A bill to require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to take certain actions to reduce excessive speculation in energy markets.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we continue the discussion about the impact of high energy prices, high gasoline prices at the pump, what they mean to families from Alaska to New York--the very reality we face as a nation that is struggling still, coming out of a recession. We are worried about jobs. We are clearly worried about the high price of energy and what can be done. I think it is important to note this is something to which there are no clear and easy answers. There are no short-term, quick, flip-the-switch fixes we can do. But there are a lot of things we can help to make happen by either affirmative action or, in many cases, getting the government out of the way.

In doing so, I think it is important we speak honestly about the situation before us, about what the potential solutions are and how they translate. In the past day or so, I have heard some comments from some of my colleagues that I think deserve a fair and honest

rebuttal so this conversation, the dialog, can continue and be better understood in terms of what we are talking about with these oil and gas tax increases--because that is exactly what the Menendez proposal would do. It would increase the taxes on an industry that is providing not only much needed resources for this country but much needed jobs.

The first point I have heard is that American taxpayers are, somehow or other, subsidizing the oil companies. Again, it is important to put this in context. This argument I think rather bizarrely labels basic tax deductions, somehow or other, as a subsidy, as though the Federal Government allowing businesses to retain more of their earned dollars-- because that is what is happening with the situation of the oil companies; they have earned the dollars and they are basically keeping more of the dollars they have earned--that, somehow or other, that action is the equivalent to handing them a check from the government; whether it is what we see, for instance, with the situation at Solyndra, where they got a check from the government. It is important to put in context that when some say we need to end subsidies for oil companies, I think what that translates into is raising taxes on oil production.

I think it important to note and understand this is an industry that does pay substantial taxes to the Treasury. Their taxes are already higher than we see in most other industries. The four largest companies have an effective tax rate that is over 40 percent. In 2010, they paid $55 billion in income taxes to Federal, State, local, and foreign governments. That is a huge sum. It probably increased, along with the oil prices, back in 2011. These numbers are from 2010. But when people say we all need to pay our fair share, I think it is important to ask the question: How much does the industry have to pay before it is sufficiently considered to be doing its part?

One of the other points of contention that has been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that raising taxes on oil companies will not increase gas prices. Well, it is certainly not going to lower them. I think we can probably agree on that.

If we raise taxes on oil production, we are going to get less oil production, and it is a question that I think we need to ask. Think of any situation where if we tax it more, we will have more of it, and it will be more affordable. It just doesn't make sense here.

Both the President and the sponsor of the legislation before us have publicly stated that more production can help lower prices. Loss of oil production due to punitive taxes--I think we have seen this play out time and time again. Back in the Carter administration they advanced a failed windfall profits tax.

I mentioned yesterday on the Senate floor the example that we are seeing play out in Great Britain right now. One year ago the United Kingdom decided to do essentially what is being proposed here. They reacted to high oil prices by raising taxes on the industry, and the net result was companies produced less, and they diverted their investment elsewhere.

In the year since the UK imposed its tax hikes, the production decline has tripled from 6 percent to 18 percent. They are now looking at reversing that decision and have announced new oil tax breaks to try to bring back that production.

Another point that has been raised is that somehow or other oil companies are getting special treatment, and I just mentioned this a little bit. Again, the four largest oil companies have an effective tax rate that is over 40 percent. What that means in terms of where they stack up with other industries--this is a higher effective rate than in most other industries that we would see there.

Another point that has been raised is that oil companies are not investing their profits in more oil production. The President seems to disagree with this statement, arguing that the United States is producing the most oil it has seen in years. But the reality is, efforts to produce oil here in this country have been blocked or slowed by the Federal Government seemingly at every turn. Again, I think it is important to put this in context in terms of where we are seeing increased production because that part of the discussion is true. We are seeing increased production but not necessarily on our Federal lands.

On this map of the lower 48, the Federal lands are all these areas in yellow. The red dots are Federal shale well operations on Federal land. The blue is the shale well private land operations. So we have a situation where 96 percent of all production increases have occurred on our States and on our private lands. This comes from the administration's own EIA that we have seen production on the Federal side drop under this administration. The fact that exists is that America's largest untapped oilfields--whether they are in the offshore areas, the mountain west, Alaska, which is not even on this map--are still off-limits under Federal law. None of these resources are counted when people say the United States only has 2 percent of the world's reserves.

I showed a chart yesterday that indicated we are not even allowed to count these areas that have not been truly proven. It is because of the lands being off-limits or the permitting delays that we see that the United States is not a larger producer of oil. If the Federal Government wanted to, it could allow us to become the world's top oil producer and be virtually independent of OPEC sources.

A fifth point that deserves some comment: Yesterday, the majority leader said for every 1 cent increase per gallon of gas, Big Oil profits rise by $200 million. Presuming this figure is true in the general sense that it has been alleged, I think my Democratic colleague appears to prefer that perhaps those profits should go to OPEC rather than to U.S. companies or to the pension holders. At least in the United States those dollars are taxable. They support jobs--including 9.2 million jobs within the oil and gas industry--and help us with the balance of trade issues. So, again, that is a contention that needs to be directed, some commentary.

Another point is that America is now a major or net exporter of oil. This was raised yesterday by the Senator from California when I was on the Senate floor. She said: We are now a major or net exporter of oil. That statement is absolutely false and needs to be corrected. Under 15 CFR 754.2, it is illegal to export crude oil from the United States without a rare and very special waiver. Therefore, 99 percent of the oil that is produced here stays here. Ninety-nine percent of the oil produced in this country stays in this country. Only 1 percent of U.S. oil is exported.

The very small, very insignificant exports of crude that do occur require a very extensive review process. It is typically sent to Canada or Mexico for refining purposes. Ultimately, that fuel is returned for use in the United States.

In terms of exporting refined products, if that is the concern, Secretary Chu came before the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and stated that the only refined product exports from the United States consist of certain types of diesel fuel and products we don't use in the United States. So that is a big difference between refined product and crude.

But it is important to correct the record and demonstrate that we are not in a situation where, as a country, we are exporting our crude oil. It is totally inaccurate to say the United States is running a surplus or acting as some major exporter of any of the fuels which Americans need and use to fill up their vehicles or heat their homes. As a result, almost 90 percent of refined products stay in this country. Pretty much the only products that are exported are those products we don't use.

The last and final point I would like to make is about a statement that was, again, made yesterday that somehow or other Republicans only want to drill, and they are not interested in renewable energy. Again, I think that statement is a false one and needs to be corrected.

I come from an oil-producing State and certainly believe very strongly that we need to also focus our efforts on renewable energy. Republicans are simply proposing that we pay for renewable energy research and development without raising taxes on employers and consumers.

I have been pushing for years to allow for revenues from the development of ANWR to help us build out that next generation of energy source for our country. ANWR revenues alone could provide as much as $300 billion in Federal revenues for renewables--depending on what the price of oil is--if Democrats would simply allow access to it. Instead, they propose to raise taxes on whatever production is taking place and hand out loan guarantees, unfortunately, to many unstable companies.

I would also point out that allowing the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with drilling. Neither does pressing the EPA to settle down with its regulations that are making refineries so expensive to operate and in some cases actually shutting them down. I think most Republicans also support the new CAFE standards and many of the other renewable provisions that were in the energy law passed in 2007. This Congress has passed multiple efficiency and renewable bills out of the Energy Committee. Unfortunately, none of them have been allowed a vote on the floor of the Senate.

So I think it is wrong to suggest that Republicans are not willing to talk about anything but drilling. We just want it included in part of that discussion when we are talking about ``all of the above.'' I think we absolutely need to mean all of the above, and that includes increased domestic production and it includes a strong future for renewables. It must focus on conservation and efficiency. This is how we will get to a true level of energy independence and reduce our energy vulnerability on our insecurity.

With that, I know my time has expired. I would ask unanimous consent that the time during all quorum calls be divided equally.

Mr. President, I follow my friend and colleague from North Dakota who has been a real leader in these Chambers trying to educate not only those in these Chambers but people across the country as to the value and importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline and what it means to this country, not only in terms of a resource we need but also in terms of jobs and not only construction jobs but what it means to fill a pipeline and provide for a product that goes down to our refineries.

Again, when we are talking about an economic boom, where better to look than to our neighbors to the north, and I thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue.

I too wish to talk about our opportunity as a nation to do more when it comes to increasing supply within our own country. As has been mentioned on this floor numerous times today, numerous times yesterday, we are in a position as a nation to be doing more to access our own resources, to make us less dependent on countries that do not like us, to make us more energy secure, less energy vulnerable. At a time when the geopolitical scene is so shaky, every step we can take to make us more secure from a national security perspective and an energy security perspective is clearly important.

I have a substitute amendment that I have filed, which I think is important to this debate. I think it is important when we are talking about our access to supply.

