Heidi Heitkamp

I am certain that these efforts will lead to breakthroughs that provide for economic and employment benefits to our country and provide long term technological solutions that will allow for the continuation of an all of the above energy…

For generation after generation we have seen CO2 as a pollutant, and the efforts that this Committee... tried to turn the page and start looking at CO2 as an opportunity and as a legitimate and valuable by-product.

I do have one concern that I want to mention with the legislation which explains why I am not yet a co-sponsor.

American ingenuity has always been our best tool in meeting the challenges our country has faced.

The barriers to carbon capture, utilization, and storage are largely financial--largely financial, not environmental.

Wide deployment of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization could significantly reduce climate pollution emissions in this country and abroad.

I have long believed that the Federal Government should foster and support the deployment of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization technologies.

If you care about law and order, this has to be a top priority.

I cannot state it more clearly. We need to do better.

It has to end first from a law enforcement standpoint.

I have asked all these questions of FBI Director Wray as well, so I am not just picking on you.

No. I will tell you this. We need more DEA and FBI agents in Indian Country. It does not depend on anything.

This cannot continue, not in the United States of America.

We are afraid. All the good people are hiding. They are afraid of what is happening in their homes.

We are screaming for help.

Tell us what you need and what will change the outcome.

The Senator from Idaho can borrow it at any time. I have no pride of authorship, and there is no copyright on here. He may pass it around.

I trust you to do your job. I just do not know why we need to spend this kind of money, outside a system, when this is going to be a recurring problem.

I think it is expensive no matter how you do it. But, I look at $40,000 and think, if I bonused somebody $5,000 a year, that might do more in retention.

What I disagree with is...why we need to hire a firm and spend $40,000 per hire to that firm.

Maybe you ought to take that $40,000 and incentivize somebody to move there.

I think they need to look at why people are leaving

But why do we need to sign a contract with someone else to do something that we would expect you guys were doing, in terms of recruitment?

I am really disturbed by this, because it seems to me that a $40,000 payment, kind of bounty per new hire may not be the best way to recruit the best people.

We have to change how people look at employment within these agencies.