Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to debate and oppose the two Federal Reserve nominees President Obama has sent to the Senate. First, let me say I think it is very important, very good, very healthy that we are having this debate and we are having these votes. That is how the Senate should operate, particularly on very important Presidential nominations, and these certainly fit into that category.

The Federal Reserve is an extremely important body for all sorts of reasons, but I will mention three in particular. First of all, it sets monetary policy, and that is a very important economic tool and set of economic policies. Right now this Federal Reserve, under Chairman Bernanke, has an unprecedented policy of zero-interest rates--easy money for an extended period of time--which is historically unprecedented.

Secondly, the Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of our Nation's biggest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and another that has been in the news quite a bit in the last few weeks, JPMorgan Chase. Obviously, all of these entities were involved in the recent economic crisis, so, again, the Federal Reserve is extremely important as those megabanks' primary regulator. We should be talking about that.

Finally, the Federal Reserve has other important authority and responsibilities, including in situations where they have taken action to bail out these megabanks. They have that authority. They also have authority to issue regulations under Dodd-Frank. All of these points are reasons why these two nominations are extremely important. That is why I demanded this debate and these votes.

Fundamentally, I demanded this debate and these votes for two reasons. First of all, I oppose these nominations. I am voting no. There was a UC promulgated, and that UC, had it been accepted, would have meant a ``yes'' vote for me. I couldn't vote that way for the reasons I will explain.

Secondly, more broadly, I think it is important we have this debate and we have these votes, and this used to be the norm in the Senate. Between 1994 and 2000, all but two nominations to the Federal Reserve Board were voted on by the Senate. Yet since 2001 that has flipped, for some reason. Since 2001, only two nominees have received votes and 10 nominees were confirmed to the Board of Governors without a recorded vote. I think that is unfortunate. I think this is the proper way for the Senate to do its business, particularly when such important issues are at stake.

Now let's talk about those issues.

First of all, monetary policy. The Federal Reserve's primary responsibility--one of its two huge mandates--is to set healthy, proper monetary policy for the United States. Personally, I think that should be its only mandate--there are efforts here in the Congress to move the law to that position--but it certainly is a major role of the Federal Reserve and is extremely important.

Once more, this Federal Reserve, under Chairman Bernanke, in this economy has set monetary policy in an unprecedented way, and that is not editorializing. That is a factual assessment, a factual description. Because this Federal Reserve has set essentially a zero- interest rate policy, an extremely easy money policy for an extended period of time, a very long period of time, without any end in sight, and that has never before happened.

There are many experts, economists, and commentators who think this is very dangerous policy, and I share their concerns. I do not pretend to be an expert, as they are. I do not pretend, quite frankly, to have the economic training and background of Chairman Bernanke and others. But many of those who do have grave concerns with this unprecedented easy money policy. Let me mention a few.

Dr. Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, sees signs of this building up future inflation and a weakening dollar and believes the Fed did great harm in these categories with its Quantitative Easing 2, so-called QE2. Dr. Meltzer has read Fed minutes for years and has written the definitive ``History of the Federal Reserve'' and says the central problem is there is a lack of discussion of alternatives and consequences of their policies.

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig said the Fed's plan to push down long-term interest rates may produce very adverse accidental outcomes and policymakers risk creating real ``imbalances'' in the economy. He said:

I have real concerns about trying to fine-tune and micro-

manage the economy when monetary policy is a blunt tool.

Richard Fisher of Dallas said he believes the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has yet to show evidence of working. He is the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas president. He says in particular, the Fed's plan to buy $400 billion of long-term bonds while selling the same amount of short-term debt is benefiting financiers and not aiding job creation.

Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser, in a speech on economic outlook to the Business Leaders Forum at the Villanova School of Business, expressed extreme skepticism with that so-called Operation Twist, trading long-term debt for short-term debt, and he did not think it would encourage business investment or consumer spending. He said:

I dissented from these decisions because I believe that

they will do little to improve the near-term prospects for

economic growth or employment and they do pose risks.

So there are very legitimate, strong concerns which I share on the current monetary policy of this Federal Reserve, and it is very clear from the statements of these two nominees that these two nominees will support that policy, will support that direction for the foreseeable future, will not provide dissent, will not provide alternative viewpoints.

In addition, let me mention three other things about the Fed. As I mentioned, the Fed in general is the primary regulator of the megabanks, and, still, I believe we do not have adequate focus and adequate regulation in that category. I would only point to the recent disastrous announcement of JPMorgan Chase.

Also, the Fed, with five affirmative votes, passes regulations under Dodd-Frank under its authority. That process is ongoing right now.

Why are these two nominations significant in impacting the development of those Dodd-Frank regulations one way or the other? Well, it is pretty simple. Those Dodd-Frank regulations coming out of the Fed need five affirmative votes. Right now, there are five members of the Board of Governors, so they need to reach complete unanimity with regard to those regulations. When the possible negative impact of those regulations is such a threat, I think that required unanimity is actually very healthy and a real protection.

These two new members of the Fed change the map, change the requirement from needing five out of five to needing five out of seven. I think that will significantly push these regulations to the left, if you will, and require and therefore produce less consensus, which those with economic viewpoints such as mine wish to see continued.

In the same vein, the Fed is certainly significant in not only regulating the megabanks but, in instances like 2 years ago, bailing out the megabanks. They have that authority and they have that role. Just as with Dodd-Frank regulations, that requires five affirmative votes of the Fed Board. Again, right now, before these two confirmations, that would need five out of five. It would require unanimity. I think that is healthy, actually, with regard to such an extreme measure as huge taxpayer-funded bailouts, as we have seen in the last 3 years.

If these two new nominees to the Board are confirmed, that math, again, would change in exactly the same way: The requirement would move from five out of five to five out of seven. It would shift the outcome to the left, if you will. It would make it much more likely that the Fed would act sooner to bail out megabanks with taxpayer funds.

I have all of these concerns about these nominations. These two nominees are fine, decent men. They are smart. They are qualified in the professional sense. However, they clearly also support the current direction of Chairman Bernanke and the Fed. For that reason, I cannot support the nominations, and I have real concerns.

But, in closing, let me say that at least I think it is positive we are having this debate and we are voting. As I cited, that used to be the norm in the Senate, including with regard to Federal Reserve Board of Governors nominations. These are very important nominations because of monetary policy, because of their regulatory authority, because of bailouts, and Dodd-Frank, and all the rest. It is more important--now more than ever--because of the unprecedented nature of Chairman Bernanke's and the Fed's monetary policy and because of the history of the last 3 years.

We need this debate. We need these votes. I do not think spending about 2 hours on it on the floor of the Senate is too much to ask, so I am glad I asked for that. I am glad I demanded that. With that opportunity, I will be voting no.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will.

Mr. President, I now call up Vitter amendment No. 2103, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is borne of real frustration that a lot of folks have faced over the last few years, particularly in my State of Louisiana. As you know, we have had a rough time, particularly following the BP disaster.

First there was that real environmental disaster, which was a shock to our system and our ecology. But second, and of perhaps even more lasting impact, there was the economic hit that was magnified enormously when the Obama administration, in my opinion, overreacted and instituted a full-blown moratorium on production drilling--drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That formal moratorium was ended in late 2010, but a de facto moratorium continued for many months. Even now there is a permanent logjam that has permitting at a much lower pace than before the BP disaster.

This is a broader problem because, at least off the coast of Louisiana, we are producing some energy. In many other places of the country where we have an abundance of energy, we are not allowed to get it because this Federal Government, particularly under this Obama administration, puts well over 90 percent of our domestic resources off limits.