What I will discuss in my 10 minutes is not new. Members have heard me talk over and over about the prolific oil resources that reside in Alaska. According to the Energy Department, we have over 40 billion barrels of oil that could be produced up North, providing not only the energy but the energy security, the jobs, and new revenues. We have a pipeline that is built already. We don't need to deal with the permitting issues there. It is there waiting to carry oil. We have overwhelming support from Alaskans.

What we don't have is what is perhaps most important, which is permission from the Federal Government to actually develop our huge oilfields. The biggest on the continent is in the northwest corner of ANWR. For years, we have sought to develop a total of 2,000 acres in what is known as the 1002 area, which Congress set aside back in 1980 to access for energy exploration. They knew then that this area had great potential. The 1002 area is projected to contain more than 10 billion barrels of oil. If you were to put it into context this way, it would be 1 billion barrels a day coming down that pipeline to us from ANWR. That is enough to replace Venezuela or Saudi imports for about 30 years. To think that we could get off of Venezuela and we would not need to go to Saudi Arabia with tin cup in hand because we are producing ourselves here--think about what that means to us. For those who bring about the speculation and argument of what that does to prices, think how this would mess up speculators if you add a million barrels a day online. Instead of embracing this as an opportunity, every excuse in the book has been thrown at us against development. You hear that the environment will be degraded, wildlife will be disturbed, and that despite a better environmental record than just about anywhere else in the world at Prudhoe Bay, we cannot do it. They don't trust us to do it. But for 20 years we have been hearing: Don't go toward ANWR; don't develop ANWR because it will take you 10 years to get that online; therefore, it is not even worth considering.

Even the late-night TV shows talk about it. Jay Leno joked about that and said, ``Democrats said it would take 10 years 10 years ago.'' If you don't get started, it is never going to happen. We are going to keep that money in the ground indefinitely if we don't get moving on it. I don't accept the arguments that have been tossed out, but they have not accepted the facts that we have presented.

I have an amendment that has changed a little bit. It is designed to address this debate. It would prohibit surface development entirely. Yet, it still allows for a very substantial portion of the oil to be accessed from our State lands, with drills reaching beneath the Coastal Plain. We do this by allowing only subsurface occupancy. We use extended horizontal drilling production. Right now, it can reach about 8 miles underground in all directions. As the technology advances, more and more of that refuge's oil could be tapped. Again, we are not going to be occupying the surface. There is no surface occupancy in this legislation. All land-based structures would be located on adjacent State lands. You would not see permanent roads, wells, buildings, and pipelines constructed on the surface of the refuge.

If you were to put together a slide show of development, the surface would be unchanged before, during, and after

production. This is a photo of ANWR, and this is probably in the spring because you have tufts of grass coming up through the melting snow. This is what it would look like before, during, and after because we are underneath through the technology.

The amendment I am offering gives the Senate a chance to put reason ahead of rhetoric, policy above politics, when it comes to oil production in this State. It is a chance to end this decades-old dispute about whether development can proceed safely.

We have not just met the opposition halfway here on ANWR; we have met them 90 percent of the way. We have written into the amendment more stringent environmental safeguards than on any other Federal lands. We sacrifice 90 percent of the revenues, which Alaska is entitled to under our statehood agreement. We proposed a 50 50 Federal split. It seems that we are now begging to access a small fraction of the reserves from miles away.

It defies logic to think that, again, an idea, a concept like this would be kept off the table. I realize many are dug in on this issue. I have attempted to change the debate, change the conversation. I would ask the Senate to take a moment to consider how far we have compromised on this amendment and understand why it is different. I hope we can get a vote on it.

I ask, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, when the Senate resumes consideration of the pending energy tax bill, would it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 1976 at that time?

The Chair is saying that the amendment slots have been filled by the majority leader, is that right?

Mr. President, I have another issue I wish to bring up today in the remainder of my time. I have two other amendments I would like the body to consider. I understand what the Chair has just said.

One of the things that I think we recognize is much of our country's production can lag due to an accumulation of redtape due to permitting issues. We know the Federal Government cannot necessarily set global commodity prices, but it can create a situation where capital that might be invested in American mineral production is stranded for long periods of time. That is what we see happening, and it is unacceptable.

What we should not do, particularly in the case of energy and minerals development, is subject a project to an unnecessarily long permitting process. I have an amendment that would begin to remedy this situation, and it would do so by using the very language the President used last week with his executive order, which he signed March 22. My amendment incorporates provisions that had pretty broad bipartisan support on the highway bill considered by this body. These provisions will work. According to the September 2010 report by the Federal Highway Administration, these reforms have cut the time required to complete environmental reviews and have mitigated the delays caused by last-minute legal challenges. What they do, more specifically, is take the President's executive order and put some teeth to it, if you will.

The President simply asked the agencies to consider making certain improvements. What I have done through my legislation is ask for a process for States to nominate items that might be subject to NEPA, allow for a shortening of review periods, and the designation of a single lead Federal agency. It is a situation that I do think rests on a good premise. The President has suggested that this is an approach that needs to be considered when, again, making such improvements.

I suggest that if it is good enough for the President and for our transportation needs, as we have seen demonstrated in the highway bill, then it is good enough for energy, mineral, and infrastructure needs as well.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1985, which includes all of the provisions I have described.

Mr. President, I am disappointed we won't have an opportunity to offer the amendments. Several of my colleagues will be coming down to offer their amendments. We have been told that the tree has been filled. The amendment I am proposing--I actually have two. One, as I have described, is probably broader in scope, but I have a second amendment that literally takes the President's executive order and provides instructions to the agencies to do a rulemaking to implement them within 1 year. This is not something that the Senator from Alaska has designed; this is the President's executive order. I think it is designed to get us to an expedited permitting process so we don't have the lag times, whether it is on transportation infrastructure or energy issues.

I think it is a good measure, and I ask my colleague from Illinois, in the effort to work together, which I appreciate, to take a look at this amendment. I apparently will not be able to introduce or call up amendment No. 1986. But again, what that bill would do is pretty simple. It is to codify portions of the President's executive order. The title is ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting.'' He suggested it, and I thought it made sense. Now we are urging the agencies to provide for an implementation.

Again, I think this debate we are having on the floor this week is an important one. We are focused on the issues that people in this country are talking about. Folks back home are very concerned. I just met with a group of students. One young man is a high schooler from Yakutat, probably driving his first car, and they are paying in excess of $5.50 a gallon at the pump. When you are a 16- or 17-year-old boy, that is pretty high. Even when you are a person our age, that is high. He wanted to know what we are doing as a Congress to help address these issues.

I cannot overstate my disappointment, as we are dealing with these difficult issues in what we all know to be a great deliberative body, that we cannot move to a process where we can allow for fair and germane amendments that I think would help address some of the energy challenges we face, recognizing where we are today.

I see my colleague from Louisiana has joined us on the floor. My time has expired.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 5 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues who have come down to the floor this afternoon for their efforts to offer what I believe are very substantive, very meaningful amendments to the legislation that is before us. I think we can condense the message you have heard here this afternoon pretty easily.

The fact is that the bill before us is highly misleading, and I don't believe it will work. The legislation that has been introduced, S. 2204, is not going to put an end to Federal subsidies for oil and gas producers because there are none. There are no subsidies here. The oil and gas industry actually sends money to the Federal Government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year, and it is not the other way around. Basic tax deductions that allow businesses to retain more of their earned dollars is not the equivalent of handing them a check. So I think that is the first thing we need to get out on the table and make very clear.

The second point I want to reinforce is that S. 2204 is simply not going to work. By definition, increasing costs will not lower prices. There is nothing I can think of that, if we tax it more, it will make it more affordable and more abundant. It just doesn't work that way. And judging from both history and some recent international examples, it is virtually certain that S. 2204 would have damaging effects on this country.

Back in 1980 the Carter administration imposed a windfall profits tax. We remember that. This was a tax that was imposed on domestic crude oil. According to the Congressional Research Service, that tax reduced domestic oil production, it increased our dependence on foreign nations, and it collected far less in revenue than was expected.

The example that is more current on the international scene is one I spoke to yesterday, and that is the example in Great Britain. A year after raising its oil tax rates, production declines in Great Britain have increased from 6 percent per year to 18 percent per year. As a result, Great Britain is reversing that course. They are now planning to offer new incentives to encourage producers to return to the North Sea.

So all we need to do is look at a real-time example of what one country did in an effort to deal with high gas prices. They increase the taxes, and investment and production goes overseas. Now they are turning the corner on this, and they are working to reduce their taxes.

I think there is clearly a better way. The other side of the aisle has refused to even consider amendments that will increase Federal oil and gas production, create good jobs in this country, generate billions of dollars of Federal revenues at a time that we desperately need them, restrain if not reduce gasoline prices, and increase our domestic energy security.

