[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.

                          ____________________