Domestic Fuels Act of 2012

Madam President, I want to speak for a moment to the issue that was raised by my colleague from Missouri. Senator Claire McCaskill came to the Senate floor to take note of the vote that had just been issued, the rollcall that was just finished on a measure offered by Senator Menendez from New Jersey. It was pretty straightforward.

Here is what it said: The Federal tax subsidies of $2 billion a year to the biggest oil companies in America should end right now. The money in those subsidies should be used to develop other

forms of energy--good for our future, clean for our environment, lessening our dependence on foreign oil--and the balance should be put into reduction of our deficit. Two billion dollars a year is going to the four biggest oil companies in America.

How are they doing? We all know how they are doing. Last year, again, they broke all records in the history of American business, reporting profits of $137 billion. The notion that we would take away $2 billion from these oil companies and put it into deficit reduction and energy research that could be good for our future seems like a given. In fact, it seems so easy that when we had a vote earlier this week to bring up this measure, over 90 Senators voted yes; let's go to it.

What happened on this vote today? We needed 60 votes, which sadly has become the norm in this Chamber. We needed 60 out of 100 Senators to say stop the fat-cat subsidies to the oil companies. We couldn't get it. We got exactly two Republican Senators to vote with us--two. It is a sad reality that many of the same Senators who wax eloquent on the Senate floor about our deficit and what to do about it, when it comes to a simple, straightforward vote to stop this wasteful, unwarranted subsidy to the most profitable companies on Earth, could not bring themselves to say no to Big Oil.

Meanwhile, families and businesses all across Chicago, IL, and America are paying more and more at the pump. Last Sunday I saw my first one--hang on, America; you are going to see one too--$5.03 a gallon. It was downtown Chicago at a BP station. Hang on tight, there is more to come from these oil companies that will then turn around and report the biggest profits ever in American business history.

We pay at the pump and we pay with our taxes. What is left? Here was our chance to stand up and do something. We know $4 billion is not going to change the oil industry, and it is not going to change Washington. But at least it was a statement about where we stand when comes to age-old indefensible tax subsidies to the biggest and most profitable companies in America. We couldn't bring ourselves to do it.

I agree with Senator McCaskill. These folks who get up and wail and cry about the deficit--call up this rollcall and ask them where in the heck they were when we had one chance to do something positive.

It is not the biggest disappointment of the week. There are two others that trump it. I have to tell you, it is hard for me to believe that again we were unable to get a bipartisan group together to start the conversation about post office reform in America. It is the most honored Federal agency.

When people are asked across America, what agency of government do they have a positive feeling about, it is the post office. They make jokes about it--we all do--but we know in our heart of hearts it is the best Postal Service in the world. We can still take an envelope and for less than 50 cents put it in a box and be confident that in a matter of a couple of days or three it is going to be delivered in the lower 48.

There are not many countries on Earth that even get close to making that claim for less than 50 cents. It is so good that the so-called package express folks who were trying to make this a private sector undertaking use the post office. They use the post office because of the efficiency of their delivery for the last mile of delivery.

So we have a problem. Fewer people are using first-class mail. They are using e-mail, bill payer. Revenues are down. Postal employees are down to around 600,000. Those who are retired are around 450,000. We need to bank money for retirees in the future. We are facing the need to make some hard choices about the Postal Service.

The Postmaster General came to my office about 5 months ago now. We sat down with Mr. Donahoe and said: Before you make harsh decisions about the Postal Service, closing post offices, reducing the mail deliveries and the like--before people's jobs are on the chopping block or at least in question, give Congress a chance to at least come up with a better approach.

Historically, that was a challenge Congress always accepted because we knew when it is something that big and important as the Postal Service, which is enshrined in our Constitution, it is our job. We are supposed to do that work.

So I asked him to postpone, if he would, until May 15, any closures of facilities so the House and the Senate could have a chance to act. I have been waiting. It has been hard to get into the Senate calendar. This week was our chance. Senator Harry Reid said we are going to bring it up because it is an important debate. We need to get together.

We called the bill on the Senate floor to move to this debate on the post office. To their credit, the independent Democratic chairman of the jurisdictional committee, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and the Republican ranking member, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, both voted to move to this measure.

I felt good about the fact that they were working together, along with Tom Carper of Delaware and others, in a bipartisan effort to make this post office what we need it to be. I have confidence in Senators Lieberman and Collins because they have done historic work in the past when it came to reforming our intelligence agencies after 9/11; the two of them did it. I credit them, many times publicly, for their bipartisan cooperation. Here we had another chance: We are going to bring postal reform to the floor, and we failed to get 60 votes.