We believe very strongly that the solution to these many problems should be a reasonable combination of increased domestic production, for which we have huge world-class untapped resources that are still locked up by our Federal Government--America could be the world's largest oil producer, and we could be independent of OPEC. That is real. That is achievable. But we have to set our mind to it, we have to make that happen, and we have to have the Federal Government get out of the way or help us with the right incentives to do so.

The hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal revenues from increased production could, and should, help support the research and the development of our renewable resources, our alternative energy, as well as efficiency and conservation. We know that building out the energy of the future--renewables, alternatives--is expensive. How are we going to fund it? Well, many of us believe that resources that come from expanded production could help us with that. Yet what we are presented with today is a bill that does nothing more than raise taxes--raise taxes on an industry that has created good jobs, is providing us with the resource that we need, and we are not even allowed to offer a single amendment to produce one additional drop of American oil. I think that is unfortunate. I wish it were otherwise.

But I do think the debate, the discussion we have had on this floor in the past couple of days has been good and helpful in helping to educate the American public in terms of what we truly have as a nation in terms of our capacity and our capability to produce if given the opportunity.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session at 4:30 p.m. today and that all other provisions of the previous consent remain in effect, and that the previous order regarding the division of time on the motion to proceed to S. 2230 be modified to reflect this consent.

For the information of Senators, the two votes originally scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. will now begin at 5:30 p.m.

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, right outside this Chamber, across the street, is a huge gathering. It is the third day in succession that people from all across America have gathered before the Supreme Court. They have different points of view. They express those points of view in various ways--with signs, chants, music, a variety of others-- costumes that are worn to express their points of view.

Let me first salute the fact that it is part of America. It is protected, and no one is going to be arrested for expressing themselves, whether they are for or against health care reform. We take it for granted, and we should not because in some countries around the world it is an exception rather than a rule. In America, it is who we are. We should celebrate even when we disagree.

But let me say a word about what is going on inside the building across the street. They are considering the health care reform bill that was passed by the Congress and signed by President Obama. Some have tried to characterize it as ObamaCare. For the longest time that was the biggest applause line at Republican Presidential rallies, after candidate after candidate stood up and said: I will repeal ObamaCare.

Let me speak to the issue which I think is guiding the discussion across the street and give perhaps a perspective on it that is not often stated on this floor. Earlier this morning several of my colleagues on the Republican side who voted against health care reform came to the Senate floor to express their opposition to the notion of a mandate. Here is what the mandate is about.

Currently, in America, there are millions of people who have no health insurance. Some of them by choice--young people think they are invincible; they will not buy it. Some people cannot afford it. But the fact is, even these uninsured people get sick.

When they get sick or are the victims of trauma--automobile accidents, diagnosed with a disease--they don't stay at home and wait for death, they go to a hospital. When they arrive at that hospital they are treated--emergency rooms, regular treatment--and then the bills are sent their way. Without health insurance many of them cannot pay the bills.

A little over a year and a half ago I went in for one night, overnight surgery in Chicago--the first time I was ever in a hospital since I was born. Everything worked perfectly. The ending was great. I couldn't ask for a better result. The total bill, start to finish, was $100,000.

Lucky for me, I am a Senator. I have the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It paid for almost everything. What if I had no insurance? They would have sent me the bill. Perhaps I could have come up with the money to pay for it, but some people cannot. What happens then?

The hospitals and doctors then take these bills and say: Well, so- and-so didn't pay their bill. We are going to charge someone else who is paying more. Mr. President, 63 percent of the medical care given to uninsured people in America is not paid for, 63 percent. It is shifted, that financial responsibility is shifted to those who do pay, those who are under government insurance programs and private insurance programs. What it means is for those of us in private insurance programs, we pay $1,000 more a year--$80-plus a month--to pay off the bills of those who are uninsured. That is the subsidy which insured people pay to cover the unpaid medical expenses of the uninsured. That is the starting point.

Until we reach the point where everyone is under the tent of insurance, this will continue. Uninsured people will get sick, and those who buy insurance will pay for them. That is cost shifting. It happens every single day in America.

The health care reform bill said we have to have health insurance. It is a mandate. But we know some people cannot afford it. If someone is poor, in the lower income category, we will enroll them in Medicaid so they will have at least Medicaid insurance to pay their medical bills.

At Memorial Medical Center in my hometown of Springfield, IL, Ed Curtis, who runs that hospital, said to me: Senator, if you just did that alone, if we could just get Medicaid payment for everyone who walked through the door, we would be fine. What hurts us are those who pay nothing because they can't. That is a problem. The bill we passed went on to say that if you are working, you will never have to pay more than 8 percent of your income for health insurance premiums. People would rather pay nothing, but 8 percent is a lot more manageable than people who are facing 10, 20, 30 percent of their pay going to health insurance premiums. So we basically have created a requirement to have health insurance but with a helping hand to reach that goal.

So what about the people who already have health insurance? They are untouched by this mandate. They just continue on and let life continue. You have made your choice; you have health insurance; it doesn't affect you.

What I find interesting are so many Senators--primarily from the other side of the aisle--who come to this floor condemning government- administered health insurance. ``Get the government out of health insurance.'' You hear that speech over and over. What they don't tell you is their own health insurance policies are administered by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, as Members of the Senate, you and I are eligible--so too are Members of the House--to be part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. This was created decades

ago to provide health insurance for people working for the Federal Government. Eight million people--employees and their families--are covered by this plan. What you have learned as a new Senator is that they come to us once a year and say: Durbin, you and your wife are eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and here are the private insurance plans you can choose from that are enrolled in our program.

We have nine choices in Illinois, so Loretta and I looked through and picked the plan we liked. We pay part of my income as premium, and the government pays the remainder. It is a government-administered plan, and each year we have an open enrollment to change if we wish. This has been wildly successful and popular. Private insurance companies fight to enroll in it so they can cover Federal employees, and we have good, reliable, affordable insurance, insurance that we can change if we don't like it.

A few years back, one of my employees needed a specific foot surgery. It turned out her health insurance didn't cover it, but she knew the open enrollment period was coming. She waited and enrolled in a plan that covered it. What a luxury. People across America would applaud if they thought they could get that treatment, government-administered health care for Members of Congress.

I have waited patiently now throughout this entire debate for the first Republican Senator who condemns government-administered health care to come to the well of the Senate and announce they are dropping their own health insurance as a matter of principle. No way.

I think people across America are entitled to health insurance that is at least as good as the health insurance Members of Congress have today. I don't think that is a radical idea, and, in fact, the health care reform bill we passed said that Members of Congress will be part of the same insurance exchanges we are creating all across America. That is only fair. I am hoping it offers the same plans as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but I am sure it will offer me a choice, and with that choice I am sure my family will get good coverage.

When I hear the debates across the street suggesting that the notion of requiring people to buy health insurance is somehow un-American or unconstitutional, I struggle with that concept. We know what we are trying to do--reduce the overall cost of health care for America. We also know that the requirement of having health insurance is not that much different from the requirement of paying into Social Security if you go to work in America. If you want another parallel, in my State you have to have insurance to drive an automobile. They don't want you getting involved in an accident without insurance. For one thing, it is not fair to the other driver, let alone the person who might be injured in the car. These are mandates under the law relative to insurance--one for retirement, the other for liability--that are built into the law, and we don't have people marching in the streets over them.

We have to come to a point in this country where we reach a balance, and the balance suggests personal responsibility. It means that the millions of Americans who should have and could have health insurance with the help of a tax break, perhaps with the help of Medicaid, should have that insurance so that the burden of their medical bills does not fall on every other family and every other insured person. Those who are screaming for freedom ought to stop and think a second. Those who are accepting the personal responsibility of having health insurance are exercising their right to protect their family, and they should have the peace of mind of knowing that their neighbor who didn't accept his personal responsibility will not pass his medical bills on to them. I think that is the basis of what we are debating across the street.

I would like to raise a point, if I can, about a bill that was pending this week. It was offered by Senator Menendez of New Jersey to end Federal subsidies to oil companies.

Last Sunday in Chicago, I went by a BP gas station on the Congress Expressway, and I saw it for the first time--more than $5 a gallon for gas, $5.03 a gallon for ultimate gasoline at the BP station. For reasons I cannot explain, Illinois has the highest gasoline prices in America. We have refineries all over our State. I don't get it. But I know it is a recurring problem and a recurring theme. Every spring we go through it. The runup to Easter is the time for every politician in America to dust off the press release expressing outrage at our oil companies.

They do it to us every year. They come up with convenient excuses: You know, it is all about uncertainty in the Middle East. How long have they been playing that card. No, it is about the change of seasons. You see, when we go from winter to spring, we just are not ready for it. Really? You weren't ready for the change of seasons? There was a refinery accident in some town in the Midwest 400 miles away, and it has really disrupted everything. Well, I don't buy it, and I haven't over the years.

