRS actions are completed.

The bill we have introduced freezes further IRS actions for 2 years and would make it clear the IRS can only enforce the regulations that were in place before all the targeting began.

I also wish to make it clear that we can no longer tolerate rewarding government workers who cannot be bothered to comply with our tax laws.

So today I am offering legislation to block Federal employees who are delinquent on their Federal taxes--here is the key--and making no effort to pay their tax liability; we will block them from receiving a bonus or award from the Federal Government. If someone is a Federal employee, they should not be receiving a bonus if they are not making an effort to pay back taxes.

I think the purpose of my bill is very simple. If someone is a Federal worker, they should be making a good-faith effort to pay their taxes like everybody else or at least work with the IRS to pay down their debt. Holding Federal employees accountable for their tax debt may even foster public confidence again in our tax system.

Amazingly there are Federal employees at almost every agency, including the Internal Revenue Service, who are significantly delinquent in their taxes and not working to pay their debts. That is wrong. That is not fair. It is not good government practice. That is an understatement. My bill will put a stop to this practice.

It is no wonder, given the IRS's behavior and the behavior of these Federal tax delinquents, that Kansans and virtually every American doubt that the government can administer the tax laws in good faith. The lack of faith in the Internal Revenue Service is an important reason why Congress must rewrite the Tax Code, simplify how we pay taxes, and reduce the government's intrusion into economic and other affairs of the public.

We don't need the IRS regulating constitutionally guaranteed free speech and muzzling lawful political activity. We also do not need to reward Federal employees who do not even make the most minimal effort to pay their tax debt and then give them bonuses. The hypocrisy of IRS agents getting bonuses when they don't pay their taxes has to stop.

Finally, there are other issues at the Internal Revenue Service. There was a recent statement by the IRS Commissioner warning-- threatening--the tax-paying public, during tax-filing season no less, that the agency is drastically cutting taxpayer service functions. I am talking about answering calls, tax return help, and other programs that assist the average American to fulfill their tax obligation.

The Commissioner blames the budget sequester. I understand that. Every Federal agency is now upset about the sequester. I am upset about the sequester with regard to our national security and the spending caps setting these cuts. The IRS Commissioner is upset about that as well. That is beyond amazing when we have learned that the agency has made so many poor decisions, such as entering into a contract with the IT company that was just fired by Massachusetts, Vermont, and the Department of Health and Human Services for its failure in implementing the healthcare.gov Web site. The historic rollout was a total disaster. I expect we will get into this in detail next week when the Commissioner comes before the Finance Committee. I am going to be asking him questions about the same topics I brought up in these remarks.

In the meantime, just a suggestion to the IRS--from the Commissioner on down--take a hard look at the mission statement, concentrate on serving the taxpayer, stop threatening the American public with the loss of service, and try to do the best you can in a most difficult budget environment.

We have an obligation to have the IRS serve with integrity and fairness to the American public, and that is not happening now. Let's work together to make sure it does happen.

I yield the floor, and after careful inspection, it appears to me we do not have a quorum present. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Stabenow, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, he indicated this was his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. If that is so, I urge him to make additional speeches. I don't think I ever heard a more concise summary with regard to the pipeline issue than he just gave. We can certainly see why the people of Louisiana sent him here. It was perfect, it was cogent, and it was short. It was interesting. He had a bill very similar to this and Senator Cassidy passed it in the House and he is now in the Senate. We hope that with enough debate we can have truly

a bipartisan effort with comity. This is a new beginning. We are so happy to have the Senator here. I thank him for his remarks.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I rise today to talk about a problem that affects virtually every American, and that would be government regulations; to be more accurate, government overregulation.

Let me point out something. In 2014, the administration issued 3,541 rules in 1 year. That cost $181 billion. The first week of this new year brought us 35 new rules which added another 1,326 pages to the Federal Register. I would urge people back home in the business community or any other endeavor in which they are bothered by regulations to read the Federal Register as opposed to the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record deals with natural gas. The Federal Register deals with facts and regulations.

Yet just last night we learned that President Obama has threatened to veto a significant regulatory reform proposal now being considered by the House of Representatives. It is interesting to me that the President is now threatening to veto his own ideas. Back in January of 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order. It was entitled ``Improve Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' That is in quotes. Unfortunately, despite claims otherwise, the Executive order has largely been ignored.