Unfortunately, we could not get more than five from the other side of the aisle to even engage in the debate on Postal Service reform. Now we will be gone for 2 weeks. When we return, it will be a lot closer to April 15 and a lot more challenging for us to get anything done. Those two disappointments--that we could not seize $4 billion in savings for the deficit in oil company subsidies and that we wouldn't accept our responsibility to deal with postal service reform--I am afraid that has been matched and trumped by what is going on in the House of Representatives.

Think about this: Two weeks ago we passed a bipartisan bill on the floor of the Senate for the Federal Transportation bill. When it comes to our economy and its future, it is hard to think of anything more important than investing in highways, mass transit, airports and ports, and rail lines to make sure that we have an economy ready to compete in the 21st century, that businesses can locate in America with confidence that their products can move to the markets as quickly as possible.

This bill comes up every 5 years, and it is a political piece of cake. Democrats and Republicans agree. We all have needs in our States and districts, and we always come together with a bipartisan bill. We did in the Senate.

Two Senators couldn't be further apart on the political spectrum than Barbara Boxer of California and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma. But you know what. They accepted their political responsibility and came up with a bipartisan Federal transportation bill that passed the Senate 74 to 22.

Meanwhile, what was happening in the House? The House was just one crash after another. Their first highway bill went nowhere--rejected. Their second highway bill they would not even call for a vote. Time passed, and more and more of these measures were falling apart. They withdrew the chairman of the committee in the House in charge of it and said: We are going to put somebody else in. They brought in another name. I couldn't keep up with it.

The Speaker of the House and the House Republican caucus made a dog's breakfast out of this Federal Transportation bill. Today, to add insult to injury, they not only would not call our bipartisan bill, which is all we have asked for--I see Senator Boxer on the floor. All we said is, bring the Boxer-Inhofe bill to a vote in the House. It is a bipartisan bill. It is good for this country. For goodness' sakes, vote on it.

No, we are not going to do it. If it isn't the House Republican bill, we are not going to consider it.

What do they do instead? Senator Boxer can explain what they did instead. They said: We will kick the can down the road. We will extend the highway taxes for 90 days and get back to you later.

A person might think, no harm, no foul. Just extending it 90 days, there is no harm. Wrong. State after State, county after county will tell you that

this 90-day extension freezes efforts to build projects across America and will cost us at least 100,000 jobs. The number may be much larger, but it will cost us at least 100,000 jobs. Do we need jobs at this moment in time in America? I should say so. In the midst of a recovery from a recession, one of the areas hit the hardest is the construction industry. And it is not just a matter of the workers out there on the job, it is all of their suppliers. The truckdrivers, the material men, and all of them are now going to be put on hold because the Speaker of the House refuses to call a bipartisan Senate transportation bill for a vote.

That is all we asked--up or down, call it for a vote. Why wouldn't he call it for a vote? Because it would pass. To his embarrassment, it would pass. Well, he got his way, I guess. He is going to send us a 90- day extension. The alternative of letting the highway trust fund lapse is not a reasonable one, not one any of us would embrace. But what a wasted opportunity.

My colleague and good friend, who is sitting right here and has been in this business, the House and the Senate, for a long time, poured her heart and soul into that Federal Transportation bill. She accomplished what nobody thought she could. When she said she was going to sit down with Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and work it out, we said: Bet that works; the two of them are so different. But when it comes to this measure, they see eye to eye. They worked it out. I am proud of what they did. I didn't like everything in the bill, but nobody does. But I voted for it, saying it is bipartisan, it moves our country forward, and it creates almost 3 million jobs. The Boxer-Inhofe bill creates and saves almost 3 million jobs. Is that important at this moment in our history? You bet it is. If you are not in favor of creating good-paying jobs right here in America for American families, what the heck are you doing in this business? And instead, the House said: No, we will not even let you vote on this measure. House Democrats tried the entire week to get this measure up. Even a few--just a few--House Republicans spoke up and said: Bring it up for a vote. It wasn't good enough.

I know the Senator from California is here, and I want to give her a chance to say a word about the impact of the measure that just passed the House of Representatives. She has gone in it, in many cases State by State, to measure what it means to just extend the highway trust fund and not pass a bill that can create and save up to 3 million jobs. She told me that in my State, it was something like 4,000.

There are 4,500 jobs lost if we let the federal transportation program expire this summer because Speaker Boehner refuses to call up this bill. That is the reality. Is it any wonder that the approval rating of Congress is in single digits when you take a hard look at what this does to our Nation? At a time when we need Congress to work together, the Speaker will not call the bipartisan bill from the Senate. The Senate will not take up postal reform. The Senate refuses to even cut the $4 billion subsidy to the biggest oil companies in America.