What they are doing is what they can do: they run up the price of this commodity because we have no choice. Until we have a choice in the vehicles we drive or in the sources of energy we use, we are kind of stuck with oil companies. But we are not stuck with paying a $4 billion annual subsidy to these oil companies. That is what the tax break we give to oil companies comes to. Senator Menendez of New Jersey has said: Stop it. Take the $4 billion and invest it in renewable, sustainable energy research, and take the rest and reduce the deficit. The five biggest oil companies had profits of over $137 billion last year. They won't miss $4 billion. And we should be ashamed that we continue to shove subsidies at them when they are so profitable.

What is happening when it comes to oil exploration? It is a legitimate question. We are now at an 8-year high in terms of the oil production in America. Starting under President Bush and continuing under President Obama, we have more oil and gas rigs in place working today in the United States than in the rest of the world combined. So those who say that if we just drilled a little more, gasoline prices would come down, you have to look at that. We are increasing the supply, and yet the prices go up.

Secondly, we also understand that when it comes to these gasoline prices, even when the supply goes up, the prices are going up. It defies the law of physics. Demand is down because of the recession, supply is up, and prices are going up. That violates principles of economics 101 that I studied in college.

What Senator Menendez is suggesting is a move in the right direction, not just because we cannot justify the subsidies to oil companies anymore but because we should be investing in new ideas that will move us forward in the right direction.

This morning we had a meeting that I think the Presiding Officer attended, and the CEO of Chrysler Corporation was there. He is an interesting and curious man, Sergio Marchionne. I don't think he owns a suit and tie. He never wears one. He is the CEO of a major corporation, and he wears kind of a black-knit sweater. I see him all the time. But you have to give him credit; he took Chrysler Corporation when it was on the ropes struggling and near extinction and turned it around completely. They are looking forward to more than doubling the automobiles they are going to sell. Those who thought that the automobile bailout, as they called it, was a bad idea should listen to this man.

I can tell him the story of Belvidere, IL, northern Illinois, Boone county. We have a Chrysler production facility that Marchionne said to me is one of our best. They have gone on to a second shift, and he said that by the end of the year, they will go to a third shift in producing cars for America. He gets it. And when you talk to him about fuel efficiency and fuel economy in cars, they are moving in that direction. They are committed to it.

The President brokered an agreement with the major auto companies that they would make more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is good news for consumers. We need to be subsidizing research into better, more efficient forms of energy instead of subsidizing oil companies with recordbreaking profits.

Yes.

I say to the Senator from Ohio, that is a good point and one we ought to make over and over because there is no question that the downturn in the recession forced the management of these auto companies and the workers to step back and take a look at the challenges they faced.

Mr. Marchionne, the CEO of Chrysler, said this morning: We are where we are today because our UAW workers--union workers--sat down at the table and said, we have to agree on a future together or we are sunk. They agreed on that future, and he said: Now my workforce is excited and productive.

The Senator just made the point--more businesses are coming back from overseas. It is a great success story.

It is not lost on the American people. There was a different point of view when President Obama said: I never wanted to own an automobile company; that is not why I ran for President. But he realized we faced an economic crisis. If he had not stepped in for Chrysler and General Motors at the moment he did, they might not exist today.

Mr. President, I would just add--and this is not lost on most Americans--there are some political figures who said publicly they should have just gone bankrupt and gone out of business. I think the President made the right decision. Today, Mr. Marchionne made it clear Chrysler has paid back everything. They have paid it all back. So now, he said, if we need to borrow money, we are not going to come knock on the door of Secretary Geithner of the Treasury Department; we can go to banks. We are a thriving corporation. We are doing well. He said: I have nothing but good news for you, which is great to hear in a recovering economy.

It was a bet made by the President on behalf of hundreds of thousands of workers and companies and it paid off. What it says is that if we stand behind the basic pillars of the American economy--and manufacturing is one of those; maybe the largest pillar that holds up this great economy--we can prosper and succeed. Jobs being brought back from Mexico and overseas into the United States, I am glad I have lived to see it because I can remember when they were headed in the other direction.

Companies that were almost given up on by some politicians turned out, such as GM and Chrysler, to be prosperous today, building new cars and thinking about the new demands of our economy and our future, tells me we can put this together.

So when we hear those who say what we need to continue to do is to shovel subsidies at oil companies that earn $137 billion a year in profits, let's take that money--we do have a deficit--take that money, invest it in something that will create jobs and take the balance and reduce the deficit. I don't think that is a bad outcome. There are lots of good things we can invest in. The Department of Energy is talking about battery technology. That is still going to be our challenge for the future--finding ways to create power and save power for when it is needed. I think we need to incentivize that kind of research in the future as well.

At this point, I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have the bill before us relative to the tax subsidies given to major oil companies--it gives $4 billion a year to companies that registered $137 billion in profit last year. It is such a popular measure that moving to it attracted a 92-to-4 vote in the Senate. We are trying to bring that to closure and get a vote on it. I know the Senator has an amendment she feels is valuable. I don't know the merits of it. I wasn't on the floor to hear the entire explanation. We have just gone through a transportation bill on which for more than a week we entertained an amendment on contraception on that side of the aisle.

We wish to, if we can, limit amendments to relevant issues, and limit them in number and try to actually pass a bill in the Senate, which would be almost historic. I hope we can do it in a bipartisan way. I invite the Senator from Alaska to join us in a conversation about that. Until we can reach agreement on that, I am afraid I have to object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The Senator from Louisiana and I can get into a debate about whether taking $4 billion in subsidies away from five oil companies that reported $137 billion in profit last year is going to change the production of oil, but we will save that for another day.

This amendment, like others, needs to go through the Senator's leader, and with some understanding as to whether we are going to stay in the energy field or go far afield, as we have in previous bills. I am afraid I am constrained, until that conversation takes place between the leaders, to object.

For the reasons stated earlier, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe the shipbuilding industry in Arizona is about the same size as it is in Illinois, so I don't come to this issue with any particular hometown or home State view, and I am open to the Senator's suggestion. But I would say at this moment we are clearly focused on doing one thing; that is, eliminating the $4 billion annual subsidy to the five big oil companies that registered $137 billion in profits last year. Moving to this measure was voted favorably by 92 Senators, and we are trying to move this to a vote. Perhaps we can move to another issue--the ones the Senator is proposing--at another time, but at this point, I have no other alternative but to object.

Mr. President, I object.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 25 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I voted against the motion to proceed to the Menendez bill on Monday because, quite frankly, it is just a bill to continue raising gas prices. I talked for quite some time yesterday on the Senate floor about this; that by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry it sounds good to a lot of people because people do not like the oil and gas industry. They have been vilified, so everybody thinks we ought to get the oil and gas industry.

What they do not understand is--I think they understand it, but they will not admit it--that is the way to increase prices at the pump. Somebody has to pay for all that stuff. So even Senator Menendez and several Democrats have said this bill is not going to lower gas prices. It would raise gas prices. I do not think anyone who looks at it logically could come to any other conclusion.

As I discussed Monday on the Senate floor, the Democrats' plan goes against everything we know about basic economics--higher taxes limits supply. Whenever we limit supply, the price goes up. I do not think there is a person out there right now who does not remember, back in their elementary school days, the basic concept of supply and demand. We have this huge supply out there. But if we cut the supply, then the demand is going to be greater, and the prices are going to go up.

The bottom line is, President Obama and his allies do not have an answer to high gas prices. That is because high gas prices--higher prices for all the energy we use--are exactly what they want. This administration remains committed to a cap-and-trade, green agenda. It is a plan that severely restricts domestic development and drives up the price of gas and electricity.

Let me put it another way. Their policies are designed to make recoverable traditional energy more expensive so their desired green energy can compete. There is no question that is what the Obama administration has wanted.

You all remember--and we have quoted so many times on this Senate floor--that Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, told the Wall Street Journal: ``Somehow we have to figure out''--speaking on behalf of President Obama and the Obama administration; not so much the Democrats in the House and the Senate, but this is the Obama administration--he said: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Well, the levels in Europe were ranging, at that time, when he made the statement, around $8. Well, we are getting up there. He is getting his way. This is something that is happening now.

We all know the infamous quote from President Obama in 2008 when he said under his cap-and-trade plan--this is a quote now--``electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.'' Notice the word ``necessarily.'' It is going to happen. The President had it right. The point of the cap-and-trade regulations is to make us pay more on our utility bills.

A lot of times people do not draw the connection. Energy is energy. If we raise the price of energy on utilities, on utility bills, or gas prices at the pump, it all relates to the rest. If we somehow put coal out of business so we have to use more natural gas and more gas, then that raises the price because that makes more demand for that particular product. I think most people understand that. That is very basic.

If we are serious about lowering prices at the pump, then we need to open the vast oil and gas reserves we have at home to develop. After all, CRS recently reported--this is kind of interesting because it was a CRS report; so far, I have not heard anyone counter this report--we have more recoverable

reserves of oil, gas, and coal than any country in the world--more than Saudi Arabia, more than China, more than Canada, all of them combined.