My bill takes this order and gives it the force of law. My bill would require that all regulations put forth by the current and future administrations consider the economic burden on American businesses and ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, thus promoting innovation and new jobs.

Just as the President said in his order, this egregious assault on our economy must stop; it must end.

Like many of my colleagues, I have had a longstanding concern with the regulatory process. Like other States, from every corner of Kansas, the No. 1 topic of concern for all businesses, including agriculture, energy, small shops on Main Street, healthcare, education, lending-- virtually every enterprise is harmed by overly burdensome and costly regulations. Whether it is the EPA'S Waters of the United States proposed rule or listing of the infamous lesser prairie chicken as an endangered species, the public is losing faith in our government.

Obamacare is a prime example of this administration's vast regulatory overreach. The bill, as signed into law by the President, as most of us know, was no short read. It was over 2,000 pages. But as the rollout continues, the administration has now expanded Obamacare into over 24,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register.

Here is one example of the overly intrusive regulations this administration used the Affordable Health Care Act to implement. It is Health and Human Services' mandate requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and emergency contraceptives.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had to intervene and determine that the HHS mandate placed an excessive burden on the religious freedom of owners of family business.

Regrettably, costly and intrusive regulations are not limited to HHS and Obamacare and CMS and all of those regulations. Not to be outdone by HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency has its own set of overly burdensome regulations.

Let's take the proposed Waters of the United States rule. For example, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas knows, this proposal has caused a firestorm of opposition all throughout farm country. The EPA claims that the proposed Waters of the United States rule simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.

Well, therein lies the problem.

Farmers and ranchers do not believe it. I don't believe it. They fear the rule would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property under the guise of the Clean Water Act.

If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary field work, construction of a fence, or even planting crops near certain waters.

Kansans are justifiably worried the permits would be time consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimate deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal cropping practices.

This is another prime example of why many Kansans feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation. Simply put, they feel ruled, not governed.

Let's not forget the burdensome carbon regulations now being proposed by the EPA. Over the last 6 years, this administration's EPA has pursued an agenda that can only be described as a war on fossil fuels and coal.

Just last week, in fact, the EPA announced that by June of this year it would finalize carbon reduction rules for both new and existing powerplants. That is going to be a move that will drive up the energy cost for all Kansans, all Americans, hoping to heat their homes during extremely cold winters or hot summers such as the ones we are experiencing now.

This decision, which the EPA itself admitted would do nothing to reduce global temperature if similar plans are not adopted by Russia, China, India and Brazil, will have unbelievable costs. According to a recent study about the American Action Forum which cites the administration's own estimates these rules are anticipated to cost industry $8.8 billion to comply. That translates into a 6-percent rise in electricity prices. Sadly, these regulations will hurt low-income individuals the most--folks who can least afford it and who spend a greater percentage of their income to heat their homes and feed their families.

Now let's look at what the Department of Labor is trying to do with President Obama's pen-and-paper dictates. Currently the Department of Labor has a regulation to eliminate the companion care exemption put forth by this body 40 years ago. This important exemption allows seniors and the disabled community access to affordable in-home care. If eliminated, those who need in-home care the most, and their families, would be forced to determine which hours are the most crucial in the day they receive assistance. In addition, caregivers who currently work over 40 hours would see their hours and paychecks cut because of this rule.

As the Department of Labor issued this rule and geared up for implementation on January 1 of this year, benefit recipients, individual States, and Members of this Chamber stood together to shine a light on the negative effects this would have on communities all across the Nation.

At the same time, a judge issued a partial determination on this regulation, and he stated the following:

The fact that the Department issued its Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking after all six of these bills failed to move is

nothing short of yet another thinly-veiled effort to do

through regulation what could not be done

through legislation. Such conduct bespeaks an arrogance to

not only disregard Congress's intent but seize unprecedented

authority to impose overtime and minimum wage requirements in

defiance of the plain language of Section 213. It cannot

stand.

My legislation addresses these abuses. Far too often the good intentions of regulations lead to job loss and red-tape that strangles business. Worse still, the agenda of bureaucrats drives bad policies and stifles economy.

I have a solution. My comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the cost of regulations. It is as simple as that.