In the midst of everything that was going on in the gulf, in the midst of that moratorium shutting down jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama traveled to Brazil and he said that the United States wanted to be a tremendous partner and cheerleader of the development of Brazil's offshore industry. I have to tell you, that was like rubbing salt in the wounds of tens of thousands of oilfield workers and others who were suffering because of the Obama administration policy here in this country really discouraging energy development. The way President Obama proposed to be a strong supporter and partner and cheerleader of Brazilian offshore development was through an Export-Import Bank loan.

There are many of these sorts of loans. In August 2009--talking about Brazil, the case I mentioned--the Wall Street Journal reported in an editorial that ``the U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's State owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.'' Again, the Export-Import Bank approved a $2 billion loan to aid Brazilian oil production. That is what President Obama was cheering and encouraging and making happen. It has happened other places as well. Again, the Ex-Im Bank specifically approved a $2.84 billion loan and loan guarantee to a subsidiary of Colombia's national oil company. This money was intended to expand and upgrade an oil refinery in Cartagena, Colombia. In 2011 the Ex-Im Bank again authorized $1 billion for Pemex, Mexico's national oil and gas company.

Here we have this Federal Government, through the Ex-Im Bank, financing energy production overseas at the same time as this Federal Government tries to shut down and make difficult a lot of that activity here at home. That is the frustration that produced this amendment, No. 2103. This amendment is simple. It simply says that Ex-Im Bank is not going to provide those loans or loan guarantees related to fossil fuel development in foreign countries if there are similar projects in this country that are not getting comparable help. It is not suggesting that the Ex-Im Bank is going to participate directly in projects in this country. It simply says first things first--American jobs, American energy, American production. So we are not going to finance the world to produce energy when we create obstacles right here at home to do the same.

The last several years have proved the need for this sort of commonsense provision, in my opinion. President Obama traveling to Brazil, ballyhooing the development of their industry while his moratorium and other policies substantially shut down our own here in the United States, proves the need for this commonsense amendment.

I urge all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this Vitter amendment No. 2103. Again, it is very simple, very logical, and pure common sense. Before the Ex-Im Bank uses U.S. taxpayer money to fund, to finance the guarantee of oil and gas and other energy development overseas in foreign countries, we are going to look here at home to see if similar projects exist and are they getting any similar help or inducement from the Federal Government.

I urge support of this amendment as a way to move forward in a commonsense way on this reauthorization.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply says that if we are going to have the U.S. taxpayer, through the Ex-Im Bank, finance and guarantee and loan money to traditional energy projects around the world, maybe we should have the same policy and the same help for U.S. projects producing U.S. energy here at home. That is, pure and simple, what it is all about. This is not a theoretical concern. A year ago President Obama traveled to Brazil to praise the development of their offshore industry, to give them U.S. taxpayer help through the Ex-Im Bank. But policies in this country were doing exactly the opposite--hurting U.S. activity to produce U.S. energy, to produce U.S. jobs.

If you want to create that reasonable, fair playing field to promote U.S. jobs here at home too, please support this amendment.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor again to urge all of us to join together on a bipartisan basis and to reauthorize the national flood insurance program, to do it now, to do it quickly because time is running out. On May 31 the entire National Flood Insurance Program will expire. When the clock strikes midnight that day, it will be gone unless

we act, and act we must. This is an important program for the country.

In my neck of the woods, in south Louisiana in particular, almost every real estate closing is dependent on this program because those properties need flood insurance for there to be a closing, which is very typical in many other parts of the country. So here we are trying to get out of a real estate-led recession, trying to bolster the economy, and we are on the verge of letting the entire National Flood Insurance Program expire yet again.

What is so frustrating about this is there are not big disagreements about how to get this done. This is not an overly partisan issue; we are not bitterly divided. This is merely an issue of getting floor time in the Senate.

The House acted last year in a bipartisan way, and the Senate committee on which I serve has acted. I have worked very closely with my subcommittee chair Jon Tester, and we have acted in a bipartisan way. We have put together a good 5-year reauthorization bill, but we need to move this on and off the Senate floor to get this done before the end of the month.

Again, I urge the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, to give this important matter floor time. We all come here and talk about needing to improve the economy. We all come to the floor and talk about jobs. Well, it is absolutely necessary in all of those categories, with all of those issues in mind, to extend the National Flood Insurance Program. And let's not just put a bandaid on it again and let it limp along with a very short-term extension. Let's do the full 5-year reauthorization, which we can do, which is well in sight.

Groups around the country, particularly those working in the real estate industry and in this part of the economy, strongly support this effort.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several items, including a letter to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell signed by dozens of associations all along the political spectrum, urging this action.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record another letter along the same vein addressed to Senator Tester, the subcommittee chair, and myself, the ranking member on the subcommittee, again strongly supporting this effort. Let's do it. Let's do it now. This is the SmarterSafer coalition, and this letter is dated May 9.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to also have printed in the Record an op-ed in Roll Call written by two representatives of this broad coalition again explaining the absolute importance and the critical nature of doing this full, longer term reauthorization.

Madam President, I keep coming to the floor urging this because it is so important and because it is so achievable. Again, there are not big issues dividing us. This is not a partisan issue. We just need Senate floor time to get it done. In that vein, I will be doing two things today and in the near future.

First, I will be passing around to all Members of the Senate a new letter addressed to Senator Reid to urge that this matter be put on the floor as soon as possible. In a letter dated February 14, we urged this on a bipartisan basis, and 41 Senators, of both parties, signed that. This new letter restates that case, and, of course, now it is more urgent than ever as the clock ticks to May 31--just 3 weeks and 1 day away.

I will also be proposing an amendment to the next matter that comes on the Senate floor to incorporate the Senate bill with perfecting amendments that have been worked out toward the floor to incorporate that amendment on the next bill on the Senate floor. My understanding is that will either be the FDA user fee reauthorization or a small business tax bill. Neither of those bills is bitterly partisan or highly divisive. So I will be proposing as an amendment to either of those bills--whichever comes to the floor next--the full reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program along the lines the Senate committee has proposed.

Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support that effort. I urge Senator Reid to use that as a mechanism to get that done now, this month, before the expiration of the program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sidd Gejji, a detailee from the Commerce Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the day.

Madam President, I rise to talk about another vital program we must reauthorize and continue before it expires; that is, the National Flood Insurance Program. Right now, that is due to completely expire at the end of May. So I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, particularly that of the majority leader, so we take this up in time--as soon as possible--and put it in line absolutely as soon as possible so this can be extended and there will be no interruption.

This is an important program for the country. It provides vital flood insurance for millions of Americans. Many properties cannot have a real estate closing on them. They cannot be transferred without that important flood insurance. It is particularly important in my home State of Louisiana, where the risks of flooding--coastal and otherwise--are even greater than the national average.

Unfortunately, we have been on a path the last few years of just barely hobbling along, using a bandaid approach to extend this necessary program just a little bit at a time. This got to its worst state in 2010, when we not only extended it just a little bit at a time, but we actually allowed it to lapse, to expire, for several days at a time on four different occasions, for a total of 53 days. What happened? Each of those times the program expired, many real estate closings--tens of thousands of real estate closings around the country--came to a screeching halt. They were cancelled. They were put off.

So here we are, in a very soft economy and trying to eke out of a real estate-led recession. Yet for no good reason--because of our inability to, frankly, get our act together and organize ourselves and extend this noncontroversial program--we had lapses in the program so that thousands of real estate closings were put off. That lapse occurred, as I said, in 2010, four different times, for a total of 53 days.

Since then, we have improved a little bit. We have extended the program for 6 months at a time under legislation I have introduced. But now we need to take the next step and not just continue to hobble along but have a full reauthorization, with important bipartisan reforms, of this National Flood Insurance Program.