In fact, with more than 160 billion barrels of recoverable oil, we have enough to maintain America's current rate of production and replace all of our imports from the Persian Gulf for 50 years. That is just domestically what we could do. It is out there.

A lot of them try to say: Oh, no, we only have 2 percent of the reserves. I have said this so many times, and yet the other side just keeps repeating it over and over: We only have 2 percent of the reserves, and we are using some 25 percent when, in fact, they are talking about proven reserves. Proven reserves are reserves where we have drilled and proved there is oil there. Recoverable are the areas where we have not drilled yet because we have not had an opportunity.

So if we have a policy, as this administration has, not to allow us to drill for oil, then we cannot prove anything. So the 2 percent means absolutely nothing. It is totally false. The thing is they know it. The key is ``recoverable.'' We have more recoverable reserves in fossil fuels; that is, oil, gas, and coal, than any other country in the world.

But today we have awful government regulations that prevent us from accessing it, and we are the only Nation that does this. I defy anyone to tell me the name of another country that does not develop its own resources. They all do it, and we have this President saying, well, we encourage them down in Brazil and Venezuela to drill but not here.

Well, anyway, we have these reserves that we need to start doing something with. That is why I have submitted three amendments that will address President Obama's war on affordable energy. I am going to talk about them.

First of all, amendment No. 1974 is the American Jobs and Domestic Energy Production Act. In order to increase the development of our wealth of resources, I have submitted a substitute amendment to this bill that will open literally billions of barrels of oil and gas for commercial development. It is something that will actually bring down the prices, directly bring down the price of oil, of gasoline at the pump.

First, the bill opens significant portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for development. Right now, the entire east coast and west coast and much of the Gulf of Mexico are completely off-limits. For the most part, the only offshore development allowed is in the western portion of the gulf and in certain areas offshore of Alaska. But we have to keep in mind, to do this, we have to get the permits, and that is where they have dragged their feet.

My amendment would require the rest of the OCS to be leased over time. According to a recent study, these areas have at least 63 billion barrels of recoverable oil and up to 186 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Once brought fully online, this will create tens of thousands of new jobs and ultimately may bring in an additional $1.4 trillion in additional tax revenue for the government.

My amendment would also require the administration to move forward with three lease sales that were conducted by the Bush administration but were subsequently pulled by the Obama administration after taking office.

Additionally, my amendment allows ANWR on the Northern Slope of Alaska to be developed. Experts believe this area contains 16.4 billion barrels of oil and 18.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

I have been up there. People talk about ANWR and all this, and it is a beautiful area. They have systems now where we cannot even tell where they are developing it. I have seen polls ranging from 70 to 85 percent--and I can actually identify these polls--of the people in Alaska, they want to do it. Why are we, in our infinite wisdom in Washington, DC, telling them in Alaska they cannot go after their own oil and gas?

I think it is ludicrous. Anyway, this amendment will correct that situation.

My amendment removes also the statutory moratorium on the development of this resource, and it requires the Secretary of the Interior to begin an oil and gas leasing program in that area.

Today, oil shale--particularly that in Western States--represents some of our greatest energy potential. Just a few years ago we didn't know this. We didn't have any idea of the size of this.

Some experts believe the Western States hold as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil shale, of which 800 billion barrels is presently recoverable. This is simply an astonishing amount of oil, and it would do a lot to help lower the price at the pump. That is what we are talking about. Everything we have talked about on the floor in opposition to the Menendez bill is something that will lower prices of gasoline at the pump.

My bill forces the administration to release 10 research and development leases that were approved by the Bush administration but then canceled by the Obama administration.

Thereafter, the Obama administration would be forced to conduct additional oil shale leases on Federal lands. We have 93 percent of the Federal lands that are off-limits. That needs to be corrected.

Lastly, my bill reserves the right of regulating hydraulic fracturing to the States. I know a little bit about this because the first hydraulic fracturing that took place in this country was in my State of Oklahoma in 1949. Since 1949, there has not been one documented case of groundwater contamination. It has worked beautifully, I think most people agree, now that it is better regulated by the States. The States differ in the depth of their resources, what they have to do to achieve it. It has worked. The old saying is ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' We have to look behind the motive of the Federal Government. This administration, if they can stop hydraulic fracturing, can stop the production of oil and gas. I believe that is their motivation. It is a State process that is successfully regulated by the States, and in 60 years there has not been one documented case of groundwater contamination.

Because States have done such a good job regulating fracking, I think they ought to continue having that exclusive right. My bill does this. It takes away the temptation of the power grab by the Federal Government to regulate this thing that doesn't need to be regulated at the Federal level, particularly when their motivation is to do away with hydraulic fracturing. If we do that and we talk about when they are trying to go after these types of formations, they cannot extract 1 foot of natural gas without using hydraulic fracturing.

That is what the bill does. It would be a big win for energy production because we all know the administration's regulations would likely prevent anybody from ever using hydraulic fracturing again. I can remember when the President was giving his speech to the Nation at the joint session. All of a sudden, people caught on that he has had this war on fossil fuels. He started saying complimentary things about good, clean natural gas. I agree. But what we didn't hear him say-- because he said it so fast toward the end of his remarks--is we have to do something about hydraulic fracturing. If we kill hydraulic fracturing, we cannot get the natural gas we are talking about.

All told, by tapping into our domestic supply of oil and gas, we could increase our economic output by trillions of dollars over the next several decades. It could increase government tax revenues by $2 trillion, and it would create hundreds and thousands of new well-paying jobs.

We have the energy resources we need, and if we develop them, it will significantly improve our economy and, there again, lower the price at the pump.

By raising taxes, as the Menendez bill would, it would only make the problem worse. I urge adoption of that amendment.

The next amendment I introduced is the Gas Regulations Act of 2012. To hold the Obama administration accountable for their role in gas prices, I am also introducing the Gas Regulations Act of 2012 as an amendment. We actually have this, and we are going to try to introduce it as a bill. This amendment would require an interagency committee to conduct a cumulative analysis on certain EPA rules and actions that impact the price of gasoline and diesel fuels.

My amendment is the companion amendment to a bill introduced last

week by House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield. This amendment will help us to obtain a better understanding of the costs of all these levels of regulation. I have often talked about the regulation and what the cost is. It is kind of masquerading. I will read the cost of these regulations that this administration is accountable for and that directly relate to the increased price of gas at the pump. Tier 3 motor vehicle emissions and fuel standards--that would levy a $12 billion gas tax on refiners. Who will pay for it? You will and my wife will at the pump. New source performance standards for petroleum refiners could result in billions of additional environmental and compliance costs. Again, that will be passed on to the consumer. The RFS2 standards too would force Americans to consume 21 billion gallons of expensive biofuels, such as the one the Navy procured for $26 a gallon last year, instead of paying $3.50 a gallon.

Ozone standards would result in a $676.8 billion loss in GDP. Again, these standards increase directly the price of gas at the pump. There is greenhouse gas PSD and title V permitting actions--again, another regulation. This regulation slows down the permitting process and would prevent upgrading refining capacity from coming online quickly. Again, this causes an increase in the gas price. People know pretty much the supply-and-demand argument, but they don't know what the regulations do. Anyway, this amendment No. 1963 is designed to do that.

The next one I introduced is amendment No. 1967. This is kind of called the Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act. Fred Upton, a Congressman, actually passed this. I have introduced this now for 3 years. We have been trying to do this.

Just yesterday, we found out President Obama fully intends to make good on his campaign promise that under his plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity prices would ``necessarily skyrocket.'' That is what we are talking about with this amendment, cap and trade. People remember that. A lot of Republicans were concerned about this issue after Kyoto, and they said let's do something about this; this idea that somehow we are going to have to reduce and regulate greenhouse gases in order to do this. They are introducing cap-and-trade bills. It goes back to the Kyoto convention in 1993, when the famous meeting was held, and Al Gore went down to try to put it together in Rio de Janeiro 20 years ago. He was going to put this together to come up with an international convention called Kyoto, and they tried to, of course, get us to pass it. We saw it would cost the American people between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and it would treat developing countries differently, so we didn't do it.

The interesting thing about the Kyoto treaty is that the President-- then President Clinton--never submitted it for ratification in this body. After that didn't work out, they went ahead and did a second effort to do it through cap-and-trade legislation. We beat all the cap- and-trade regulations. The main reason is because it became evident the science was cooked--all put together by the United Nations. It started back in 1992. They developed something called the IPCC, which is the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, which was designed in order to, I believe, cook the science and make people believe we are going to have to do something and that CO2 and anthropogenic gases were causing global warming.

We know what happened since that time, and with climategate, which showed they cooked the science. Consequently, we introduced this legislation. This legislation merely does one thing. It will take away the jurisdiction of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. My concern is this: We were able to stop all these bills from passing that would have imposed a tax increase on the American people.

