Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act of 2011

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of S. 953. Today I wish again to speak about gas prices in our country and the pressing need to increase domestic supply. In a nutshell, the way you reduce prices at the pump for American consumers is by increasing supply, particularly domestic supply. More supply will not only help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump for American consumers, but it will also help create good American jobs for our workers across the country.

It is important to remember that government does not create jobs, but government can create the environment, the legal, tax, and regulatory environment that will stimulate private investment, and that private investment will stimulate the deployment of new technologies, new companies, and, of course, create jobs to help grow and sustain our economy.

I want to start out by giving you some examples close to my home in the great State of North Dakota. In North Dakota, we launched a comprehensive energy plan about 10 years ago. At that time oil companies had either left the Williston Basin, which is the energy patch in our State, or they were leaving. You might ask: Well, why was that? First, it was because they were getting better returns elsewhere. The technology was lacking to produce oil and gas economically from new formations in our State. Companies were going to other places in the world where they could extract that oil more cost effectively.

Second, the data on confirmed reserves was also lacking, and the technology to produce oil from shale was not sufficiently developed.

Third, our workforce was aging.

And, fourth, transportation constraints limited production. In other

words, there were better places for those companies to go, better places than our State, to invest their dollars, to get a return for shareholders.

To turn that around, we worked very hard to build a climate for investment and growth. I wish to tell you about some of what we worked to put in place. First, we put tax incentives in place that made it worthwhile to invest. Second, we established an oil and gas research fund. Third, we initiated studies of the Bakken formation, not only through the North Dakota Geological Survey, but also through the U.S. Geological Survey. We asked for updates to those studies now as well.

We improved infrastructure, including four-laning some of our major highways. We established a pipeline authority to expand transportation capacity, to move product out of the Williston Basin to market, and we also established a center of excellence for petroleum safety and technology at Williston State College, to train workers in oil production and recovery methods.

Up until that time, we had to send our workers to States such as Colorado or Wyoming or maybe Oklahoma for that education and training in oil field technologies, and sometimes they did not always come back to our State. So we established that training there at home.

As a result of our advanced business environment, we drew investment capital technology and ingenuity to the Williston Basin, and those efforts unlocked the potential not only of the Bakken formation but also the Three Forms formation.

This year, North Dakota will produce more than 120 million barrels of oil, the fourth most amongst all 50 States. We passed other States now such as Oklahoma and Louisiana, and our production continues to grow. What is more, the private investment that funded and deployed those new technologies to produce more oil most cost effectively and more dependably also funded the development and deployment of new technologies that helped us produce that oil and gas in more environmentally sound ways.

New technologies such as directional drilling, and the way we do hydraulic fracking, enabled companies to recover as much or more oil from one well bore than they had formerly recovered from up to a dozen well bores. That means more domestic production, less environmental impact, and better results for the American people.

Bear in mind that most of these measures I am talking about, most of these measures we implemented to enhance our business climate, were not about government spending. They were about creating an environment that attracted private investment.

Increased economic growth not only generated revenues for our State and broadened our economic base but also actually enabled us to reduce taxes for our citizens. It also has a national impact. Increased North Dakota oil production is also helping to reduce our dependence on foreign imports, and increase the domestic supply of oil in this country.

As I mentioned in my remarks last week, between 1985 and 2005, domestic oil production in this country was going down--it was shrinking--and foreign imports were growing. In 2005, we were importing 12.4 billion barrels of oil a day into this country, 60 percent of what we consumed.

By 2010, however, our imports had fallen to 9.4 million barrels a day, a reduction of about 3 million barrels a day over 2005. So over the last 5 years, we have actually reduced our daily imports of oil into this country by 3 million barrels a day.

Our dependence on foreign oil has been reduced from 60 percent down to about 49 percent. So what changed? Well, in part, we are using less. But the fact is, we have increased domestic production. We have increased our domestic supply. Increased supplies from onshore production in the lower 48 States such as North Dakota, also from natural gas liquids throughout the country, and from offshore drilling, have all raised domestic output by 1.5 million barrels a day in this country.

That is what today's vote on S. 953 is all about. The bill before us, which was introduced by Senator McConnell--and I am pleased to be one of his cosponsors, is about more offshore domestic production, more offshore domestic production from off our coasts, and, hence, more domestic supply.

Like our approach in North Dakota, onshore production, S. 953, the Offshore Production and Safety Act will encourage more domestic production with better environmental stewardship. It will open areas in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf, and parts of coastal Virginia to new exploration and production. At the same time, it will help to expedite the approval or denial of growing permits to a reasonable period of time--in this case 60 days--thereby allowing projects to move forward in a timely fashion.

But it does not just speed up the clock. This bill is also about safety. It requires companies drilling offshore to have safety plans that must be certified by the Secretary of Interior. To further improve safety, it also requires ongoing preview and research into spill prevention procedures and methods.

This legislation, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is the kind of energy policy that will help to attract investment and increase production in this country. That means not only more supply to help bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump for American families, but it also means more jobs for American workers. It is a good piece of legislation and we ought to pass it.

Although it is a step in the right direction, no single piece of legislation will do it all. Congress has not passed a comprehensive energy policy in years. But, frankly, we can no longer wait for that single sweeping master plan that will do it all at once.

Again referring to my home State, we built Empower North Dakota over a decade piece by piece, and saw firsthand the power of energy development in our State. The bill before us today is one piece, a piece that can become part of a comprehensive national energy plan.

To build a comprehensive plan we need other legislation as well, other legislation such as the Boutique Fuel Reduction Act of 2011, which would simplify our Nation's fuel standards and make more fuel available to American consumers. My esteemed colleague, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, was on the floor a few minutes ago talking about that piece of legislation, and also legislation such as the Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act, which would actually work with a directive from President Obama to review and remove outmoded or excessively burdensome rules that may be impeding economic development and job growth across our country.

We need to work in a bipartisan way, because high gas prices, high unemployment, and low economic growth are not a Republican or a Democratic issue, they are an American issue. That is why we also need legislation such as the EPA Fair Play Act, which will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from rescinding previously approved 404 permits. I am pleased to be cosponsoring that legislation with my colleague, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Collectively, all of these pieces of legislation and more are the bricks and mortar out of which we can build a comprehensive national energy policy. But we need to get going, and we need to get going today. Let's get going with S. 953, and let's build a brighter energy future for ourselves and for future generations.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the legislation that is going to be voted on in a few hours. I have listened to the last couple of speakers, and while I certainly respect Senator Coburn's commitment to fiscal responsibility--and he and I have worked together on a number of projects in that regard and have the same view of many of the spending habits around here--I have to say, I am a little confused by the opposition to this legislation by my friends across the aisle.

We have two ways to spend money around here: one, through the appropriations process; the other is what I call tax goodies. These goodies are called tax expenditures. What these do is they basically say to whatever group has successfully lobbied for them: You are not going to have to pay all your taxes. So there are two ways we deny the Treasury money. One is by spending money. The other is by telling people: You do not have to pay the money the Tax Code says you owe. And we put into the Tax Code special deals.

Many of those special deals are done because the case is made that they spur economic development or they spur some kind of activity in our country that we think is desirable. A good example is the interest deduction on people's homes. The notion is that we want to encourage people to buy homes, so we allow them to deduct the interest they pay on those home loans against their income tax.

Charitable deductions are another good example. We want people to give to charities, so we say: Do you know what. You do not have to pay as much in taxes if you give to charity.

The realty sector is full of tax goodies for the development of real estate and the creation of jobs that go with the development of real estate.

One of the big tax expenditures we have in our Tax Code is goodies for Big Oil. That is what this is about. Can we get to where we need to be on our structural debt and our annual deficit without touching the Tax Code? No way. Are we going to have to look at revenues for multimillionaires? I think we are. Are we, obviously, going to have to look at spending? Of course we are. And aren't we going to have to look at the tax goodies? Well, I would surely hope so, because, frankly, as some of my colleagues across the aisle have said--and I thought they agreed with us--cleaning out some of those goodies could potentially lower taxes for everyone.

So where do we start with the goodies that are in the Tax Code? Might we not start with the most profitable companies in the history of the planet? Do they need this extra money we give them by telling them they do not have to pay the taxes other companies have to pay? How many quarters will we have where we read the headlines: ``Record-Breaking Profits for Big Oil''? How many times are we going to read that before we are willing to take the baby step--just the baby step--of saying: Maybe these tax goodies for Big Oil are not a good idea in light of our deficit and our debt. Maybe this is a good place to start. They made north of $35 billion in the last 3 months.