We need to be listening to the folks as well who have to live with and pay for the effects of these rules. I am hearing from stakeholders that they are weighing the time and expense of responding to regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input. Bottom line, fewer Americans are bothering to participate in the comment period process.

Stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. Right now, time varies on how long the comment period stays open. Sometimes it is as little as 2 weeks. My bill would ensure the period stay open for at least 60 days. My colleagues, as we all well know, sometimes the people who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject to the changes.

My bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements to the public. Right now, just the opposite takes place. The administration skirts stakeholder input by issuing interim final rules--called IFRs--and they become effective immediately upon publication. My bill allows delay of implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court makes a decision. All too often new regulations are proposed and finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced.

I have heard from a lot of folks in Kansas that the problems these new regulations claim to fix could be solved if the current regulations were properly monitored. Simply put, the solution is not more rules and regulations; it is considering the existing ones.

My bill mandates an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome rules--or, as the President himself once put it, ``rules that are just plain dumb''--and allows agencies to streamline, expand, or repeal those regulations.

We need regulatory reform. My bill codifies the President's Executive order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. I do not know how the President could disagree with that.

The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Farm Bureau, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have all endorsed my bill.

Last year I had 35 cosponsors. We have about thirteen. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and stay engaged as this process continues.

I rise today to talk about a problem that affects virtually every American, and that would be government regulations; to be more accurate, government overregulation.

Let me point out something. In 2014, the administration issued 3,541 rules in 1 year. That cost $181 billion. The first week of this new year brought us 35 new rules which added another 1,326 pages to the Federal Register. I would urge people back home in the business community or any other endeavor in which they are bothered by regulations to read the Federal Register as opposed to the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record deals with natural gas. The Federal Register deals with facts and regulations.

Yet just last night we learned that President Obama has threatened to veto a significant regulatory reform proposal now being considered by the House of Representatives. It is interesting to me that the President is now threatening to veto his own ideas. Back in January of 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order. It was entitled ``Improve Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' That is in quotes. Unfortunately, despite claims otherwise, the Executive order has largely been ignored.

My bill takes this order and gives it the force of law. My bill would require that all regulations put forth by the current and future administrations consider the economic burden on American businesses and ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, thus promoting innovation and new jobs.

Just as the President said in his order, this egregious assault on our economy must stop; it must end.

Like many of my colleagues, I have had a longstanding concern with the regulatory process. Like other States, from every corner of Kansas, the No. 1 topic of concern for all businesses, including agriculture, energy, small shops on Main Street, healthcare, education, lending-- virtually every enterprise is harmed by overly burdensome and costly regulations. Whether it is the EPA'S Waters of the United States proposed rule or listing of the infamous lesser prairie chicken as an endangered species, the public is losing faith in our government.

Obamacare is a prime example of this administration's vast regulatory overreach. The bill, as signed into law by the President, as most of us know, was no short read. It was over 2,000 pages. But as the rollout continues, the administration has now expanded Obamacare into over 24,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register.

Here is one example of the overly intrusive regulations this administration used the Affordable Health Care Act to implement. It is Health and Human Services' mandate requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and emergency contraceptives.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had to intervene and determine that the HHS mandate placed an excessive burden on the religious freedom of owners of family business.

Regrettably, costly and intrusive regulations are not limited to HHS and Obamacare and CMS and all of those regulations. Not to be outdone by HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency has its own set of overly burdensome regulations.

Let's take the proposed Waters of the United States rule. For example, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas knows, this proposal has caused a firestorm of opposition all throughout farm country. The EPA claims that the proposed Waters of the United States rule simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.

Well, therein lies the problem.

Farmers and ranchers do not believe it. I don't believe it. They fear the rule would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property under the guise of the Clean Water Act.

If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary field work, construction of a fence, or even planting crops near certain waters.

Kansans are justifiably worried the permits would be time consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimate deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal cropping practices.

This is another prime example of why many Kansans feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation. Simply put, they feel ruled, not governed.

Let's not forget the burdensome carbon regulations now being proposed by the EPA. Over the last 6 years, this administration's EPA has pursued an agenda that can only be described as a war on fossil fuels and coal.

Just last week, in fact, the EPA announced that by June of this year it would finalize carbon reduction rules for both new and existing powerplants. That is going to be a move that will drive up the energy cost for all Kansans, all Americans, hoping to heat their homes during extremely cold winters or hot summers such as the ones we are experiencing now.