To give an idea how much that $300 billion or $400 billion would mean, in Oklahoma, I keep track of the number of families who file tax returns, and I do the math. If we do the math with what it would cost for cap and trade and do the legislation they were talking about passing, which we defeated on the Senate floor, it would cost each taxpayer in Oklahoma over $3,000 a year. What would they get for that? This is interesting. Even those people out there who think I am way off base and wrong, in terms of CO2 and anthropogenic gases-- keep in mind we asked the question to President Obama's Administrator of the EPA: ``If we were to pass cap and trade, would this reduce CO2 emissions worldwide?'' She said: ``No, logically, it would not.''

This isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China and in India. Those are the places where they would have to be regulated. But they don't regulate it to the degree we would here. We can carry that one step further. If we pass cap and trade, it would have the effect of increasing anthropogenic gases worldwide, because as our manufacturing base leaves the United States and seeks energy in those areas where there are less controls, that would have the effect of not reducing but increasing emissions.

What we would attempt to do is to take away that jurisdiction. Here is the reason we want to do that. It is bad enough--when I talked about $300 billion to $400 billion it would cost to do cap and trade through legislation, if we do it through regulation, it will be a lot more for this reason: Most of the bills that were introduced, starting back in 2003, ending up with the Waxman-Markey bill, which was a couple years ago, these were bills that would regulate emitters that emitted over 100,000 tons a year. However, if we do it through regulation, it has to be under the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Air Act specifically says not those that emit 100,000 tons a year but those who emit 250 tons or more. That would be every church, every school, and every hospital in America. We cannot even approximate that cost. That is what doing cap and trade by regulation would do.

Simply put, my third and last amendment would be to do here what they have already done in the House of Representatives, which is to take away the jurisdiction from the EPA. It directly relates to the price of gas at the pump. Take these three amendments, and if the Menendez bill should get through, with these amendments we can totally stop the increase of gas at the pump because that is what we will be faced with if we adopt the Obama-Menendez amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Wednesday, I had the privilege, as did many in this body, of attending a tribute to two former majority leaders of the Senate, Howard Baker and Bob Dole. It was a great evening. President Clinton sent a video and the Vice President attended, as did the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and all former majority leaders of the Senate, except one. It was a long evening but a good one. Along with Senator Baker was his wife former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, and along with Senator Dole was his wife former Senator Elizabeth Dole. It was sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center. It was a reminder that while in this body we have differences, in fact, this body was created to resolve differences. People sometimes say to me: You Senators argue. That is what we are supposed to do. When they kick over to us issues that cannot be resolved other places, with respect for each other's points of view, we try to resolve them, and we often do. Well, Bob Dole and Howard Baker were among the best at working across party lines and getting results, and it was for that skill as much as for any other skill that they were honored.

I was asked to introduce a short film about Senator Baker, and I did. Senator Roberts of Kansas was asked to introduce a short film about Senator Dole, and he did. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my remarks about Howard Baker as I introduced the film.

Mr. President, Senator Baker, recalling the story of his maiden speech, asked that his remarks be put into the Congressional Record. The story was this, which I told that night:

Senator Baker was here in 1967 and made his maiden speech at a time when his father-in-law, Everett Dirksen, was the Republican leader. I was here then, as Senator Baker's young legislative assistant, right out of law school. Senator Dirksen walked over to Senator Baker and sat down next to him after what had been a fairly long speech--maybe 45 minutes. Senator Baker looked at his father-in-law and said: Senator Dirksen, how did I do? And Senator Dirksen said to his son-in-law Howard: Maybe occasionally you should enjoy the luxury of an unexpressed thought.

So Senator Baker, recalling that advice, I assume, asked that his remarks to be delivered that night at the end of a long ceremony be placed in the Congressional Record, and so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator Baker's remarks.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on the subject we are debating here, which is energy.

Last week the majority leader said he was disappointed that we were not moving to the Ex-Im Bank and to postal reform and to cybersecurity, all of which he said are urgent national issues the citizens of the United States expect our Senate to deal with. The Republican leader said that, on our side, we are ready to deal with all three, and the Republican leader offered to join the majority leader in dealing with the Ex-Im Bank, with a few relevant amendments. That might be a pretty good way to begin our process of getting the Senate back to doing what the Senate is supposed to do, which is to bring up important pieces of legislation, allow Senators on both sides to offer their amendments, speak on them, and then vote on them. It is easier to do if the amendments are relevant to the legislation that is being offered.

So we were looking forward this week to dealing with a postal reform bill, which needs to be dealt with. We have a several-billion-dollar debt for the post office, which has been a part of our lives ever since our country was founded, and we have competing pieces of legislation on the issue, with very good Senators on both sides of the aisle ready to discuss it. Yet, suddenly the majority leader changed his mind, which he has a right to do, and instead, he brought up legislation repealing six tax provisions for five oil companies--provisions that, for the most part, are tax provisions that are similar to those available to most other companies in America.

Why would the majority leader do that? Well, in the Senate it is not considered to be good form to inquire into the motivation of other Senators, and I won't do that, but I will read a paragraph or two from The National Journal this week that speculated on what might have happened this past Monday evening. I quote:

The Senate holds a procedural vote this evening on

legislation sponsored by Senator Menendez of New Jersey that

would repeal tax incentives for the country's biggest oil

companies. It won't pass, but it will create a platform for

Democrats to try to reclaim the debate on gas prices. Indeed,

a memo circulated over the weekend by John Podesta, president

of the liberal Center for American Progress, and Democratic

pollster Geoff Garin, notes that the vote ``offers a huge

opportunity for progressives to frame energy policy through

the gas price debate.'' Democrats will use familiar tactics

of linking high gas prices to Big Oil, and Big Oil to

Republicans, with the aim of attacking GOP presidential

candidates and of putting three vulnerable Republican

Senators up for reelection--Scott Brown of Massachusetts,

Richard Lugar of Indiana and Dean Heller of Nevada--in tough

spots.

That is the end of the speculation from the National Journal.

Now, maybe that was the reason the majority leader decided to bring this up, but clearly we are spending a whole week on a political exercise. If this is true--that it is being brought up to frame an issue to put Republican Senators who may be running for reelection in a difficult spot--well, then the Republicans must not think so because we all voted to bring it up. So instead of doing cybersecurity or postal reform, we are spending a whole week on something we all know is not going to pass and is a misuse of the time of the Senate. It would be much better if we were using the time on those other issues.

But as long as we are discussing lowering gasoline and fuel prices, I have a suggestion to make. Here is a plan to lower fuel prices: Double energy research. And here is a way to pay for it without adding to the Federal debt: Stop wasteful, long-term subsidies that are exclusively or mostly for both Big Oil and Big Wind.

Look at shale gas. The Senator from Oklahoma was talking about shale gas, which is being produced thanks to new technology found through energy research. This is a remarkable development in our country. But, as Daniel Yergin, the leading expert on energy, reports in his new book ``The Quest,'' the innovation on this began over 20 years ago, some of it from the private sector, some from government funding. Basically we found a way to find natural gas and oil through a process called hydraulic fracking. It is possible all around the world. I was in Australia in January, and they are doing it and selling it to China. The remarkable difference for the United States is not just that we suddenly have a lot more natural gas but that it is cheap gasoline. Instead of being $15 a unit, which it was when we passed the last Energy bill in 2005, it is $2 a unit or $3 a unit.

More than that, while Australians are selling their gas to China and paying the world price at home for their own natural gas, in the United States it appears likely we will be able to buy our gas at a U.S. price rather than a world price. What does that mean? That means that natural gas in Europe and in Asia is going to be worth four to five times what natural gas is here. So chemical companies that were thinking about moving overseas 5 years ago in order to be able to buy cheap natural gas for their feedstock, their raw materials, are staying here, expanding here, thinking about moving back. Older people who need to heat and cool their homes can use natural gas at a cheaper price. Manufacturing companies that are adding up the costs to make a decision on whether to put a plant in Mexico or some other place in the United States can put cheap energy in there with the natural gas. For the foreseeable future, it appears that natural gas in Europe and Asia is going to be four or five times what it is in the United States, giving us a tremendous advantage.

So energy research, both in the government and in the private sector, has given the United States the advantage that, if truth be told, has been our advantage ever since World War II. The principal reason we have produced 25 percent of all the money in the world is because of the innovation, technology, and research that have come since World War II, and it is hard to think of an important advance in biological or physical sciences without support from government research. So shale gas is one example of that.

So shale gas is one example of that. Here is another example: I drive an all-electric Nissan LEAF and pay about $3 for the electricity to travel 100 miles--better than spending an equivalent $20 on gasoline. Researchers at battery maker Envia have invented a way to double the density of lithium ion batteries, hastening the arrival of the $20,000 electric cars that travel 300 miles per charge. That research is permitting us, in the case of shale gas, to find more American energy and in the case of electric batteries, to use less of it.

That is why I argue that the United States should launch a series of mini Manhattan Projects with the same focus and determination of the original World War II Manhattan Project, this time with the goal of finding more energy and finding ways to use less of it.

