[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 69 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3069-S3086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OFFSHORE PRODUCTION AND SAFETY ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 953,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 953) to authorize the
conduct of certain lease sales in the Outer Continental
Shelf, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
modify the requirements for exploration, and for other
purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 4 hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the
two leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, we have been debating tax subsidies
to the big oil companies. The bill proposed by the Senator from New
Jersey would have limited it to just the big five oil companies even
though many of the tax breaks or tax credits or deductions they receive
are the same tax credits that every other company may take--Starbucks,
Microsoft, Caterpillar, Google, and Hollywood film producers for
example. Many of the other credits look a lot like the R&D tax credit
or other tax credits all American businesses may receive. Well, I am
one Senator who is very intrigued with the idea of looking at all of
the tax breaks in the Tax Code. There are currently about $1.2 trillion
a year in what we call tax expenditures, and those are intended to be
for tax breaks we think are desirable. I am ready to look at all of
them and use the money to reduce the tax rate and/or reduce the Federal
debt. But if we are going to talk about energy subsidies--tax
subsidies--we ought to talk about all energy subsidies. Senator John
Cornyn of Texas has asked the Congressional Research Service to do just
this. It is an excellent study, and I commend Senator Cornyn for asking
for it. This is some of what it finds.
According to the report, fossil fuels contributed about 78 percent of
our energy production in 2009 and received about 13 percent of the
Federal tax support for energy. However, during that same time 10.6
percent of our energy production was from renewables and 77.4 percent
of our energy tax subsidies went to renewables. So if we are to compare
the subsidy per unit of energy, the estimated Federal support per
million Btu's of fossil fuels was 4 cents, while support for renewables
was $1.97 per million Btu's.
So Federal subsidies for renewables are almost 50 times as great per
unit of energy as Federal subsidies for fossil fuels. This would be
distorted because included within renewables is hydroelectric power.
Most people think of renewables as ethanol, solar, or wind and those
are the renewables that actually get the subsidies while hydroelectric
does not.
So at least 50 times as great per unit of energy is the Federal
taxpayer support for renewable energy compared with fossil fuel energy.
So why aren't we including in our debate subsidies for all renewables?
Specifically, if we are talking about Big Oil, why don't we talk about
Big Wind? The Senate seems an appropriate place to talk about Big Wind.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 created what is called the production
tax credit for energy produced using renewable resources. Most of this
money has gone to subsidize Big Wind. It is a policy that was supposed
to last a few years. It has lasted two decades.
Today, the production tax credit for wind gives 2.1 cents for every
kilowatt hour of wind electricity produced by a wind turbine during the
first 10 years of operation. Let's put this into a context that is
current. The new Shepherd's Flat Wind Farm in Oregon will have 338 of
these huge wind turbines, producing enough power to run approximately
250,000 homes and will cost the American taxpayer about $57 million a
year in subsidies for that electricity produced. If we allocated the
tax credit per home, taxpayers will be paying $2,300 over the next 10
years for each of the homes served by the Shepherd's Flat Wind Farm in
Oregon.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that $1.3 billion in
Federal loan guarantees to this project means Big Wind will have its
risk of default also financed by the taxpayer. Fossil fuel companies
don't have that advantage. Nuclear power companies don't have that
advantage, even though their electricity is completely clean--no
sulfur, no nitrogen, no mercury, no carbon. If, like nuclear or fossil
loan guarantees do, the wind farm in Oregon had to pay the risk of
default up front as a fee, it would cost another $130 million. That is
money out of the pockets of taxpayers.
The total cost of the wind production tax credit over the next 10
years will cost the American taxpayers more than $26 billion. Let me
say that again. American taxpayers are subsidizing big wind over the
next 10 years by more than $26 billion with one tax credit. In fact,
the tax breaks for the five big oil companies we have been debating on
the Senate floor this week actually cost less than all of the money we
give to big wind. The tax breaks for the five big oil companies amount
to about $21 billion over 10 years.
According to the Energy Information Administration in 2007, big wind
received an $18.82 subsidy per megawatt hour--25 times as much per
megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity combined.
But wind is about the least efficient means of energy production we
have. It accounts for just about 2 percent of our electricity. It is
available only when the wind blows, which is about one-third of the
time. The Tennessee Valley Authority says it is reliable even less than
that, meaning we can have it when we need it only about 12-15 percent
of the time.
[[Page S3070]]
Wind farms take up a huge amount of space. Turbines are 50 stories
high. Their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles. An unbroken line
of turbines along the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail would produce no
more electricity than four nuclear reactors on 4 square miles of land.
Wind is generally the strongest and land is available where the
electricity isn't actually needed. So we have thousands of miles of new
transmission lines proposed to get the energy from where it is produced
to where it needs to go. Those often go through conservation areas, and
according to the National Academy of Sciences wind power is more
expensive than other forms of electricity, such as coal, nuclear,
biomass, geothermal, and natural gas.
We haven't even talked about the fact these wind turbines only last
about 25 years. The question is, Who is going to take them down? Wind
farms also kill as many as 275,000 birds each year, according to the
American Bird Conservancy. They can interfere with radar systems, and
many who live near them say they are very noisy.
So I ask the question: If wind has all these drawbacks, is a mature
technology, and receives subsidies greater than any other form of
energy per unit of actual energy produced, why are we subsidizing it
with billions of dollars and not including it in this debate? Why are
we talking about Big Oil and not talking about Big Wind?
I believe there are appropriate uses of temporary incentives and
subsidies to help jump-start innovation and the development of new
technology--such as jump-starting electric cars or natural gas fleets
of trucks or loan guarantees for nuclear powerplants and other forms of
clean energy--as long as these are short term. I believe research and
development is an appropriate role for the Federal Government whether
it is in recycling used nuclear fuel or finding alternative biofuels
made from crops we don't eat. I believe it is entirely appropriate for
there to be research for offshore wind farms, which we don't know as
much about and which might actually prove to be a useful supplement in
the Northeast. But my point is, if we are going to debate subsidies to
Big Oil, we ought to be debating all the energy subsidies including
those to Big Wind.
There is a difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic
plan for $4 gasoline and high energy prices. The Democratic cure for
high prices is basically to raise the price. They want to tax energy
more, but that makes energy cost more. Republicans want to find more
American energy and use less energy. We might sum it up this way:
Republicans want to find more and use less; Democrats want to find less
and tax more.
The Democratic plan, according to Senator Schumer of New York, was
never intended to talk about lowering gas prices. Senator Reid agreed,
Senator Baucus agreed, Senator Landrieu agreed, and Senator Begich
agreed, but why aren't we talking about trying to find a way to lower
gasoline prices when it is $4 a gallon and going up?
The Republican plan is very specific: Find more American oil and more
American natural gas. We can find that offshore where 30 percent of our
domestic oil and 25 percent of our natural gas is produced. We can find
it on Federal lands, and we can find it in Alaska.
The other part of our equation is to use less. We have some agreement
with the Obama administration on some of these ideas. There are a
number of them: jump-start electric cars. Senator Merkley and I have a
bill that is before the Energy Committee tomorrow to do just that. I
believe electrifying our cars and trucks is the single best way to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is legislation to jump-
start natural gas for trucks, biofuels from crops we don't eat, and
fuel efficiency. All these are various ways to use less.
Senators Thune and Barrasso have performed a service by setting the
record straight to show that the United States produces a lot of oil.
We are actually the third largest oil producer in the world. So I ask
this question: If less Libyan oil can raise gasoline prices--which it
did--then more American oil should help lower gasoline prices. At least
for every dollar of American oil we produce, it is one less dollar we
have to send overseas for foreign oil.
So, Madam President, the Republican plan is to find more American oil
and natural gas and to use less. My suggestion is, if we are going to
be talking about tax subsidies for Big Oil, let's talk about tax
subsidies for all energy. The Senate floor seems an especially
appropriate place, if we are going to talk about Big Oil, to also talk
about tax subsidies for Big Wind.
Madam President, I commend to my colleagues a report of the
Congressional Research Service sent to Senator John Cornyn of Texas
dated May 16 entitled ``Energy Production by Source and Energy Tax
Incentives'' from Molly Sherlock.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Kansas is
here, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
legislation that has been introduced by my friend and our Republican
leader, Senator McConnell, that would take our country in the direction
of greater domestic energy production, and certainly robust job
creation, as opposed to taxing--or trying to--the very people who
provide our energy.
Madam President, as every American knows, few issues today are more
critical to the American taxpayer than the price of energy. Whether it
is powering our homes or fueling farm equipment or filling up our cars
at the pump, the price of energy directly impacts the cost of goods and
operating expenses for our American producers.
Now, while there is a multitude of variables that impact the cost of
gasoline, it is important we don't overlook the main factor in
impacting prices at the pump--and one more time, for my colleagues
across the aisle, that is the global supply and demand of crude.
With roughly 70 percent of the price of gasoline and diesel
contingent on the price of crude, it should be easy to understand that
any fluctuations in global supply and demand is the most important
factor determining what consumers pay at the pump. Considering in my
State alone the oil and gas industry supports over 119,000 jobs and
annually contributes $14 billion to the Kansas economy, it is not hard
to understand that much of our concerns regarding the U.S. economy and
rising unemployment could be addressed--could be addressed--if we
stopped hindering the ability of American energy businesses to grow and
to produce.
I am sure most Americans wonder why Washington is even considering a
policy that is counter to an industry solely capable--solely capable--
and responsible for this type of job creation. Sadly, this is exactly
the proposal floated by some of my colleagues and friends in Congress
and by the President.
In the President's 2012 budget proposal, he proposed almost $90
billion worth of tax increases on the oil and gas industry--taxes the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has stated could make oil
and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase
foreign dependence. Well, that didn't work in regards to the budget, so
they are back. Complementing the President's troublesome budget
proposal last week, a number of my colleagues introduced legislation
singling out U.S.-owned integrated oil and gas companies by removing
tax expenditures these companies rely on to hire more American workers,
developing greater amounts of needed energy, and--hello--to support the
millions of American investors whose IRAs and pension funds invest
significantly in energy stocks.
What is even worse, at least six of my colleagues across the aisle
are on record admitting this legislation will do nothing to reduce
prices at the pump. It is sort of a ``gotcha'' piece of legislation. So
to address American concerns about rising gas prices, my friends across
the aisle have introduced
[[Page S3071]]
legislation they readily know will not ease the price at the pump. This
doesn't make any sense. In addition to the fact the Democratic energy
bill will not help reduce gas prices, I want to further highlight the
negative impacts it would have on American investors. This is
important.
Probably the biggest distortion repeated in the media and by some of
my friends here on Capitol Hill is the notion that a few select
corporate executives are the sole benefactors of record high profits
enjoyed by these energy companies. It makes good politics today to beat
up on these people and that is what happened in regard to the Finance
Committee--a lot of press there--when in reality it is the millions of
middle-class American investors whose retirement plans benefit greatly
from healthy profits. Because these companies are publicly traded, they
are owned largely by individuals and institutional investors
responsible for managing the mutual funds and IRA and pension plans for
millions of Americans whose future economic security depends on the
success of these companies.
For example, in Kansas alone there are over 18,000 shareholders of
ExxonMobil--that is 18,000 of my constituents--who will be hurt, angry,
frustrated when they find out that legislation that targets citizens,
investors who actually own these companies, could be passed.
Beyond individual shareholders, many teachers, State government
employees, rely on strong returns on their investments in these
companies. One example is the New Jersey Public Employee Pension Fund.
Its holdings of U.S.-based integrated oil and gas companies make over 4
percent of its total portfolio.
Realizing the likelihood of a strong return on their investment, it
is no wonder why so many public employee pension funds throughout the
country invest heavily in energy companies. The good news is that the
energy tax increase proposal was defeated last night, as its passage
would have done absolutely nothing toward reducing energy prices or
helping the economic security of millions of middle-class American
investors. Unfortunately, the problems facing true economic growth and
energy security do not end with misguided tax policy. In addition to
making it more costly to produce domestic energy, the administration is
working to close off some of our Nation's most abundant sources.
For example, under the current administration, the Department of the
Interior canceled seven oil development leases in Utah that were
located within the larger formation covering three States that the
Bureau of Land Management has estimated contains around 800 billion
barrels of oil--more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi
Arabia. This of course is in addition to the Gulf of Mexico deep water
drilling moratorium imposed last summer which has had a lasting
negative effect on gulf coast economies. I know the President said we
are going to permit these and they can drill, but somehow or other you
never get the permit finalized.
In closing, I want to reiterate my point about the underlying
economic factors which, like it or not, despite the politics, are not
the driving forces behind the price of gas at the pump. As global
demand rises, prices will also rise. As global demand is potentially
disrupted, as we see in the Middle East today, then market instability
follows. If we can allow greater access to our own domestic resources
and provide industry the necessary tools to expand--which is exactly
what Leader McConnell's energy bill would do--then we will be able to
put more Americans back to work and add to the global supply of crude
which, over time, undoubtedly will help stabilize prices.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the
Republican leader's Offshore Production and Safety Act, S. 953. I have
to say it is a breath of fresh air to be discussing a substantive
energy policy proposal.