There has been a lot of work done in that regard. The House of Representatives has done a complete reauthorization bill, and they adopted that bill by an overwhelming vote of 406 to 22 last July 2. So they have acted. They have done their part going back going almost 1 year ago--about 9 months ago. On the Senate side, we have made important bipartisan progress in the Banking Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. We have worked hard to put together a full 5-year reauthorization bill with reforms on a bipartisan process.

As ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, I have put a lot of work into this with many others, including my subcommittee chairman Jon Tester. We reported that bill through the entire committee. It got a strong report out of committee and is ready for action on the Senate floor. So now we need to take that next step. We need to get it on the Senate floor, pass it through, and reconcile it with the House bill.

There are no major substantive obstacles. This is a true bipartisan effort. We have worked well together and through a number of issues. The only issue is getting time on the Senate floor and moving this forward so we can do this full-scale, 5-year reauthorization before the program expires this May 31.

Again, I just come to the floor to urge all of us, and in particular the majority leader who sets the schedule, to schedule this, to find that time, to put it in line as soon as possible. We are now on the Violence Against Women Act, which we support being on. I believe next we are moving to student loans. I have no problem with that. But let's put this important measure in line right after that, as soon as possible, so we can take it up and accomplish this task well before the May 31 deadline.

We can get this done. As I said, there are few, if any, substantive hurdles. We can get this done. We can produce a long-term reauthorization, we can produce good reforms in that bill, as we have in the Senate committee bill and as the House has. We just need to move it through the process. I certainly commit to everyone, starting with the majority leader, that if we get that minimal amount of time on the Senate floor, we will certainly work to have that process run as smoothly and as quickly as possible. I have worked with Senator Tester in that regard, toward that end, and we will continue to work through the remaining Senate proceedings.

Finally, in support of this plea, I have a letter, dated February 13 of this year, addressed to the majority and minority leaders from a long list of Senators, both parties, urging that we take this action, urging that we schedule this for the Senate floor absolutely as soon as possible so we can get this job

done. As I said, this letter was dated February 13. Obviously, a few months have passed since then and the clock is ticking and that clock runs out on May 31.

Again, I urge us, particularly the majority leader, to please put this necessary and important and bipartisan legislation in line for floor consideration as soon as possible. We can get this done. We can get this done by the current deadline. We can get this done for the good of the American people and on a bipartisan basis and I urge us all to work toward that end, as Jon Tester and I have been doing and as the committee chair and ranking member have been doing. I certainly know the ranking member of the committee, Senator Shelby, strongly supports this plea.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I have just referred.

Again, I hope we all come together in plenty of time to take care of this important business. I bring it up now, well before the deadline, because the clock is ticking. A Senate bill would have to be reconciled with the House. We need to get floor time absolutely as soon as possible and I look forward to that happening and I look forward to working with Senator Tester and others on the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor to recognize a solemn occasion. In two days, on Friday, April 20, it will be the 2- year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion. I want to pause at this moment of anniversary, 2 years, and offer a few thoughts about what was clearly a very significant episode and challenge for our whole country, but particularly for my State of Louisiana and for the gulf coast.

First of all, I want to start where I think we should always start in discussing and considering this event, and that is the loss of 11 lives. Eleven men were killed in that explosion. Again, we need to pause, reflect, pray, and offer prayerful support to them and their families. Those 11 victims were Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Adam Wiese, Roy Kemp, Jason Anderson, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Karl Dale Kleppinger, Jr., and Shane Roshto.

I ask unanimous consent that here on the Senate floor we pause for a few seconds in silent, prayerful thought and consideration of those 11 men and their families.

Thank you, Madam President. The tragedy, of course, started there with those 11 lives lost and we must never forget that, including as we redouble our efforts to ensure safety in those sorts of drilling environments in the future.

Of course, the second big impact was on the environment, particularly the gulf environment where I live, in Louisiana--4.9 million barrels of oil were discharged during the spill. That was

about 50,000 barrels a day, every day for 3 months; 320 miles of Louisiana coastline were oiled. That was a little over half of the total coastline on the gulf that was oiled--600 miles. Over 86,000 square miles of waters were closed to fishing; about 36 percent of Federal waters in the gulf were closed.

We did that on a very aggressive, proactive basis to make sure we avoided any contaminated seafood ever reaching a store shelf, ever reaching a restaurant. The good news is we accomplished that. Through that proactive closing, not a single piece of contaminated seafood ever reached a store shelf or ever reached a restaurant customer. That was quite an accomplishment.

Lots of dead animals were collected--6,800; 6,100 birds and also other sea turtles and dolphins. It was the biggest ever in American history, a huge environmental disaster.

Two years later, as we pause and look at the environmental effect of that, frankly, there is good news and bad news--or at least good news and continuing challenges. The good news is I don't think anyone would have predicted that the gulf would rebound to where it is today. Mother Nature has proved again to be amazingly resilient. That is good news. At the time there were all sorts of pretty dire predictions of huge dead zones covering half the gulf. That has certainly not materialized. So Mother Nature has proved amazingly resilient. But I don't want to trivialize continuing challenges, continuing work. There is continuing environmental work, I understand core projects that are ongoing that are very important. First is the NRDA process, under Federal law, the Natural Resource Damage Assessment. That is the process under Federal law by which all stakeholders help assess the damage to the environment so that the folks guilty of this horrendous incident pay for those damages, pay the State, pay the Federal Government, pay others who will work to restore the environment.

That NRDA process is ongoing. It is a multiyear process. But there is some positive result from that process already. Step one of the process was a settlement with BP for an upfront payment of about $1 billion.

Just today, two specific projects in Louisiana were announced as a direct result of that first--not last but first--upfront payment of $1 billion. There is the Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation Project in Plaquemines Parish. That will create approximately 104 acres of brackish marsh from beneficial use of dredge material. That is being announced today. And the Louisiana Oyster Culture Project--that is the placement of oyster cultch onto about 850 acres of public oyster seed grounds throughout coastal Louisiana. So those projects are the start of that NRDA project coming to fruition.

Then the second important work that is ongoing that involves all of us here in the Senate directly is the need to pass the RESTORE Act through the highway reauthorization bill, the transportation reauthorization bill.

The RESTORE Act language would dedicate 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines related to this disaster to gulf coast restoration. I thank all of my colleagues again for an enormously positive, overwhelmingly positive, bipartisan vote to attach that RESTORE Act language to the Senate highway bill. I urge my House colleagues, including House conservatives, to pass a House version of the highway bill today. That is important for our country, for highway infrastructure, and it is important because it is a vehicle for this RESTORE Act.

A third and final category I want to touch on that is not as positive, frankly, as the environmental rebound is the impact of all of this and the related moratorium on drilling to our economy on the gulf coast and energy production. Immediately after the disaster, very soon thereafter, President Obama announced a complete moratorium on activity in the gulf on new drilling. That moratorium lasted several months. I think that was a bad mistake, an overreaction to the disaster. I think that has been borne out in several ways, including the panel of experts that the President got together. Their report, we now know, was actually doctored and edited at the White House to make it seem like those true experts supported a full moratorium, when we know directly from them that they did not.

This moratorium went in place anyway and it created a lot of additional economic harm and hurt to a lot of gulf coast residents and workers that was unnecessary. Of course we needed to pause and get new procedures and some new safety regulations in place, of course we needed to learn the lessons of the disaster and incorporate those into practices, but we did not need an all-out moratorium for months. And we do not need a continuing slowdown that continues to this day. An analogy I have often used is when we have a horrible disaster such as an airplane crash, we do not ground every plane for months after such an incident. We allow the industry and that important travel and commercial activity to continue as we immediately learn the lessons of the disaster and incorporate it into safety proceedings.