It is a disappointment to me because many of us worked hard to come here. I feel honored to have this job and feel a responsibility to the people we represent. I think the Senate, on those two votes I mentioned, and the House with their action today have let down the people of this country.

I would like to yield to the Senator from California. I have another statement to make, but I want to give her a chance.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I see my friend from Alaska is on the floor, and I would like to yield to her and ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after her statement.

Madam President, the Senate is not a place for sprinters, only long-distance runners, because sometimes we need patience beyond human endurance to see an idea that one believes is meritorious finally make it--to get passed by the Senate and maybe

even the House or maybe even signed into law. Sometimes it happens quickly; more often it takes a long time.

My personal story that kind of leads when it comes to examples is the DREAM Act, which I introduced 11 years ago. This was legislation that addressed a problem I learned about from my Chicago office. We got a phone call. The phone call was from a mother. She was Korean American and she ran a drycleaners. In Chicago, 75 percent or more of the drycleaning establishments are owned by Korean families. She came to this country years before, brought her little girl with her, and then raised a family, and she became an American citizen.

Fast forward to her little girl who became a musical prodigy. In fact, she was in demand at some of the best music institutions in America, including the Julliard School of Music and the Manhattan Conservatory of Music, offering her admission to come and develop her skills as a concert pianist. As her daughter filled out the form to apply to these schools, she turned to her mother and said: Where it says ``nationality'' what should I write? Her mother said: I don't know. We never filed any papers for you after you came to America. The daughter said: What can we do? The mother said: We can call Durbin.

So they called my office and we checked with the Immigration Service. They came back and said, the law is very clear that when a child is brought to this country and through no fault of their own is undocumented, the law is clear they have to leave for at least 10 years. They have to go back to wherever they were before or anywhere they want to go, but they can't be here. I thought to myself: This girl did nothing wrong. Mom and dad didn't file the papers and here she is in this predicament.

So I introduced the DREAM Act. It has five simple provisions. Here is what it says: If you came to the United States as a child, if you have been a long-term U.S. resident, if you have good moral character, if you graduate from high school and you either complete 2 years of college or serve in the U.S. military, we will put you on a path to become a citizen of the United States. You have to earn it. We are not going to give it to you, but we are going to give you that chance. Just because mom and dad may have done an illegal act, we will not hold you as a child responsible for it.

The net result of this bill, when it becomes law, will strengthen our military--and we have the support from military leaders all across the United States; they want these young men and women to enlist. They will bring diversity and talent to the military. It will also mean they will be contributing to America with their higher education. They are going to be tomorrow's doctors and engineers, soldiers and teachers. We don't want to lose their talents. We don't want them educated in America for 13 years and then cast aside. We want them to stand and be part of our future and make us a stronger Nation.

Keep in mind that for most of these students it comes as a shock when they finally ask the questions and get the answers and realize the flag they have been pledging allegiance to every single day is not the flag of their country. They are people without a country. That is what the DREAM Act is about--to give them a chance.

We have asked the Obama administration on a bipartisan basis to not deport these eligible young people, for they have done nothing wrong. If they do something wrong, it is another story. But if they have done nothing wrong, don't focus on deporting them. What we are trying to do is to give them a chance--just a chance--to earn their way to the American dream. I think the administration's new deportation policy is sensible and I think these young people deserve a chance.

I can give these speeches for a long time and they don't mean much until we meet the DREAM Act students. Let me show my colleagues two handsome young men from Illinois: Carlos and Rafael Robles. I met them both. Carlos and Rafael were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children. Today, Carlos is 22, Rafael is 21. They grew up in suburban Chicago in my home State of Illinois. They graduated from Palatine High School where they were both honor students. In high school, Carlos was the captain of the tennis team and a member of the varsity swim team. He volunteered with Palatine's physically challenged program where every day he helped to feed lunch to special needs students. Carlos graduated from Harper Community College and is now attending Loyola University in Chicago majoring in education. His dream is to become a teacher. Do we need more good teachers in America? You bet we do.

Listen to what one of Carlos's high school teachers said about him:

Carlos is the kind of person we want among us because he

makes the community better. This is the kind of person you

want as a student, the kind of kid you want as a neighbor and

friend to your child, and most germane to his present

circumstance, the kind of person you want as an American.

One of Carlos's college professors wrote and said:

He is, very simply, the finest student I have ever had the

opportunity to mentor.

Rafael, his younger brother, has a lot in common with Carlos. In high school, Rafael was captain of the tennis team and a member of the varsity swim team and soccer team. He graduated again from Harper Community College--understand these young men would attend college in America with no Federal assistance--none. They have to pay for it out of their pocket. So he graduated from Harper Community College. Now he is at the University of Illinois in Chicago where he is majoring in architecture.