I know there are all kinds of things that are being put out there to kind of hide behind as we cast this vote because this is a tough vote for people who vote no. How do you explain to your constituents--who are struggling around their kitchen table to figure out how they can afford to drive their kids to soccer practice--how do you explain to them that we think that instead of $123 billion of profit Big Oil is going to make this year, they need to make $125 billion? That is what this is. Instead of making $125 billion--north of $125 billion--of profit this year, Big Oil is going to have to suffer along with only $123 billion in profit. And that $2 billion we want to take back from them is going to go toward the deficit. How do you explain that to people around their kitchen table?

Oh, this means the cost of fuel is going to go up. Everyone has debunked that. Really? The cost of fuel has gone up just fine and they have all those subsidies. I remember when oil was $55 a barrel and they had all these subsidies. By the way, all these subsidies did not help them go out and do what they needed to do to keep the price of fuel down.

By the way, today a letter was sent to the FTC by myself and other Members of the Senate saying: What about this refinery process? Talk about economic illiteracy. Anybody who believes the oil companies today are making 7 cents of profit on a gallon of gas has no idea what is going on with refineries right now. A year ago at this time, refineries were operating at a capacity of close to 90 percent. Today, they are only operating at 80 percent. Why would that be? Their profit per gallon of gas--just the refineries--has gone from less than 40 cents a gallon to 80 cents a gallon in a matter of a few months: 80 cents a gallon of refinery profit. Some of these refineries are independently owned. But many of them are owned by the big five, the big five big oil.

So why is that capacity down? Is it because they do not have crude to go through the refining process? No. There is plenty of crude. And how about this. We are giving these big oil companies tax goodies, and what are they doing today? They are exporting a record amount of oil and fuel from the United States--exporting. They are sending it to South America and Mexico.

So while my constituents are suffering mightily at the gas pump, week after week, these guys are sending the oil they have produced with our tax goodies to another country, instead of putting that additional supply into our supply chain, which, in turn, reduces the price.

The more supply, the less the price. So, one, they have cut back refining capacity. Two, they are exporting more. And they want to say it is about drilling. Really? We have more rigs drilling right now in this country than we have had in many years. We have production higher at this point--domestic production--than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We just issued 12 new deepwater permits in the last few months. There are all kinds of leases out there that are not being explored. Meanwhile, cha-ching, cha-ching--these big oil companies are continuing to make profits that make your jaw drop.

So, honestly, seriously, you talk about economic illiteracy. I will tell you what economic illiteracy is. It is thinking these companies-- what about the free market I always hear about from the other side of the aisle? What about that free market? Why do they need our tax goodies to help them if this is truly a free market?

Maybe they are right. Maybe we shouldn't pick on Big Oil. But what a great place to start. Frankly, if we can't take these things away from the most profitable companies in the history of the planet, how are we ever going to take them away from the mohair industry or how are we ever going to do what we need to do with the Tax Code in the real estate sector or any of the other goodies we have larded up our Tax Code with to make it so complicated and so long that, frankly, the people who get the most advantages out of it are the families who can afford to hire accountants and tax lawyers. Meanwhile, the real tax rate for most Americans is much higher than the real tax rate for most multinational corporations.

So I think economic illiteracy is to spend a lot of time talking about the debt and deficit and not being willing to take this baby step to take back $2 billion a year that these companies get that they do not need and they are not using to hold down the price of gas.

I mean, when I realized how cynical this whole process has become is when today I got a question from a reporter that said: Well, the oil companies say most of these profits are going to these pension companies. Give me a break. You know, really? Really? These guys want to talk about free market and how this is all about the bottom line, and then they want to try to hide behind the fact that some of the pension funds have stock in their companies, that somehow that justifies them feeding at the public trough? Talk about greed. Talk about greed.

So I think this legislation is a real litmus test because if we can't do this, then I question what we can do to right this ship that is all about the footprint of the Federal Government, how much money we are spending and how many tax expenditures are out there. And anybody who tells you this is about raising their taxes--no, this is about saying to them: You have to pay the taxes the free market says you should pay, not avoid taxes by these extra goodies. This isn't about raising their taxes; this is about saying: You need to pay your taxes the way average citizens do, as it relates to their businesses. You should not get this extra help in the Tax Code that allows you to avoid taxes. It is a tax expenditure. It is real money that will come to our bottom line as it relates to our deficit, and it is important to get it done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, across this country Americans are feeling the pain at the pump. Gas prices are approaching $4 a gallon. Families are going to spend, on average, about $800 more on gas this year than they did last year. Unrest in the Middle East and a weak dollar are driving oil prices even higher. Now more than ever, we must produce more American energy. We need to do this to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Americans are looking to Washington for leadership. All you have to do is pick up today's USA TODAY to know how much--and I know you hear about it, too, when you are home on the weekends--this $4-a-gallon gas is impacting people in our States.

Here is one headline. ``Poll: Gas prices hurting many. $4 a gallon requires cutbacks.''

Let me read to you, Madam President:

As gas prices hover near $4 a gallon, nearly seven in 10

Americans say the high cost of fuel is causing financial

hardship for their families, a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll

finds. More than half say they have made major changes to

compensate for the higher prices, ranging from shorter trips

to cutting back on vacation travel.

The article goes on:

For 21%, the impact is so dramatic they say their standard

of living is jeopardized.

So here we have families all across the country, in your State as well as in mine, who are dealing with kids, bills, mortgages, and this sort of increase--$800 out of their ability to pay for other things this year--clearly impacts their quality of life. So Americans want answers and they deserve answers. They are asking: How am I going to pay my gas bill? When we have American energy, energy right here in this country, they are asking: Why are we so dependent on foreign countries for our energy? They want to know where the leadership is in Washington.

This very week, the President has finally said he understands the need to produce more American energy. Well, he has used that same line many times.

The actions of the Democratic Party today on the floor of the Senate do not track with the lines coming out of the White House. The administration wants Americans to believe the administration has seen the light, but Republican Representative Doc Hastings, a Member of the House of Representatives, has already called their bluff. Representative Hastings is the sponsor of legislation that would allow more energy production off the coast of Alaska. He said it is ironic that the White House is now supporting this idea because the White House just recently opposed the idea when he introduced it in the House of Representatives.

The Associated Press was even more direct. They said that all of the administration's ideas had come from three bills that were passed by the Republican-controlled House down the hall, and the Associated Press said the White House had opposed every single one of these bills.

So despite acting against the production of more American energy just a week ago, the President now wants us to believe he supports it just because this week he says so. Well, I hope his change of heart is sincere, but I have my doubts because, unlike energy, talk is cheap.

The administration is trying to use this sudden change of heart as a bargaining chip to pass legislation that was brought up by liberals in the Senate this past week. Unlike increased production, the bill brought to the floor by the Democrats will not help the American people. In fact, the bill is clear evidence that the Democratic Party has no plan to address high gasoline prices. Why do I say that? Well, the solution we hear for high gas prices is a tax increase. Since when did raising taxes lower the price of gasoline? Since when does raising taxes on one thing ever lower the price of that thing? To me, this is just another distraction. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has already told us there are some commonsense facts about energy taxes. They have told us that raising energy taxes will not lower the price at the pump. In fact, the Congressional Research Service says increasing energy taxes will increase the price of gas and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

This administration has consistently pushed policies that actually make the pain at the pump worse. Instead of supporting the all-of-the- above energy production across our country, they have been more focused on excuses about why we shouldn't use more American energy. If you look back over time, there is a clear pattern. In 2008, when he was a candidate for President, then-Senator Obama said high gas prices weren't a problem. He said the only problem is that they went up too fast. Interior Secretary Salazar, when he was a Member of this body, said he would not support more offshore drilling even if gas prices hit $10 a gallon. Even Secretary Steven Chu, who is our Energy Secretary, was quoted that same year as saying: We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe. Gas prices in Europe routinely hit $8 a gallon. With these individuals in charge of our energy policy, it is no wonder prices are way up--up over $1 from where they were a year ago.

This administration's shutting down of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will drive American oil production down by 20 percent in 2012. Even former President Bill Clinton called the continuous shutdown ridiculous.