Last week in the Senate Finance Committee and yesterday on the Senate
floor, we witnessed a cynical charade as some of my colleagues
attempted to exploit high gas prices as an excuse to, once again, raise
taxes. It is no secret the liberals in Congress have an answer to every
problem but unfortunately it has been the same answer for every
problem. Whether the problem is health care costs, out-of-control
spending, unemployment, or high gas prices, their answer in every case
is to raise taxes. The American people have caught on to the uninspired
monotony of that particular message.
In the last election they sent us their own message: enough with the
spending and enough with the taxing. Apparently, though, that message
was not loud enough or clear enough because the worn-out big government
approach remains the only option being offered by my friends on the
other side. Americans are fed up with lame excuses to expand the size
of government. What Americans want, need, and deserve is real solutions
to real problems. Those problems are real. High gas prices are an
indicator of a much deeper problem facing our Nation's energy security.
It is a problem that runs deep but it is not too difficult to
understand.
Our problem is a President who would rather buy foreign oil than
produce it here in America. In fact, he not only wants to buy foreign
oil, he is willing to subsidize it. These are Brazilian workers,
Brazilian oil workers. I hope Americans were watching the news as
President Obama handed over more than $2 billion to Brazil's
government-owned oil company to produce Brazilian oil. It was a nice
gesture, I am sure. But why aren't we spending it here at home? And why
aren't we able to drill here at home? Why aren't we, the third largest
oil producer in the world, able to go after our own oil to bring these
prices down.
Liberals spent this last week calling basic tax deductions for
American companies ``subsidies.'' Funny thing, because those same
liberals appear to have no problem with this gigantic handout of
taxpayer dollars to a foreign competitor.
I like Brazil, and I am happy they are doing as well as they are, so
this is not a knock at Brazil. It is basically a criticism of our
President for giving $2 billion to help them with their oil exploration
when they seem to be doing just fine by themselves. At least I am
assuming the liberals have no problem with it because they have been
deathly silent on this subject during this entire debate.
I hope Americans were watching because that was their money our
President was sending out of our country, out of our economy, and out
of the reach of tens of thousands of unemployed American energy workers
whom this administration has helped to put out of work.
Let me put up another chart. These are our workers. These guys are
out of work. These men and women who can develop our own oil are out of
work because of this administration.
We all know about the President's artificially broad moratorium on
drilling in the gulf and how it has devastated that already crippled
region. But the President's anti-Midas touch has reached out to kill
oil production in other regions of the country as well.
Since taking office, President Obama has cut Federal energy lease
offerings by 67 percent in the Rockies alone and a whopping 87 percent
in my home State of Utah. Is it any wonder we are becoming more
dependent on foreign oil? Is it any wonder our jobless rate remains at
historic levels? Is it any wonder government revenues are down? Let's
not forget that this is the same President using our tax dollars to
subsidize Brazilian oil production to the tune of $2 billion.
After taking office, one of President Obama's earliest actions was to
withdraw 77 energy leases in Utah. These leases had been through almost
a decade of environmental studies. They had jumped through every
environmental hoop there was and had already been auctioned off and
paid for by good-standing energy companies. We know we are dealing with
a very aggressive anti-energy agenda when we see leases pulled back
that have already been
[[Page S3072]]
paid for. The energy companies are not blind; they see it too.
A recent survey of the energy industry in the Rockies tells us the
tragic and unnecessary story. Due to the hostile atmosphere created by
the Obama administration, $1.1 billion of capital investment was
shifted from the Rockies to other areas, including overseas. If it were
not for the anti-energy efforts of this administration, the companies
surveyed stated they would invest an additional $2.8 billion in the
region in the future. Eighty-nine of the energy companies surveyed said
they would continue to divert investment from the Rockies until the
current policies become less hostile, and 71 percent of the industry
respondents stated that dissatisfaction with the Federal permitting
process is the general variable driving investment right out of our
Nation.
When are we going to wake up? When is this administration going to
wake up?
Some of my friends on the other side have an extremely difficult time
understanding this, but when we deter energy companies, we kill real
jobs and we kill domestic energy production, and we make America
weaker. These aren't just jobs, these are highly paid jobs. Yet we are
willing to subsidize the Brazilian oil workers. I like those workers. I
think they are finding oil for their country. I think their country is
energy efficient because of their work offshore. Some of those rigs
used to be in the gulf but no longer can be there because of the stupid
anti-energy policies of this administration.
Here we have American companies willing to spend more than $2 billion
of their own money to create American jobs and American oil, but
President Obama says no--or at least the people around him who advise
him tell him to say no. Yet our President does not hesitate to give
more than $2 billion in taxpayer funds to Brazil to create foreign
jobs. Just wait, because this story actually gets worse. The President
then hopes taxpayers will send even more money overseas as we buy
Brazil's oil--oil we already have subsidized in the first place.
But the President saved the best for last. He now proposes raising
taxes on American energy production.
This deserves repeating. The President says no to American energy
companies wanting to use their own profits to make more American jobs
and more American oil, but he then gives away taxpayer money to
subsidize foreign jobs and create more dependency on foreign oil. While
he is at it, he may as well tax American energy production for good
measure. That is what they want to do to us. It doesn't make sense.
Look, I like the President. I personally am a friend of the
President. I can't believe he is doing this on his own. He has to have
these dumbbells down there at the White House feeding him this stuff.
But he is bright enough to look through it and see it doesn't work or
is it just that their supporters are demanding--the Democratic
supporters are demanding--this type of harm to our country and to our
people?
Well, I said it twice, and it makes less sense the more I think about
it. He may as well tax American energy production for good measure.
The whole farce would be comical if it weren't so incredibly harmful
to our Nation, our economy, and to our American families who have
dedicated their lives to providing the United States with the domestic
oil and gas we so desperately need.
I wish to read an excerpt from a letter I received from Cindy and
Bruce of Uintah County, UT, an oil-rich county, if we were allowed to
get the permit and go out and find it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to continue my
statement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Cindy and Bruce write:
Our family returned to the Vernal, Utah, area . . . after
being absent for 10 years. We realized we loved the area and
wanted to be back with our families. . . . At that point we
decided we wanted to do more than just get by in life working
for someone else. . . . Since things looked very promising
for the oilfield industry, we started a small oilfield
trucking company. We struggled to make all this work and to
establish a reputable and trusted company with a good
customer base. In February of 2009, as the new presidential
administration and new head of the Department of the Interior
took over, the oil and gas production companies slowed their
drilling and production programs drastically. The RAPID
economic change was shocking. Overnight, we went from being a
prospering business to a business that is just hoping we can
pay our bills. . . . Our story is not unique. It is the same
story for many of our friends, neighbors and family members.
Our lives and the economy here are in shambles. It is not
because we did not work hard, spend wisely, follow all the
government rules, or that we made irresponsible decisions. It
is because of sudden changes in our government.
This was no naturally occurring economic downturn that killed Bruce
and Cindy's business. It was hostile government policies intent on
slowing domestic energy production on Federal lands.
This point is made again and again to me in letters from Utahans from
this region. One letter states:
As I talk with many people each day at work, there is one
common thread: The policies of the current administration
have made it a very risky business for companies trying to
produce oil in this area. Leases have been canceled, then
resold, and then suspended. The confidence of the oil
producers has been undermined by these actions. They have
lost a lot of money on the bids for these leases.
These experiences are duplicated wherever Federal energy leases are
offered. I can say I have never seen a more anti-energy administration
than the current one, and all Americans are feeling the pain of
President Obama's suicidal energy policies.
Today, we are talking about a real solid energy proposal. It is a
proposal that will create American jobs in the gulf and throughout
America's energy industry. The Offshore Production and Safety Act is a
proposal that will strengthen our Nation, not weaken it. It will get us
producing American oil again in the gulf, and that is a critically
important goal.
If I had my choice, we would be discussing a more comprehensive
energy bill that would also be reopening oil production on onshore and
offshore leases. I am an original cosponsor of a bill with my
colleague, Senator David Vitter, called the 3-D Bill. The Ds stand for
domestic jobs, domestic energy, and deficit reduction. This bill
deserves full consideration. It is a bill that would increase jobs,
reduce energy costs, and generate significant revenue to State and
Federal Governments. In short, the bill would reverse the Obama
administration's onerous new constraints on domestic oil and gas
production. The 3-D bill would reverse bans of some offshore Federal
leases in each Outer Continental Shelf planning area, it would open
ANWR to oil production, directing some of the resulting revenues toward
renewable energy production, and it would reverse President Obama's
recent moves against commercial oil shale production.
Unfortunately, we are not discussing that bill today and here is why.
Republicans have had to force the Democrats' hand to allow a debate on
even a limited proposal such as the one introduced by our Republican
leader--and well done. But this issue is not going away, and I will
continue to push the issue of onshore and offshore Federal leases and
advocate for the 3-D bill.
The bill we voted on yesterday had nothing to do with gas prices or
energy policy or getting more energy. As we heard from Member after
Member on the other side, that bill was about raising taxes for more
government spending. The bill we are voting on today is a serious
energy proposal. It is a smart proposal that, if passed, would create
real jobs, produce real domestic oil and gas, and leave the deficit-
busting revenues for the government. As such, I strongly support it. I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
I hope our friends on the other side will see this. It is time we
stand and start changing this, regardless of what this administration
is doing to America.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise to discuss our Nation's energy
policy. I was very disappointed by last night's vote. Actually, as one
of my colleagues pointed out, it was more political theater instead of
a serious attempt at addressing this Nation's energy needs.
Instead of investing time on votes that will not bring gas prices
down, we need to do what Americans expect us
[[Page S3073]]
to do; that is, adopt a careful, all-inclusive, comprehensive approach.
Put simply, we need to consider our assets and we need to develop those
assets in a responsible way. That sounds very simple to the average
person but, unfortunately, it seems to allude us here.
Last night's vote on a narrow tax issue, that in a very bipartisan
way was recognized not to reduce the price of gas, doesn't get us
headed in the right direction. If anything, it was a step backward. So
I wish to take a more serious look at the energy resources we have in
the United States to lay the foundation for the argument that we need
to develop these resources--energy that could help address our Nation's
security as well as our economic security.
Unfortunately, we are a victim of misperception that somehow the
United States is running out of energy and that our own resources are
not sufficient. But that is not true. In fact, the data tells us that
the United States can be a dominant energy power. Let me say that
again. The United States can be a dominant energy player--a power--in
the global marketplace. With the proper Federal policies in place, the
United States can step into a dominating position.
This isn't something I dreamed up last night. This is not something
Mike Johanns just invented. This comes directly from the Congressional
Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.
So let's go through what the CRS said to us in a recent report. They
say the United States is No. 3 in global oil production. In 2009, the
United States produced about 9.1 million barrels per day. By
comparison, Saudi Arabia produced about 500,000 more than the United
States per day at 9.8 million, and Russia leads all countries at 9.9
million barrels per day. So today we are No. 3 in global production of
oil, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.
For an additional perspective, consider this: The United States
produces more than double what Iran produces and produces more than
Iran and China combined.
Looking beyond oil production, let's consider our existing assets.
According to the CRS, the United States has 163 billion barrels of oil
that is technically recoverable. That is a lot, and that is more than
six times what the administration suggests in its favorite talking
points.
Let's compare our oil assets to what we import from Saudi Arabia, a
major U.S. supplier. In 2009, we imported about 1 million barrels per
day from Saudi Arabia, for a total of 365 million barrels per year. So
every 3 years, at 2009 import rates, we will import just over 1 billion
barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia. So the United States has enough oil
to entirely replace imports from Saudi Arabia for a long time--more
than 400 years.
If we shift the focus to natural gas, the United States has enough
natural gas reserves to meet U.S. demand for 90 years.
Let's turn to coal. Again, based on CRS analysis, our domestic coal
resources are huge. In fact, the United States is No. 1 in world coal
resources. The United States has 28 percent of the world's coal.
American recoverable coal reserves are 262 billion tons of coal.
To put that in perspective, the United States consumes about 1.2
billion short tons per year--simply extraordinary. What I am saying is,
that is over 200 years' worth.
Then, CRS did something else interesting. They consolidated the
energy resources, and then ranked the United States against the rest of
the world. The United States came in at No. 1. This does not include
oil shale or methane hydrates.
CRS concluded that total fossil fuels within the United States, in
barrels of oil equivalent, are 972.6 billion.
So considering the United States leads the world in total energy
resources, we need to evaluate any energy policy on whether it makes
strides to use those resources in a responsible way or whether it keeps
those resources on the sidelines.