The United States has a resource no other country has--dozens of major research universities and 17 national laboratories that can advance research on cheaper solar, better batteries, recapturing carbon from coal plants, biofuels from crops we don't eat, better ways to dispose of nuclear fuel, offshore winds, green buildings, and even fusion. To pay for doubling the $5 billion the United States now spends on energy research, Congress should end current tax breaks that are exclusively or mostly for both Big Oil and Big Wind and of every $3 saved, use $1 for more research and $2 to reduce the Federal debt.

For all we hear about Big Oil--and we hear a lot about it--you may be surprised to learn that special tax breaks for Big Wind are even greater. During the 5 years between 2009 and 2013, Federal taxpayer subsidies for wind power developers equaled $14 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Here, I am only counting the production tax credit and the cash grants that the 2009 stimulus law offered to wind developers in lieu of the tax credit. An analysis of that stimulus cash grant program, which this legislation offered here would extend, found that 64 percent of the 50 highest dollar grants awarded--or about $2.7 billion in subsidies--went to projects that had begun construction before the stimulus measures started. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told Greenwire:

It's essentially funding economic activity that would have

occurred. So it's just a pure subsidy.

It sounds like, in the President's budget, Big Oil receives multiple tax subsidies that are exclusively for Big Oil. Doing away with them, they say, would save about $4.7 billion next year or about $22 billion to $24 billion over 5 years. So far, it sounds as though Big Oil with $22 billion is bigger with its subsidies than Big Wind with only $14 billion. But here is the catch: Many of these subsidies the President is attacking oil companies for receiving are regular tax provisions that are the same or similar to tax provisions that are available to hundreds, even thousands of companies in America. For example, Xerox, Microsoft, and Caterpillar all benefit from tax provisions such as the manufacturing tax credit, amortization or depreciation of used equipment that the President is counting as Big Oil subsidies. And of course wind energy companies also benefit from many of these same provisions, but the production tax credit that benefits mostly wind is in addition to the regular Tax Code provisions that benefit many companies. So the only way to make a fair comparison is to look at subsidies that mostly benefit only oil or mostly benefit only wind, and by that measure, Big Wind gets more tax breaks than Big Oil.

So the bill proposed by the Senator from New Jersey that is limited to just five big oil companies is limited to them even though many of the tax breaks they receive are the same or similar to tax breaks many other companies receive. This bill also extends many tax breaks, including the wind production tax credit and the 1603 grant program for renewable energy, which mostly benefits wind.

Two weeks ago, during the debate on the Transportation bill, the Senate wisely refused to extend the 20-year-old

temporary production tax credit which mostly benefits wind. That was the correct decision. We should allow this tax provision to expire. Congress made a much more difficult decision last year to allow the ethanol tax credit to expire, and we should hold our ground and do the same thing for the wind production tax credit.

There are three reasons Big Wind subsidies should go the way of the $5 billion annual ethanol subsidy. First, we can't afford it. The Federal Government borrows 40 cents of every dollar we spend.

It can't justify such a subsidy, especially for what the U.S. Energy Secretary calls a mature technology. According to a 2008 Energy Information Agency report, Big Wind received in subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as all other forms of electricity production combined.

Second, wind turbines produce a relatively puny amount of unreliable, expensive energy. Wind produces about 2.3 percent of all of our electricity. A better alternative is clean natural gas. An even better alternative is cleaner nuclear power. Nuclear power reactors power our Navy and produce 70 percent of our pollution-free electricity. Using windmills to power a country that uses one-fourth of the world's electricity would be the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has erected 18 massive wind turbines on 3,300-foot Buffalo Mountain outside Knoxville. Other than deface the landscape and waste ratepayer dollars, the turbines have done little. The wind there blows 19 percent of the time, usually at night when we don't need it, and its unused electricity production cannot be stored.

Finally, there is the question of whether, in the name of saving the environment, wind turbines are destroying the environment. These are not your grandma's windmills. They are taller than the Statue of Liberty. Their blades are as long as a football field, and their blinking lights can be seen for 20 miles. In Nashville, Vanderbilt and the Metro water system is about to erect a small wind turbine as tall as the Parthenon replica we have in Nashville. It would take 1.1 million of these eyesores to equal the production of TVA's new Watts Bar 2 nuclear reactor. Building that many turbines would cost 15 times the cost of the nuclear reactor, and you would still need the nuclear plant for when the wind doesn't blow.

When wind advocate T. Boone Pickens was asked whether he would put turbines on his Texas ranch, he answered, ``No. They're ugly.''

Birds must think of turbines as Cuisinarts in the sky. Eagle killing has become so commonplace that the U.S. Department of the Interior has set up a process to grant licenses for eagle takings, sort of a hunting license. A new documentary, ``Windfall,'' chronicles the despair of upstate New York residents debating whether to build giant turbines in their town.

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 why are we not including it in this debate? Why are we talking about Big Oil subsidies and not Big Wind subsidies?

Our energy policies should be, first, to double the $5 billion Federal energy research budget we now have and focus it on new forms of cheap, clean, reliable energy. I am talking about the 500-mile battery for electric cars; commercial uses of carbon captured from coal plants; solar power installed at less than $1 per watt; or offshore wind turbines. That would be research.

Second, we should strictly limit a handful of jumpstart research and development projects to take new technologies from the R&D phase to the commercial phase. I am thinking here of projects such as ARPA E, modeled after the defense department's DARPA agency that led to the Internet, to the stealth, and to other remarkable technologies; or the 5-year program for small modular nuclear reactors; or incentives for the first 200,000 electric vehicles purchased in America. These are a strictly limited number of jumpstart R&D projects.

Third, we should end wasteful, long-term, special tax breaks, such as those for Big Oil and those for Big Wind. I am talking about the tax breaks that are exclusively mostly for Big Oil and Big Wind and not similar to what other industries receive. These savings from those subsidies should be used to double clean energy research and to reduce our Federal debt.

But that is not what this bill does. This bill ends subsidies for five companies that many other companies receive, and it extends subsidies for a few companies that other industries don't get.

This debate isn't even about an energy plan, which is what we should be debating when gas is around $4 a gallon right now.

Here is a very specific plan: Increase energy research--double it--to find more American oil and more American natural gas and more American alternative forms of energy, and increase energy research to find ways to use less of that energy. I have highlighted the best ways to use less, and I have highlighted a way to pay for it.

I thank the President and I yield the floor.

What is the parliamentary situation at this time?

I am confused a little bit because didn't the minority get extra time? Did they not get extra time?

Well, I would ask consent that I have an additional 5 minutes on the 16.

So, Madam President, I think it is very important that we understand what we are trying to do here.

The Senator from Alaska said it has been a good debate. Yes, it has been a good debate, but let me tell you what is not good. What is not good is that Big Oil is getting corporate welfare. Big Oil is ripping us off at the pump. They never had greater profits. We are being asked to sacrifice and pay more at the pump because of instability in the world, because of problems with the refineries, even though we have never drilled as much as we are drilling now. Big Oil exports our oil now. We have never had as many exports as we have now.

Big Oil gets billions of dollars of subsidies, so big that I would tell you, $2 billion a year in U.S. tax breaks. Let me tell you, to explain how that compares to something we do that is very near and dear to my heart and to every mother and father, grandma, grandpa, or aunt and uncle, we put about $1 billion a year into afterschool programs, and we have millions of children waiting--$1 billion a year on afterschool programs while we give away $2 billion a year to the most, shall we say, successful companies in America.

I want to show you what I am talking about because I don't want people to think this is rhetoric. These are the facts. When my Republican colleagues come on the floor and defend these profits, let's talk about what they are.

Now, remember, we have been in a deep recession for several years now. Remember that President Obama and we had to confront the loss of 800,000 jobs a month. Now, thank goodness, he has turned it around--we have turned it around. It is still not good enough but we were in the worst situation. During that time, small businesses went out of business. People lost their homes. If it were not for the leadership of the President, we would have lost the auto industry in America. Thank you, Mr. President, for saving the auto industry in America. Thank you for that. I was proud to vote for that even though I had a lot of problems with the auto industry not moving quickly enough to fuel efficient cars. Now they are doing a great job with it.

During that time when Americans were suffering, we were bleeding all these jobs and even now, just getting back on our feet, what has happened to Big Oil while they have raised our prices at the pump? In 2009, all the five oil companies made $64 billion. In 2010, Big Oil made $76 billion, and in 2011 they made a whopping $137 billion. So they went from $64 billion in 2009 to $137 billion in 2011, and my Republican colleagues are crying bitter tears for them. Oh, let's keep giving them that $2 billion a year.

Why would we do that when we are sacrificing and our constituents are paying more at the pump and Big Oil is profiting from it? There is no reason for this kind of increase at the pump. There is no reason for it. Look at what is going on here. If they made the normal profits, we could have some relief at the pump. But, oh, no. So now the Republicans are going to reward them by allowing them to keep these subsidies.