Well, unfortunately, my point of view did not hold sway at the White House. We had this complete, formal moratorium which lasted into October 2010. But when that formal, complete moratorium was lifted, it didn't just end there. For months and months after that, we had a de facto moratorium, permits which were not happening. There was only a trickle of permits. Now, even though permitting has increased somewhat, we have a dramatic permit slowdown and a slowdown of activity in the gulf. Now more than ever, our country and our citizens cannot afford that. The price at the gas pump is about $4 a gallon. It has more than doubled during President Obama's tenure. We cannot afford this avoidable slowdown and decrease in important domestic energy activity.

Again, a lot of folks around the country don't realize it, but permitting in the gulf is still way below pre-BP levels. It is 40 percent below pre-BP levels. Now, again, we need to learn and we have learned the lessons of the BP disaster. We need to incorporate those into our regulatory policy, and we have. But we cannot afford a permit slowdown of more than 40 percent since before the BP disaster. Because of that and because of other factors, energy production is down on Federal property and all oil production was down about 14 percent in the last year. Federal offshore production is down about 17 percent. So that is some of the most lasting negative economic impact from the disaster. The Obama administration's wrongheaded reaction to it and the lingering policy on energy production is something we cannot afford as the gulf region, we cannot afford as a country, and we can afford less than ever now with the price at the pump.

Again, I hope we do learn the lessons of this disaster. I hope we continue to ensure that those safety and other lessons are built into our regulatory framework and best practices in the industry. I think that has largely been done, and that work continues. I also hope we honor the lifework of those 11 men who lost their lives, who worked hard every day in that industry producing good American energy by not only allowing that work to happen safely but allowing that work to happen and allowing American citizens to benefit from that work.

The United States is the single most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. For instance, we are far richer than any Middle Eastern country, such as Saudi Arabia. The problem is that we are the only country in the world that puts well over 90 percent of those domestic resources off limits and says: No, no, no. No you can't do this, and no you can't touch that.

We need to build a commonsense American energy policy that says: Yes. Yes, we can. Yes, we can do it safely, and, yes, we can provide American energy for American families and the American economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Mrs. Gertrude Lorio Beauford on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Born to Wilfrid A. Lorio and Eulalie L. Fischer on May 28, 1912, at Ingleside Plantation in Lakeland, LA, Mrs. Beauford is the third oldest of five siblings, two brothers and three sisters. She received her education from St. Joseph's Academy in New Roads and was classmates with former United States Congresswoman Lindy Boggs. Mrs. Beauford then went on to St. Mary's Dominican College and married childhood friend Leonard M. Beauford in 1935. Mr. Beauford worked for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and their family moved to 18 cities in 9 years before finally settling in New Orleans in 1945.

They were married for 48 years, and their family includes 3 children, Gertrude, Wilfrid, and Kathleen, and 1 grandchild, Judith. Sharing a fondness for traveling, Mr. and Mrs. Beauford visited countries across the world including Japan, Canada, and many more across Europe. In fact, they even traveled south to Antarctica and also went north and crossed the Arctic Circle.

Mrs. Beauford has been an active member of the Louisiana Lions Club, the Jefferson Lions Club, Children's Hospital, the League of Women Voters, the Parent-Teacher Association, and the American Association of University Women. She is also an active member of St. Agnes Catholic Church and committed 18 years of her life to educating young people at McDonough #7 where she taught 5th grade.

Five generations later, Ingleside Plantation is still owned and operated by the Lorio family where sugarcane, soybeans, and wheat continue to be grown. Those closest to her know Mrs. Beauford simply as ``Gertie,'' and she's attributed her long life to keeping busy.

I am proud to honor such an extraordinary member of our community on her 100th birthday and wish Mrs. Beauford many more joyous days, months, and years to come.

Madam President, I rise to talk about one of the most pressing challenges Louisiana families--indeed, most American families--face, and that is the price at the pump and the enormous hit that is to their family budgets, their pocketbooks, their wallets. It is really making life very difficult in the midst of a very weak economy.

A few years ago the price was $1.84. That was on the day Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. Now it has more than doubled; it is $3.80-plus. It seems to be rising every day, and that is a real crisis to a lot of American families. We should be committed here in the Senate, here in Washington, to connecting with the real world and focusing on real problems and real crises. For millions of Louisiana and American families, that is absolutely it. Unfortunately, I don't see real solutions and a real policy to address that coming out of the President or some of my colleagues on the Senate floor. Right now, to the minute, as we speak on the Senate floor, the President is speaking at the White House, and he is laying out his proposal to raise taxes on domestic energy companies and domestic oil and gas production. That is not a policy that is going to help Louisiana and American families with the price at the pump. In fact, it is a policy that is going to make it worse and not better.

Folks get it in the real world. They certainly do in Louisiana. When we increase taxes on something, those are costs that almost every business, if they possibly can, is going to pass on to consumers. That is pushing prices up, not down.

It is also the first rule of economics, as my colleague from Georgia said, supply and demand. If we tax something more, we get less of it. If we increase taxes on domestic energy producers, on domestic oil and gas, we will get less of it. Less supply means the price goes up. So those are two compelling reasons this proposal is not going to help Louisiana families and American families with their struggles with the price at the pump. It is going to make it even worse, when it has been getting worse on its own for a lot of related reasons, very dramatically. So that is not a policy. That is not a commonsense or a real-world solution.

Likewise, one of the few other things I have heard from the President in terms of this matter is essentially begging other countries to increase their production. I don't think that is a policy worthy of America either. I think the perfect symbol for that approach is the President bowing to the princes of Saudi Arabia. It is a symbol of his approach of trying to deal with the price at the pump, and it is not good enough and it is not worthy of the American people.

Other folks have also adopted this approach. Senator Schumer, our colleague in this Chamber, recently wrote Secretary of State Clinton on February 28, 2012, just a few weeks ago:

To address this situation--

Meaning the price at the pump--

I urge the State Department to work with the government of

Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they are

currently producing well under their capacity.

Begging Saudi Arabia is not an adequate solution, and it is not a policy worthy of America.

President Obama's own Energy Secretary Secretary Chu said even more recently, on March 20 of this year:

We're very grateful that Saudi Arabia has extra capacity

and it feels confident that it can fulfill any potential

deficits, at least the way the current markets are now, the

current demand I should say, are now.

Again, begging Saudi Arabia, begging the Middle East, begging other countries, that is not an adequate policy and it is not a policy worthy of America.

President Obama has done a world tour doing some of this in other countries. Notably, on March 20, 2011, when my part of the country was still struggling with the de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, a permit logjam blocking us from producing good, reliable American energy, putting Americans, Louisianans to work, the President went to Brazil to beg them to produce their resources and to promise them that the United States would be a great customer. Quote:

We want to help you with the technology and support to

develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to

start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a

time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other

parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United

States could not be happier with the potential for a new,

stable source of energy.

He means drilling in Brazil. I have to say this was like rubbing salt in the wound to most Louisianans. As I said, this was March 2011, a year ago, and we were still suffering from a continuing de facto moratorium that the President had imposed following the BP incident. So he was going to Brazil and urging them to drill, urging them to explore, committing America to that, and refusing to do it in America in the Gulf of Mexico. That is not a commonsense solution. That is not a real-world policy. That is not a policy worthy of America. None of this begging is.

Other countries do have an energy policy, and it is not begging; it is developing. It is controlling their own future. Very recently in the press there have been reports that PetroChina has now become the leading company publicly traded in terms of production of oil, far surpassing Big Oil and all the other companies that have been demonized by my colleagues on the left on the Senate floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the press report printed for the Record.

The Chinese are not going around the world begging. The Chinese are developing. The Chinese are trying to control their own destiny, and PetroChina is now the leading company in terms of producing oil.

Petrobras in Brazil is another example. Brazil is developing its resources very aggressively. That is what I referred to when the President went there a year ago and applauded them and encouraged them with giving them U.S. resources to do it in terms of loan guarantees, and the President absolutely promised we would be a great customer.