The Congressional Research Service has debunked the myth that we are
energy poor, that we have somehow consumed our resources. In fact, our
Nation is No. 1. We are rich with resources: oil, natural gas, coal,
and other resources--and lots of it.
Yet the President, for whatever reason, keeps using a dramatically
different talking point, and it creates the wrong impression. Just
recently, on May 6, 2011, he said:
The challenge is we've got about two to three percent of
the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's
oil.
The impression I think he is trying to create is that we have
virtually no reserves. Yet we are trying to grab all the resources.
This statement seriously, if not intentionally, underestimates
America's energy resources because it only relies upon proven reserves.
That would be like a millionaire complaining he cannot afford a $10
dinner because he has only $5 in his pocket.
Here is what CRS says about proven reserves:
Proved reserves are oil, natural gas, or coal that have
been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or
other exploratory measures.
In other words, unless you drill or otherwise explore, proven
reserves never expand and our country stays neutral.
So the President's talking point completely ignores what they call
undiscovered technically recoverable--the estimated American resources
in those areas where exploration has not yet occurred. Thus, it is no
surprise what happens when we do not issue permits to explore and
drill. Proven reserves would never expand if you did not issue the
permits.
That is the problem with this administration's approach to energy
policy. They have gone out of their way to oppose utilization of
American energy sources and then they claim that somehow we have used
them up.
Most famously, the administration supported a national energy tax
called cap and trade--a bill that was intentionally designed to
increase costs for consumers on everything from oil to gasoline we put
in our cars, to coal, to the electricity we use. In fact, the President
even admitted his policy was designed to make the prices for American
consumers ``necessarily sky-rocket.'' Unfortunately, if not remarkably,
if not completely unbelievably, that is a direct quote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 10
minutes.
Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 3
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JOHANNS. Today, even after this policy has been repudiated on a
bipartisan basis by Congress, the administration continues to march
ahead with similar proposals at the administrative level.
The administration has canceled leases across the Rocky Mountain
West. They have blocked permits in the Gulf of Mexico. They have
blocked permits in Alaska.
While the President's announcement this weekend would appear to be a
welcome recognition that oil and gas leasing matters, it disregards the
virtual lack of permits to explore. No doubt, leasing is necessary, but
if you do not have the permits, leasing means nothing. Supply stays the
same, world demand continues to increase, and no one should be
surprised by the economics.
No one should be surprised that this administration's policy has a
direct correlation to the price of gasoline you pump into your vehicle.
That is why today we are debating legislation that is enormously
important. This bill requires the issuance of permits. It emphasizes
safety and environmental responsibility. It does require spill response
and containment plans, and it requires we do everything we can to try
to improve supply. It says we can develop our natural resources
expeditiously but in a responsible and prudent way. It is a responsible
step in the right direction.
Let me put this another way: We, the United States, do not need to
beg the rest of the world for energy resources. We do not have to go
with cup in hand. Energy is too important to our growth, to job
creation. It is too big an issue to outsource to another country,
especially to countries that do not like our policies.
It is critical we get energy policy right. Gasoline prices are now
over $4 a gallon. That is hurting every American. It is hurting job
creation. Heating
[[Page S3074]]
and cooling bills are going up. Farmers see their fertilizer, their
natural gas bills expand. Their input costs are going through the roof.
Our people deserve better, and that is why I encourage my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Tribute To Robert Harris
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise, as I try to do on a regular
basis, to honor another one of our great Federal employees. I know in
the great Empire State of New York there are literally thousands of
folks who oftentimes work anonymously to make sure, day in and day out,
our Federal Government functions. This is a recognition I took over
from our colleague, Senator Ted Kaufman, after he served in the Senate,
and I am proud to continue this tradition where, on a regular basis, we
come forward and honor one of those Federal employees who contributes
to making our Nation safer, making our Nation more efficient, allowing
many of us in America to enjoy the benefits of our country, oftentimes,
again, without a lot of recognition.
The individual I am recognizing is Robert Harris, who is the Deputy
Legal Advisor at the U.S. State Department.
Mr. Harris has played a critical role in advancing American foreign
policy around the world. He has served as the lead negotiator on
several important bilateral and multilateral agreements on
antiterrorism, extradition, and global environmental protection. He
also provides advice on issues ranging from treaties to law enforcement
and intelligence.
But it is Mr. Harris's work to advance human rights around the world
that sets him apart. In recent years, the United States had fallen out
of compliance with five global human rights treaties, making it
difficult for our Nation's diplomats to press other nations to fulfill
their human rights obligations--something I know the Acting President
pro tempore has a particular interest in. Mr. Harris oversaw five major
reports documenting U.S. human rights activities and got our country
back on track with the rest of the world.
Mr. Harris is also leading the U.S. delegation in the U.S.-China
Legal Experts Dialogue, which provides an opportunity for both
countries to exchange expertise and discuss reforms on a variety of
issues.
Mr. Harris has successfully engaged the Chinese to implement an
existing law--an existing Chinese law--that reduces prison terms and to
more frequently grant parole to individuals serving for nonviolent
offenses--again, advancing human rights in China.
Michael Kozak, a senior aide at the State Department, commented that
Mr. Harris's negotiations have ``done more for concrete advancement of
Chinese human rights than any previous human rights dialogue that I've
ever seen.''
Mr. Harris also supervised the legal team that supported the
President's signature on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities in 2009 and guided the administration's legal
approach to handling a U.N. conference on racism. More recently, he led
U.S. and international efforts at the United Nations to prosecute
pirates engaged off the coast of Somalia.
As a 25-year veteran of the State Department, Robert Harris's
contributions have gone a long way to advance American foreign policy
and preserve our Nation's record as a leader in human rights. I hope my
colleagues will join me in thanking him for his service.
(Mr. FRANKEN assumed the chair.)
Mr. WARNER. Again, Mr. President, as you see me on this floor--and I
know you share this commitment to those Federal employees who work in
the great State of Minnesota--too often, when we have our political
dialogs here, we get closed and sometimes cavalier attitudes toward
shutting down our Nation's government and the economic consequences it
would have on our overall economy and the private sector and also the
immediate consequences it would have on the literally hundreds of
thousands of great Americans who serve us as Federal employees. Today
we take a moment to celebrate Mr. Harris's service, particularly in the
area of human rights.
I think it is a record of service of which we can all be proud. We
sometimes come down here and have tendencies to trash the Federal
Government. I sometimes believe we do that at the expense of these
people who work oftentimes for less pay, longer hours, and without a
lot of recognition. This is some small way we are trying to recognize
Mr. Harris and countless others who serve our Nation day in and day
out.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last night the Senate defeated a
misguided attempt to raise taxes on the five largest energy companies
that are operating in our country. That bill, as we discussed, would
have done nothing to reduce our gas prices, nothing to create jobs in
America, and nothing to increase domestic energy production.
Furthermore, it would have hardly made a dent in our spiraling debt.
Put another way, last night's effort would have done nothing to address
the problems that most Americans care about, that most Americans are
talking about, as they discuss things around the dinner table.
This morning we are here to debate a very different bill, called the
Offshore Production and Safety Act. It was recently introduced by the
minority leader, myself, and 16 other Senators. There is a very clear
contrast, without a doubt, between this and what was brought up
yesterday.
Instead of punishing a handful of companies within the oil and gas
industry, we provide new opportunities to put Americans back to work.
Instead of merely attempting to assign blame for our Nation's energy
challenges, we develop a policy that we are proposing that will start
to work right now and yield real benefits in the years ahead. And
instead of raising taxes regardless of the consequences, we ensure that
a far larger source of revenues, those that are derived from new
offshore production, will be generated in the years ahead.
The bottom line is that our legislation is both common sense and long
overdue. It will move our energy policy forward, not backward, and it
would do so by addressing three pressing needs: We provide a boost to
offshore energy production; we improve the safety of those operations;
and we streamline our notoriously slow Federal bureaucracy.
Before I describe these sections in greater detail, I think it is
important to explain why we focus on offshore production while at the
same time we are focusing on offshore safety. The answer to the first
part of that question is that our Outer Continental Shelf contains huge
quantities, vast quantities of undiscovered oil and gas, some 86
billion barrels of oil, and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The answer then to the second part is we all remember--we all
remember and we should not forget--what happened last summer. We are
committed to improving the safety of offshore production activities so
it does not happen again.
As I mentioned, we call our bill the Offshore Production and Safety
Act, because we understand that those terms--both production and
safety--should be part and parcel of the same policy. We want our
offshore industry to be working. But we need it to be working safely.
Those were words I used yesterday in the committee hearing on energy
when we focused on the OCS reform bill. We want our offshore industry
to be working, but we want to have that safety component. We know our
Nation will need oil for decades to come, even under the most
optimistic scenario we have out there.
We know offshore production will create thousands of badly needed
jobs, not just on the offshore rigs themselves, but all across America,
and that it will simultaneously generate tremendous revenue for our
government at a time when we are looking for those revenues. We know
that for every barrel of oil we produce here, that is one less barrel
we have to purchase from someone else, typically from somebody else
that could care less
[[Page S3075]]
about our situation here in this country.
It is not just me, not Lisa Murkowski from a producing State. It is
not just Republicans who understand these benefits. Clearly President
Obama and his team acknowledge these benefits as well. I do want to
take an aside and recognize and commend the President for announcing
that he will hold annual leases in Alaska's Natural Petroleum Reserve,
the NPRA, establishing a permitting office in Alaska, and pursuing
developmental opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic.
I have routinely criticized this administration on certain aspects of
their energy policy. But the President deserves credit for taking these
steps and I acknowledge them. I will look forward to seeing those
actually carried out, to see that followed through.
The Offshore Production and Safety Act offers us a chance to make
even greater profits. To boost offshore production, the first part of
the bill would require lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and
Virginia to be put back on the schedule. Those are areas that are
projected to contain billions of barrels of oil. But if we refuse to
even offer up the leases, then that energy is never going to be brought
to market. We would also extend for 1 year all of the leases that were
held back from production because of the administration's moratorium.
The second part of the bill relates to the safety, the safety of
offshore production. Again it is pretty straightforward. It is pretty
simple. We require that each leaseholder develop a spill response and
containment plan to make sure if an accident does occur, immediate
action can be taken to contain it and to protect the environment. This
is critical. This is what we are all hoping for and waiting for after
the Deepwater Horizon last year.
To further increase our Nation's response capacity, we would
establish a public-private task force on spill response and mitigation
measures. We would also require the Comptroller General to identify any
gap in the legal authority or spill response capability that would need
to be resolved.
This bill we have before us and that we will move to today, with the
vote this afternoon, will actually mark the first time any safety
legislation has been voted on in the Senate since the Deepwater Horizon
incident. So this Republican proposal is the first time. We did not see
that happen last Congress. I know Chairman Bingaman and I certainly
hoped we would see it. But it was not moved through last year. It was
not part of the proposal we took up yesterday.
The third and final part of our bill addresses our notoriously slow
Federal bureaucracy. Oil and gas projects are routinely delayed, not
because of the technological limits, or even the regulatory
requirements, but because the Federal Government is simply too slow in
making decisions. To remedy the situation, we would limit the amount of
time that Interior can take to decide on drilling permits. We do allow
for some flexibility here, but when delays do occur, we require an
explanation as to why. What happened? What is holding it up? Because
litigation is increasingly used to halt new development, we provide
expedited consideration of those cases in a specific court.
We know this bill does not contain every pro-production piece every
Member may wish. I wish to see an ANWR provision in here, but it is not
in here. There are additional items I clearly wish to advance, most
notably, revenue sharing, critically important for a coastal State such
as Alaska, and for my friend and colleague from Louisiana.
I am going to be working to advance this bill and, if it advances,
offer amendments. If the bill does not advance, I am going to be
working within the committee to continue to push revenue sharing and
other issues that speak to the pro-production piece. But for purposes
of this bill before us, I realize that with the revenue-sharing issue,
this does present a scoring issue which we need to resolve. So clearly
more discussion needs to come for that to happen. But, regardless, I
urge every Member who realizes the critical need for increased domestic
production to join together to advance this modest and very responsible
start.
The purpose of this bill, the reason why we are ready to take it up,
move it today, is it really is so simple. We are not asking for that
much: a handful of lease sales to be put back on the schedule, basic
safety measures be implemented, and permitting decisions be made on
time. Our goal--pretty simply--is to put offshore production back on
track closer to where it should be and closer to where we need it to
be.
If there is one word that should be used to describe this bill, it
would be modest. Everything within it is straightforward. Nothing is
outlandish. Nothing goes too far. There are no poison pills in it.
Since its introduction, the President has very explicitly endorsed
several of the provisions that are contained within it. Our proposal is
fair, it is sensible, and I believe it is time for the Senate to send
it on to the House of Representatives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Goodwin Liu Nomination
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination
of Professor Goodwin Liu's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Very simply, America deserves and needs the best of our legal
profession on the bench, the best Americans on the bench. Goodwin Liu
is an extraordinary American and an exceptional lawyer, and he will
serve with distinction on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if he is
confirmed by the Senate, as I urge he should be.