Here is what one of Rafael's teachers in high school said about him:

Rafael is the kind of person I have taught about in my

Social Studies classes--the American who comes to this

country and commits to his community and makes it better for

others. Raffi Robles is a young man who makes us better.

During my 28 year career as a high school teacher, coach, and

administrator, I would place Raffi in the top 5 percent of

all the kids with whom I have ever had contact.

Here is the unfortunate part of the story about these two amazing young men. They were both placed in deportation proceedings. I asked the administration to consider their request to suspend their deportations and they agreed to do it, for the time being. I think it was the right thing to do. Carlos and Rafael are represented by volunteer lawyers in Chicago.

After I met Carlos and Rafael, they sent me a letter asking Members of Congress to support the DREAM Act, and here is what they said:

We ask you today to see it in your heart to do the right

thing, to listen, and to reward the values of hard work and

diligence, values that made America the most beautiful and

prosperous country in the world and that we're sure got you,

as members of Congress, to where you are today in life. These

are values we have come to admire and respect in the American

people. We will continue to uphold these values until the

last of our days--we hope eventually as citizens of the

United States, a country we now see as home.

So I ask my colleagues who are critical of the administration's deportation policy or have difficulties with the DREAM Act, Would America be a better place if Carlos and Rafael are deported? Of course not. These two young men grew up here, they were educated here, they have done well here, they have earned their way here. They want to be part of our future.

They are not isolated examples. There are literally thousands of them just like Carlos and Rafael across this country.

When I introduced this bill 11 years ago, and I would give a speech like this and leave a hall, I could count on, if it were nighttime, someone standing by my car quietly as I approached and started to leave. They would ask me: Senator, can I speak to you for a minute.

Sure.

Senator, I am one of those students.

They were afraid of being deported if they raised their hand and identified themselves at the meeting. That has all changed now, and it has changed for the better. These young men and women are courageously stepping forward to identify themselves. It is no longer a mystery of who they are or what they want to be. They are real flesh and blood. They are children. They are the people you sit next to in church. They are the folks who are working hard next to your son or daughter in the library at school. You are cheering them on on the football field. You are watching them lead the USC Marching Trojan Band. You are watching as they are aspiring to become tomorrow's scientists, engineers,

doctors, lawyers, and teachers. They deserve a chance, and we should give them that chance by passing the DREAM Act.

I hope my colleagues will consider doing that as quickly as possible. They want peace of mind, they want a future, and we need them in America's future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the changes the affordable care act is making to the way care is delivered in our health care system. This is a topic that has not received much public attention. Instead, the public debate has largely focused on contentious flashpoints such as the individual mandate or preposterous false claims about death panels or rationing or socialized medicine.

While these contentious debates have raged on, there has been a quiet, steady, and important effort made by the health care industry, by State and local leaders, and by the Obama administration to improve our model of health care delivery. Progress made on these efforts is steadily transforming the care that is delivered under our health care system, from care that is disorganized and fragmented and often riddled with error, to care that is coordinated, efficient, and the high quality Americans deserve. By improving the quality of care and our health outcomes, these delivery system reforms promise to significantly reduce health care costs. Care gets better, costs go down, a true win- win.

I came to the floor today to release a report on health care delivery system reform and on the administration's progress implementing these provisions of the affordable care act. I undertook this project with the support and assistance of Chairman Harkin and Senator Mikulski, both strong advocates and experienced legislators on the types of reforms that are highlighted in the report.

The report makes the case for the reforms our country urgently needs in order to tackle our health care cost problem. My report defines five priority areas of health care delivery system reform: payment reform, quality improvement, primary and preventive care, administrative costs, and health information infrastructure. It outlines the potential cost savings in each area.

It also highlights successes across the country from leading private health providers such as Geisinger Health Systems in Pennsylvania, Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, and the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin, to the State of Vermont's Blueprint for Health, to several examples in my home State of Rhode Island, which has shown great leadership. We have much to learn from these efforts, and the affordable care act gives us the tools to support this type of reform across the country.

The problem is our health care delivery system remains clumsy and wasteful. We spend more than 18 percent of America's gross domestic product on our health care system every year. To put that into context, the highest any other industrialized country spends is approximately 12 percent of gross domestic product on health care. Eighteen percent United States of America; least efficient other industrialized country in the world, 12 percent. Huge room for improvement. In a nutshell, we overspend and underachieve.

The President's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that over $700 billion a year can be saved without compromising health outcomes. The Institutes of Medicine put the savings from these kinds of reforms at $765 billion a year. The New England Health Care Institute projected $850 billion in savings annually, and the Lewin Group and former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill have estimated the savings at $1 trillion a year. Whichever is accurate, this is clearly an enormous opportunity and it is right before us. We can achieve better results for American patients and families, and spend less to do it.