To make matters worse, President Obama appears to be more enthusiastic about importing oil from other countries than he is in terms of using our own. Brazil has discovered huge reserves of shale oil, and the President recently visited Brazil. He said he wants the United States to be Brazil's best customer for oil.

When it comes to oil consumption generally, the President's story continues to change. A few weeks ago, President Obama tried to make the case that Americans should decrease their consumption of oil. He said we only have about 2 to 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's oil. According to the President's measurements, the United States has about 28 billion barrels of oil, but according to the Congressional Research Service, the United States actually has 163 billion barrels of oil. That is over five times as much as the President says we have, and the United States is currently the third largest oil-producing nation in the world.

President Obama has also said he wants to cut imports of foreign oil by a third. Well, his new proposal is definitely a step in the right direction, so why would he tie it to this bill that makes American production harder and more expensive?

Another of the President's goals is to make alternative energy the cheapest form of energy. He continues to talk about that, and I applaud that goal. But we need to make energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that don't raise the prices for American families. Regrettably, the President's method has been to make everything but alternative energy more expensive, and the bill his party is pushing right now is another step in that direction.

So the evidence is clear: The liberal energy strategy is not creating American jobs. No, it is not creating jobs here in America, it is not reducing the cost of gasoline in America, and it is not strengthening America's national security. Instead, Americans are paying more at the pump, they are living with high unemployment, and they are producing less American energy.

I hope the President will follow up on his promise to help America produce more oil. I also hope he will stop pushing the damaging legislation his party has put forward here this week.

It is time we have a true bipartisan approach on energy. Senator Manchin of West Virginia and I have introduced just such a bill. It is a bipartisan bill called the American Alternative Fuels Act. This bill truly would ease American's pain at the pump. It would repeal barriers to alternative fuels so American energy can thrive. It would promote the production of alternative fuels derived from American sources. This bill acknowledges the truth about our energy crisis. We need more American energy--we need it all.

In addition to the green jobs the President keeps talking about, we need red, white, and blue energy and red, white, and blue energy jobs. We must keep focusing on making our energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that do not increase the costs on American families.

The only way Americans can take the President's call for more energy production seriously is if he and the Democratic leadership abandon their fixation on raising taxes on producing American energy. That is the first step we need to take in helping relieve the pain at the pump.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, and in strong opposition of the Offshore Production and Safety Act.

I support the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act because it would repeal unnecessary subsidies and incentives to oil companies that will cost taxpayers $21 billion over the next 10 years. That $21 billion must be made up through taxes in other areas, such as individual income taxes.

These tax incentives for big oil, unfortunately, go toward corporate salaries and profits--they do not lead to lower gas prices for American consumers.

And I oppose the poorly named Offshore Production and Safety Act.

Instead of implementing the recommendations of The National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, this legislation attempts to irresponsibly increase production by shortcircuiting safety and environmental reviews, rigging the courts in favor of the oil companies, and forcing oil leasing in offshore areas without further review.

The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, introduced by Senator Menendez, was written to end unnecessary and expensive tax subsidies. Is does so in the following ways:

It modifies the foreign tax credit that allows major oil companies to deduct royalty payments dollar-for-dollar from their U.S. tax bill.

It limits the ability of oil companies to claim the domestic manufacturing tax deduction. This deduction was created in 2004 to assist exporting manufacturers, not to subsidize oil companies.

It limits the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs.

It limits the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells: Firms will no longer be able to calculate this deduction using the percentage depletion calculation method, under which they often take claims that exceed the capital that was actually invested.

It limits the deduction for tertiary injectants, which are fluids and gases that oil companies pump underground to drive more oil from an existing well, sometimes with negative environmental repercussions.

Finally, the bill includes a provision I introduced in February to repeal Outer Continental Shelf deep water royalty relief provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

These 2005 provisions created a financial incentive for oil companies to drill in the deepest parts of the ocean, where the environmental and technical risks are greatest.

If we learn anything from the BP oilspill, it is that we should not be encouraging oil drilling in ocean waters so deep that it is beyond our technical capacity to address a spill. Yet that is exactly what the law does today.

Last week, at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, CEOs of the big oil companies argued that they deserve to continue receiving these subsidies.

ConocoPhillips's James Mulva went as far as to argue that raising taxes on an industry that can afford to pay those taxes in order to help those who cannot is ``un-American.'' He argued it would lead to a parade of horribles: lost jobs, higher gas prices and less investment.

I could not disagree more strongly. Gas is at $4 a gallon, oil is about $100 a barrel and oil company profits are at near-record levels. Their claims are unfounded and absurd.

Let me start with investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives testified that the companies did not need tax breaks to continue oil exploration efforts. But Congress left them in place. How can a drilling incentive unnecessary at $60 a barrel become essential at $100 per barrel?

Big Oil claims about gas prices are also unfounded. A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline.

A report from the Joint Economic Committee came to the same conclusion, stating:

In reality, most of the so-called incentives have no impact

on near-term production decisions, and thus repealing them

would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the

immediate future. Even in the longer term, the current

proposed changes to these tax provisions would have little

impact on global production and a negligible effect on

consumer energy prices.

The CRS report also addressed another industry claim: that ending tax breaks just for oil companies would be discriminatory.

Most of those tax breaks--such as the deductions for well depletion and intangible drilling costs--are unique to the industry. The only exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage manufacturing companies to build factories here and export their goods.

But as CRS pointed out, there will be no cessation of drilling on American territory as long as the oil and profits exist. Therefore, this is a huge cost to taxpayers with zero effect.

Even the effect on industry profits--the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone--would be trivial, according to CRS.

But this is simple arithmetic. The bill before us would repeal approximately $2 billion in subsidies annually, from five firms that made $35 billion in profit in a single quarter earlier this year. This represents a scant 1 to 2 percent of their annual profit!

Bottom line: these subsidies are unnecessary, and returning $21 billion over 10 years to the Treasury would be a good thing.

I encourage all of my colleagues who share my concern about the deficit to vote yes on this bill.

Unfortunately, the minority leader has not chosen to address the deficit in his legislation.

Instead, he has brought forward the Offshore Production and Safety Act.

This bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It attempts to make ``Drill Baby Drill'' a national policy, without respect for the environment or the livelihoods that depend on a healthy ocean.

Its introduction demonstrates that some in this body believe we can drill our way to energy independence, and the only things standing in the way are pesky environmental and safety regulations.

Unfortunately, the facts don't back that up:

The United States has only 3 percent of global oil reserves, but we use more than 20 percent of supply.

Fifty-one new shallow-water permits have been issued since the administration implemented stronger safety standards to ensure that an oilspill similar to Deepwater Horizon will never happen again.

Thirteen deepwater wells have been permitted since February, when the industry finally demonstrated it was capable of containing an undersea spill.

In 2010, the United States produced more than 2 billion barrels of oil, the highest level of domestic production since 2003.

Oil production has increased every year under President Obama.

Despite these facts, we are being asked to consider a bill that would further reduce safety standards. The Republican bill repeals the 2010 drilling plan that protects southern California's coast from new drilling; establishes a 60-day deadline for the Federal Government to review and grant drilling permits. If that deadline cannot be met, a permit would be automatically issued even if the delay is the fault of the applicant. Authorizes leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts and Alaska, including Bristol Bay, without any further review. And overrides the ordinary rules of venue for court cases, engaging in preemptive ``forum-shopping'' by directing all court cases related to Gulf of Mexico energy production to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit--even though that circuit doesn't include Florida, the State with the longest coast on the Gulf of Mexico, nor Alabama.

Finally, the bill sets up all kinds of special rules, appearing to try to ensure that the oil companies cannot lose in the fifth Circuit, by requiring challenges to be filed in 60 days, adding additional burdens of evidentiary proof, and prohibiting the courts from awarding attorneys' fees or other court costs even to the winning parties.

That pretty much ensures that the fishermen, shrimpers, and small businessmen who depend on the gulf for their livelihoods will be unable to defend their rights in court.

It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened.

Three-fourths of Americans recently polled by the Wall Street Journal supported ending oil subsidies.

Americans recognize that this is a question of fairness.

While the oil companies are making huge profits, people are suffering and deficits are growing. We have an obligation to ask whether these tax giveaways are right, whether they are smart and whether we really need them at all.