He is qualified by reason not only of his remarkable intellect but
also his professional experience, his life experiences, which are
important to anyone who serves on the Federal bench. As demonstrating
his intellect, he graduated with honors from Stanford University in
1991. He was a Rhodes scholar, graduating with honors also from Oxford.
He then went to the Yale Law School, where he was editor of the Yale
Law Journal, and clerked for two distinguished Federal judges,
including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
He has been a professor and a dean at the University of California-
Berkeley School of Law. He has worked in private practice, including
serving as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Education.
But his life has been about public service. Indeed, he served for 2
years at the Corporation for National Service, helping to begin the
AmeriCorps National Service Program.
He has dedicated immense amounts of time to representing and serving
the disadvantaged, including minority and low-income children in public
schools, and he has received numerous awards, not only for his academic
performance but also for that public service.
He brings to the bench potentially also life experience and diversity
as an Asian American. There is no Asian-American member at present on
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There should be and Professor Liu
ought to be that judge.
He has been endorsed by jurists across the political spectrum. Ken
Starr, the former Watergate prosecutor, said about him that he has
``obvious intellect and legal talent.''
Ken Starr also highlighted Professor Liu's ``independence and
openness to diverse viewpoints, as well as his ability to follow the
facts and the law to their logical conclusion, whatever its political
balance may be.''
That is a quality that is priceless in a jurist. It is to be valued
on the Federal bench, it is to be sought, and it is the reason he has
been endorsed, as well, by Clint Bolick, Bob Barr, Tom Campbell, John
Hu, Richard Painter--the list could go on. But that list is simply
reflective of that quality of the open-mindedness and willingness to
listen that the Federal bench, and any bench, needs today.
He is supported by business leaders and law enforcement officials,
including a bipartisan group of 27 former judges and prosecutors and
the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Again,
endorsements reflect quality.
I want to finish by talking about a couple of qualities that I think
are particularly important. One of them is the willingness to admit
error and recognize the need for acknowledging error,
[[Page S3076]]
as Professor Liu did in the hearing I attended. By the way, he has had
numerous hearings--an extensive review by this body. In that hearing
most recently, he acknowledged statements that perhaps should have been
said differently, could have been said better. We all, from time to
time, commit those kinds of errors, but rarely do people have the
courage to acknowledge them. Professor Liu is the kind of human being
who searches for the best in himself, as well as in others. He has a
quality of integrity I think is perhaps most important in a Federal
judge, or any jurist, and I hope across the political spectrum in this
body there will be support for Professor Liu when his nomination comes
to a vote within the next couple of days.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Offshore
Production and Safety Act, a measure to increase domestic production of
oil and natural gas in this country.
There are any number of things that make the United States the great
Nation it is. Three of these things relate directly to the debate on
the legislation that we will vote on this afternoon. They include our
bountiful natural resources, the freedoms established by our Founding
Fathers, and the determination of the American people.
The measure offered by the majority yesterday would have worked to
stifle these very characteristics by discouraging economic activity,
taxing industriousness, and putting more of our resources off-limits
for development. From the oil wealth of the gulf coast, to the coal
reserves of Appalachia, from the hydroelectric power that characterizes
much of the American West, to the oilfields of Alaska, America is
blessed with an almost boundless supply of energy wealth. From the time
of this Nation's founding, Americans have sought to explore and develop
this bounty. I am pleased to note that in recent decades we have become
more responsible stewards of this endowment.
Last night, I held a telephone townhall meeting with many of my
constituents, and the issues of gasoline prices and energy independence
were raised repeatedly. It is certainly not surprising in light of the
high gasoline prices we are facing today. As I told Mississippians
again last night during this townhall meeting that I favor an all-of-
the-above approach to addressing America's energy needs. I have
supported, and continue to support, innovation in the area of biofuels,
geothermal power, wind, and solar energy.
At the same time, however, we need to address current needs with
currently available domestic energy resources, such as oil and natural
gas. The measure we debate today, the Offshore Production and Safety
Act, is a balanced one that offers a timely way forward by presenting a
path toward lower fuel prices, job creation, and energy independence.
This legislation is responsive to the needs of the American people,
not at some uncertain date in the future but now, making use of the
resources and technology available today.
The specifics of the legislation before us are straightforward and
commonsense. This bill would require proposed lease sales in the Gulf
of Mexico, in the Mid-Atlantic, and those off of Alaska to be
completed. It would cut bureaucratic redtape while speeding up the
approval of drilling permits. Energy activities suspended during the
administration's moratorium on offshore drilling would be extended by 1
year. Safety considerations are also taken into account under this
bill, taking lessons that we learned from last year's Deepwater Horizon
tragedy, to make deepwater drilling safer than before.
Energy independence--a goal we all share--can only be achieved
through conservation, innovation, and domestic exploration, but
domestic exploration must be a part of this in order for us to obtain
independence.
According to a 2009 report by the CRS, America's combined recoverable
natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. It is far
larger than the reserves of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada. We have
the resources to meet our energy needs. I point out again that this is
the independent Congressional Research Service that tells us this.
Closely related to this issue is the one of job creation in America--
one that we should all be interested in with the unemployment rate
currently at 9 percent. America's oil and natural gas industry is
responsible for 9.2 million jobs in this country. I know the people who
have those jobs are proud to have them. I know the families who are
supported by those jobs are proud of their family members who work in
this industry. Wouldn't it be great if we can expand that 9.2 million
to a higher figure?
There was much discussion yesterday about taxation and budget
considerations. Oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico
raised over $67 million in revenues for the Federal and State
governments in fiscal years 2008 through 2010. That is according to the
Department of the Interior. Millions more went to land and water
conservation. But because of the administration's moratorium, energy
production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to decrease by 13 percent
this year, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration.
Again, that is an official organ of this government. Overall, U.S.
production is projected to drop by 110,000 barrels per day this year.
This is not progress.
The fact is, the United States is dangerously dependent on foreign
sources for our energy needs. We import 60 percent of our petroleum
needs in the United States. This is hardly a revelation. Yet the
proposed bill offered by my friends in the majority would have led to
increased dependence on the importation of energy from foreign
countries, many of which are not supportive of American interests, to
put it mildly.
Furthermore, the suggestion that the appropriate response to soaring
prices of gasoline is greater taxation on the companies that produce
gasoline simply runs counter to common sense. In the larger picture,
the administration's energy policy is not comprehensive in nature
because it fails to promote the utilization of proven domestic
resources, and the traditional domestic production it allows comes
wrapped in bureaucratic redtape. If our goal is to increase our energy
independence in the near term, the White House seems to want to lead us
in the opposite direction. We do not encourage the increased production
of any good by raising taxes and imposing more regulations on it.
The McConnell alternative, which we will vote on this afternoon,
takes a different strategy--one that would increase access to domestic
oil and natural gas. It is a strategy that would create jobs and spur
economic growth, while increasing government revenues and improving
industry safety.
Oil and natural gas reserves are abundant and accessible in the
United States today. Tapping these domestic resources is integral to
lowering energy prices and making us more energy independent.
I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Production and Safety
Act as a logical, prudent step in the right direction for U.S. energy
policy.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate debated a bill to
increase taxes on the production of oil and gas in the United States,
as well as the tens of thousands of Americans that industry employs and
really the millions of Americans it serves. We should have been
debating a budget. In fact, the Senate has not passed a budget for 749
days.
The majority decided to bring their bill to the floor yesterday in an
effort, I think, to change some of the conversation from the problem at
hand, which is our spending problem in Washington. Today we borrow 40
cents of every dollar we spend. Spending on domestic government
agencies domestic
[[Page S3077]]
nondefense government agencies in the past 2 years increased 24
percent. That does not count the $700 billion, almost $800 billion
stimulus package. It was much more than that added to it. The Medicare
trust fund will go bankrupt in 2024. The Social Security trust fund
will be insolvent in 2036. In the past decade, our Nation's debt has
increased from $5 trillion to $14 trillion.
Despite the gravity of our situation, the majority has chosen to
debate a bill to increase taxes on oil and gas, an industry that
employs 170,000 Americans and a number in my State and added this past
year 11,000 new jobs. Mr. President, $1.9 trillion in taxes has been
generated by the industry since 1981. The Reid-Menendez bill would not
have decreased prices at the pump but would have shipped more jobs
overseas and resulted in the importation of more oil and gas. Whenever
you tax something, you get less of it. Whenever you tax a refining
process, you drive up the cost. It is just that simple.
We are all aware that gas prices have doubled in the President's
first 2 years in office. Raising taxes on energy companies operating in
America would do nothing to help that situation. The real solution is
for America to enact legislation that increases domestic American
energy production from a variety of sources--oil, natural gas,
nuclear--we need to do more on nuclear--hydroelectric, biofuels, coal
and other sources of reliable energy that Americans can put to good
use--our energy.
Conservation is a very important factor and should play a very
important role. America needs an energy policy that strengthens our
national security, fosters economic growth, and protects the
environment in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. Americans need
affordable domestic energy. Regrettably, the Senate majority plan does
not seem to be interested in that kind of energy policy.
In April of this year--just last month, the United States imported
344 million barrels of oil from foreign sources. That is over 60
percent of the oil consumed in America. That means we sent $42.5
billion overseas in April alone to purchase the oil we import.
Stated differently, last month alone the United States spent over
$980,000 per minute on oil from foreign sources. That is almost $1
million a minute. This presents a significant risk to our national
security, as so many have told us, as many of these dollars are going
to nations that are not friendly to us.
This also further exacerbates our Nation's trade balance. We import
far more than we export, and our exports now are beginning to rise a
little bit, but those gains are being more than offset by the
importation of oil and the price of oil.
The Reid-Menendez bill would have increased the price of energy in
America, which, I have to say, seems to be the objective of the
administration and some in this Senate. In September of 2008, Steven
Chu told the Wall Street Journal in an interview:
Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of
gasoline to the levels in Europe.
Dr. Chu is now the Secretary of Energy for the United States of
America. He needs to be thinking about how to get the costs down and
serve the constituency of America. I do not know what idea he has that
we ought to be raising the cost of energy to the level in Europe.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in fact, is enacting new
regulations that will also drive up the cost of energy in a way that
should never have happened, in my view. We have had some close votes on
that issue. Hopefully, we will soon be able to pull back that effort. A
study by the Affordable Power Alliance concluded that EPA's greenhouse
gas regulations could increase the cost of gasoline by 50 percent,
electricity by 50 percent, and natural gas by 75 percent over the next
20 years. That is a stunning figure. There is no doubt it will drive it
up. The majority has yet to recognize the negative impact these tax
increases and new EPA regulations will have on the economy.
With gas prices up to $4 a gallon, from $2.75 in September--$4 from
$2.75--this translates into a 5-percent cut in the average American's
discretionary income just for the same amount of gas they are buying.
This means less spending on home improvements, furniture, clothes,
vacations--things people and families need. All that is eaten up by
increased energy costs. In a way, it is a form of a stealth tax on the
American people.
Furthermore, increasing energy taxes will make doing business in the
United States more expensive. As a result, jobs will go overseas.
The rise in gas prices over the past two years has meant that a
family paying $100 a month for gasoline will now pay over $140 a month
for gasoline. If someone is paying $200 a month--and many are--they
would pay $280 a month just because of a change in the gasoline price.
Add it up. That is what it amounts to--$80 for a family who uses $200 a
month in gasoline.
Some argue raising taxes will help reduce our deficit, but the tax
increases in the Reid-Menendez bill would have raised approximately
$1.2 billion in 2012. With a projected deficit of over $1.6 trillion
this year, the revenue produced from these taxes would be a drop in the
bucket. Don't think it is going to balance our budget, that is for
sure.
Furthermore, the bill's sponsors claim the money would be used to
reduce the deficit, but there is nothing in the bill that does that.
Although the language sounds good, the language is essentially what we
call a sense of the Senate and has no binding power. In the end,
nothing in the bill could have been construed as mandating deficit
reduction. It is simply a tax increase, plain and simple--tax and
spend.
As the majority tried yesterday to increase taxes on the energy
industry, they ignored the convoluted tax system that is increasing and
inhibiting job growth in America. The United States has the second
highest corporate tax rate in the world--39.5 percent. All the
developed nations have been reducing their taxes. Only Japan has as
high a corporate tax rate as we do, and they are reducing theirs. The
Canadian Finance Minister, whom I had the chance to meet with last
week, says Canada is bringing its tax rate down to below 15 percent.