The Brazilians are not traveling the world begging. The Brazilians are controlling their own destiny. The Brazilians are responsibly developing their own resources, and our President even applauds that while refusing to do the same in this country.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the press report printed in the Record.

According to recent press reports, there is a budding and building relationship between Brazil and China, and China is taking advantage and forming contracts to take advantage of that resource. We should learn a thing or two from other folks around the world, and we should not just beg; we should build and develop. We should take our own future into our own hands, and we have an enormous opportunity to do that.

The United States is actually the single most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. When we look at total energy resources, we lead the world. Russia is second, and other countries follow way behind. Saudi Arabia is third but cannot compare in terms of total resources. No Middle Eastern country can compare, and China is below that. We have the resources. We are the single most energy-rich country in the world, and this map shows it.

We have enormous reserves, particularly shale in the West, natural gas in

finds on land, and offshore enormous potential of reserves of oil. Literally, there are hundreds of years' worth. So what is the problem? The problem is we are the only country in the world that puts well over 90 percent of those resources off-limits and doesn't develop them, but we can do better.

We can reasonably, responsibly, and safely open that access. We can do what Brazil is doing; we can do what China is doing. We do not have to beg. We can have a policy worthy of America and Americans. We can take control of our own destiny.

What will that mean? It will mean great U.S. jobs, which by definition cannot be outsourced. We cannot have a domestic energy job producing good, reliable energy in the United States and outsource it to China or India. We will build more energy independence, not having to beg Saudi Arabia or go to Brazil as a customer or anything else. We will even increase revenue to lower deficit and debt. After the Federal income tax, the biggest source of revenue to the Federal Government is royalty or revenue on domestic oil production. It is second only to Federal income tax. It would be enormous new revenue to reduce deficit and debt. And, of course, we can help lower the price at the pump. We can increase supply, which lowers the price.

So I urge us to do what the American people want us to do: to adopt common sense, to adopt a real policy, and to take control of our own destiny. Begging is not a policy, at least not one worthy of Americans. This tax proposal to increase taxes on U.S. oil companies and domestic oil production is not a policy that will do anything but increase the price at the pump, decrease supply, and that is the opposite of what we need. Let's do what will make a difference: increase supply, control our own destiny, and do more right here at home.

I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer amendments to this bill. Let me assure our colleague from Illinois that they are not amendments about contraception or any other unrelated issue. They are energy amendments, which go directly to one of the greatest challenges all of our constituents, fellow citizens, face, which is the ever- rising price at the pump.

I am glad we are on this Menendez bill, because at least it puts us on that major challenge that faces Louisiana's lower to middle-class families, and those families in Illinois, and all around the country. I bring amendments that are directly relevant to that.

The first amendment has to do with supply. First of all, let me say why I oppose the Menendez bill. It is because

when we tax something at a higher level, when we increase the tax on it, we get less of it. So it will produce less energy, in particular less U.S. domestic energy. When we lower supply, we increase the price. It is not only not going to have a positive impact on the price at the pump, it will increase the price and have a negative impact.

I take the opposite approach. We need to increase supply, starting with activity and supply right here at home in the United States. So my amendment, offered along with Senator Murkowski of Alaska, No. 1965, would do that. It would replace President Obama's current 5-year plan for Outer Continental Shelf leasing with basically the plan that existed previously, which is double President Obama's plan.

So President Obama's plan, which he put in place after coming into office, is about half of the previous plan. It backs us up and turns us around, moving us in the wrong direction. Amendment No. 1965 would turn us back, move us in the right direction, and adopt pretty much that previous plan--to expand our access to our own U.S. energy resources offshore.

Unanimous requests--S. 2204

So, Mr. President, with that said, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate returns to consideration of S. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 1965, which I have authored along with Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, that is unfortunate. It is particularly unfortunate because everyone knows our leader and everyone on our side has absolutely agreed to offer energy amendments and give the other side an equal number of energy amendments. We are perfectly agreeable to that, and everybody knows that.

It is in that context that I bring up another energy amendment, our amendment No. 1997. This has to do with another huge opportunity we have in the United States right here at home; that is, enormous oil resources we can get from western shale. Quoting the Institute for Energy Research:

USGS estimates that unconventional U.S. oil shale resources

hold 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, with about 1 trillion

barrels that are considered recoverable under current

economic and technological conditions. These 1 trillion

barrels are nearly four times the amount of oil reserves as

Saudi Arabia's proven oil reserves.

That is the potential we have right here in this country--enormous reserves, available now, recoverable now. So what is the problem? Well, one big problem is the Obama administration has canceled all leases to access this oil shale. There was movement to properly, responsibly access that 1 trillion barrels, but that has been canceled under the Obama administration.

My amendment, No. 1997--again, obviously, an energy amendment that can affect prices at the pump--would expedite movement toward that important resource and would get us moving again in the right direction, accessing that U.S. energy resource.

With that said, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate returns to consideration of S. 2204, the pending energy tax bill, it be in order for me to offer that amendment No. 1997.

Mr. President, if I can wrap up, again, I think this is unfortunate. Everybody knows Republicans are perfectly willing to limit ourselves to relevant energy amendments. That is what we are doing. That is what we are bringing to the floor. Leader McConnell has offered that. He has offered to have a like number of energy amendments from the Democratic side. What is happening is we are being completely shut down and shut out.

The main issue is not that I am aggrieved, the main issue is the American people are being shut out. The folks I represent--the folks all of us represent--are being shut out from offering good, sensible ideas to at least debate and vote on which would access more American energy, more U.S. energy, to help solve the pressing problem of the price at the pump in that way. Let's control our own destiny in that way.

This is a sensible solution. It is a major solution. It will move us in the right direction.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I too come to the floor to talk about the most pressing issue facing so many millions of Louisiana and American families; that is, the price at the pump. Sometimes we seem to get ourselves in a cocoon in Washington, DC, divorced from the real world.

We need to reconnect to the real world. Back in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and every State across the country, middle-class, lower middle-class families are struggling with this ever-increasing price at the pump. When President Obama was sworn into office a little over 3 years ago, that price was about $1.84 a gallon. Today, it is over double that, $3.80 and beyond.

That is a big hit to American families. That hits folks where it counts and where it hurts--in the wallet, in the pocketbook, in the family budget. All around Louisiana families are huddled around the kitchen table trying to figure out how to make it work because gasoline, transportation, driving is not a luxury. Sure, they can cut back a little bit, but for the most part it is a real necessity; it is going to work; it is getting the kids to school; it is doing absolute necessities.

This is a big hit to middle-class, lower middle-class families' budgets and wallets and pocketbooks. So let me suggest the obvious; that we focus on what truly matters to American families, that we focus on that in the Senate, here in Washington, and we do something about that.

That is why I favored moving to the Menendez bill on the Senate floor. That is why I voted against moving off the bill today, not because I agree with that solution--it is not a solution--but at least we can talk about the topic, at least we can offer amendments on what is to millions of Louisiana and American families the biggest day-to- day challenge they face; that is, that ever-increasing price at the pump.

The Menendez ``solution,'' the Democratic plan, will not help bring down the price at the pump. In fact, it will do the opposite. I think the American people with good old-fashioned American common sense get it. Look, we can love the oil companies, we can hate the oil companies, but the Menendez bill increases taxes on U.S. energy companies and on U.S. energy production.

It increases taxes on those folks and on that activity. What do we think is going to be the result of that in terms of the price at the pump. The American people know. The American people get it. It is obvious. It is going to increase the price at the pump. It is certainly not going to leave it alone or decrease it. Why? It is economics 101. When we give business a new additional cost, almost all the time that is going to be passed on to the consumer.