The answer is no. I encourage my colleagues to join me in fighting to end them.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to support Goodwin Liu's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Years ago, in the early 1990s when I was working for the national I Have a Dream Foundation, I first crossed paths with Goodwin Liu, who was then a senior program officer with the Corporation for National Service. An issue

had arisen with regard to the corporation's support of one of our foundation's programs. We were running an AmeriCorps program. Mr. Liu very quickly distinguished himself through his competence and obvious commitment to education and national service. In fact, my interactions with him were so positive and memorable that 18 years later, when I had joined this body and heard of his nomination, I immediately remembered him and was anxious to find out what he had been up to in the intervening years.

The opportunity to reconnect with Goodwin Liu as part of his confirmation process has turned out to be one of the real pleasures of this job. It is readily apparent to me, as well as to so many Senators on both sides of the aisle who have had the opportunity to meet with him, to question him, and get to know him better, that Professor Goodwin Liu is a good, decent, bright, and engaging man.

His career, in my view, is marked by a profound commitment to service, from his time working at the Corporation for National Service, the organization of our Federal Government that supports VISTA and AmeriCorps, and all sorts of different commitments to national service across our country, to his later work as a clinical and summer associate while in law school, to his work for the Department of Education as a young attorney, to his service as a judicial clerk, and then his scholarship in support of opportunities for all Americans.

Professor Liu has been guided by a desire to leave the world a better place than he found it. Despite these many positive personal qualities to recommend him, it is, perhaps, something of an understatement to say that Goodwin Liu's has been controversial.

First nominated in February of 2010, and then after a searching and difficult nomination hearing, and a vote here, a renomination in January of this year, a second confirmation hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee, in which I was able to participate, we now stand on the verge of a cloture vote required for us to even get to the consideration of his nomination.

Professor Liu is a prolific scholar, who has written on a number of topics relating to educational rights and public schooling, among others.

When I heard the attacks against Professor Liu, I was shocked, but concerned. The charges that are being leveled against Professor Liu-- that he is a radical who would use the bench to engage in judicial activism--are serious. So I took it upon myself to meet with Professor Liu, to review his record, and to come to my own conclusions.

I can say with certainty that Professor Liu will be a first-rate judge in the finest traditions of the legal profession. Professor Liu knows the difference between lecturing and judging. He knows that the role of a judge is not to advocate but to follow the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court. Goodwin Liu will obey the law. We can and should ask no more.

If we take a step back from the partisan rhetoric, I think we can find broad agreement across the aisle that a judicial candidate ought to be evaluated according to his legal ability and experience, his standing within the legal profession, his integrity, and his temperament. Professor Liu rates extraordinarily highly in all of these areas.

Professor Liu's academic and professional qualifications demonstrate that he is a lawyer of the utmost ability with a broad range of experience. He was a Rhodes scholar and holds a law degree from Yale University, where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He went on to clerk for one of the great intellects on the DC Circuit, Judge David Tatel. After that, he clerked for Justice Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Since that time, he has worked in private practice and earned a tenured professorship at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. At Berkeley, he has been a prolific scholar of exceptionally high regard.

In addition to a sterling resume, Professor Liu enjoys the highest esteem of his colleagues. Noted conservative scholar John Yoo has spoken out in support of his nomination, as has Kenneth Starr. He is the recipient of the University of California's highest teaching award. Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute, has said that Professor Liu's writings ``exhibit fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty.'' This high opinion of Professor Liu is broadly shared. In giving Professor Liu its highest rating of ``Unanimously Well Qualified,'' the American Bar Association interviewed scores of attorneys and judges who have worked with Professor Liu and, evidently, found that his reputation is one of impartiality, integrity, and great ability. For nominees to our circuit courts of appeal, we could ask no less.

Professor Liu's activity as a noted legal and policy scholar is, in my view, being used unfairly to impugn his judicial temperament. In meeting with Professor Liu, he explained to me that he understands and respects the difference between scholarship and jurisprudence. Academics explore the contours and limits of the law, often advocating for policy outcomes. Judges, on the other hand, apply legal precedent to come to the conclusion that the law compels, without prejudice or a policy agenda.

When Professor Liu has been asked to apply the law, as would a judge, any criticism that he allows policy preferences to cloud his judgment does not pass muster. As an example, though Professor Liu has said that his personal views are that individuals should be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation. Even so, he testified before the California State Senate in 2008 that California's controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, would pass muster under the California constitution. This is a concrete example, from before his nomination to public office, that Professor Liu is capable and willing to set aside personal preferences and views when called upon to render a legal judgement.

I also examined Professor Liu's scholarship on the topics of education and welfare, to which his opponents claim he would create a constitutional right if confirmed to the bench. I would be concerned if these charges have merit, but they do not. Rather, they reflect a distortion of what he has actually written. Professor Liu has repeatedly clarified his unexceptional belief that Congress, and not the courts, have the power to create new fundamental rights through amendment to our Constitution.

An objective review of Professor Liu's qualifications, temperament, and intellect lead to the conclusion that he is an outstanding nominee and should be confirmed to the bench. Former Representative Tom Campbell, a five-term Republican Member of the House, agrees. In urging his swift confirmation, Representative Campbell specifically praised Professor Liu's reputation for, quote ``integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality.''

I call upon all of my colleagues to take a fresh look at Professor Liu and to come to their own conclusions about him. In my opinion, Professor Liu is a dedicated public servant who has undergone intense scrutiny over the past 15 months at great personal sacrifice. Too often, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that judicial and executive nominees are also people, with families, careers, and other responsibilities in their lives. The confirmation process can exact a steep cost and, as a result, many qualified and decent individuals either withdraw or decline to submit to it in the first place.

Professor Liu is an exceptional nominee to the Circuit Court. He has borne the challenges of confirmation with grace and dignity, as is in keeping with his character and dedication to public service. In voting on the petition to invoke cloture, I ask my colleagues to consider the content of Professor Liu's character. Listen to those who know him above the interest groups who have sensationalized his nomination. I ask them to consider his bipartisan support from those who work with him and those who know him best.

I know Goodwin Liu. I trust him and know he will make a fine judge. I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to discuss our Nation's energy policy. I was very disappointed by last night's vote. Actually, as one of my colleagues pointed out, it was more political theater instead of a serious attempt at addressing this Nation's energy needs.

Instead of investing time on votes that will not bring gas prices down, we need to do what Americans expect us

to do; that is, adopt a careful, all-inclusive, comprehensive approach. Put simply, we need to consider our assets and we need to develop those assets in a responsible way. That sounds very simple to the average person but, unfortunately, it seems to allude us here.

Last night's vote on a narrow tax issue, that in a very bipartisan way was recognized not to reduce the price of gas, doesn't get us headed in the right direction. If anything, it was a step backward. So I wish to take a more serious look at the energy resources we have in the United States to lay the foundation for the argument that we need to develop these resources--energy that could help address our Nation's security as well as our economic security.

Unfortunately, we are a victim of misperception that somehow the United States is running out of energy and that our own resources are not sufficient. But that is not true. In fact, the data tells us that the United States can be a dominant energy power. Let me say that again. The United States can be a dominant energy player--a power--in the global marketplace. With the proper Federal policies in place, the United States can step into a dominating position.

This isn't something I dreamed up last night. This is not something Mike Johanns just invented. This comes directly from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

So let's go through what the CRS said to us in a recent report. They say the United States is No. 3 in global oil production. In 2009, the United States produced about 9.1 million barrels per day. By comparison, Saudi Arabia produced about 500,000 more than the United States per day at 9.8 million, and Russia leads all countries at 9.9 million barrels per day. So today we are No. 3 in global production of oil, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.

For an additional perspective, consider this: The United States produces more than double what Iran produces and produces more than Iran and China combined.

Looking beyond oil production, let's consider our existing assets. According to the CRS, the United States has 163 billion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable. That is a lot, and that is more than six times what the administration suggests in its favorite talking points.

Let's compare our oil assets to what we import from Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. supplier. In 2009, we imported about 1 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, for a total of 365 million barrels per year. So every 3 years, at 2009 import rates, we will import just over 1 billion barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia. So the United States has enough oil to entirely replace imports from Saudi Arabia for a long time--more than 400 years.

If we shift the focus to natural gas, the United States has enough natural gas reserves to meet U.S. demand for 90 years.