And we are taxing at 39.5 percent? Will that not cause a business to
decide maybe to build their factory in Canada rather than in the United
States and cost us much needed time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I believe the McConnell legislation, which has three
components--one aimed at restoring American offshore production in the
wake of the moratorium that has been imposed, a safety component aimed
at preventing future incidents like the Deepwater Horizon, and an
efficiency component aimed at streamlining the issuing of permits--is
the right way to go. More production of American energy will help our
country, our economy, and our people.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about
the Republican bill to expand coastal drilling without environmental
review, without the normal planning process, and without important
safety measures. But before I do, I just have to respond to the remarks
of my distinguished colleague from Alabama about our bill debated on
the floor yesterday.
Only in Washington--only in Washington--could taking $21 billion from
the oil companies' tax breaks, which the legislation clearly stated
would go to deficit reduction, at a time that oil companies are making
anywhere between $125 billion and $144 billion in profits--not revenue
but profits--would that be not reducing the deficit. Only in Washington
could you say taking $21 billion from the oil industry and the tax
breaks they get, with record profits--and the law said very clearly
that was going directly to deficit reduction--only that could be viewed
a different way. And to suggest the oil companies cannot do without
that $21 billion of the taxpayers' money when they are making $125
billion to $144 billion in profits is pretty outrageous.
But I know what today's legislation is about. Yesterday, the
Republicans were standing up for Big Oil and today they are standing up
for Big Oil again because this is not about reducing gas prices.
[[Page S3078]]
Haven't we learned anything from the tragic death of 11 men aboard
the Deepwater Horizon rig a little over a year ago? Haven't we learned
anything about the families who lost livelihoods and the gulf economy
that will take decades to finally rebuild? Just over a year ago, I came
to the floor to speak about this human and environmental catastrophe, a
spill that many in this Chamber said was inconceivable--well,
inconceivable despite the fact that a remarkably similar spill had
happened a year before off of Australia's coast. Two hundred thirty
miles of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida was
spoiled by toxic oil, and countless families who made their living on
the coast had their lives turned upside down. This chart reflects the
oilspill in Australia, but this is similar to what happened in the
gulf.
Despite that sobering reality, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have introduced a bill that would open new areas to coastal
drilling and put millions more families at risk of losing everything.
And at the same time they are calling on coastal communities, such as
my home State of New Jersey, to risk everything, they have blocked
efforts to address the fundamental safety concerns raised by the
Deepwater Horizon blowout and the results of what the commission said.
This reckless bill would allow drilling in sensitive coastal areas even
though current safety and oversight laws have been deemed to be
inadequate to prevent a repeat of the gulf disaster.
So I ask, have we learned nothing? My home State of New Jersey would
face a risk of drilling along Virginia's coast, less than 100 miles
from the Jersey shore. If the gulf spill happened in Virginia waters,
many New Jersey families and much of our coastal economy would be
ruined. We have magnificent pristine beaches. The dunes along the coast
are breathtaking, wildlife is abundant, and tourism depends on it. It
would all be in jeopardy. This is the second major driver in billions
of dollars for our economy. And for what?
This photo shows what happens to wildlife when coastal drilling goes
wrong. It shows a risk we cannot take. A spill similar to the one in
the gulf could quickly travel to Cape May and blanket the entire Jersey
shore in a sheen of toxic oil. This would not only be an environmental
disaster but also an economic disaster for New Jersey. If our coast was
covered in oil and our wildlife disappeared, tourists wading into the
ocean would be replaced by cleanup crews in biohazard suits. That is
not what I want for the people of the coastal communities of my State
or any other State.
With approximately 60 percent of New Jersey's $38 billion tourism
industry generated by the Jersey shore, we cannot afford to let this
happen. And when we add the effect a spill would have on my State's
multibillion-dollar fishing industry, the economic consequences are
unimaginable. It simply does not make sense to play Russian roulette
with an asset that generates thousands of jobs and tens of billions of
dollars per year for drilling assets that could never generate even
one-tenth of that.
My colleagues argue that we must risk our coastal economies in order
to bring down the price of gas; that what we need is more production
domestically. But here is the problem. As this chart shows, we now have
greater production than at any time since 2005. Yet what do we see? Gas
prices haven't gone down. So how does that theory play out? We have
greater production domestically than ever before, but gas prices
haven't gone down.
What does the Department of Energy tell us? It estimates that opening
all the shores--all shores--to drilling would reduce gas prices by--how
much, Mr. President?--one, two, three cents in the year 2030. That is
from the Department of Energy of the United States. Drill everywhere
and a 3-cent reduction in 2030. I don't think that is about providing
relief right now. Three cents per gallon in 20 years, and yet we would
risk tens of billions of dollars in damage to our coastal economies?
So instead of doubling down on 19th-century fuels, we should be
investing in a new 21st-century green economy that will create
thousands of new jobs, billions in new wealth, and will help protect
our air and water from pollution. It is time for this country to move
forward and embrace the future rather than clutch at the ways of the
past.
Over the last 2 days, we had two bills presenting clear choices--my
bill to cut oil tax breaks and this bill to recklessly expand oil
drilling. Neither bill will do anything to gasoline prices. And despite
rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, neither bill is about gasoline
prices.
I said it very clearly. My bill to cut oil subsidies was about
lowering the deficit and doing so by cutting wasteful subsidies. It is
hard enough to be paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, but then to have
the taxpayers reach into their pockets and give more money to Big Oil
to have them make bigger profits is pretty outrageous. The Republican
leader's bill is about enriching oil companies by granting them new
areas to drill without normal safety or environmental review. My bill
was designed to help taxpayers, and their bill is designed to help oil
companies.
When it is all said and done, this is what we are deciding today: Are
you with the working, middle-class Americans or are you with Big Oil? I
think there is only one fair answer, only one answer that makes sense
for American families, and only one answer for ourselves as a country
looking to future generations.
If we learned nothing from the tragedy of a year ago, then that is a
sad commentary. But if we have learned, yes, we can pursue drilling in
certain areas, but it must be done safely or else we spend billions
afterward cleaning up the mess. I don't want to clean up the oil
companies' messes. I don't want to put future generations of Americans
at risk in terms of the conservation of their environment. And I
certainly do not want to wait for 2030, to take all of that risk, to
risk all of the billions of dollars in our coastal economies for three
cents.
Mr. President, let's vote no on this suggestion, and let's move
forward to a green energy future that finally breaks our addiction to
foreign oil and breaks our addiction to those gas prices we suffer with
today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I hear talk about gas prices and the
economy, the effect on the economy and our future. We need to work hard
to be sure we are producing more American jobs. Frankly, I can't think
of a better way to do that than to produce more American energy. We use
about the same amount of energy in a good economy as we do in a weak
economy. It is the place to go where we know the consumers are, whether
it is the electric bill or the gasoline at the gas pump, and we ought
to be doing all we can to produce those jobs.
Certainly there are many factors that affect the price of oil, things
such as the value of the dollar, supply and demand, and the global
events that affect oil, such as the problems now in Libya and other
oil-producing countries, or even the weather. I live in a State bounded
by the Mississippi River, and the flooding down the Mississippi has had
some impact on the north-south movement of refined products in the
country. All those things have impact on gas prices.
One thing that will come up this summer and that I have worked hard
on and on which many of my colleagues have joined me is looking into
what we can do to be sure our efforts to have clean air don't
needlessly restrict the supply of gasoline. As we get into the summer
months, too many cities have their own unique blends of fuel. That
means we turn the refineries into profit centers making these unique
blends of fuel instead of places that process oil into gasoline and
different blends of gasoline only when necessary as opposed to whenever
someone has convinced a city that a unique blend of fuel is the only
one they can possibly use.
In my State of Missouri we have one blend of fuel in the summer in
St. Louis, another blend of fuel across the State in Kansas City, and a
third blend of fuel in between. All those have to be blended
separately, trucked separately, sold, obviously, separately. The Gas
Act, which I hope we can talk about more in the next few weeks, is one
of the ways we can bring as much common sense into the system as we
can. Let's take the supply that we have available and use it in the way
that makes the most sense.
[[Page S3079]]
In fact, right before Katrina in 2009, the President was given new
authority in cases of natural disaster to suspend these fuel blends if
there is a restriction of supply, and the President did that. I don't
think he had the authority a month before Katrina hit. The President
did that, and in the 6 months that authority was used, gas prices did
not go up in any significant way at all, as I recall, because for that
6-month period of time gasoline became a commodity again.
If one could get gasoline, one could sell gasoline. If somebody had
gasoline, one could buy gasoline. It did not matter whether it was the
unique blend that one had become convinced that in their community that
was the only one right for them, and we set some standards on those
blends at the time, in the Gas Act, with 38 of my colleagues who
cosponsored it. We will set more standards. That is one way to try to
use the supply we have in a way that makes the most sense.
Another way, clearly, is to go out and find more. Our approach to
energy needs to be threefold: to use energy more efficiently so we use
less, to find more, and to invest in the future to find out what those
things are that we need to be looking at as we transition the system.
I am not at all of the opinion we will not have a system, a fleet of
cars that is powered in different ways at some date in the foreseeable
future. But the foreseeable future would be 25, 30, 40 years. I am
equally convinced that no matter what direction we go for fueling
automobiles, 25 years from now the majority of cars on the highway are
still going to be using gasoline. That means we need to find more of it
here. That is what the Offshore Producing and Safety Act that Senator
McConnell introduced does and what I am cosponsoring along with my
colleagues.
This bill tries to restore our offshore exploration of energy. Thirty
percent of our domestic energy supply has come from the gulf in recent
years. We want to be sure that number continues to remain at that
level.
Since April of 2010, the administration has only approved 53 shallow-
water and 14 deepwater permits--most of those underway before the
Deepwater Horizon spill a year ago. In fact, the moratorium has, for
all practical purposes, become what some people are describing as a
permatorium. We permanently decided we were not going to look at the
gulf for the kind of oil that it can, should, and needs to produce. In
fact, offshore energy production is projected to fall by 210,000
barrels per day this year. That means in the gulf we would be getting
210,000 fewer barrels of oil every day this year than we got last year.
Surely, that is no solution, to become more dependent on other
countries that are recipients of the jobs that follow our energy
future. We need those jobs to be here. The estimate is, we would be
down 190,000 barrels per day in 2012 because we have not been pursuing
the drilling permits.
It is possible that 2011 could be the first year since 1958 that the
Federal Government will not hold an offshore lease sale--the first time
since 1958. Does that mean we are less dependent on oil and gasoline
than we were in 1958 or 1959 or 1969? No, it does not mean that. We are
more dependent, and we need to move forward with looking at the
resources we have.
Recently--recently meaning Saturday, in his Saturday speech--the
President appears to have reversed course on this issue and has called
for Alaska and Gulf of Mexico leases to be reinstated and for an
extension of leases impacted by the moratorium. I think this bill
actually helps what the President called for on Saturday. It would be
lightening speed for the Senate to pass a bill on Wednesday or Thursday
that the President asked for on Saturday. I think this is very much in
line with what I would admit is a new position for the President to
take, but it is one he seemed to take firmly on Saturday. This
legislation would help him.
The number of lease sales is undetermined by the President's address,
but we could help by pursuing leasing and permitting with this act.
This act directs the Interior Department to conduct the offshore lease
sales that the administration canceled in December of 2010. These were
lease sales that were underway, the process was well along, and the
administration canceled those lease sales in December of last year.
These were lease sales in the western and central gulf and on the
Virginia Outer Continental Shelf and the Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf. Let's go back to that point: Let those lease sales move forward
as they were doing before they were canceled. The President just said
Saturday: Let's do this. Let's do it, and let's give him the tools and
encouragement he needs to do it right now.
This would end the permanent moratorium that occurred last year in
the gulf. It includes a 30-day time limit for the Interior Department
to review and decide on drilling permits. If rejected, the Interior
Department has to disclose why it rejected the permits. There should
not be anything wrong with that. If a permit should be rejected,
everybody ought to be told why, and it ought to be part of the record.
It also provides for default approval if the Interior Department does
not make a decision within 60 days.
Finally, it improves safety procedures by adding additional
requirements for a spill response plan and a containment response plan
to see that was done.
This would mean we would have more American energy, and more American
energy has two impacts. No. 1, it would inject more supply in the
marketplace, putting price pressure on the worldwide marketplace. If we
fully pursue our own resources, that does have an impact on the short-
term response of the industry because they know America is going after
its resources.
I urge we approve this bill. I intend to vote for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from
Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me say I will be supporting the
bill that we have before us today. It did not go far enough, though.
What we ought to do is open everything. I am talking about the Pacific,
the Atlantic, the gulf, the North Slope, the public lands. That is what
we really need to be doing.
I know there are some reasons they are confining it to the gulf in
terms of this legislation. While I respect that, again it does not go
far enough.
Let me make one comment about yesterday's vote. Right now the single
issue people have in terms of energy is the price of gas at the pump. I
know it is not just my wife, they are all that way. I can see that. But
when the Democrats came up with their bill last night, I hope people
remember who was voting for this. That was for a major tax increase on
what they call Big Oil.