As I said, the solutions fall into five priority areas: payment reform, primary and preventive care, measuring and reporting quality, administrative simplification, and health information infrastructure. These solutions do not cut benefits; they do not increase premiums. Instead, they realign incentives to reduce or get rid of overpriced or unnecessary services, inefficiently delivered care, excessive administrative costs, and missed prevention opportunities.

In this report, we outline actual savings and care improvements that can be found in each priority area. For example, payment reform refers to the new payment reform models that pay doctors more for getting better results, as opposed to ordering more procedures.

In 2010, Blue Shield of California collaborated with Hill Physicians Medical Group and Catholic Healthcare West, California's largest hospital chain, on a pilot program for the California Public Employees Retirement System. The pilot program focused on improved coordination of care by sharing clinical and case management information across medical facilities and among physicians.

In its first year, the Blue Shield pilot program reported impressive results: Readmissions were reduced by 15 percent; hospital days were reduced by 15 percent; inpatient stays of 20 or more days were reduced by 50 percent, cut in half--all saving millions of dollars.

In primary and preventive care--as a country, we don't devote nearly enough resources to primary care and prevention. Only 6 percent to 8 percent of health care spending goes to primary care, to your regular doctor appointments. That is less than the percentage that goes in private insurance to insurance company overhead.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to give an example: When colorectal cancer is found early and treated, the 5- year survival

rate is 90 percent. But screening rates for colorectal cancer are low. The National Health Interview Survey found that in 2005, only half the population aged 50 and older received recommended screening for colon cancer. The American Cancer Society has found that increased colorectal screening in the pre-Medicare population could save lives and reduce subsequent Medicare treatment costs by $15 billion over 11 years.

On measuring and reporting quality, we don't do this anywhere near well enough. Nearly 1 in every 20 hospitalized patients in the United States gets a hospital-acquired infection. This is very expensive and it is preventable. A hospital-acquired infection should be a never event. Yet it costs our health care system approximately $2.5 billion a year in harmful costs we could avoid.

Administrative simplification. The proportion of the U.S. health care dollar that is lost to administration has always been high relative to our peer countries. The cost of administration by insurance companies is not only high itself, but it creates a shadow cost imposed on providers who have to fight back against the insurance company claims denial apparatus, and that cost is probably even higher.

A study published in Health Affairs documented that physicians spent on average 142 hours annually interacting with health plans, totaling nearly 7 percent of total health care costs. That is just the physician's time. That doesn't count all the nonphysician office staff dedicated to administration and chasing the insurance companies.

Last, health and information technology. Health information technology is the essential underlying framework for health care delivery system reform. It is the foundation on which other delivery system reforms can be built. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine estimated the number of deaths resulting from medical error as high as 98,000 American deaths annually. The most common cause of those preventable injuries and deaths in hospitals was medication errors, which can be reduced dramatically through the adoption of computerized physician order entry systems--health information technology.

The reform areas my report discusses synchronize with one another, and there is a growing national movement of providers and payers and States that recognize their critical importance. Focusing on quality rather than quantity and focusing on efficiency rather than volume will better serve not only their patients but their bottom line.

The report I am releasing today looks at 45 provisions in the affordable care act that promote these delivery system reforms. From the discussion one would not know that virtually one-third of the affordable care act was about these delivery system reforms because they have been noncontroversial, but they are in there and they are important.

The report also assesses the administration's progress in implementing them. We found that the administration has already implemented 25 provisions fully and made significant progress on two others. The complexity and sheer number of reforms included in the law make this accomplishment in a relatively short period of time noteworthy.

In addition to the hurdles presented by our fragmented health care system, there has been resistance in Congress to the administration's implementation efforts that has also created barriers. For the 20 delivery system provisions that have not yet been implemented, lack of congressional funding is a significant factor in delaying their forward progress.

In these reform provisions, the affordable care act is supporting and building upon the efforts undertaken by the private sector by realigning incentives in the health care system to support private sector efforts. A broad array of pilot and demonstration programs has been launched, from which best practices will be deployed nationwide. The process to get to a more sustainable path will be one of, as CBO Director Elmendorf said, ``experimentation and learning. It will be a process of innovation.''

The affordable care act improves the conditions that allow that innovation to take place, and it has the mechanisms needed to propagate those reforms widely throughout the system as quickly as possible once they are proven effective.

American ingenuity can overcome our toughest challenges, not through command and control but through dynamic, flexible, and persistent experimentation, learning, and innovation. We are at a fork in the road on our health care future. One path we could travel is to protect the dysfunctional status quo and cut benefits to pay for the waste. That is the way a lot of my colleagues want to go.