Let's turn to coal. Again, based on CRS analysis, our domestic coal resources are huge. In fact, the United States is No. 1 in world coal resources. The United States has 28 percent of the world's coal. American recoverable coal reserves are 262 billion tons of coal.

To put that in perspective, the United States consumes about 1.2 billion short tons per year--simply extraordinary. What I am saying is, that is over 200 years' worth.

Then, CRS did something else interesting. They consolidated the energy resources, and then ranked the United States against the rest of the world. The United States came in at No. 1. This does not include oil shale or methane hydrates.

CRS concluded that total fossil fuels within the United States, in barrels of oil equivalent, are 972.6 billion.

So considering the United States leads the world in total energy resources, we need to evaluate any energy policy on whether it makes strides to use those resources in a responsible way or whether it keeps those resources on the sidelines.

The Congressional Research Service has debunked the myth that we are energy poor, that we have somehow consumed our resources. In fact, our Nation is No. 1. We are rich with resources: oil, natural gas, coal, and other resources--and lots of it.

Yet the President, for whatever reason, keeps using a dramatically different talking point, and it creates the wrong impression. Just recently, on May 6, 2011, he said:

The challenge is we've got about two to three percent of

the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's

oil.

The impression I think he is trying to create is that we have virtually no reserves. Yet we are trying to grab all the resources. This statement seriously, if not intentionally, underestimates America's energy resources because it only relies upon proven reserves. That would be like a millionaire complaining he cannot afford a $10 dinner because he has only $5 in his pocket.

Here is what CRS says about proven reserves:

Proved reserves are oil, natural gas, or coal that have

been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or

other exploratory measures.

In other words, unless you drill or otherwise explore, proven reserves never expand and our country stays neutral.

So the President's talking point completely ignores what they call undiscovered technically recoverable--the estimated American resources in those areas where exploration has not yet occurred. Thus, it is no surprise what happens when we do not issue permits to explore and drill. Proven reserves would never expand if you did not issue the permits.

That is the problem with this administration's approach to energy policy. They have gone out of their way to oppose utilization of American energy sources and then they claim that somehow we have used them up.

Most famously, the administration supported a national energy tax called cap and trade--a bill that was intentionally designed to increase costs for consumers on everything from oil to gasoline we put in our cars, to coal, to the electricity we use. In fact, the President even admitted his policy was designed to make the prices for American consumers ``necessarily sky-rocket.'' Unfortunately, if not remarkably, if not completely unbelievably, that is a direct quote.

I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 3 minutes.

Today, even after this policy has been repudiated on a bipartisan basis by Congress, the administration continues to march ahead with similar proposals at the administrative level.

The administration has canceled leases across the Rocky Mountain West. They have blocked permits in the Gulf of Mexico. They have blocked permits in Alaska.

While the President's announcement this weekend would appear to be a welcome recognition that oil and gas leasing matters, it disregards the virtual lack of permits to explore. No doubt, leasing is necessary, but if you do not have the permits, leasing means nothing. Supply stays the same, world demand continues to increase, and no one should be surprised by the economics.

No one should be surprised that this administration's policy has a direct correlation to the price of gasoline you pump into your vehicle. That is why today we are debating legislation that is enormously important. This bill requires the issuance of permits. It emphasizes safety and environmental responsibility. It does require spill response and containment plans, and it requires we do everything we can to try to improve supply. It says we can develop our natural resources expeditiously but in a responsible and prudent way. It is a responsible step in the right direction.

Let me put this another way: We, the United States, do not need to beg the rest of the world for energy resources. We do not have to go with cup in hand. Energy is too important to our growth, to job creation. It is too big an issue to outsource to another country, especially to countries that do not like our policies.

It is critical we get energy policy right. Gasoline prices are now over $4 a gallon. That is hurting every American. It is hurting job creation. Heating

and cooling bills are going up. Farmers see their fertilizer, their natural gas bills expand. Their input costs are going through the roof.

Our people deserve better, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last night the Senate defeated a misguided attempt to raise taxes on the five largest energy companies that are operating in our country. That bill, as we discussed, would have done nothing to reduce our gas prices, nothing to create jobs in America, and nothing to increase domestic energy production.

Furthermore, it would have hardly made a dent in our spiraling debt. Put another way, last night's effort would have done nothing to address the problems that most Americans care about, that most Americans are talking about, as they discuss things around the dinner table.

This morning we are here to debate a very different bill, called the Offshore Production and Safety Act. It was recently introduced by the minority leader, myself, and 16 other Senators. There is a very clear contrast, without a doubt, between this and what was brought up yesterday.

Instead of punishing a handful of companies within the oil and gas industry, we provide new opportunities to put Americans back to work. Instead of merely attempting to assign blame for our Nation's energy challenges, we develop a policy that we are proposing that will start to work right now and yield real benefits in the years ahead. And instead of raising taxes regardless of the consequences, we ensure that a far larger source of revenues, those that are derived from new offshore production, will be generated in the years ahead.

The bottom line is that our legislation is both common sense and long overdue. It will move our energy policy forward, not backward, and it would do so by addressing three pressing needs: We provide a boost to offshore energy production; we improve the safety of those operations; and we streamline our notoriously slow Federal bureaucracy.

Before I describe these sections in greater detail, I think it is important to explain why we focus on offshore production while at the same time we are focusing on offshore safety. The answer to the first part of that question is that our Outer Continental Shelf contains huge quantities, vast quantities of undiscovered oil and gas, some 86 billion barrels of oil, and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The answer then to the second part is we all remember--we all remember and we should not forget--what happened last summer. We are committed to improving the safety of offshore production activities so it does not happen again.

As I mentioned, we call our bill the Offshore Production and Safety Act, because we understand that those terms--both production and safety--should be part and parcel of the same policy. We want our offshore industry to be working. But we need it to be working safely.

Those were words I used yesterday in the committee hearing on energy when we focused on the OCS reform bill. We want our offshore industry to be working, but we want to have that safety component. We know our Nation will need oil for decades to come, even under the most optimistic scenario we have out there.

We know offshore production will create thousands of badly needed jobs, not just on the offshore rigs themselves, but all across America, and that it will simultaneously generate tremendous revenue for our government at a time when we are looking for those revenues. We know that for every barrel of oil we produce here, that is one less barrel we have to purchase from someone else, typically from somebody else that could care less

about our situation here in this country.

It is not just me, not Lisa Murkowski from a producing State. It is not just Republicans who understand these benefits. Clearly President Obama and his team acknowledge these benefits as well. I do want to take an aside and recognize and commend the President for announcing that he will hold annual leases in Alaska's Natural Petroleum Reserve, the NPRA, establishing a permitting office in Alaska, and pursuing developmental opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic.

I have routinely criticized this administration on certain aspects of their energy policy. But the President deserves credit for taking these steps and I acknowledge them. I will look forward to seeing those actually carried out, to see that followed through.

The Offshore Production and Safety Act offers us a chance to make even greater profits. To boost offshore production, the first part of the bill would require lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and Virginia to be put back on the schedule. Those are areas that are projected to contain billions of barrels of oil. But if we refuse to even offer up the leases, then that energy is never going to be brought to market. We would also extend for 1 year all of the leases that were held back from production because of the administration's moratorium.

The second part of the bill relates to the safety, the safety of offshore production. Again it is pretty straightforward. It is pretty simple. We require that each leaseholder develop a spill response and containment plan to make sure if an accident does occur, immediate action can be taken to contain it and to protect the environment. This is critical. This is what we are all hoping for and waiting for after the Deepwater Horizon last year.

To further increase our Nation's response capacity, we would establish a public-private task force on spill response and mitigation measures. We would also require the Comptroller General to identify any gap in the legal authority or spill response capability that would need to be resolved.

This bill we have before us and that we will move to today, with the vote this afternoon, will actually mark the first time any safety legislation has been voted on in the Senate since the Deepwater Horizon incident. So this Republican proposal is the first time. We did not see that happen last Congress. I know Chairman Bingaman and I certainly hoped we would see it. But it was not moved through last year. It was not part of the proposal we took up yesterday.

The third and final part of our bill addresses our notoriously slow Federal bureaucracy. Oil and gas projects are routinely delayed, not because of the technological limits, or even the regulatory requirements, but because the Federal Government is simply too slow in making decisions. To remedy the situation, we would limit the amount of time that Interior can take to decide on drilling permits. We do allow for some flexibility here, but when delays do occur, we require an explanation as to why. What happened? What is holding it up? Because litigation is increasingly used to halt new development, we provide expedited consideration of those cases in a specific court.

