Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Department of Energy Administrative Improvement Act of 2011. The bill makes several improvements to the way the Department of Energy, DOE, conducts its business and in doing so is designed to give taxpayers a better return on their investments in DOE programs. Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is a cosponsor of this bill. These provisions were taken from the energy bill, S. 1462, reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress. The provisions in this bill were adopted unanimously in the last Congress by members of the Committee as part of our work on S. 1462. Let me briefly highlight the sections of this bill.

Section 3 was taken from the recommendations of a 2009 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, which reviewed the business practices of the Department. Similar to the Department of Defense, it requires DOE to submit a 5-year budget profile for its programs with the DOE's annual budget submission to Congress. A 5-year estimate will encourage the Department to think about long-term budget implications of programs rather than on a year-to-year basis.

Section 4 replaces a provision enacted into law in the section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 7256(g), relating to Other Transactions Authority. Section 1007 was based on

the similar authority applying to the Department of Defense. Section 4 is a fresh re-write of the authority so it is organic within the Department of Energy Organization Act and not the Department of Defense's authorities. The language is largely the same in content as that in section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The DOE went through an extensive comment period in developing rules for the use of this authority after it was enacted into law in 2005 to ensure transparency in its development and use. This section still contains reporting requirements to Congress on the use of this authority to ensure effective oversight. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-- Energy has used this authority to initiate projects with energy companies that were not traditional government contractors and I believe this is a sound addition to the contracting authorities available to the Department.

Section 5 permits the DOE to designate and protect proprietary data for a period of 5 years for transactions entered into by the Department. Section 3001 of Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 13541, contained various provisions to protect results from industry partnerships with the Department of Energy. The 1992 data protection provision was carried forward implicitly in section 1005 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 16395. This section gives the Secretary of Energy explicit authority to protect proprietary data in order to promote commercialization of new technology arising from the public- private partnerships in such areas as energy storage, smart grid and advanced nuclear technologies.

Section 6 gives the Department direct hire authority for a period of two years consistent with merit principles and public notice. Similar authority, known as excepted personnel authority, originally was available to the DOE's predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission. That authority transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, but not the DOE. Interestingly, the NRC with its large scientific and engineering workforce has been rated as one of the best places to work in the federal government. While flexible personnel authorities are not singularly determinative of agency performance, I believe this pilot program will be an important tool for the Department to attract the best and brightest engineers, scientists and specialized technical personnel to work on its wide array of missions.

Section 7 gives the DOE critical pay authority to hire up to 40 highly skilled individuals for key or critical mission positions at the Department, for a period of up to 4 years. This will enable DOE to attract highly qualified individuals from industry and academia for positions within the Department typical of its complicated science and engineering missions.

Section 8 gives the DOE the authority to rehire retired DOE employees for mission-critical positions without impacting their retirement annuity. Many Department employees served in excess of 20 or 30 years in programmatic positions managing large, technically complicated projects. This authority will enable continuity of knowledge transfer as newer employees are hired.

Section 9 updates the list of DOE National Laboratories in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 15801(3) to reflect the name change of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to ``SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory''.

The Department of Energy has one of the most technical and complicated missions in the Federal Government, which includes managing our Nation's nuclear stockpile, basic and applied energy research, environmental cleanup of former cold war nuclear weapons production sites, and finally the management of large contracts spanning decades. I hope that these provisions will be helpful to the Department to efficiently conduct its missions.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information 531 of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider S. 1067, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Abby Campbell.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on critical minerals and materials legislation, including S. 383, S. 421, and S. 1113.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by email to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 512, the Nuclear Power 2021 Act, and S. 937, the American Alternative Fuels Act of 2011.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC/ 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Abby Campbell.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 9, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on bills to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles as described in S. 963, S. 1000, and S. 1001.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360 or Mike Carr at (202) 224-8164 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224- 1219.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Other Extremist Groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Stimulus Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes: What Happened?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Air Traffic Control Safety Oversight.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 24, 2011, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Responding to the Prescription Drug Epidemic: Strategies for Reducing Abuse, Misuse, Diversion, and Fraud.''