The other way is to shift incentives so that we innovate toward better, safer health care--which costs less. We as Americans need to trust that the path of innovation and experimentation is the right one and not give up on these efforts.

Last year, George Halvorson, who is the CEO of Kaiser Permanente and knows a little something about health care, said it this way:

There are people right now who want to cut benefits and

ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in

this country and that is wrong. It's so wrong it's almost

criminal.

He continued:

It's an inept way of thinking about health care.

The affordable care act has the tools that enable providers to focus on quality rather than quantity, efficiency rather than volume, and patients rather than their bottom line, to avoid the inept way of thinking about health care.

As I close, let me say that throughout the process of writing this report I found one thing to be glaringly absent; that is, a cost savings goal set by the administration for us to reach toward on these delivery system reform provisions.

In 1961, President Kennedy declared that within 10 years the United States would put a man on the Moon and return him safely. This message was clear, it was direct, and it created accountability. As a result, a vast mobilization of private and public resources occurred to collaborate in innovative ways to achieve the President's purpose.

While the issue facing our country in health care is different, the urgency and the need to mobilize the public and private sectors toward improving quality and reducing cost is the same. So I challenge the administration to set a cost-savings target for delivery system reform. A cost-savings target will focus, guide, and spur the administration's efforts in a manner that vague intentions to bend the health care cost curve will never do. It also will provide a measurable goal by which we can evaluate our progress.

A clear and public goal will help make this vision of our health care system a reality. It will drive forward progress, and it will generate momentum to achieve that goal.

I urge the administration: Set a goal you are prepared to be accountable to meet.

When President Kennedy announced in September of 1962 that America would strive to put a man on the Moon, he said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade . . . not

because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that

goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our

energies and skills, because that challenge is one we are

willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one

which we intend to win.

We need to face the challenge posed by the rising health care costs in our system. We need to recognize we cannot postpone finding a solution. We can win this challenge, we can drive our system toward a sustainable path of higher quality care and improved outcomes, and we can do so by setting clear goals and supporting the measures in the affordable care act that propel us in that direction.

I yield the floor.

I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question.

Setting aside the questions that this raises about the House's ability to govern, which I think are raised by this issue but focusing on this highway question, it is now the end of March. If we go 90 days, 30 days takes us through the end of April, 30 more days takes us through the end of May, and 30 more days takes us through the end of June. There is a seasonal component to getting this work done, is there not? What is the effect of our entire highway, road, and bridge industry having no certainty about what their funding is going to be until practically the Fourth of July

with the construction season then underway?

Mr. President, I see the Republican leader is on the floor, and I understand there may be a unanimous consent that is propounded, and I can offer some remarks in the context of an objection and a counterproposal, if the minority leader would like to proceed now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until I get a signal from the majority leader that he will seek recognition, at which point I will yield the floor.

I wished to follow in the footsteps of Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and reflect my own dismay and dissatisfaction with the situation we are in right now. The House extension on the highway bill, which we are going to be asked to proceed with, is going to cost--as far as the estimates I can see so far--around 100,000 jobs, and that is damage to our economy. That is a self-inflicted wound. More specifically, it is a House-inflicted wound, and I would very much like to see the Senate fight to force action on the Senate highway bill. It is a bipartisan bill with amendments and is fully paid for. This is a serious bill, as opposed to inflicting this kind of damage on our economy with a short- term extension.

Does the majority leader seek recognition?

Mr. President, the old adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant is an old adage for one main reason: It is true.

That is why I am introducing the Financial Disclosure to Reduce Tax Haven Abuse Act of 2012, to require candidates for Federal office and certain Federal employees to disclose any financial interest they or their spouse hold that is held in an offshore tax haven.

It might seem ridiculous that we don't already know whether candidates and Members of Congress are using offshore tax havens. However, under current law, those individuals are not required to account for where their financial interests are held.

A January 26, 2012, article in the Los Angeles Times reported that Mitt Romney--a candidate for the Republican nomination for President-- failed to disclose a number of accounts in countries with very low tax burdens.

Specifically, according to a review of the candidate's tax returns and financial disclosure statements:

At least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple's

2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the

same fashion on Romney's most recent financial disclosure,

including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as

Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

The Romney campaign called the discrepancies ``trivial.''

But this information is not trivial to the American people's trust in government, and the use of offshore tax havens is not trivial to our economy.

Studies have found that tax offshore tax havens, and other similar loopholes, cost taxpayers $100 billion per year.

I want to commend Senators Levin and Conrad for the work they have done to shine a light on these nefarious practices.

Those two Senators successfully included a provision in the Senate Transportation bill that will give the Treasury Department greater tools to crack down on offshore tax haven abuse. It is an important step forward, but more must be done.