The American people get that. They see that. They feel it. They deal with it every day. Also, when we increase taxes on something, we produce less of it in the market. In this case, the Menendez bill is increasing taxes on energy production, in particular, ironically, U.S. energy production, which I thought we wanted to increase and maximize.

So when we tax something more, we get less of it. Supply goes down. Guess what happens when supply goes down and demand is the same. Price goes up. So I not only agree with, but I go further than some of the Democrats who were quoted by the previous speaker saying this bill is not about reducing the price at the pump. It is not only about not reducing the price at the pump, it will have the impact of increasing the price at the pump.

Conservatives have a different suggestion that will decrease the price at the pump; that is, to use the resources we have in this country, to open our ability to use those energy resources, to produce more good U.S. American energy for ourselves, to increase supply, and to thereby lower the price at the pump. We can do that and we should do that.

A lot of Americans do not realize the United States is actually the most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. When we look at total energy resources, when we compare countries in terms of their total energy resources, the United States is the richest in energy, bar none. This chart shows that. The United States is top. Russia comes second. Saudi Arabia is third. But look at Saudi Arabia and all Middle Eastern countries--way below our total U.S. energy resources. We are very rich in terms of energy.

This map shows just how rich we are in terms of U.S. resources. We have

enormous recoverable natural gas, particularly with new technology and horizontal drilling that has been developed. That is these green circles. That represents, conservative estimate, 88 years of natural gas using just that for U.S. use.

We have enormous recoverable oil--again, very conservative estimates. But in the gulf, where we do produce, also on the east and west coast and Alaska, there is lots of oil, and we have enormous recoverable oil from shale, particularly out West. That is being blocked now. It is off-limits. But we have these resources.

The problem is--and I said we are the single most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. We are. The problem is we are the only country in the world that puts well over 90 percent of our resources off- limits. We are the only country that does that. East coast production, no, absolutely not; west coast production, no--big red no; ANWR, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where we could access millions of acres of lands from a very select footprint, smaller than an area the size of Dulles Airport in suburban Virginia, no; western shale production, where we saw so much of the resource potential on the previous map, no; even production in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, no. Under Federal law, because of this administration, because of this Senate, we keep saying no, no, no to our U.S. resources.

A good example of that is President Obama's 5-year lease plan for offshore production. Under Federal law, every President has to develop and issue a 5-year plan about leasing the Outer Continental Shelf offshore. President Obama's 5-year plan is half of the previous plan. We have very little we are able to touch as it is, and President Obama has backed us up from this, has turned us around, moved us in the wrong direction from there. His plan is literally half the previous plan. So we are moving there in absolutely the wrong direction.

This map shows that. This map is what was available for potential drilling under the previous plan. We were finally moving forward on the east coast, on the west coast, offshore Alaska. We have been in the gulf. But under President Obama's very different lease plan, we are back to saying no, no, no, no, no, no--backing up, moving in the wrong direction.

We are moving in the wrong direction in other areas too under this administration. In the Gulf of Mexico near where I live, traditionally, the area where we produce the most U.S. energy, even in the Gulf of Mexico we are moving in the wrong direction. Production is down 17 percent in 2011. It is projected to go down more in 2012. Permitting is down over 40 percent compared to the pre-BP levels of permitting. I know with the BP disaster there had to be a quick pause. We had to change some rules. But it is still down over 40 percent. Production is down 17 percent in one of the few areas we allow activity. We cannot afford that. We need to produce more good U.S. energy.

Oil production on Federal property, again, is down on all Federal property, down 14 percent. Federal offshore is down 17 percent in the last couple years. We need to do better.

Of course, perhaps the clearest example of this approach to energy by President Obama is his recent veto of the Keystone Pipeline, a true shovel-ready project, truly ready to go. It is not U.S. energy, but it is the next best thing, from our biggest trading partner, a very good friend and reliable trading partner, Canada. The President has vetoed it and with it the 20,000 jobs it would have created--no; 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Canada, no; $7 billion of economic investment when we are trying to come out of this horribly weak economy, no; help to lower prices at the pump, no--again, No, no, no, no, no, no.

We can do better. We can do better as a country. We certainly can do better in Washington and say yes. We can do better by accessing more domestic energy resources. Again, we are the most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. But we are the only country that puts over 90 percent of that off-limits. We need to change that. We can create more great U.S. jobs. Let us say yes to that. By the way, those are jobs which by definition cannot be outsourced to China or India or anywhere else.

If we are creating energy in the United States, that job has to stay in the United States. We can build greater energy independence. Let us say yes to that. We can dramatically increase revenue to the Federal Government and thereby reduce deficits and debt. After the Federal income tax, the second biggest source of revenue the Federal Government has is revenue on domestic energy production, those royalties, second only to the Federal income tax.

Let's say yes to that new revenue, deficit and debt reduction, and we can help lower the price at the pump because supply does matter. Increasing supply does matter. It will lower prices.

Again, I disagree with the Menendez approach. The Menendez approach will increase the price at the pump and increase taxes on an industry and that is going to be passed on to the consumer. Taxing something more produces less of it. Less oil means the price goes up. But we can have an American solution. We can open access to our own resources and thereby gain control of our own future. We do not have to beg Saudi Arabian princes. We can regain control of our own destiny and our own future. Let's do it. The American people want us to do it. Common sense dictates that we do it. Let's move forward together and do it for the good of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have returned to the Senate floor today to talk about what is a true crisis for many Louisianans, many Americans, which is the ever-rising price of gasoline at the pump. This hits everybody in their tough pocketbook in a horrible economy. It is a true crisis for many American families all around the country.

In this debate--and it has been a significant national debate--a lot of Republicans say: Well, President Obama does not have a plan, does not have a policy to address the price at the pump. A lot of supporters of President Obama say: Well, no President can have a significant impact, can determine the price at the pump.

I think both of those statements are equally wrong. I think the President, this administration, does have a policy. They have made specific proposals and it would, if we enact it, have a significant impact on the price at the pump. It would just be the wrong sort of impact. It would drive the price even higher than it is now, not help American families by stabilizing that price.

I want to focus on one very specific, clearly laid out policy of President Obama, and that is to increase taxes on oil and gas and energy producers--increase taxes on that product, which I think clearly is going to only drive up the price at the pump.

President Obama has advocated this very consistently for a long time. He advocated it as a Senator. He laid it out as a central plank of his energy policy when he was originally running for President in 2008. He has fought for it ever since, including it in every budget submission to Congress. He has always advocated increasing taxes on domestic oil and gas energy producers.

To underscore this point, one of the President's biggest supporters in the Senate, Senator Menendez, has introduced this concept in the Senate. Yesterday, Senator Menendez introduced the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, which, again, does exactly the same thing as the President has long advocated. It increases taxes on that product. It increases taxes on those domestic producers.

I think the American people get it. We can argue about fairness. We can argue about other considerations. But in terms of the impact this is going to have on the price at the pump, I think the American people get it. It is economics 101: If you tax something more, you tend to drive the price up in the market, and you decrease supply. Again, that is economics 101.

I could talk about the true facts of this with regard to energy companies--the fact that they pay an effective tax rate of about 41 percent, the fact that they account for enough revenue to cover 10 percent of our entire discretionary budget, that they are not undertaxed at all by any reasonable comparison. But I am not going to focus on that because, quite frankly, I do not care about the direct impact on the companies. I care about the direct impact on Louisianans, on Americans, on consumers, on what so many low or middle-class families are dealing with right now--that real crisis I talked about that you face every time you go to fill up your car; that is, the burden of skyrocketing prices at the pump. That is what we should all be concerned about. As I said, I think it is pretty obvious, it is economics 101, that if you tax something more, the price at the pump, the price in the market goes up, and you get less of it.