This decision, which the EPA itself admitted would do nothing to reduce global temperature if similar plans are not adopted by Russia, China, India and Brazil, will have unbelievable costs. According to a recent study about the American Action Forum which cites the administration's own estimates these rules are anticipated to cost industry $8.8 billion to comply. That translates into a 6-percent rise in electricity prices. Sadly, these regulations will hurt low-income individuals the most--folks who can least afford it and who spend a greater percentage of their income to heat their homes and feed their families.

Now let's look at what the Department of Labor is trying to do with President Obama's pen-and-paper dictates. Currently the Department of Labor has a regulation to eliminate the companion care exemption put forth by this body 40 years ago. This important exemption allows seniors and the disabled community access to affordable in-home care. If eliminated, those who need in-home care the most, and their families, would be forced to determine which hours are the most crucial in the day they receive assistance. In addition, caregivers who currently work over 40 hours would see their hours and paychecks cut because of this rule.

As the Department of Labor issued this rule and geared up for implementation on January 1 of this year, benefit recipients, individual States, and Members of this Chamber stood together to shine a light on the negative effects this would have on communities all across the Nation.

At the same time, a judge issued a partial determination on this regulation, and he stated the following:

The fact that the Department issued its Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking after all six of these bills failed to move is

nothing short of yet another thinly-veiled effort to do

through regulation what could not be done

through legislation. Such conduct bespeaks an arrogance to

not only disregard Congress's intent but seize unprecedented

authority to impose overtime and minimum wage requirements in

defiance of the plain language of Section 213. It cannot

stand.

My legislation addresses these abuses. Far too often the good intentions of regulations lead to job loss and red-tape that strangles business. Worse still, the agenda of bureaucrats drives bad policies and stifles economy.

I have a solution. My comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the cost of regulations. It is as simple as that.

We need to be listening to the folks as well who have to live with and pay for the effects of these rules. I am hearing from stakeholders that they are weighing the time and expense of responding to regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input. Bottom line, fewer Americans are bothering to participate in the comment period process.

Stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. Right now, time varies on how long the comment period stays open. Sometimes it is as little as 2 weeks. My bill would ensure the period stay open for at least 60 days. My colleagues, as we all well know, sometimes the people who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject to the changes.

My bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements to the public. Right now, just the opposite takes place. The administration skirts stakeholder input by issuing interim final rules--called IFRs--and they become effective immediately upon publication. My bill allows delay of implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court makes a decision. All too often new regulations are proposed and finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced.

I have heard from a lot of folks in Kansas that the problems these new regulations claim to fix could be solved if the current regulations were properly monitored. Simply put, the solution is not more rules and regulations; it is considering the existing ones.

My bill mandates an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome rules--or, as the President himself once put it, ``rules that are just plain dumb''--and allows agencies to streamline, expand, or repeal those regulations.

We need regulatory reform. My bill codifies the President's Executive order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. I do not know how the President could disagree with that.

The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Farm Bureau, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have all endorsed my bill.

Last year I had 35 cosponsors. We have about thirteen. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and stay engaged as this process continues.

I thank my colleague, Senator Hoeven, for leading this colloquy and I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for her remarks.

In the Washington Times today, Jack Gerard, the President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute said:

Falling oil prices have empowered the United States and

weakened OPEC and Russia. The result is that increased U.S.

production in North Dakota has ``fundamentally reordered the

world's energy markets.''

This is a national security issue. This is an issue where Russia--I think the break-even point for them is about $110 a barrel. Right now it is at $48. They never dreamed this would happen. Their entire economy is at stake, and hopefully it will cause Mr. Vladimir Putin to start thinking about some of his adventuresome antics around the world.

In addition, the pipeline represents not only everything that the distinguished Senator has brought out but it is a symbol that says that we are going to go ahead with all of our energy production. We are going to go ``all of the above'' here. This is not either-or with green projects or fossil fuels or whatever. So if you vote for the pipeline you are voting for something that really affects our national security.

Think about potential exports to Europe. They could be less dependent on Russia and so Vladimir does not have his choke hold on them, if you will. There is a lot going on with regard to this issue that people haven't thought about.