The American people are rightly concerned that the wealthy and well- connected are skirting our laws to avoid taxation, and they deserve to know that the people who hope to represent them in Washington--and those who are trying to attain those positions--aren't cheating the system.

Nothing in this bill impinges on an individual's right to hold financial interests within the global economy. If there is a legitimate reason for a candidate or a Member of Congress or any other individual who files a financial disclosure to hold their money in an account on the Cayman Islands, they should have no problem explaining it to voters. But any individual who has or wants to have the public's trust should be honest about practices they have engaged in that cost the taxpayers they wish to represent billions of dollars every year. This is an important step that we must take to restore the public trust.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported that outstanding student loan debt in America has hit the $1 trillion mark--student loans.

A CFPB official was cited by Bloomberg News saying that ``excessive student debt could slow the recovery of the housing market, as young people repay money for their education rather than buying homes.'' Massive student debt is also affecting consumers' ability to purchase goods and services.

Yesterday, at the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing focusing on student debt, Treasury Secretary Geithner came to talk about it. While the overall growth of student indebtedness is troubling, the most pressing concern is private student loans.

Secretary Geithner also recognized that private student loans do not come with any of the consumer protections that Federal loans do. Private student loans are far riskier. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable interest rates--3.4 percent. They also have a variety of consumer protections. The Federal loans have forbearance in times of economic hardship, and they offer manageable repayment options, such as the income-based repayment plan.

Private student loans, on the other hand, often have high variable interest rates--some have been quoted at 18 percent, the kind of rates you are careful about when it comes to your credit--and they have hefty origination fees and a lack of repayment options. Private lenders have targeted low-income borrowers with some of the riskiest, highest cost loans.

In many respects, private student loans are like credit cards--except unlike credit card debt, private student loan debt can never be discharged in bankruptcy. In 2005, Congress changed the bankruptcy laws. I want to make a point here: I voted against it. Congress changed the bankruptcy laws and included a provision making private student loan debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy, except in the rarest of circumstances. I have never found one that qualifies. That means students are stuck with their loans for life.

While the volume of private student loans is down from its peak a few years ago when it accounted for 26 percent of all student loans, private lending is still aggressively promoted by the for-profit college industry. The Project on Student Debt reports that 42 percent of for-profit college students had private loans in 2008, up from 12 percent 5 years earlier. For-profit college students also graduate with more debt than their peers who graduate from public or private and non- private colleges. Many for-profit colleges employ a business model that steers students into private student loans because of the 90/10 rule.

For the record, private for-profit schools can only receive 90 percent of their revenue from the Federal Government. They are the closest darn thing to a Federal agency you have ever seen, except they are making millions of dollars at the expense of the government and unsuspecting students and their families. So to find the 10 percent of nonfederal money, for-profit schools get the students to sign up to pay for 10 percent of their education in private student loans, even if they qualify for Federal loans, which are a much better deal.

The 90/10 rule that requires at least 10 percent of revenue from non- Federal

student aid sources makes this an imperative for many for-profit schools. As a result, many students are encouraged to take up private loans when they are still eligible for Federal loans--even when the lenders know the students are going to default--so schools can comply with the 90/10 rule.

Kari Schaab contacted my office seeking relief from her burdensome student debt. She received a bachelor of arts from the International Academy of Design and Technology, a for-profit college. When she spoke to an admissions representative, she was enrolled almost immediately. Looking back, she says of the school: ``They take whoever is willing to pay.''

She was assured she would be able to obtain a position in her field that would help her pay off her student debt. Reflecting on her experience, she said: ``I was young and didn't understand how much I would owe or what the loans were. I trusted them.''

After completing her BA program, she decided that she would pursue a master's in her field. What she found out shocked her. No schools would accept her degree. It was a worthless diploma. With no job, no future in her chosen field, and about $58,000 in debt, she decided to switch careers entirely so that she would be able to pay off her student loans.

She currently attends Oaktown Community College for nursing. She is unable to get a mortgage because of her old student loan debt of $58,000. Worse yet, her parents, trying to help her out, took out $19,000 in loans to help pay her tuition. Her parents are currently in chapter 13 bankruptcy, but that loan won't be discharged.

We need to begin now to address this looming student debt bomb crisis. We need to protect students and prevent more students from stepping into the same traps that have caught so many others.

Today, Senator Tom Harkin and I are introducing the Know Before You Owe Private Student Loan Act of 2012. Here is what it says: It requires the prospective borrower's school to confirm the student's enrollment status, the cost of attendance, and the estimated Federal financial aid assistance before the private student loan is approved. Often, students haven't applied for Federal student aid before they are asked to apply for private student loans, which are not nearly as generous or flexible.