Big oil is the five biggest oil companies. I hate to say this, but
sometimes you walk on the floor with half truths and get by with it,
and people will assume that is true. As much as I love my fellows on
the other side, some of the things that were stated were actually just
totally inaccurate.
To say the big five don't pay taxes--they pay huge taxes. I don't
know where they come up with some of these numbers. I am going to
single out one company, ExxonMobil, and tell my colleagues something
they are not aware of because it has not been said on the Senate floor
yet.
In 2010, ExxonMobil's total tax expenses in the United States were
$9.8 billion. That is what they paid in taxes in 2010. That includes
income tax expense of more than $1.9 billion. That $9.8 billion in
taxes exceeded the 2010 U.S. operating earnings of $7.5 billion.
What we are saying is, they paid $9.8 billion in taxes. They only
received $7.5 billion in terms of earnings from the United States. Why
is that? It is because about 80 percent of their operations are in
other countries. They are in 100 different countries. Not one of the
other countries charges taxes when they go offshore. I believe we are
the only country that charges a U.S. tax on production that takes place
in some other country.
For that reason, if we tax them like most people do it would have
been a tax credit and not a tax at all. Nonetheless, they were
accountable for paying taxes that year of $9.8 billion. Look at this
year. That was 2010. During the first quarter of this year, our U.S.
operating earnings of this particular company were $2.8 billion--that
is the first quarter of 2011. The rest of their earnings, more than $8
billion, came
[[Page S3080]]
from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide.
Here is a number we will not hear in Washington. During the first
quarter on those earnings, U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion, they incurred
a tax expense and paid a tax of $3.1 billion. They are paying more than
they are getting out of this country. I think sooner or later we have
to come up and just tell the truth of what is happening. It is all
class warfare. I think we know that: Big, bad oil. They are all bad.
We have a lot of production in my State of Oklahoma. We have
companies such as Devon and Anadarko and others that are doing a lot to
relieve this problem. I know what is going to happen. It did not pass,
obviously, and is not going to pass, but if it had the next target
would be some of the smaller domestic companies.
I remember coming down to the floor last year when the good Senator
from Vermont had a bill and was bringing it up by unanimous consent,
and I just happened to get here in time to stop it and debate it and
defeat it. In that bill they even held up a picture of a check from
ExxonMobil as to what their tax liabilities were--totally wrong, in my
opinion, and apparently in the opinion of 61 of the 100 Senators
because they joined me in opposing that particular legislation.
We have a solution to the problem. This is not rocket science. Right
now we have the data. It just happened in the last 8 months that the
Congressional Research Service--nobody has stood on the Senate floor
and questioned the fact that they are nonpartisan; they are objective.
They looked at our recoverable reserves in coal, oil, and gas and found
they are greater in America than any other country in the world. We
have those recoverable reserves.
The problem is, we have a political problem where the liberals here,
along with liberals in the White House, including the President, will
not exploit our own resources. We have all the oil and gas and coal
that is out there. We could be totally independent of the Middle East
in a very short period of time if we would just go offshore on all
three coasts, along with the North Slope, ANWR, and with our public
lands. As I say, every other country does it.
So we have to wonder: Why don't we do it? Why is it we don't care
about supplying ourselves with homegrown oil, gas and coal and taking
care of our own energy needs? We have the ability, but the politicians
will not let us do it.
There is one reason. That is--and this is disturbing--that in the
case of this administration, they don't want to do it. This
administration has said many times they are not interested. Listen to
what Alan Krueger, Assistant Secretary of Treasury, said:
The tax subsidies that are currently provided to the oil
and gas industry lead to inefficiency by encouraging an over
investment of domestic resources in industry.
Secondly, he says:
The administration believes that it is no longer sufficient
to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil
fuels. . . .
Look, I am all for coal, gas, oil. I am for nuclear. I am for all of
the above. I am for all of the renewables: Sun, wind, and everything
else. But we have to run this machine today, tomorrow, and the next 5
and 10 years. We can't do that without fossil fuels.
Further, they stated:
The administration's goal is to have resources invested in
ways which yield the highest social return.
Social return, that is a totally different thing--not an economic
return, not the ability to run our country ourselves but some kind of a
social engineering that is going on.
The best quote and the most telling is the one that came from
Secretary Chu, the Energy Secretary for President Obama. Listen to
this:
We are going to have to get some sort of regulatory thing
going on that [hydraulic fracturing].
He said:
Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of
gasoline to the levels in Europe.
This is our administration saying this. This is the Secretary of
Energy:
Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of
gasoline to the levels in Europe.
They are intentionally raising the price of gas and it is by their
own admission.
We were warned way back during the campaign when President Barack
Obama was a Senator. He said:
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates
would necessarily skyrocket.
So we have an effort by them. I would just warn my good friends on
the Democratic side of the aisle to watch this pretty closely because
just because the President wants to increase the price of oil doesn't
mean that your constituents do. In fact, I can assure you your
constituents do not, unless there is something unusual about my State
of Oklahoma.
Let's see what the CRS report said a little bit more specifically.
They said, in the updated report, America's combined recoverable oil,
natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. America's
recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia, China,
and Canada combined. That is the resources we have in oil, coal, and
gas.
America is the world's third largest oil producer and is endowed with
163 billion barrels of recoverable oil which will run the United States
of America for 50 years. We can run it. All the oil we will need for 50
years, we have it. We just have to get the politicians out of the way
so we can produce it.
Natural gas, in terms of trillions of cubic feet, America's future
supply of natural gas is over 2,000 trillion cubic feet, an increase of
more than 25 percent just since the committee's 2006 estimate. At
today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet America's
demand for 90 years.
Keep in mind natural gas is not just natural gas to develop energy,
but also natural gas is something we are going to be using in our cars
today. It is available. They are working on technology. We are working
on the certification of engines that will burn natural gas. When we
are, it is going to relieve that tension also. Right now, the price of
a comparable gallon of natural gas to run an automobile is $1.60
gallon--$1.60 as opposed to $4, so it is out there.
I have to say this. The President made a speech, and I responded on a
couple of TV stations. This was probably 3 weeks ago. It was on energy.
He said in that speech: We have an abundant supply of good, clean
natural gas. We need to be using it. Then, at the end of that speech,
he said: However, we have to be very careful what we are going to be
doing because we don't want to contaminate our drinking water with
hydraulic fracturing.
I happen to come from Oklahoma. The first hydraulic fracturing job in
Oklahoma was done in 1948. We have not had one documented case of
groundwater contamination ever since 1948, 60 years. Yet, right now,
they are going to stop us from going after natural gas by taking away
hydraulic fracturing. In these tight formations, the shale formations,
you can't develop a cubic foot of natural gas without using hydraulic
fracturing. It is a way of inserting liquids in to force the gas out so
we can develop it. So it is there. So the President is saying we need
to use natural gas, but we don't want to use hydraulic fracturing.
There is an effort right now by many Members to try to take that over
as a Federal function, the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Right
now, there has never been a problem with it. It is regulated
differently in different States. For example, in my State of Oklahoma,
in the Anadarko Basin, we are talking about depths of some 35,000 feet.
If you go just north in Kansas, it is between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. So
it is different in different States. It needs different regulation. It
is not broken and we don't need to fix it.
What has the President done? He has put Secretary Chu in charge of
determining what we are going to do with hydraulic fracturing.
Secretary Chu is the same guy who said we have to raise the price of
our gasoline to be comparable to the gasoline price in Europe. So that
is the wrong guy for that kind of a study.
Besides that, I would remind my colleagues we actually have a study
that is going on right now by the Environmental Protection Agency on
hydraulic fracturing that isn't through yet. It would seem to me we
ought to at least finish and get this study before we rush in and try
to pass something that will stop us from being able to develop our
natural gas.
[[Page S3081]]
I can say the same thing for coal. America is No. 1 in coal reserves.
Right now--people aren't aware of it--we are reliant upon coal for 50
percent of the power it takes to run this machine called America.
America is No. 1 in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent
of the world's coal.
So we have it here. We have gas. We have coal. We have oil. All we
have to do is develop them.
How many people in America who have gone through elementary school
don't remember supply and demand? We have a huge supply and there is a
great demand for it, but we have our politicians who will not let us
develop our supply. As long as that holds, it is going to be very
difficult for us to do it.
So I would just say this. This is a wakeup call for the American
people. We have a vote this afternoon. It is not good enough. I am
going to vote for it. But we ought to be opening our exploration and
production all over America. To do that, we have to go beyond this
bill. This is a start and it is a start that is worthwhile.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our
Nation's energy policy, or, frankly, our lack thereof.
Georgians, as well as folks all across America, are shocked every
time they pull up to a gas pump, both at the price of gas per gallon
and at the jaw-dropping cost each time they fill up their tanks.
With rising food prices and a stagnant economy, skyrocketing gas
prices could not come at a worse time. This situation illustrates why
it is imperative for Congress to focus on creating a policy to expand
and diversify our energy sources so the American people are no longer
held hostage by prices at the pump.
The necessity of congressional action has become all too clear as we
watch gas prices climb and unrest spread throughout the Middle East,
potentially threatening major sources of energy we import.
It highlights the fact that we cannot afford to keep sending hundreds
of billions of dollars per year to foreign countries--many of which are
not America's friends--to meet our energy needs. It poses a threat to
our national security and further harms our Nation's struggling
economy.
This week we are considering two pieces of legislation that both deal
with domestic production of oil and gas: the Reid proposal that aimed
to stifle it, and one introduced by Leader McConnell that increases
offshore production while improving the safety of offshore drilling
operations.
Unfortunately, the Reid proposal would have increased taxes on
domestic production of oil and gas, which would have discouraged
domestic drilling and resulted in the loss of many American jobs
associated with the oil and gas industry.
Without incentives to produce oil and gas in the United States, there
is real risk that energy companies will take many of their drilling
operations overseas. This goes directly against goals I know many of my
Democratic colleagues share of reducing our dependence on foreign
sources of oil and encouraging job growth. Moreover, as we watch gas
prices rise, why would anyone want to impose new taxes on energy which
will only further increase prices Americans pay at the pump?
My colleagues across the aisle who support this legislation portray
their proposal as a deficit-cutting measure. As much as anyone here, I
recognize the importance of reducing our Federal deficit. But I do not
support targeting one industry to bear the brunt of the deficit-cutting
measures while others enjoy tax incentives.
Rather than hindering domestic production of oil and gas, we must
encourage the development of abundant energy resources we have right
here inside the United States, and we must do so in an environmentally
responsible manner.
I was pleased the Reid proposal did not pass yesterday. As a
cosponsor of Leader McConnell's Offshore Production and Safety Act, I
will continue to support domestic oil and gas exploration and
production. It is an essential component of a comprehensive energy
policy that will enable America to become more energy independent.
As I hear more reports of new oil and natural gas deposits found
within our borders and off America's shores, I am stunned we are not
doing more to encourage the development of these resources. I cannot
think of a better means of improving our economy by both reducing
America's energy imports and encouraging job growth.
After the oilspill last year, the Obama administration reviewed its
drilling and permitting process for domestic oil and gas production,
and is still in the process of revising it. While changes clearly
needed to be made, the Department of the Interior continues to hold up
and unnecessarily delay approval of drilling leases and permits. Now is
not the time to tie up valuable and much-needed American energy
production in bureaucratic redtape. Senator McConnell's bill would
actually streamline the permitting process while improving safety.
A responsible energy policy that will make gas prices reasonable,
lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthen our economy will
also result in increased domestic energy production, improved energy
efficiency through technology, increased conservation, and a
diversified energy supply through the use of renewable fuel sources.
Along with supporting America's oil and gas development, we must also
focus on other domestic energy sources--including nuclear energy, wind,
clean coal, and solar power--that will allow us to achieve sustainable
energy independence.
I am hopeful that in the 112th Congress we will take on some form of
comprehensive energy legislation. For the sake of our national security
and our economy, we need to take this issue on now instead of kicking
it down the road for others to handle.
I encourage my colleagues to support the McConnell proposal.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of S. 953. Today
I wish again to speak about gas prices in our country and the pressing
need to increase domestic supply. In a nutshell, the way you reduce
prices at the pump for American consumers is by increasing supply,
particularly domestic supply. More supply will not only help bring down
the price of gasoline at the pump for American consumers, but it will
also help create good American jobs for our workers across the country.
It is important to remember that government does not create jobs, but
government can create the environment, the legal, tax, and regulatory
environment that will stimulate private investment, and that private
investment will stimulate the deployment of new technologies, new
companies, and, of course, create jobs to help grow and sustain our
economy.
I want to start out by giving you some examples close to my home in
the great State of North Dakota. In North Dakota, we launched a
comprehensive energy plan about 10 years ago. At that time oil
companies had either left the Williston Basin, which is the energy
patch in our State, or they were leaving. You might ask: Well, why was
that? First, it was because they were getting better returns elsewhere.
The technology was lacking to produce oil and gas economically from new
formations in our State. Companies were going to other places in the
world where they could extract that oil more cost effectively.