But even if that were not so obvious, we have history to look at. There is a very clear history lesson from the Carter years, when this same experiment was actually enacted. Back then, in 1979, it was called the windfall profits tax. You may remember that debate. Well, that was actually enacted here in Congress, here in Washington--the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. It was passed back then, and it went into effect on April 2, 1980. Again, the same arguments, the same policy: Somehow the tax treatment of these companies is unfair. Somehow they are not paying their fair share--even though the facts show otherwise-- so we are going to increase the tax on those domestic energy producers.

Well, what happened? The first thing that happened was the price at the pump went up. It went up significantly for several years. There was a lot going on in the world at the same time. I know folks will point to developments in the Middle East and everything else. But that is what happened immediately following the enactment of that law. The price went up by about 50 percent and stayed there for several years.

But let's look at other factors. You can argue about the impact of politics and developments in the Middle East on price. What about things that should not be so impacted by developments in the Middle East? What about things such as domestic production and whether that increased or decreased? Well, in fact, as a direct result of the windfall profits tax, domestic oil and gas production, energy production, went down over that entire period from between 3 percent to 6 percent. If you look at the entire period of the tax, it went down.

In this debate, everyone at least has paid lip service to the idea that we should be producing more energy here at home. Yet in this historical example, in this experiment, increasing the tax on this product did what you would expect it to do, again from economics 101: It decreased that activity here at home. It decreased domestic production.

What else did it do? Well, the second big impact it had was it increased our dependence on foreign oil. Again, you can connect the dots. This is exactly what you would expect. If you increase taxes on domestic production, you decrease that supply, and guess what. We are even more dependent on those unstable foreign sources we want to get away from. That is exactly what happened in the Jimmy Carter experiment. He passed the windfall profits tax, and during the entire tenure of that tax, dependence on foreign oil increased significantly-- between 8 percent and 16 percent.

Then something that might be a little less obvious is the impact on revenue. There were enormous promises made about the revenue this windfall profits tax would bring in. Well, at the beginning it did have that impact, but guess what. Over time that impact declined enormously, down to actually a zero net revenue increase by 1987. The tax was eventually repealed in 1988, but this impact on revenue went down to zero before that repeal, not because of the repeal. It went back to zero in 1987.

This purple, as shown on this chart, is what was promised. This purple is the increase in revenue that was promised and projected by President Carter. This gray, as shown on the chart, is what happened. Sure, there was an immediate spike. Then guess what. Domestic energy producers reacted. They did less activity here. If you tax something more, you get less of it, we are more dependent on foreign sources, we drive out that activity--those jobs and that revenue. So there was a steady decline, until it was actually zero net additional revenue in 1987, leading to the repeal in 1988.

So I would hope, when we look at this proposal--I would hope first we focus on the American people, we focus on their plight every time they go to fill up their gas tank, with these ever-increasing prices, and our top goal is to give them relief.

Increasing taxes on that product, increasing taxes on domestic producers of energy, is not going to give them relief. It is going to do exactly the opposite. Every rule of economics says that. If you tax something more, you get less of it, you increase the price in the market. History proves that--a very clear lesson from the Carter years that some folks on this Senate floor, President Obama, and others, want to repeat. This is not good policy if we truly want to help the American people with their everyday struggle with the price at the pump.

I think what is going on is a completely different agenda. Folks are so set against fossil fuel, folks want to advantage new forms of energy so much that they are willing to resort to actually increasing the price at the pump to do it. That is exactly what Secretary of Energy Chu advocated in late 2008 right before he was appointed to his present position. Let's not do that. The American people cannot afford it. They need relief. They need it now.

An American President can make a difference. Unfortunately, this one has a policy that would make a difference in the wrong direction. Taxing something more increases the price, produces less of it. We need to be doing the opposite. We need to be increasing domestic supply, bringing down the price, helping the American people in their everyday struggles with their family budgets, with how to manage their scant resources in a very tough economy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the city of Lafayette. Southern Living magazine has named Lafayette ``South's Tastiest Town.'' Lafayette was chosen as the winning city by nearly 35,000 votes in the first annual competition, with more than 500,000 online votes cast for the 10 finalist cities. Lafayette will be formally recognized in Southern Living's April issue, along with third- place finisher New Orleans. In fact, both Louisiana cities combined to receive nearly half the total votes, and Lafayette received almost 200,000 votes.

Southern Living's top 10 towns were chosen based on a number of criteria: food as a cultural identity, growth of a culinary-minded community, diverse cuisine at a variety of price points, local sustainable food practices, chefs on the rise, and an abundance of significant food events. Clearly, Lafayette excels in all these categories, and I am proud of this achievement.

Lafayette and its people are at the heart of all the great Cajun and Creole qualities that have made Louisiana's cuisine unparalleled. Throughout our State's great history, our unique culinary identity and love of food have been at the center of many of family and friend gatherings. Louisianians take tremendous pride in the dishes that represent our culture, the traditions they symbolize about who we are, and the devotion to preserving our heritage.

It is my pleasure to congratulate the city of Lafayette on this honor.

Madam President, I am happy and honored to join my colleague from Alaska, and also our colleague Senator Barrasso to talk about a vital issue, U.S. energy--doing something about the price at the pump, including by accessing more of the vital U.S. energy we have right here within our shores.

As the Senator from Alaska has said, at least I give the President kudos for using the right language, saying the right things, even if his policies have not caught up with that yet. He is talking about an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy, something we have been advocating for years.

He is also talking about a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I disagree with that policy, but at least it acknowledges that supply matters. If we increase supply we would lower the price.

I think the important way we need to do that, of course, is to produce more energy at home. A lot of Americans do not realize it, but we are the single most energy rich country in the world, bar none. No one else comes close. When we look at all of our energy resources compared to all of the energy resources of other countries, we are the richest country in terms of energy resources.

Why don't most Americans think of ourselves that way? It is because we are the only country in the world that takes well over 90 percent of those resources and puts them off-limits. Through Federal law, particularly under this Obama administration, America says no. No.

The Obama administration says no. No, you can't drill off the east coast. No, you can't drill off the west coast. No, you can't touch the eastern gulf, at least for now. No, you can do little to nothing offshore Alaska. No, you cannot touch the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. No, we are going to do less instead of more on Federal land. And, no, we are going to reexamine hydraulic fracturing, which is a key process to the development of our rich shale resources even though there is no scientific basis for that attack on hydraulic fracturing.

This administration has said no; no, in terms of policy. The President is saying ``all of the above.'' The President is admitting supply matters. But the policy has not caught up, and it has to catch up.

What am I thinking of? On the Outer Continental Shelf we are rich in resources, in oil and gas. Yet President Obama's 5-year plan, which he is required to submit under law--his 5-year plan for developing that Outer Continental Shelf is only half as much as the previous 5-year plan. We are backing up. We are headed in the wrong direction, not the right direction of accessing more of our own energy.

Permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, where I live--since the BP disaster,

permitting first stopped but now has started again, but only at a trickle, and we are still 30 percent to 40 percent below the pace of permitting compared to before the incident. We need to get back to that pace of permitting and then surpass it.

Federal lands, the area that the Federal Government controls most directly--production activity on Federal lands is down from a few years ago. It is not up; it is down 14, 17 percent offshore and onshore--less than a few years ago.

Of course, the Keystone Pipeline was mentioned. That is not quite U.S. energy, but it is as close as we can get to that. It is dependable Canadian energy from a very firm, strong ally. President Obama is saying no to that.

I am happy to hear that his rhetoric has changed in an election year. But when are those policies going to change--on the Outer Continental Shelf, on permitting in the gulf and elsewhere, on Federal land, on the Keystone Pipeline? That is what needs to change.