Additionally, the President told us at a meeting with a group of Republicans 2 years ago--2 years ago--that he would make a decision between 2 and 3 months and that it was just a matter of tying down some legal matters. Now he says he is not for it and obviously he will never be for it. You can make whatever conclusion you want to make about that, but it is not a good conclusion. I thank the Senator.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the first time I met Mike Johanns was in Hutchison, KS. Hutchison, KS, is where we have the State fair every year. I was somebody then. I was the chairman of the sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture, and I had made a pitch to get the Secretary of Agriculture to actually come to the fair, thinking that Mike Johanns would be a far better speaker than myself and maybe I could avoid some trouble. So I had the Secretary come and I made the promise that every farmer who wanted to ask the Secretary of Agriculture a question would have that opportunity. I hadn't bothered to tell Mike about it, but when he arrived on the scene, he nodded his head and said: Fine. He had this yellow tablet under his arm, and with ample staff, some who used to work for me, but that is beside the point.

So cutting things short, all the activities in the State fair he attended, and he dutifully went around to every exhibit, and we finally ended up in the amphitheater and there must have been 150 to 175 farmers all lined up waiting to speak to or to question the Secretary of Agriculture. I thought to myself: Oh, my gosh, what have I done? The Secretary is coming in--I didn't know Mike that well at that particular time--and what have I gotten him into?

But Mike didn't seem to be bothered at all. He was absolutely comfortable, unflappable. He had the microphone and he sat down at a table, put down the yellow tablet and said: Yes, sir, and what is your first question and what is your name? The individual would give his name and the question, and Mike would write down the question. He said: Thank you very much for that. It will receive all of our attention. Next.

He went through the whole 125 or 150 and never answered a question, but he wrote it down. Every farmer who came up later to me said: You know, the Secretary wrote down my question. They were tremendously impressed, as opposed to me. Silly me, I would have tried to answer their questions, and we would have been there 2 or 3 hours, Lord knows how long. So I asked Mike: How do you get by with that? He said: Well, it saves a lot of time and you never get in trouble by what you don't say, which always sort of stuck with me and what a class act he was.

County commissioner, mayor of Lincoln, Governor, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Senate. I suppose if I floated a balloon for you to be President that you might--no, Stephanie wouldn't buy it and you wouldn't either. But that would be the logical next step, Mike, and I think we certainly could and probably will do a lot worse. But at any rate, since I brought up Stephanie, Franki and I extend our very best wishes and love.

I do have somewhat of a minor discomfort, it isn't a quarrel--I would never quarrel with Stephanie--but some degree of discomfort.

We have to have meetings around here a lot, and some of us stay for the whole thing. We would always look around for Mike. He would be around for the fireworks and then he would leave and he would always go home--because he had a home very close on Capitol Hill--to be with Stephanie.

She is absolutely wonderful. She has the best smile ever. You cannot be unhappy or in a bad mood ever when you see Stephanie.

So I would come to work in the Hart Building or here in the Capitol and I would happen to run into Stephanie and she would always come up with that big smile on her face and say: Hi, Pat. How are things going?

What are you going to do? I mean, I am trying to be the curmudgeon of the Senate, but Grassley keeps edging me out. So here I would be in sort of a bad or a grumpy mood and she would flash that smile, and I would say: Just fine. Then I would be feeling pretty good and I would go into the office. They would say: What is wrong? You have a smile on your face. I would say, ``I've been Stephanized.'' I am truly going to miss that.

I remember the time we were sitting probably right about here in the back. We had just concluded the farm bill for the first time, and then it took us 400 days to get the rest of it. Mike is an expert on agriculture program policy. Ask anybody else if they would like to talk about agriculture program policy and you would get a high glaze after about 8 seconds--but not Michael. Mike knows agriculture farm program policy. We call it farm program policy in Nebraska and Kansas, but he knows an awful lot about it.

I asked him: How many people do you think in this body, in this Senate, absolutely understand farm program policy? He retorted: How many people want to understand agriculture program policy? We decided there were about 5 in the Senate and maybe about 10 in the House--which shows you why we have a tough time getting the farm bill done.

I relied on his advice and counsel when I was the ranking member. I am so sorry--I regret--should I have the privilege of becoming chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, I would look forward to a dynamic duo with regard to what we could accomplish. But Senator Johanns is like Shane: Come back, Shane. Come back, Mike. But Shane rode away, and the Senator is going to ride back to Nebraska. I give him that, and I give him all of the success he can possibly have.