Requiring school certifications also gives the school the opportunity to make students aware of Federal Government student aid options.

The bill requires schools to counsel the student about their options, tell them how the private student loan will affect those options, and what it will cost to repay the loans. Basics.

In addition, schools will be required to inform students about the differences between Federal and private student loans. And the differences are dramatic. This will give students time to weigh their options, make a choice, and be informed.

When students such as Kari contact my office about their student loans, they often don't know the difference between the two types of loans. They said: ``It was just a student loan, Senator.'' Most go on to say that if they had known, they would have thought more carefully about a private student loan and the debt they were incurring.

For those students who do decide to take out a private student loan, the bill requires lenders to provide the borrower with quarterly up-to- date information about their balance and interest rate.

Finally, the bill requires lenders to report information to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about how many students are taking out loans and at what rates. There is very little information about private student loans currently available. More information will help Congress and the CFPB effectively inform consumers about these private student loans.

This legislation is supported by a huge coalition of education, student, and consumer organizations. I want to thank Tom Harkin for his work on this bill, especially all of the hard work he has put in on these for-profit colleges.

Mr. President, it is finally dawning on a lot of Members of Congress as they see programs such as ``Frontline'' talking about the for-profit college industry, and as they meet these students who are going to these worthless for-profit colleges--students who are just stacking up debt for a worthless diploma--it is time for our Federal Government to step up. How can we blame a student or their family if they are going to a school where we, the Federal Government, are willing to offer Pell grants and Federal loans? What is a student to think? Well, if it is good enough for the Federal Government to loan money, it must be a good school.

In fact, in many instances--in most instances--these for-profit schools are not good schools. They are not offering a good education. There are exceptions, but too many of them are just bad operations. We subsidize them. Ninety to ninety-five percent of their revenue comes straight from the Federal Government. When they talk about freezing Federal employees' salaries, we ought to freeze the employees at these for-profit schools. They are the closest thing to Federal employees we have--95 percent Federal. We don't hear that from the other side of the aisle. But it is a fact.

I will tell you this: This student loan debt bomb we are facing, which I talked to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner about yesterday, is going to explode on us, just as the subprime market loans did. More and more students are going into default. They can't pay back these student loans, and they are going to face life decisions that will change their futures and the future of the American economy.

We now have 40 percent of students who are making payments on their student loans--40 percent. Sixty percent are not. Some are still in school, I will concede that point, but many of them just can't do it. We pile this debt on, we give them preferred treatment in the Bankruptcy Court so the lenders can't have the debt discharged, and we sit there and watch as the lives of these young people deteriorate.

As one young lady testified at my hearing that she borrowed $37,625 from the Federal government, $40,925 in private loans. She went to the Harrington College of Design in the suburbs of Chicago and ended up with a worthless diploma--worthless. Five years later, her debt is no longer $78,000; it is $98,000. It just keeps going up. She pays $830 a month, and the private student loan debt is exploding right in front of her. She can't pay it. She doesn't know what she is going to do. She said she is going to have to give up the little home she and her husband just bought. It looks pretty desperate for her, and her desperate situation faces her at the age of 32--32.

How do we let this happen? Don't we have an obligation as a government, as a people, to stop this exploitation of children and their families? That is what is going on.

This bill I have put in today will require these schools--all schools--to tell the students first that they have Federal loan eligibility left. It is 3.4 percent, not 18 percent. There is loan forgiveness if they become a nurse or a teacher. It is based on the amount of income they have later in life what their repayment is going to be. If they do get into trouble, they can have a delay in payment without watching their loan just stack up. These are basic things we build into the law to help students. Students and their families ought to know that, and that is what this bill is about.

I commend this bill to my colleagues. I hope they will join Senator Harkin and me. I want to offer this on the Senate floor, and I want some colleagues to go home and face this student loan issue and listen to the families they represent. We are hearing from our Web site, and I invite students and families to come to my official Web site to tell their stories. As we learn what it is all about, we see the need to move on this, and move quickly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon.

This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country.

What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future.

We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that.

This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources.

Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years.

The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act.

The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume.

Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well.

Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage.

Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship.

We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology

to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada.

What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production.

The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship.

We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place.

That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price.

It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump.

Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right?

But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point.

What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers.

This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business.

This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it.

This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well.

The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard.

Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon.

This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country.

What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future.

We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that.

This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources.

Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years.

The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act.

The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume.

Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well.

Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage.

Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship.

We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology

to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada.

What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production.

The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship.

We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place.

That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price.

It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump.

Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right?

But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point.

What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers.

This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business.

This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it.

This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well.

The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard.

Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.