We need to say yes to solid, dependable American energy. It will increase our energy independence. It will increase our supply and stabilize prices at the pump. It will build great American jobs, jobs which, by the way, cannot be outsourced to China and India if they are domestic energy jobs. It will even bring more revenue into the Federal Government, lowering the deficit and debt.

Let's say yes. Let's say yes, yes to that. I know my colleague, Senator Barrasso, is vitally interested in these issues as well. I turn to him, through the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1535 which is at the desk, and I ask it be reported by number.

Mr. President, amendment No. 1535, the Vitter amendment, is very simple and straightforward, and it goes to an awfully important issue. It goes to the issue of the price of energy, particularly the price of gasoline at the pump. There will be a vote today on this amendment. In fact, it will be the first vote we take this afternoon.

The amendment is very simple. It would allow us to go back to the previous lease plan for the Outer Continental Shelf, replacing the current Obama administration lease plan which cuts that previous plan in half and moves us in the wrong direction in terms of producing our abundance of domestic energy, including oil and natural gas.

Everybody is concerned about the rising price of oil at the pump. It is on the rise again. It is significantly increasing. And that hits middle and lower class families right in their pocketbooks, right where it hurts, and it is particularly harmful in a down economy. We are struggling to get out of this recession, we are trying to mount a recovery, we are trying to make positive things happen, and these increasing prices at the pump are hitting at the worst possible time.

What can we do about it? Well, there are a lot of things we can do, but certainly increasing supply, including domestic supply, is one major, positive thing we can do. We know that 88 percent of the price of an average gallon of gasoline is attributable to the cost of crude oil and taxes--88 percent. That only leaves 12 percent that is refining, marketing, and distribution. And, by the way, that 12 percent also includes the compliance cost for a host of mandates required by statutes and regulations related to refining, marketing, and distribution. So again, the huge bulk of that price represents the price of crude oil as well as taxes.

I could argue forcefully and present a lot of data that taxes on oil and gas are actually too high, but I don't expect a majority of this Senate to listen. So what we are left with as a way to impact those rising prices at the pump is to find more, develop more, increase supply, and that brings the price down worldwide. And we can do that starting right here at home.

Most Americans don't realize it, because of Federal policy, but the United States is the most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. When you look at all of our energy resources, certainly including oil and gas, the United States is the most energy rich, and we are far richer, by a long shot, in terms of those total energy resources, than any Middle Eastern country, such as Saudi Arabia. The only other country that comes close is Russia, and they are well behind.

The problem is the United States is also the only country in the world that puts about 90 percent of those resources off limits and says no, under current Federal law, under the current Obama administration lease plan, to drilling off the east coast, no to drilling off the west coast, no to production of energy in the eastern gulf--at least as of now--no to most things offshore Alaska, no to ANWR--the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge--and increasingly this administration wants to say no and wants to put up hurdles and blockages on lands where a lot of energy production is happening because of enormous shale finds and relatively new technology.

One major thing we can do to affect the price at the pump in the right direction--which would be to lower it--is to say yes instead of no to developing more of our domestic energy. Unfortunately, in the last several years, under President Obama, we have been moving in the opposite direction. We have been moving away from that production.

An excellent example is the Outer Continental Shelf. This first chart I will put up is the last lease plan--prior to the Obama administration--that was actually beginning to say yes in a significant way. This was the result of the outcry from the public--the appropriate outcry after the summer of 2008--the last time prices at the pump spiked so significantly. People said, wait a minute. Why aren't we producing more at home? Washington finally responded to that, and through this lease plan we were saying yes more and more. We were saying yes--green light--on the east coast; yes, do more in the gulf; yes, green light off the west coast; yes, do more in offshore Alaska.

Unfortunately, that came to a screeching halt under the Obama administration. One of the first energy actions this administration took--President Obama and Secretary of the Interior Salazar--was to very quickly cancel this lease plan. Once they took office, they scrapped this. Then they studied it for quite a while, with no lease plan in sight. Finally, several months ago, they announced and put forward their own lease plan--the first under the Obama administration. And what a difference an election makes. What a difference a change in administration makes. All of a sudden the green lights became red lights again. We reverted to the old policy of moratoria on production again and the answer, again, was no, no, no, no. No, off the east coast; no, for now, in the eastern gulf; no, offshore Alaska; no, off the west coast--no, no, no, no.

This plan is only half as much as the prior 5-year lease plan. So instead of moving in a positive direction, accessing more of our energy, including in the Outer Continental Shelf, we are backing up, we are turning around, and we are turning our backs on the needs of the American people. Again, we are saying no, no, no, no.

The Vitter amendment, No. 1535, would reverse that. It would say yes. It would say, no, this plan isn't a good idea. Let's go back to the prior 5-year lease plan. Let's develop, explore, and produce U.S. energy in a responsible way. Again, we are the single most energy-rich country in the world, bar

none. We have enormous resources, including offshore, including oil and gas. But we are the only country in the world that says no, no, no, no, and that puts over 90 percent of those resources off limits.

This amendment will begin to change that. This amendment will reverse that mistaken policy. In so doing, it would significantly increase the supply of oil where we can control it most--right here at home. And when everything else stays the same--you increase supply, demand is the same--what happens? Price goes down. That is the first law of economics.

So let's say yes. Let's say yes to good, reliable U.S. energy, let's say yes to increased energy independence by doing more for ourselves right here at home, and let's say yes to great American jobs. Because that is also what this amendment would produce--jobs. And by definition these jobs can't be outsourced. You can't take good U.S. energy jobs and ship them to China or India. You can't do that, by definition.

Let's also say yes to this amendment because it would help with deficit and debt reduction. This increased activity would do what? It would produce significant Federal revenue. The Federal revenue or royalty on domestic energy production is the second biggest source of revenue to the Federal Government, second only to the Federal income tax.

Let's say yes. Let's do something about the rising price at the pump, and let's take control of our own destiny. Please support amendment No. 1535. As I said, I urge all of our colleagues to support this important amendment--Democrats and Republicans. It will be the first amendment vote we take this afternoon.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I certainly join with my two colleagues and others in strong, passionate support of the RESTORE Act amendment. As has been mentioned, that will be an upcoming vote, the fifth vote in line once we start voting very shortly. This approach of dedicating any percent of the Clean Water Act fines just from the BP disaster to gulf coast restoration is widely supported on a bipartisan basis. The Obama administration strongly supports it, outside groups who have looked at the devastation in the gulf strongly support it all across the spectrum. This has been a concept that has been building for months, and there is strong and widespread support for this 80-percent dedication. That is reflected in the fact that the RESTORE amendment is a bipartisan push, a bipartisan bill, and now a bipartisan floor amendment. As Mary Landrieu and Senator

Boxer mentioned, it had almost unanimous support coming out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The cosponsors are fully bipartisan, so I urge all Members to join together in this effort.

This is completely deficit neutral. We have an offset built into the bill such that this bill does not increase the deficit in any way, shape, or form. Let me point out, the money we are using, as has been said, would not exist but for the BP disaster. There are fines paid by BP and others, so that money did not exist before the disaster, and yet we still offset that full amount with an offset. In essence, we are lowering the deficit compared to what it would have been but for the disaster and before that revenue created only by the disaster.

In addition, built into the bill in this latest version is significant funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund which has significant bipartisan support in the Senate. Again, all of that is fully offset so we are not increasing the deficit in any way, shape, or form. This is an offset that has been approved and used before, again, on a bipartisan basis. One of those previous votes using this same offset passed 98 to 0.

I urge all Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and please do the gulf coast right and do the Nation right in terms of this vitally important effort.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I urge support of this amendment. It is bipartisan.

This concept is supported by multiple outside groups, as well as the administration, and it is fully offset. It does not increase the deficit.