We know this bill does not contain every pro-production piece every Member may wish. I wish to see an ANWR provision in here, but it is not in here. There are additional items I clearly wish to advance, most notably, revenue sharing, critically important for a coastal State such as Alaska, and for my friend and colleague from Louisiana.

I am going to be working to advance this bill and, if it advances, offer amendments. If the bill does not advance, I am going to be working within the committee to continue to push revenue sharing and other issues that speak to the pro-production piece. But for purposes of this bill before us, I realize that with the revenue-sharing issue, this does present a scoring issue which we need to resolve. So clearly more discussion needs to come for that to happen. But, regardless, I urge every Member who realizes the critical need for increased domestic production to join together to advance this modest and very responsible start.

The purpose of this bill, the reason why we are ready to take it up, move it today, is it really is so simple. We are not asking for that much: a handful of lease sales to be put back on the schedule, basic safety measures be implemented, and permitting decisions be made on time. Our goal--pretty simply--is to put offshore production back on track closer to where it should be and closer to where we need it to be.

If there is one word that should be used to describe this bill, it would be modest. Everything within it is straightforward. Nothing is outlandish. Nothing goes too far. There are no poison pills in it. Since its introduction, the President has very explicitly endorsed several of the provisions that are contained within it. Our proposal is fair, it is sensible, and I believe it is time for the Senate to send it on to the House of Representatives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the Republican speakers include myself and Senator Blunt and the order for Senators McCain and Chambliss be vitiated.

Mr. President, I am pretty amused at what the Senate is doing. We sit here with a $1.6 trillion deficit and we are running bills based on political philosophy rather than what the real problems are in front of our Nation.

Do my colleagues know why oil is expensive today? It is because the dollar is on its back and oil is priced in dollars. If we want the price of oil to go down, as it has this week and the tail end of last week--if we want the value of the dollar to go up, because the world trades oil in dollars--why is the dollar down? The dollar is down because an incompetent Congress continues to spend money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need. If we want the dollar to improve in value, what we have to do is hold the Congress accountable for doing what they were elected to do, which is live within our means. We can't come together and solve the very real problems.

Do my colleagues realize that if, in fact, our deficit wasn't $1.6 trillion but about $600 billion, the price of the dollar would shoot way up and the price of oil would go down? We hear all these stories. I get all these letters from my constituents who say: Well, we have to eliminate the commodity speculation. We can do that in this country. We can say you can't speculate on oil unless you can take delivery. That will do nothing to the speculated price of oil because oil is an international commodity and people are always going to speculate on what they think the price of a needed commodity is going to be.

So if we controlled all the economics in the world, we could control that speculation, but we can't. What we do know is price controls don't work. They don't work at all. So if, in fact, we want to fix the price of oil, what we have to do is fix our economic mess and strengthen the dollar, which will lower the price of oil and lower the price of gasoline.

The debate we are going through is all about politics, creating somebody who is bad. Do my colleagues realize the five big oil companies make less than 8 percent return on their sales? They make a lot of money, but they are giant companies. But compared to most other of the S&P 500, their return on sales is far less, and they are not making record profits. They made record profits when oil was at $142. That is when they made record profits. It is this terrible habit we have of saying--and let me throw a corollary. If I am an Iowa farmer or from Indiana or Illinois or Oklahoma and I have a great corn crop and the price of corn is $4 and I decide not to sell my corn, I decide not to sell it, and now all of a sudden corn is $6.80, I am going to sell it now at $6.80. What are we going to do? Are we going to penalize that farmer for having a resource he took a risk on and selling at a higher price? Are we going to say we are going to double or triple tax you?

The other thing I am amazed at--most people know me as a doctor, but I spent 10 years as an accountant and business manager. I have a degree in accounting. The lack of knowledge of my colleagues on American standard accounting principles is amazing. Every benefit they are talking about taking away will not go away because they are all legitimate business expenses, and they will all be expensed. Why did the Congress back in 1906 give this advantage to our oil companies? Why did they do that? Because drilling for oil is a capital-intensive business, and if we want more oil found, what we have to do is be able to generate the internal rate of return to put that capital in. So we offered accelerated writeoffs for expenses.

It is interesting that we are not going after all the oil companies or all the gas exploration; we are only going after the big five. Why is that? Because my colleagues know that if we did the same thing to the ones that are actually producing most of the gas in this country, all the new technology which the R&D tax credit and the intangible drilling costs allowed to be developed--that makes this country with 100 years' worth of natural gas--would go away, and the smaller and medium-sized oil companies will never be able to have the capital to continue to perform and raise our level of energy resources ourselves.

So what we are on the floor for is a charade. The price of oil is high because the dollar is weak. If we want to punish somebody for that, punish the Congress, punish the Federal Reserve, punish the executive branch, but don't go after somebody who is going to create 90,000 new jobs in our country this next year.

We always look for the right political moment to make somebody look bad. The people who look bad are in the Congress because we don't have the guts to stand and say we need a cogent energy policy that says we are going to go after our own resources. We are going to use every asset we have to utilize cleanly and in a friendly way the tremendous reserves we have in this country.

We know we have 160 billion barrels of recoverable oil in this country. They are not proven, but that is what the estimate is. We are the third largest oil producer in the world. We could become the second largest oil producer in the world if we had a cogent government policy and an environmental policy. We have oil out the kazoos. We are going to find more oil as we explore for more natural gas. Right now, we are only importing 47 percent--47 percent--of our oil needs. It was 65 percent less than 10 years ago. Why is that? A part of it is smaller demand because we have been in a recession, but the vast majority of it is the very technology they want to deny the fast writeoff for is what has created gas liquids that have filled the void. It is better than the best crude oil in the world. That is coming out of North Dakota, it is coming out of West Virginia, it is coming out of Oklahoma and Texas. It is great stuff, easy to refine, cheap gasoline in terms of the cost to get it from a product to a product we can use.

I am pretty well disgusted with what I am hearing on both sides of the aisle because the real problem is not the price of oil. The real problem is the price of the dollar, and if we will fix that, we will fix tons of things that will help our economy. But we are recalcitrant to the point we will not do the things we need to do.

Our government is twice the size it was 11 years ago--two times the size. No wonder we are running a $1.6 trillion deficit. No wonder we don't have an effective--we have the largest number of regulations to ever come out of any administration in the history of the country in the first 2 years of this administration. It is killing job formation. It is causing people not to invest. It is causing a lack of economic growth in our country because we have people making decisions who have no idea what they are doing or what are the ramifications of those decisions. They are lawyers whose first creed is don't do what is best for the country, do what is safe for the bureaucracy. That is how we are running this government today.

We have 45 percent more regulations issued in the first 2 years of the Obama administration than anybody else has ever done, and we wonder why we are not getting job creation. We continue to refuse to debate on the Senate floor the very real issues in front of this country, the very real issues such as what part of government can we do without? How do we get a future for our children? The fact is, we have lived the last 30 years off the next 30 years of our kids, and that bill is due. It is not due 1 year from now; it is due now.

We are tied up in knots because we have this false indication that a debt limit means something. If a debt limit meant something, we wouldn't be raising the debt limit, we would quit borrowing. But, instead, every time we come up to the debt limit, we are asked to raise the debt limit. We will not make the hard choices of what part of government is not valuable in light of the fact that we are cutting the legs off from under our children and our grandchildren.

In this debate, we are going to hear a lot of finger-pointing about what is bad with Big Oil, what is bad with oil, what is bad with the price of gas. What is bad is, Congress isn't doing its job. We are not addressing real issues and solving the real problems in front of this country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, even though I do not agree with him, it is always a pleasure to listen to my friend from Utah give his arguments. But I will just give mine instead of talking to him. I will just remind him of one thing. This bill is not intended to lower gas prices; it is intended to reduce the deficit. It clearly does that.

If my colleague cared so much about reducing that deficit, the oil companies are a good place to start. The money does not go for spending, it goes for deficit reduction.

Anyway, I rise today in support of the legislation authored by my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez has championed this legislation for quite some time. I applaud the work he has done to build support for it.

As you know, our leader, Senator Reid, has scheduled a vote on it in just a few minutes. I sincerely hope the bill will pass. Nothing would be better in terms of showing bipartisanship and giving the American people hope that we can come to a fair agreement on our long-term fiscal challenges than to pass this legislation today.