Six years is all this man has served. Some people have been here a lot longer. I have. You can accomplish a lot in 6 years. People say: What can you do in 6 years?

No. 1, you can work on legislation and you can know what you are talking about and you can earn people's respect and you can be smart about it. I don't mean smart smart. I mean just smart, so that what you say and when

you say it, people pay attention. That is precisely the kind of person Mike is. You can have all the integrity in the world and you can do exactly what he says when he talks about the people of Nebraska.

The people of Kansas are very similar to the people of Nebraska. My only complaint with the people of Nebraska is they chose to go play in the Big Ten and are finding it a little more difficult than running the track meets they used to run against Kansas State and KU. But if you want to go to the Big Ten and do that, why that is your business--but we have the same kind of roots.

I have always said there are no self-made men or women in public office. It is our friends and the people we represent who make us what we are, and Senator Johanns has spoken so eloquently to that.

Michael, I was trying to think of a tag I could label you with that might be noteworthy of everything you stand for. Others will do better than I and others have already said that. I simply come up by saying that you are an uncommon man with a very common touch, and I am going to miss you--and everybody in the conference is going to miss you and I suspect everybody in the Senate is going to miss you for the way you have conducted yourself and the job you have done for Nebraska.

We wish you all the best and we love you.

Mr. President, I would like to amplify the remarks made recently by my colleague from Utah Senator Hatch, our distinguished ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, concerning the year-end tax legislation--what is called the tax extenders bill.

Senator Hatch was entirely correct, it seems to me, when he said that getting this legislation through the Senate had been an ordeal, an unnecessary ordeal not only for the Senate but more particularly for every person in business back home in my State of Kansas and also throughout the country--Utah, Kansas, wherever in the United States. I am talking about farmers, ranchers, small business owners, manufacturers and all of their employees; in other words, the backbone of our economy.

It is a real shame that the longer term extenders deal developed by the chairmen of the tax committees and the leaders in the House and Senate--yes, you heard me right, both chairmen in the House and Senate and both leaders--have agreed that basically this deal that was reached before the Thanksgiving holiday has collapsed.

The deal included a number of very critical items, including a permanent simplification of the research credit that would help businesses plan and invest in job-creating innovation. The package also included a number of provisions for which I had worked very hard, including special depreciation and expensing rules that are very important to agriculture and small business.

The plan also included bipartisan legislation I developed with Senator Schumer to modify the research and development tax credit so it could be more easily used by smaller businesses, where the bulk of technological innovation occurs.

The plan also included long-term extension of legislation I have pushed to make sure smaller businesses are able to access the capital they need to grow and hire new employees.

These provisions are not giveaways. They free up capital and cash that can be invested and recycled into economic growth. That is a good thing. We should have done that. These provisions do not fit within the class warfare debate--actually, it is not a debate but rather a diversionary tactic that actually took place, that shouldn't have even been mentioned. A veto should never have even been forthcoming from the White House.

I have heard the complaint the proposal was too business focused. Since business today is mired in a swamp of regulation and guessing games and unpredictability, the focus of a so-called tax-extenders bill should have darn well been focused on business. Not every person in America works for our growing government.

The deal would have also helped individual taxpayers, from teachers taking a deduction for school supplies they purchase with their own money to help for homeowners who have defaulted on a mortgage or faced financial hardship, to deductions for college tuition and expenses. These provisions would keep more money in the pocket of taxpayers, a better place for it.

The package represented months of good-faith work by the tax committees and leadership in both Houses of Congress, something unique that we have not experienced around here for quite a while. Obviously, the deal wasn't perfect by any stretch, but it would have been a great downpayment for true tax reform. Most of all, it would have brought certainty and clarity to tax policy, something we sorely need and which is long overdue.

Let me give an example of what I mean. Earlier this week I visited with farmers in Kansas at the annual Kansas Farm Bureau meeting--about 1,000 farmers attended. One farmer, who shared his views so pretty much everybody around him could hear, told me he had recently purchased new farm equipment--combines and tractors so his family could step up work on their land, expand their operation, and he was upset. Actually, he was not upset, he was mad because, according to him, ``we've been messing around in Washington too much with the extenders bill.'' He was mad because if the equipment expensing rules aren't extended, he is out many thousands of dollars. That is just a portion of what has been spent. But that is money he would have used to buy more equipment or more land--the productive use of capital--and not some trivial amount used for a vacation or something else.