That started a long time ago. That started in the 1980s, most of it, because we wanted to help them get moving. How much more do they have to earn before we say they can get off corporate welfare? You talk about welfare queens, here it is. And my Republican friends defend giving these people, who have ripped us off at the pump, billions of dollars of subsidies.

They are exporting the oil they recover here. They will not keep it in the country. We had a proposal for the XL Pipeline to keep the oil in the country. My friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it. They don't care, they just want these companies to have their way, to do with it what they want.

If they want to send our oil to China, fine, that is what they want. But they also want to keep their subsidies. It is not right. I want to see these subsidies done with and I want to see us invest in alternatives to these big oil companies that hold us by the throat. I want to have alternatives.

I have been all over this country looking at the alternatives we are developing now. We know, for example, in Brazil they use sugar cane to create their gasoline and they are completely free from imported oil. That is the kind of thing we need to do. I am fortunate that I drive a hybrid vehicle and I get 50 miles to the gallon, so I don't go in for gas that often. But when you go in there, it is a shock. We want to have cars--let them be big cars. If people need that for their families, I understand it. I have grandkids. I know what it is to put your grandkids in a small car. It is hard. We need to have larger cars. They need to be fuel efficient. We are going to get there. We are getting there already.

Isn't it better to take that money away from people who are ripping us off at the pump, away from the corporate welfare queens here, and put it into alternatives so our people are no longer victims to their prices? That is the fight we are having. That is the debate we are having.

On the other side they say drill, baby, drill. You know what, I am for drilling where it makes sense. Do you know how many acres the oil companies are holding now that they have not drilled upon? It is pretty amazing. My friends say open the Arctic to drilling--a precious environment, God-given, placed in a refuge by I believe it was Dwight Eisenhower. They want to go in there and ravage it. Why don't they drill on their nonproducing acres? It looks like 75 million nonproducing acres, onshore and offshore, on which they hold leases.

Oh, no, that is not good enough for them. They are only drilling on 25 percent of the leases they hold, of the acreage they hold in those leases. How about ``use it or lose it,'' instead of ``drill, baby, drill''? Drill, baby, drill in here. Don't go into the coast of California where they want to go, or Washington, or Oregon, where we have fishing, tourism, recreation.

There are so many people here to whom I listen who make the arguments for the oil companies. I am so tired of it. How about speaking up for the American people who are getting brutalized at the pump? How about speaking up for the people who make their living off of a beautiful, pristine environment?

Oh, by the way, many jobs in my State, over 400,000 jobs, are related to a pristine coastline, and they don't care about that on the other side. They want to open it, push these people out of the way and create a few jobs--because there are far fewer jobs created from drilling. As President Obama has said many times, and the other side gets rankled: We only have 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and we use about 20 percent of the energy. You do the math, as the President said. You could drill in your grandmother's bathtub, you could drill in the Great Lakes, you could drill anywhere you want--you are not going to find enough oil.

So let's get off foreign oil, let's tell the oil companies to drill, baby, drill where they have the acres and let's look at these prices and let's understand--we will look at it again--the profits of Big Oil. They are crying all the way to the bank, as my dad used to say.

Look at this. In the height of the recession they are making record profits and crying to keep their subsidies and my Republican friends are crying right along: Oh, here, have a tissue. We are so sorry for you, even though we have to turn away millions of children from afterschool programs because we do not have more than $1 billion to spend on it. They are giving away $2 billion a year. That is just one example.

I hope we vote for the Menendez bill. I hope we vote tomorrow on that, to stop the filibuster, to vote it up or down. What a message of hope it will send to the American people, that we are willing to stand up to the biggest powers that be, that we are willing to fight for the average American, that we are not in the pockets of Big Oil. You don't need to give American taxpayer dollars to Big Oil. It is absolutely ridiculous. We don't have to allow them to drill in pristine areas when they will not even drill in areas that they have had under lease for years. And let's stop them from exporting the oil. We need it. Let's keep it here.

By the way, if they keep on ripping us off like this and getting rewarded for it from my Republican friends, let's release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and let's increase the supply and let's see prices go down.

Let's look at the CEOs of Big Oil for a minute, these poor guys who are fighting for the subsidies. Let's look at them. CEOs for the big five made more than $14.5 million in total compensation in 2010. This is it, average compensation. That is 307 times the average salary of a firefighter; that is 273 times the average salary of a teacher; that is 263 times the average salary of a policeman; that is 218 times the average salary of a nurse. But they need subsidies for their companies and they need to rip us off at the pump so they can make a little more money--$14.5 million isn't enough for a poor oil company executive. Give me a break. And stop giving them a break because they don't need this break.

We have an opportunity to stand for what is right and I hope we take it. Right now we want alternatives to Big Oil. We want competition for Big Oil. We want to be able to become energy independent. So let's stop these taxpayer handouts. The oil companies do not need them. Let's start investing in America's energy future which, by the way, that kind of investment creates many jobs at a time that we need to do that.

Health Care

I want to switch topics here for the remainder of my time and talk a minute about health care and then close with a little bit about the highway bill over in the House and the struggle over there to get their work done.

I ask how many minutes I have left.

Will the Chair advise me when I have 2 minutes remaining.

Madam President, we all are watching what the Supreme Court is going to do in terms of the health care bill they have before them. What I want to do today is completely stay away from that argument and talk about what the health care bill is doing now, right now as we speak, because people tend to get involved in mandates, and if it is constitutional, and how does it work and so on. I want to talk about what the Obama health care plan is doing for my people at home, your people back home, and the people of this country right now.

As we stand here today, over 5 million seniors have saved more than $3 billion on their prescription drugs. The way it worked before this bill was passed, you would use up a certain amount of money and then you would fall into this coverage gap that they call a doughnut hole, and just when you are at your sickest point, you get no help. A lot of our seniors were not taking their medicines at that critical point because they could not afford the full cost; they were cutting the pills in half and praying. It was a sad situation. Because of health care reform, we have these seniors being able to keep their medications flowing. Last year in my State, 300,000 seniors were able to save $171 million in their costs.

Let's look at that again. As a result of Obama health care, which I proudly supported, already 5 million senior citizens are able to afford their prescription drugs--your mother, your father, your grandma, your grandpa. That is important. What is going to happen to these people if this whole thing gets overturned? They will get sick and they will not have those medications.

In addition, what else is happening--2.5 million young Americans are now covered because they can stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26. Without this law, when you graduated from college you were out of luck, and you had to find your own health care. The Obama plan said you should be able to stay on your parents' health plan until you turn 26. I cannot tell you how many people have written to me to thank me for that.

So over there in the Supreme Court they are talking about legalese, and I appreciate that. They are talking about severability, and they are talking about a lot of interesting things. One thing I want to talk about is what is going to happen to 5 million senior citizens who are able to stay on their medication as a result of the Obama health plan.

What is going to happen to the 2.5 million Americans who are young who can stay on their parents' plan until they are 26 if something happens over there across the street in terms of this legal case? In California 335,000 Californians have benefited from that young person being able to stay on their parents' insurance provision.

What is going to happen to 54 million Americans who now have access to free preventive care, such as screenings for colon cancer, mammograms, and flu shots? This is new, folks. Before we didn't get free prevention. We had to pay a copayment. I have to tell you, as I lived my life and I have seen the tragedy of cancer, I have learned very clearly that if you take care of yourself and have mammograms and colon cancer screenings, your life can be saved.

What is going to happen to 54 million Americans who have that preventive care now if the Supreme Court strikes it down? Out of that 54 million, 6 million Californians have gotten these screenings and vaccinations. I will close with health care on this story.

I don't know how many people realize this, but before the Obama health care plan there were caps on insurance policies. Maybe they were a million-dollar cap or a half-million-dollar cap. Before I had different insurance, I had a cap on my husband's policy. What happened at that time is, if you used up enough health care, you were finished at a certain point.

I want to tell you the story of Julie Walters of Nevato, CA. She wrote to me last year about her 3-year-old daughter Violet who suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. She wrote that Violet could hit her lifetime limit in 5 years. So here is a little baby who is reaching her lifetime limit, and her mom wrote:

A lifetime limit on insurance is a limit on Violet's

lifetime, and that is immoral.

Because of health care reform, there is no longer a lifetime limit. So I wanted to point this out and so many other things that are totally essential to our people that are at stake across the street.

Surface Transportation Act

In closing, before we reach our full time, I want to call on the House to take up and pass the Senate Transportation bill. There are 3 million jobs at risk. They cannot get their act together. Allow a vote on the bipartisan Transportation bill and then leave for your vacation. But don't just give us these extensions which are, frankly, death by 1,000 cuts. We already know of six or seven States--including those in the Northeast--that are laying people off because they don't have certainty with the Transportation bill.

So I thank you very much. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me to finish.

I yield the floor.