In the last election voters gave those of us who serve in this Chamber two distinct mandates: First and perhaps foremost, they said: Make the economy grow. Create good-paying jobs. Make sure that American dream which says the odds are higher you will do better 10 years from now than you are doing today, and the odds are higher still your kids will do better than you, that American dream, make sure it burns brightly.

Some have wondered if it is beginning to flicker, and their mandate to us in this election was get that candle glowing again. But, second, they said do something else at the same time. They said in no uncertain terms: Reign in the out-of-control Federal deficit. They told us to take the bull by the horns and confront our mounting debt.

On that point, I will agree with my colleague from Utah. Now, it is very hard to accomplish one of these two goals. To accomplish both at once is a Herculean task. There are many choices ahead, most of them rather difficult. That is why this is so hard. But one choice is not tough at all, not by a mile. It is obvious. At this time of fiscal restraint, when we have to make cuts that are so painful and hurt middle-class families, to continue to give big oil companies giant tax breaks makes no sense whatsoever.

Getting rid of these corporate subsidies to Big Oil is a no-brainer. Decades ago, when these breaks were enacted, oil was $17 a barrel. Maybe it made a modicum of sense in those days to give companies an incentive to explore and produce. But with the price of crude oil hovering at $100 a barrel, and Big Oil reaping record profits with every barrel they drill, it defies logic to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on these subsidies.

Believe me, the free market gives the oil companies enough of an incentive to produce. When oil is $100 a barrel, they certainly do not need a financial nudge from Washington. Now, at the same time, middle- class Americans get hit with a double whammy. They are paying $70 or more to fill that gas tank. Then, in addition, when they pay their taxes, some of those hard-earned tax dollars are being used to line Big Oil's pocket with these subsidies.

In my home State of New York, the price of gas is up 35 percent on average compared to this time last year. Economists estimate the typical family will pay as much as $1,000 more on gas this year than last--$1,000 a year. The average family makes about $50,000. It is so hard they sit around the dinner table after Friday night supper, mom and dad. They sit down and figure out: How are we going to pay these bills? How are we going to give our kids the life that we want to give them? And they are paying $1,000 more for gasoline. At the same time we are subsidizing oil companies.

Families across the country are still struggling to make ends meet as the economy slowly recovers. With billions of dollars' worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at record highs, it is no wonder the top five oil companies just announced jaw-dropping profits. These companies are not only among the most profitable businesses in the United States, they are among the most profitable in the whole world.

In the first quarter of this year alone, the big five brought in $35 billion in profit. In the past decade, they took home nearly $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t.''

There is nothing wrong with these profits in and of themselves; in America we celebrate success; we want the private sector to thrive. But at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt and we are grappling with painful cuts, both because we have the dual goal of growing the middle class and also reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we continue to subsidize such a lavishly profitable industry.

Moreover, as my great friend and colleague, Senator McCaskill, highlighted this morning in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, those record profits smell a bit fishy. There is a reason to suspect that some of the biggest oil refiners are artificially depressing supply in order to raise prices to pad their bottom lines.

I am proud to have cosigned Senator McCaskill's letter, as did the entire Democratic leadership team. I look forward to the FTC's response. I am also proud to cosponsor the Menendez bill we are considering today, Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. The legislation will put an end to the taxpayer handouts to the five largest integrated oil companies and use the $21 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. This $21 billion is an excellent downpayment on our effort to get the Nation's fiscal house in order.

The bill repeals a host of Byzantine tax provisions that only a lobbyist could love, such as the deduction for tertiary injectants and the deduction for intangible extraction costs. Small- and medium-sized oil firms are exempt. The legislation, even though some might like to go further, deals with the big five--ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP.

I have heard pundits from the hard right parrot Big Oil's talking point that repealing these giveaways would increase gas prices for consumers. The facts beg to differ. Last week, two major independent studies--one from the Congressional Research Service and another from the Joint Economic Committee--found that ending these absurd subsidies would not impact the price of gas. I compliment Senator Casey for his leadership on the second study.

In what was perhaps an inadvertent moment of candor at last week's Finance Committee hearing, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said:

Gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices, which

are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not

by companies such as ours.

When he made that comment, Tillerson of ExxonMobil conceded that repealing taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil will not increase prices. Prices are set, as he says, by global supply and demand.

That is not to say repealing subsidies will necessarily bring down prices. We are not making that claim. All along we have been clear: The purpose of this bill is to make a dent in the deficit by repealing tax breaks for the five companies that are the least in need of help from Uncle Sam.

Lowering the cost of gas and ridding our country of its dependence on foreign oil requires a long-term, comprehensive approach. In the months ahead, I expect the Democratic caucus will unveil a thorough and forward thinking plan to do just that.

In the meantime, I say to every one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If they are serious about deficit reduction, the Menendez bill is their chance to show it now. There is no good reason not to support this sensible legislation sponsored by my friend and colleague from New Jersey.

Just try to wrap your head around it: Big Oil is reporting record profits, gas prices are near an all-time high, and we, the American taxpayers, are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of $4 billion a year. One needs the imagination of ``Alice in Wonderland'' 's Lewis Carroll to come up with a more ridiculous scenario.

The bottom line is this: At a time of sky-high prices, it is unfathomable to continue to pad the profits of companies with taxpayer- funded subsidies. The time to repeal these giveaways is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator McConnell's production bill. The bill might be too much for some, too little for some, and maybe it is not perfect, but we must take a step in the direction of adding production of our Nation's natural resources if we are going

to bring down the cost of gasoline, bring down the cost of fuel, bring down the cost of all the elements we have that are providing for our electricity, natural gas, and other forms of energy.

I hope we can pass Senator McConnell's bill. Oil is, today, slightly under $100 per barrel, and with the summer driving season approaching, we know the price could go up. It is graduation season and people are driving to their graduation ceremonies, and they are having to pay these enormous prices at the pump. It is over $4 in many places. I recently read a story about a constituent who was going to College Station for a Texas A&M graduation, and he complained, rightfully, that he had a diesel truck and it cost him $74.41 to get his truck half full. That is a lot for a half tank of fuel. I think we can do something about it.

Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has put up barriers to increasing our domestic energy potential. We must stop that policy and go in the other direction and open our natural resources and use our natural resources, so we can bring down the cost of fuel and try to help our small businesses and families by providing opportunities to lower fuel.

The McConnell legislation gets the ball rolling. Supporters of the bill agree that long-term energy solutions involve removing the anti- energy barriers to safely produce energy for Americans by Americans. On March 30, the President stated that producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security. But what is happening is our regulatory agencies are going in the opposite direction. They are stopping the production of oil and gas in our country.

Let me read excerpts from a FOX News article, by Dan Springer, in April of this year:

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to

drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the

northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a

ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold

critical air permits. . . .

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion on plans

to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The

leases alone cost $2.2 billion. . . .

The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is

Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the

United States. According to the latest census, the population

is 245, and nearly all of them are Alaska natives. The

village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores

of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed offshore

drill site.

The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into

consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when

calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the

project. . . .

At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That's

how much the U.S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S.

portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents

two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans

Alaska Pipeline throughout its 30-year history. The pipeline

is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day,

it's carrying only one-third of its capacity.

So we hear what the President is saying, but his own agencies are going in the opposite direction.

Here is another example: We are approaching June. The Department of the Interior has not conducted an offshore lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. Lease sales usually occur twice a year. If a lease sale doesn't occur by the end of the year, 2011 would be the first year since 1958 which we have not conducted an offshore lease sale.

Because of the President's moratorium and lack of permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore energy production is expected to decrease by 13 percent in 2011. Senator McConnell's bill addresses the need for increased domestic production by reinstating the oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the Atlantic, which President Obama canceled.

This legislation also tackles the permitting delays companies in the gulf have experienced. Since October, the Department of the Interior has only issued 53 shallow water permits and 14 deepwater permits. The monthly approval rate before the moratorium was approximately 10 shallow water and 8 deepwater permits.