It is not just this farmer. My phone has been ringing off the hook all month with calls from farmers, ranchers, equipment dealers, and other businesses that need to know whether this will get extended, and they, too, are upset--make that mad. They are frustrated, and they need us to get to work to help them run their businesses and their lives.

Yes, even with the recent blowup, we will extend these tax provisions but only for 1 year--a month--and then we will be back at it again next year, and these folks will be in the same position, the same kind of purgatory, wondering whether we will ever come to our senses, wondering whether to buy that new tractor or buy the new production line or to hire new employees.

Every day when I visit with business owners and taxpayers in Kansas I hear over and over one simple refrain: Senator, we need certainty in the Tax

Code. We need to be able to rely on a stable tax system so we can plan and grow our business. Senator Pat, the Congress needs to do something about these tax extenders.

I couldn't agree more, and I think most of us, if not all of us on the Senate Finance Committee, couldn't agree more. The lack of certainty about these tax provisions is bad for American families. It is bad for business looking to create jobs, and it is bad for our economy. It leaves businesses unable to plan ahead and invest because they are left in the dark about what tax provisions will affect their operations.

So what happened to the deal? Why are we at this point debating another kick of the can down the road? The imperial Presidency has happened. The President has decided that instituting an Executive amnesty was the best course of action before the end of the year.

President Obama's immigration grenade doomed the tax extenders deal. Real negotiations unraveled, a veto threat was issued, and the bipartisan compromises were killed. Because of President Obama's my- way-or-the-highway approach to leadership and to amnesty, Congress is now forced to once again cobble together a 1-year tax policy patch that basically nobody wants. This hurts families, job creators, farmers, ranchers, teachers--everyone who needs to plan ahead to succeed.

So instead of working with Congress to develop an immigration reform compromise, we have the most arrogant attack on the Constitution I have ever seen. Once again the President placed partisan politics above the needs of the middle class--our workers and business owners, our students, our teachers, and indeed our entire economy.

Without this unprecedented illegal Executive order, we would right now be discussing a long-term extension of these vital tax provisions. We could maybe even have voted on it as of this year--as of this week-- laying a strong base for comprehensive tax reform. Instead, the President has sacrificed job-producing tax policy for the expedience of Executive action.

As I have said elsewhere, the President has seemingly no interest in a constructive working relationship with Congress. He didn't have any intention of listening to the will of the American people, and he has no respect for the constitutional boundaries of his office. This is beyond troubling, but its spillover into other areas, such as tax policy, does not bode well for the bipartisan development of policy to build the economy we so desperately need and that we were so close to achieving.

But let us be hopeful. Maybe something good will come out of this whole situation. Maybe we will recognize the level of dysfunction illustrated by the Executive order, and I hope it will point us back to regular order. It is critically important that we return to regular order in the Senate, in particular with all of the major fiscal issues we face.

Bringing the extenders package to the Finance Committee was a strong sign that we mean business and that we are ready to move on a bipartisan basis to address the fiscal issues that are facing the country. Sadly, that effort was sabotaged. Without that action, we would be moving toward a more sensible, bipartisan, progrowth extenders bill and perhaps well on our way to tax reform. That we are not is a shame. It didn't have to be this way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I intend to speak under the time reserved by Senator Hoeven. Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time remains?

Splendid. I intend to speak for about 8 minutes.

I admire the commitment, the perseverance, and the oratory skills of my colleague from the State of California. I know how strongly she feels about this issue.

I rise today without a portfolio. I do not have the charts my distinguished colleague has. Senator Hoeven has six in the Cloakroom. There are 12 over there. I thought at one time I would introduce legislation to ban charts from the floor, but that didn't go very far.

I rise today in support of the bipartisan, bicameral legislation offered by Representative Cassidy from the House and Senator Landrieu from here in the Senate to approve the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

(Mrs. BOXER assumed the Chair.)

Simply put, my point would be that this project is long overdue. It has been said time and again, but it is worth repeating: 6 years of delays and five separate environmental impact statements, and finally we are voting on this legislation--already passed by the House last week--to grant approval of the project.