Second, the data on confirmed reserves was also lacking, and the
technology to produce oil from shale was not sufficiently developed.
Third, our workforce was aging.
And, fourth, transportation constraints limited production. In other
[[Page S3082]]
words, there were better places for those companies to go, better
places than our State, to invest their dollars, to get a return for
shareholders.
To turn that around, we worked very hard to build a climate for
investment and growth. I wish to tell you about some of what we worked
to put in place. First, we put tax incentives in place that made it
worthwhile to invest. Second, we established an oil and gas research
fund. Third, we initiated studies of the Bakken formation, not only
through the North Dakota Geological Survey, but also through the U.S.
Geological Survey. We asked for updates to those studies now as well.
We improved infrastructure, including four-laning some of our major
highways. We established a pipeline authority to expand transportation
capacity, to move product out of the Williston Basin to market, and we
also established a center of excellence for petroleum safety and
technology at Williston State College, to train workers in oil
production and recovery methods.
Up until that time, we had to send our workers to States such as
Colorado or Wyoming or maybe Oklahoma for that education and training
in oil field technologies, and sometimes they did not always come back
to our State. So we established that training there at home.
As a result of our advanced business environment, we drew investment
capital technology and ingenuity to the Williston Basin, and those
efforts unlocked the potential not only of the Bakken formation but
also the Three Forms formation.
This year, North Dakota will produce more than 120 million barrels of
oil, the fourth most amongst all 50 States. We passed other States now
such as Oklahoma and Louisiana, and our production continues to grow.
What is more, the private investment that funded and deployed those new
technologies to produce more oil most cost effectively and more
dependably also funded the development and deployment of new
technologies that helped us produce that oil and gas in more
environmentally sound ways.
New technologies such as directional drilling, and the way we do
hydraulic fracking, enabled companies to recover as much or more oil
from one well bore than they had formerly recovered from up to a dozen
well bores. That means more domestic production, less environmental
impact, and better results for the American people.
Bear in mind that most of these measures I am talking about, most of
these measures we implemented to enhance our business climate, were not
about government spending. They were about creating an environment that
attracted private investment.
Increased economic growth not only generated revenues for our State
and broadened our economic base but also actually enabled us to reduce
taxes for our citizens. It also has a national impact. Increased North
Dakota oil production is also helping to reduce our dependence on
foreign imports, and increase the domestic supply of oil in this
country.
As I mentioned in my remarks last week, between 1985 and 2005,
domestic oil production in this country was going down--it was
shrinking--and foreign imports were growing. In 2005, we were importing
12.4 billion barrels of oil a day into this country, 60 percent of what
we consumed.
By 2010, however, our imports had fallen to 9.4 million barrels a
day, a reduction of about 3 million barrels a day over 2005. So over
the last 5 years, we have actually reduced our daily imports of oil
into this country by 3 million barrels a day.
Our dependence on foreign oil has been reduced from 60 percent down
to about 49 percent. So what changed? Well, in part, we are using less.
But the fact is, we have increased domestic production. We have
increased our domestic supply. Increased supplies from onshore
production in the lower 48 States such as North Dakota, also from
natural gas liquids throughout the country, and from offshore drilling,
have all raised domestic output by 1.5 million barrels a day in this
country.
That is what today's vote on S. 953 is all about. The bill before us,
which was introduced by Senator McConnell--and I am pleased to be one
of his cosponsors, is about more offshore domestic production, more
offshore domestic production from off our coasts, and, hence, more
domestic supply.
Like our approach in North Dakota, onshore production, S. 953, the
Offshore Production and Safety Act will encourage more domestic
production with better environmental stewardship. It will open areas in
the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf, and parts of
coastal Virginia to new exploration and production. At the same time,
it will help to expedite the approval or denial of growing permits to a
reasonable period of time--in this case 60 days--thereby allowing
projects to move forward in a timely fashion.
But it does not just speed up the clock. This bill is also about
safety. It requires companies drilling offshore to have safety plans
that must be certified by the Secretary of Interior. To further improve
safety, it also requires ongoing preview and research into spill
prevention procedures and methods.
This legislation, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is the kind
of energy policy that will help to attract investment and increase
production in this country. That means not only more supply to help
bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump for American families, but
it also means more jobs for American workers. It is a good piece of
legislation and we ought to pass it.
Although it is a step in the right direction, no single piece of
legislation will do it all. Congress has not passed a comprehensive
energy policy in years. But, frankly, we can no longer wait for that
single sweeping master plan that will do it all at once.
Again referring to my home State, we built Empower North Dakota over
a decade piece by piece, and saw firsthand the power of energy
development in our State. The bill before us today is one piece, a
piece that can become part of a comprehensive national energy plan.
To build a comprehensive plan we need other legislation as well,
other legislation such as the Boutique Fuel Reduction Act of 2011,
which would simplify our Nation's fuel standards and make more fuel
available to American consumers. My esteemed colleague, Senator Roy
Blunt from Missouri, was on the floor a few minutes ago talking about
that piece of legislation, and also legislation such as the Regulatory
Responsibility for our Economy Act, which would actually work with a
directive from President Obama to review and remove outmoded or
excessively burdensome rules that may be impeding economic development
and job growth across our country.
We need to work in a bipartisan way, because high gas prices, high
unemployment, and low economic growth are not a Republican or a
Democratic issue, they are an American issue. That is why we also need
legislation such as the EPA Fair Play Act, which will prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency from rescinding previously approved 404
permits. I am pleased to be cosponsoring that legislation with my
colleague, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Collectively, all of
these pieces of legislation and more are the bricks and mortar out of
which we can build a comprehensive national energy policy. But we need
to get going, and we need to get going today. Let's get going with S.
953, and let's build a brighter energy future for ourselves and for
future generations.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Goodwin Liu Nomination
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to support Goodwin Liu's
nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Years ago, in the early 1990s when I was working for the national I
Have a Dream Foundation, I first crossed paths with Goodwin Liu, who
was then a senior program officer with the Corporation for National
Service. An issue
[[Page S3083]]
had arisen with regard to the corporation's support of one of our
foundation's programs. We were running an AmeriCorps program. Mr. Liu
very quickly distinguished himself through his competence and obvious
commitment to education and national service. In fact, my interactions
with him were so positive and memorable that 18 years later, when I had
joined this body and heard of his nomination, I immediately remembered
him and was anxious to find out what he had been up to in the
intervening years.
The opportunity to reconnect with Goodwin Liu as part of his
confirmation process has turned out to be one of the real pleasures of
this job. It is readily apparent to me, as well as to so many Senators
on both sides of the aisle who have had the opportunity to meet with
him, to question him, and get to know him better, that Professor
Goodwin Liu is a good, decent, bright, and engaging man.
His career, in my view, is marked by a profound commitment to
service, from his time working at the Corporation for National Service,
the organization of our Federal Government that supports VISTA and
AmeriCorps, and all sorts of different commitments to national service
across our country, to his later work as a clinical and summer
associate while in law school, to his work for the Department of
Education as a young attorney, to his service as a judicial clerk, and
then his scholarship in support of opportunities for all Americans.
Professor Liu has been guided by a desire to leave the world a better
place than he found it. Despite these many positive personal qualities
to recommend him, it is, perhaps, something of an understatement to say
that Goodwin Liu's has been controversial.
First nominated in February of 2010, and then after a searching and
difficult nomination hearing, and a vote here, a renomination in
January of this year, a second confirmation hearing in front of the
Judiciary Committee, in which I was able to participate, we now stand
on the verge of a cloture vote required for us to even get to the
consideration of his nomination.
Professor Liu is a prolific scholar, who has written on a number of
topics relating to educational rights and public schooling, among
others.
When I heard the attacks against Professor Liu, I was shocked, but
concerned. The charges that are being leveled against Professor Liu--
that he is a radical who would use the bench to engage in judicial
activism--are serious. So I took it upon myself to meet with Professor
Liu, to review his record, and to come to my own conclusions.
I can say with certainty that Professor Liu will be a first-rate
judge in the finest traditions of the legal profession. Professor Liu
knows the difference between lecturing and judging. He knows that the
role of a judge is not to advocate but to follow the Constitution and
the precedents of the Supreme Court. Goodwin Liu will obey the law. We
can and should ask no more.
If we take a step back from the partisan rhetoric, I think we can
find broad agreement across the aisle that a judicial candidate ought
to be evaluated according to his legal ability and experience, his
standing within the legal profession, his integrity, and his
temperament. Professor Liu rates extraordinarily highly in all of these
areas.
Professor Liu's academic and professional qualifications demonstrate
that he is a lawyer of the utmost ability with a broad range of
experience. He was a Rhodes scholar and holds a law degree from Yale
University, where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He went on to
clerk for one of the great intellects on the DC Circuit, Judge David
Tatel. After that, he clerked for Justice Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme
Court. Since that time, he has worked in private practice and earned a
tenured professorship at the University of California, Berkeley School
of Law. At Berkeley, he has been a prolific scholar of exceptionally
high regard.
In addition to a sterling resume, Professor Liu enjoys the highest
esteem of his colleagues. Noted conservative scholar John Yoo has
spoken out in support of his nomination, as has Kenneth Starr. He is
the recipient of the University of California's highest teaching award.
Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute, has said that
Professor Liu's writings ``exhibit fresh, independent thinking and
intellectual honesty.'' This high opinion of Professor Liu is broadly
shared. In giving Professor Liu its highest rating of ``Unanimously
Well Qualified,'' the American Bar Association interviewed scores of
attorneys and judges who have worked with Professor Liu and, evidently,
found that his reputation is one of impartiality, integrity, and great
ability. For nominees to our circuit courts of appeal, we could ask no
less.
Professor Liu's activity as a noted legal and policy scholar is, in
my view, being used unfairly to impugn his judicial temperament. In
meeting with Professor Liu, he explained to me that he understands and
respects the difference between scholarship and jurisprudence.
Academics explore the contours and limits of the law, often advocating
for policy outcomes. Judges, on the other hand, apply legal precedent
to come to the conclusion that the law compels, without prejudice or a
policy agenda.
When Professor Liu has been asked to apply the law, as would a judge,
any criticism that he allows policy preferences to cloud his judgment
does not pass muster. As an example, though Professor Liu has said that
his personal views are that individuals should be treated equally,
regardless of sexual orientation. Even so, he testified before the
California State Senate in 2008 that California's controversial
Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, would pass muster under
the California constitution. This is a concrete example, from before
his nomination to public office, that Professor Liu is capable and
willing to set aside personal preferences and views when called upon to
render a legal judgement.
I also examined Professor Liu's scholarship on the topics of
education and welfare, to which his opponents claim he would create a
constitutional right if confirmed to the bench. I would be concerned if
these charges have merit, but they do not. Rather, they reflect a
distortion of what he has actually written. Professor Liu has
repeatedly clarified his unexceptional belief that Congress, and not
the courts, have the power to create new fundamental rights through
amendment to our Constitution.
An objective review of Professor Liu's qualifications, temperament,
and intellect lead to the conclusion that he is an outstanding nominee
and should be confirmed to the bench. Former Representative Tom
Campbell, a five-term Republican Member of the House, agrees. In urging
his swift confirmation, Representative Campbell specifically praised
Professor Liu's reputation for, quote ``integrity, fair-mindedness, and
collegiality.''
I call upon all of my colleagues to take a fresh look at Professor
Liu and to come to their own conclusions about him. In my opinion,
Professor Liu is a dedicated public servant who has undergone intense
scrutiny over the past 15 months at great personal sacrifice. Too
often, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that judicial and executive
nominees are also people, with families, careers, and other
responsibilities in their lives. The confirmation process can exact a
steep cost and, as a result, many qualified and decent individuals
either withdraw or decline to submit to it in the first place.
Professor Liu is an exceptional nominee to the Circuit Court. He has
borne the challenges of confirmation with grace and dignity, as is in
keeping with his character and dedication to public service. In voting
on the petition to invoke cloture, I ask my colleagues to consider the
content of Professor Liu's character. Listen to those who know him
above the interest groups who have sensationalized his nomination. I
ask them to consider his bipartisan support from those who work with
him and those who know him best.
I know Goodwin Liu. I trust him and know he will make a fine judge. I
urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator
McConnell's production bill. The bill might be too much for some, too
little for some, and maybe it is not perfect, but we must take a step
in the direction of adding production of our Nation's natural resources
if we are going
[[Page S3084]]
to bring down the cost of gasoline, bring down the cost of fuel, bring
down the cost of all the elements we have that are providing for our
electricity, natural gas, and other forms of energy.
I hope we can pass Senator McConnell's bill. Oil is, today, slightly
under $100 per barrel, and with the summer driving season approaching,
we know the price could go up. It is graduation season and people are
driving to their graduation ceremonies, and they are having to pay
these enormous prices at the pump. It is over $4 in many places. I
recently read a story about a constituent who was going to College
Station for a Texas A&M graduation, and he complained, rightfully, that
he had a diesel truck and it cost him $74.41 to get his truck half
full. That is a lot for a half tank of fuel. I think we can do
something about it.
Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has put up barriers
to increasing our domestic energy potential. We must stop that policy
and go in the other direction and open our natural resources and use
our natural resources, so we can bring down the cost of fuel and try to
help our small businesses and families by providing opportunities to
lower fuel.
The McConnell legislation gets the ball rolling. Supporters of the
bill agree that long-term energy solutions involve removing the anti-
energy barriers to safely produce energy for Americans by Americans. On
March 30, the President stated that producing more oil in America can
help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security.
But what is happening is our regulatory agencies are going in the
opposite direction. They are stopping the production of oil and gas in
our country.
Let me read excerpts from a FOX News article, by Dan Springer, in
April of this year:
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to
drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the
northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a
ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold
critical air permits. . . .
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion on plans
to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The
leases alone cost $2.2 billion. . . .
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is
Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the
United States. According to the latest census, the population
is 245, and nearly all of them are Alaska natives. The
village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores
of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed offshore
drill site.
The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into
consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when
calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the
project. . . .
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That's
how much the U.S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S.
portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents
two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans
Alaska Pipeline throughout its 30-year history. The pipeline
is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day,
it's carrying only one-third of its capacity.
So we hear what the President is saying, but his own agencies are
going in the opposite direction.
Here is another example: We are approaching June. The Department of
the Interior has not conducted an offshore lease sale in the Gulf of
Mexico. Lease sales usually occur twice a year. If a lease sale doesn't
occur by the end of the year, 2011 would be the first year since 1958
which we have not conducted an offshore lease sale.
Because of the President's moratorium and lack of permitting in the
Gulf of Mexico, offshore energy production is expected to decrease by
13 percent in 2011. Senator McConnell's bill addresses the need for
increased domestic production by reinstating the oil and gas leases in
the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the Atlantic, which President Obama
canceled.
This legislation also tackles the permitting delays companies in the
gulf have experienced. Since October, the Department of the Interior
has only issued 53 shallow water permits and 14 deepwater permits. The
monthly approval rate before the moratorium was approximately 10
shallow water and 8 deepwater permits.
This legislation eliminates the bureaucratic delays which have
burdened operators and have taken away their ability to raise capital
to do the exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. In the bill, it says the
Department of the Interior will approve or reject permit applications
within 30 days. It doesn't require approval of every application, but
it puts a limit of 30 days on the approval process, so people will not
be hung out, as they have been since last October. They are still
paying the costs, but they cannot explore. So they are sitting idle.
This has caused the bankruptcy of at least one company I know in Texas,
Seahawk Drilling. This is not good policy when we are talking, as the
President is, about increasing production in our country and then doing
the opposite by enacting proposals that do not make sense, such as a
moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
On March 9 of this year, Senator Landrieu and I introduced S. 516,
the Lease Extension and Security Act, known as the LEASE Act. All this
does is simply extend for 1 year the leases that have had a moratorium,
but the people are still paying the costs of those leases when they
have been prohibited from using them. The leaseholder continues to pay
the Treasury for all expenses associated with maintaining a lease, but
they have been prohibited from exploring the lands the lease is on.
It is very important that we pass this legislation. In the bill
before us, the McConnell bill, we have a variation of the LEASE Act. It
extends the leases for those that are going to come to an end at the
end of this year. If they come to an end at the end of this year, they
will get a 1-year lease. That is a right step in the right direction.
Senator Landrieu and I believe every leaseholder--even if their lease
does not run out this year--should have the full opportunity for their
lease exploration capabilities in order to make it fair for the price
they have paid in the open bidding process for those leases.
The President has said he approves the extension of some leases. We
agree. Why not all of them? They have been paid for. In many instances,
the companies are still paying the employees, even though the employees
are not able to do the work. This year alone, over 350 leases will
expire and many of them are in moratorium.
The bill before us would help those people to use the next year for
determining if it is worth drilling for more of the oil on the leases
they have purchased.
I think it is very important that we pass this legislation that we
will vote on very shortly today if we are serious about increasing the
production of our own natural resources for the benefit of our people.
It seems to me we need to back up the words of the President with
actions that will be positive, proactive, and productive in getting the
price of gasoline down at the pump. If we can start now, I hope the
President would take some of the steps, for instance, to allow Shell,
with the investment it has made, to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean.
That is a place where there are vast reserves that have not been
tapped. The people of Alaska support it.
If we would use our natural resources, we could put people in America
to work. We could stop the heavy importation of foreign oil, which is
what we depend on now for over 50 percent of our fuel, and certainly we
would like to add to our economy in this precarious economic time. We
can do it with our own natural resources.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the McConnell bill, and maybe then
we can open it for amendments and get started in doing the right thing
for our country.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss high gas prices and
the direct impact they are having on every American. Every day, we see
the impact of high gasoline and diesel prices on our constituents and
their pocketbooks. Some wonder if they will be able to put food on the
table when they cannot afford the gas it takes to get them to work.
Others see skyrocketing food prices caused by the increased fuel costs
and wonder if they can afford a healthy meal for their children. Others
wonder if they can take a vacation or cool their houses this coming
summer.
Today, gas prices hover around $4 per gallon. According to a recent
USA Today/Gallup poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that the cost of
fuel is causing a financial hardship for their families. That same poll
suggested that 21 percent of Americans say the impact of high gasoline
prices is so dramatic that their standard of living is jeopardized.
[[Page S3085]]
This is a serious problem and it needs immediate action.
Unfortunately, rather than taking action to address the problem, I am
concerned that Congress will once again punt on doing what we need to
do to bring prices down now. To bring prices down, we need to address
the fact that the United States imports too much oil from foreign
nations. We need to increase supply at the same time we work to reduce
demand.
There are two approaches that have been considered in recent weeks.
My Republican colleagues and I have offered legislation that will
increase production in the Gulf of Mexico. It will allow for the
development of more American energy, which will decrease the amount of
oil we import. With unrest in the Middle East, it will start the
process of giving America a more stable source of domestic energy, and
it will create American jobs at a time when the unemployment rate is 9
percent. Our bill looks at the problem--an unstable supply of energy--
and provides a solution that will make our country more energy
independent today.
The other approach being considered is that of my Democratic
colleagues. Their bill, which failed to move forward yesterday, sought
to increase taxes on five companies in the oil industry. Whether or not
those tax benefits should exist is worth debating in the context of
overall corporate tax reform, but that is not what we are debating
today. We all know that their approach to energy policy won't do
anything to improve the current situation. In fact, their legislation
might make matters worse by leading to less domestic production and a
larger increase in gasoline prices.
The contrast couldn't be greater. Republicans have put forth
thoughtful legislation that will begin to address the problem and help
lower gasoline prices. Democrats have put forth punitive legislation
that might make some feel good now because it punishes ``Big Oil,'' but
ultimately it will not do anything to lower gas prices. Republicans
support legislation that will create American jobs. Democrats support
legislation that will drive American jobs overseas.
Some suggest that our bill will not do anything to lower prices
because it will take too long to implement to have a real effect. That
is the same argument I have heard since I came to the Senate over 14
years ago. Opponents of domestic production always say that it will not
do anything to lower prices today. If we had taken action to open up
areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when I came to the
Senate in 1997, we would be producing approximately 1 million more
barrels of domestic oil today. If we had stopped efforts to lock up the
gulf coast 10 years ago as many Republicans suggested, we might not be
having this conversation today. And, if we do not do anything today,
Senators will still be asking these same questions 10 years from now.
And, it might not take 10 years for oil to come online if agencies are
not delayed from issuing permits by frivolous lawsuits. The 2006
highway bill included a provision that prohibited lawsuits from being
filed more than 180 days after publication of the final permit in the
Federal Register. Such a provision should be included in future
legislative efforts to move forward with American energy development in
a timely manner. With high oil prices, we have an opportunity to act
today and we should not let this opportunity pass without action.
In addition to lowering gasoline prices, we have the ability to
increase revenues to the Federal Treasury today without raising taxes
in a punitive manner on one industry. By passing legislation that
allows for more domestic production, we will increase revenues to the
Federal Treasury at the same time it creates good paying American jobs.
In 2008 and 2009, the oil and gas industry paid over $30 billion in
rents, royalties, and fees. The industry is estimated to generate
approximately $100 million in revenue each day this year to the Federal
Government. This amount will only increase as we allow for the
production of more domestic energy.
With Americans hurting, we need to do something--anything to reduce
gasoline prices. But, instead of working on solutions for one of the
single most important issues confronting the American people, my
colleagues in the majority loudly sings campaign rhetoric chorus and
verse. They say, ``let's punish big oil for making big profits'' and
``let's not allow these energy companies to dupe us when Americans are
paying record high prices.'' What they do not say is that their
approach will do nothing to help the situation and will likely make the
situation worse. They do not admit that their proposal is good
politics, but bad policy. This is not the way we should legislate when
Americans cannot afford to fill up their tanks. We need to do something
about energy and we need to do it now.
Like most of my colleagues, I support developing more alternative
energy. I support the use of wind energy and the development of better
solar energy technologies. Wyoming is the perfect place for much of
that development to happen. While we need to develop these technologies
for the long term, we need of the energy we can get today. We need more
American oil from American soil. We need more domestic natural gas. We
need more nuclear energy and we definitely need more clean coal.
Republicans stand ready to have a serious debate about our country's
energy policy. We have offered a proposal that looks at the supply and
demand challenges we face and addresses them head on. Republicans stand
ready to pass legislation that will lower gasoline prices and will
increase domestic production. Those actions will, in turn, create
American jobs and will increase revenues to the Federal Treasury at a
time when we see record deficits.
For too long, we have talked about the need to have a comprehensive
energy policy. We have talked about the need to decrease our dependence
on foreign energy sources. It is time for us to stop talking and to
act. The upcoming vote on S. 953, the Offshore Production and Safety
Act, is our first opportunity to act, and I hope my colleagues will
join me in working to lower gas prices by passing this measure.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand the wealth and
opportunity represented by our Federal offshore petroleum and natural
gas resources. We are blessed in this country with an abundant public
estate. Montana, too, is abundant with natural resources and relies
heavily on these resources for jobs and economic stability. I support
efforts to develop these resources with commonsense safeguards that
reduce our exposure to volatile foreign energy resources. I have
supported onshore and offshore drilling in the past, and will continue
to do so long as it is done responsibly.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the
Offshore Production and Safety Act. It is legislation that attempts to
address the regulation and the critical need to drill for oil in this
country.
Let me tell you, I understand the frustration from my colleagues who
are upset about the bureaucratic agencies that really do not understand
the urgent need to review permits in a timely and responsible manner.
Mining in West Virginia has long been a direct target of the EPA and
these unfair regulatory practices they have practiced for far too long.
For example, in May of 2009, the EPA had a permit backlog of 235
applications. Two-thirds of them were already deemed complete for final
processing by the Army Corps of Engineers. Clearly, there is a problem.
The question is, Is this legislation the right solution?
The truth is, I would love to sink my teeth in and vote for this
measure, but I simply cannot. I do not believe this legislation strikes
the right commonsense balance among our energy demands, responsible
regulation, our economy, and the environment. In fact, the unintended
consequence of this legislation is that it could make regulatory
agencies more powerful and more Draconian--a fact that would actually
hurt the drilling, the energy independence we could gain, and the
businesses' and our need to achieve energy independence.
Quite simply, if we place a fixed 30-day deadline on these permits
with two 15-day extensions, I believe we would see more permits denied
than we would see processed. How does this make sense? It would create
a perverse effect
[[Page S3086]]
that could encourage government bureaucrats to stop any and all
permits, and that would be a terrible outcome.
The fact is, neither the legislation we will vote on today nor the
legislation we voted on yesterday addresses the bigger issue that our
Nation must declare its independence from foreign oil. We can only do
that by developing a true national plan for energy independence.
I have come to this floor many times to urge my Republican and
Democratic colleagues to work with me to put together an energy plan
that works for all of America. In fact, just last week, I came here to
address the importance of expanded domestic drilling. I truly believe
this Nation needs to develop all of our domestic resources, whether it
is drilling for oil or natural gas, mining coal, producing wind and
solar, developing better nuclear, biomass, or geothermal so that we can
declare our energy independence within a generation. But in developing
and pursuing a national energy plan, we cannot lose sight of our
commonsense values and our priorities.
This bill falls short of those commonsense priorities, but I assure
my colleagues that I will work with any Senator from either party who
will try to create a national energy policy that will truly help the
Nation achieve energy independence.
I thank all of my colleagues, and I hope we will be able to work
together to move this Nation forward for true energy independence.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
NAYS--57
Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
DeMint
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Baucus
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are
57. Under a previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
motion, the motion is withdrawn.
The majority leader.
____________________