This legislation eliminates the bureaucratic delays which have burdened operators and have taken away their ability to raise capital to do the exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. In the bill, it says the Department of the Interior will approve or reject permit applications within 30 days. It doesn't require approval of every application, but it puts a limit of 30 days on the approval process, so people will not be hung out, as they have been since last October. They are still paying the costs, but they cannot explore. So they are sitting idle. This has caused the bankruptcy of at least one company I know in Texas, Seahawk Drilling. This is not good policy when we are talking, as the President is, about increasing production in our country and then doing the opposite by enacting proposals that do not make sense, such as a moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

On March 9 of this year, Senator Landrieu and I introduced S. 516, the Lease Extension and Security Act, known as the LEASE Act. All this does is simply extend for 1 year the leases that have had a moratorium, but the people are still paying the costs of those leases when they have been prohibited from using them. The leaseholder continues to pay the Treasury for all expenses associated with maintaining a lease, but they have been prohibited from exploring the lands the lease is on.

It is very important that we pass this legislation. In the bill before us, the McConnell bill, we have a variation of the LEASE Act. It extends the leases for those that are going to come to an end at the end of this year. If they come to an end at the end of this year, they will get a 1-year lease. That is a right step in the right direction.

Senator Landrieu and I believe every leaseholder--even if their lease does not run out this year--should have the full opportunity for their lease exploration capabilities in order to make it fair for the price they have paid in the open bidding process for those leases.

The President has said he approves the extension of some leases. We agree. Why not all of them? They have been paid for. In many instances, the companies are still paying the employees, even though the employees are not able to do the work. This year alone, over 350 leases will expire and many of them are in moratorium.

The bill before us would help those people to use the next year for determining if it is worth drilling for more of the oil on the leases they have purchased.

I think it is very important that we pass this legislation that we will vote on very shortly today if we are serious about increasing the production of our own natural resources for the benefit of our people. It seems to me we need to back up the words of the President with actions that will be positive, proactive, and productive in getting the price of gasoline down at the pump. If we can start now, I hope the President would take some of the steps, for instance, to allow Shell, with the investment it has made, to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. That is a place where there are vast reserves that have not been tapped. The people of Alaska support it.

If we would use our natural resources, we could put people in America to work. We could stop the heavy importation of foreign oil, which is what we depend on now for over 50 percent of our fuel, and certainly we would like to add to our economy in this precarious economic time. We can do it with our own natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the McConnell bill, and maybe then we can open it for amendments and get started in doing the right thing for our country.

Mr. President, sports teams often have a motto. They want to describe how they are going to win the event. The Senate Democrats have a motto and it goes something like this, ``I am from the government and I am here to help.''

Beware when your government comes to help. They have figured out there is a problem and the problem is gas prices are rising and people are being hurt by the rising prices. Actually, if we measure inflation the way we did back in the 1970s, we have inflation of 10 percent.

Senator Coburn is exactly right. It has to do with the fact that we are losing the value of our dollar. Our dollar is going down in value because we spend money we don't have and we are running up these enormous deficits. But it is a problem nonetheless.

But those who believe government is always the answer are rushing to rescue us. They are rushing to rescue us from high prices at the gas pump, but they haven't even diagnosed the problem, so they are going to come up with the wrong solution. Their solution is to raise taxes on oil companies. Do my colleagues know what taxes are? Taxes are simply a cost. If you run a business and I raise your costs, you will raise your prices. So let's see. Prices are too high, so we are going to raise the cost, which will raise the prices further. It makes absolutely no sense.

It is because their motto is wrong. Their motto is, ``I am here from the government and I am going to help you.'' Their motto is, ``It is the government that is going to solve your problems.'' But they are going to solve your problems by compounding your problems.

The price of gasoline is a problem. If we include the price of gasoline and the

price of food in the CPI, it would be 10 percent or higher. People are struggling to pay for gas. What are the main things people who are just getting by pay for? Their gas, their food, their rent. So how are we going to make it better? We are going to make it worse before we make it better. We are going to raise costs to the oil companies by raising their taxes, which means we will pay more at the pump.

It is economic illiteracy and it is what is wrong up here in Washington. We still have too many people who do not understand the basic economic realities. If you raise costs on a business, if you raise taxes on a business, you will raise prices at the pump.

The interesting thing is, there are some answers. They say: Well, let's go after those greedy oil companies because they are making a profit. Out of every $1 you spend at the pump, about 7 cents is profit to the oil companies. Well, do you know what. If you eliminate profit, you will not have oil companies. Everybody works for a profit. We all work harder because we want to maximize our profit.

Who owns the oil companies? Is it a bunch of greedy rich people running their fingers through piles of gold? Are they Midas in some room full of gold? You own the oil companies. I own the oil companies. If you have a 401(k), if you have an IRA, if you have a mutual fund, you own the oil companies. OK. Corporations are owned by people.

Do some people make a lot of money in the corporations? Yes, but if we limit that or try to obscure that or try to get rid of profit, you will get rid of companies. Then where will they go? They will go overseas. Oil companies are international. If you make it hard for them to do business here, they will flee our country. And they already do. We have high corporate taxes in our country, so they keep their profits overseas.

Lower corporate taxes--do not raise taxes--lower taxes and people will bring their profits home to the United States.

This is their profit, as shown on this chart: The oil companies make about 7 cents on the dollar. How much does the Federal Government take? The Federal Government takes 18 cents of every $1.

Do you want to have lower gas prices this summer? Do you want to help the people who are struggling? Let's have a gas tax holiday. It is only a short-term solution, but let's get rid of the 18 cents for the next 4 months through the summer season. It will cost the Treasury. There will be less money coming into the Treasury: $10 billion to $12 billion over 4 months. Let's take it from somewhere else. We are spending $30 billion a year in foreign aid. This is money we give away to other countries so they can build schools, they can build bridges, so they can rebuild their infrastructure. We give this away to foreign countries. A lot of times it winds up in the hands of foreign leaders who simply steal it. Mubarak was said to have gotten $60 billion over 30 years and accumulated at least $5 billion to $10 billion we can count that he stole. Many of these dictators throughout the African nations, as well as throughout the rest of the world, have simply stolen our foreign aid money and used it for their own personal aggrandizement.

Let's eliminate the gas tax. Let's take the money from foreign aid and let's give it back to the American people who have worked hard to earn it. You cannot do this forever, but you can do it for 4 months, and pay for it by getting rid of foreign aid. That would help people. That would lower the price of gasoline, and that would be a stimulus to the economy.

What I am saying is, let's have a gas tax holiday. Let's eliminate Federal taxes for the next 4 months on gas, and let's take the money that would be lost, put it into the highway fund, but let's take it from money we are giving away to other countries. That would be a short-term answer.

There is also a long-term answer. Senator Coburn was right that much of the price of gasoline rising is from inflation. Basically we are destroying the value of the dollar. But there is another reason gas prices rise: because demand for oil and gas is outstripping the supply.

Why don't we have more supply? Because the current administration is basically an enemy to production, an enemy to drilling, an enemy to all things related to energy. We now are going back and looking at permits to mine coal that have been approved for 10 years. We are taking away drilling permits to drill for oil in Utah, in Alaska, off our coast. If we want gasoline prices to be less, if we want to send less money to Middle Eastern countries that hate us that we have to buy oil from, let's make more here. Let's drill for oil. Let's produce more here. Let's drill in Alaska. Let's open up new places to drill.

Can we do it responsibly? Yes. Nobody wants to damage the environment. Do it responsibly, but let's produce energy here. We have, as Senator Coburn says, 160 million barrels of oil waiting to be extracted. Let's go for it. But we have to have a government that is friendly to energy. We have a government now, an administration that is unfriendly to energy and at every aspect of producing energy places roadblocks. They think for some reason we can get electricity to supply our country from some windmills that are made in China. What we need is, we need oil and gas production in our country. We need nuclear energy in our country. We need coal in our country. We have the ability, we have the resources, but we need to get government out of the way. Instead, what we are doing is placing new obstacles.

There will be a long-term solution that Senator McConnell and our party will introduce. I will support that also. It will encourage domestic production of oil and gas, domestic production of energy. That is what we need. But you are not going to get it until we have new faces here in Washington because the current crop of faces is opposing production at every turn.

I wish to conclude by saying, if you want to help people, even for a short period of time, there is a short-term solution. Let's get rid of the gas tax for 4 months. Let's pay for it by not sending the money overseas to have other countries either steal it or build their own infrastructure. Let's keep those U.S. tax dollars here at home. Better yet, let's keep them in the pockets of the consumers by having a gas tax holiday.

Thank you very much. I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.