Let me repeat myself. Five environmental impact statements have been rolled out since the year 2010, all five concluding that construction of the pipeline would neither exasperate carbon emissions nor increase development of the Canadian oil sands.

Let's briefly take a look at the conclusion reached by each of the five environmental impact statements to see what President Obama's own State Department had to say about whether construction of the Keystone Pipeline is in the national interest.

In April 2010, after a 1\1/2\-year review of TransCanada's application to construct the pipeline, the State Department published the findings of its draft environmental impact statement, which concluded that the pipeline's construction would have limited environmental impact and would help reduce U.S. reliance on crude oil imports from other less stable regions of the world. ``Less stable'' is an understatement as of today. Considering what is going on right now in the Middle East and Russia, it cannot be understated how important this project is from a global security perspective and also from a national security perspective.

A year later, in April 2011, the State Department issued a supplemental environmental impact statement to consider alternatives to the Keystone Pipeline and to address some of the concerns raised by agencies, groups, and individuals who submitted comments on the project's construction. Keep in mind that the State Department did this despite the fact that it believed the original environmental impact statement sufficiently addressed all concerns.

Four months later, in August 2011, the State Department released its final environmental impact statement concluding yet again that this project should be built. The State Department concluded that construction would ``result in a project that would have a degree of safety greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system under current regulations.''

Despite this conclusion--which under law triggered a 90-day window for the State Department to make yet another final national interest determination--the State Department decided to delay the final decision rather conveniently until after the 2012 elections.

After three earlier reviews, in March of 2013 the State Department issued its draft supplemental environmental impact statement to consider potential impacts of the new route which would avoid the Sand Hills region in Nebraska. Once again, the State Department concluded that this project should be built.

Finally, on January 31, 2014--about a year ago--the State Department issued its fifth and final environmental impact statement. Nevertheless, it concluded that the Keystone Pipeline poses no serious environmental dangers, would create thousands of jobs, and would decrease our reliance on crude from despotic regimes--more of them today--around the world and expand trade with our closest ally, Canada.

We have two options. The first is to finalize construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which will immediately result in thousands of construction jobs all throughout the United States. The second option is we can reject construction of this pipeline and instead transport the crude to the United States by rail or allow Canada to simply export the crude to other countries, such as our good friend China. China is so concerned with the environmental standards that it may--it may, according to the bargain so highly publicized by the administration-- begin reducing carbon emissions by 2030 if the leaders of China 16 years from now feel like it or make that decision.

What is the big deal about China's carbon-reduction commitment, by the way? It is meaningless.

There is simply no option available that would somehow prevent Canada from developing these oil sands. Despite what any Senator says or any charts that may be used, it is happening and it will continue to happen.

Facts are stubborn things. We either move this oil by pipeline, which is the safest way to transport oil, or we allow it to be exported to other countries that will refine it under far less stringent environmental regulations. If CO2 is a world problem, that is something you ought to really think about.

This project would support 42,000 U.S. jobs, hundreds of those in my home State of Kansas; it would provide over 800,000 barrels of oil per day from our closest trading partner, Canada; and it would have a $3 billion impact on the U.S. economy.

I have long supported this legislation. Now we need to hear from President Obama, yes or no. No waffling around any longer. If this bill passes today will the President sign it into law or will the President simply continue to straddle the pipeline until after the runoff election in Louisiana? It seems to me the President owes the American people an answer as to whether he supports this project.

The question is--it is pretty obvious--if the President opposed this project from ever being built, then why are we waiting? Why wouldn't you just say from the get-go that you hold the views of a few above those of most Americans, which includes everybody from labor unions, to pro-energy trade associations, to manufacturing, et cetera?

I would ask the President: Why didn't you just come out in 2008 and say, no, we are never going to build this as long as I am in the White House. Because I think that is exactly

what is happening. It is time to quit straddling the pipeline. Let's get on with it or get off.

I want to make myself clear. If we pass this bill and President Obama vetoes it, then that is his decision, that is his prerogative, but the responsibility will lie squarely upon his desk. Because when we come back in January under a Republican majority, our task will be to not only pass this legislation but, with a veto-proof majority, to override whatever obstacles the President tries to put in its way.

Again, this project makes sense economically, environmentally, and from a national security perspective. I believe we should get this finally moving.

Madam President, I yield the floor.