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, May 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. If needed, the business meeting may reconvene Thursday afternoon.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending energy legislation.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to consideration of S. 940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loophole Act. I have not decided how I would vote on final passage of the act in its current form. In fact, earlier this year, I voted against an amendment offered by Senator Levin that contained many similar proposals, primarily because there were provisions in that amendment that I felt did not receive the full attention they deserved. Yet because I believe that the full Senate ought to debate the merits of existing tax preferences for our Nation's oil and gas industry, I will vote in favor of this motion to proceed. Additionally, beyond the Tax Code changes, I strongly support the act's provision repealing the Outer Continental Shelf deep water and deep gas royalty relief, and this repeal should also be debated by the full Senate.

The act's underlying provisions closely follow provisions that the President has proposed in the three budget recommendations he has so far presented to the Congress--except that this bill would apply only to the so-called Big Five producers. As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and as chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and Infrastructure, I have had the opportunity to study and receive testimony on the act's underlying provisions, and I believe there is merit in at least some of these provisions. To reach that conclusion, I have looked at the provisions through three lenses. First, will they increase gasoline prices at the pump? Second, will they increase dependence on imported oil? And third, will they cause job losses in local communities?

With respect to the provisions at issue, I believe there are strong cases to be made that the answer to all three questions is no. In particular, I highlight the testimony of Dr. Stephen Brown, a nonresident fellow at Resources for the Future--who previously was chief energy economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas--at a hearing I convened in my Finance Subcommittee on September 10, 2009. Dr. Brown testified that removing these provisions from the Tax Code ``will have very small effects on U.S. oil and natural gas markets-- primarily because the increased tax revenue amounts to less than one percent of the total revenue the industry is projected to earn on its domestic production.'' In particular, his testimony noted that ``eliminating the tax preferences would boost the world oil price by an average of about 6 cents per barrel,'' that ``oil imports would rise by an estimated 0.1 percent of U.S. oil consumption,'' and finally that such changes are ``unlikely to have a significant effect on overall U.S. employment.''

But while there is a strong case that the answer to all three questions is no, I nevertheless have serious reservations about any tax policy change that focuses exclusively on one industry. Rather, we should consider the tax treatment accorded to all taxpayers engaged in extracting domestic natural resources and, in the case of the section 199 domestic production deduction, all U.S. businesses.

I am also troubled that this bill singles out only five firms, merely because of their large size and integrated nature. To be sure, I do believe we must be most sensitive to the smallest producers--the Mom and Pop businesses that are common in many rural oil and gas producing communities, including ones in New Mexico's southwest and northeastern corners. But what about large producers who are not integrated?

Historically, the Tax Code drew no distinction between independent and integrated producers. But over time, Congress has scaled back or eliminated incentives by distinguishing between independent and integrated firms, and, within the latter category, between major integrated and nonmajor integrated firms. This act would widen the disparate treatment. Yet it is a false distinction to claim that all independent producers are small. For instance, 10 independent firms that had revenues exceeding $7 billion in 2009, with the largest among them having revenues above $15 billion. Given the vast size and revenues of some ``independent'' producers, it is not clear that the appropriate dividing line should be found merely at the fact that a firm's revenues derive solely from production at the wellhead. Rather, I find it is difficult to justify excepting a firm under the rubric of being a ``small business'' when its revenues are high enough to qualify as a Fortune 500 company. And so if we proceed to debate this bill, I feel strongly that we should consider alternative means of distinguishing firms. For instance, we might do so based on revenue or thresholds based on average daily worldwide production above a determined level.

I have long been deeply concerned about our Nation's gaping budget deficit. We should have a serious debate about which tax expenditures across the board we can continue to afford. But the fact that gasoline prices are high or that five companies have large profits is not the ideal basis for considering fundamental changes in tax policy.

While I would strongly prefer to have this debate in the context of either a broader national energy policy or a broader effort at deficit reduction, and

while I would prefer a measure that does not single out a small handful of companies, I will vote for the motion to proceed to consideration of the act. It is time to have a complete and serious debate over the merits of the provisions at issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2011. This bill is

similar to ones that Senator Crapo and I introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses. I am grateful for Senator Crapo's continued leadership on this issue, as well as the cosponsorship of our Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, and Grassley.

Municipal bonds have long played an essential role in financing the construction, expansion, and repair of schools; highways, roads, and bridges; affordable housing; hospitals; public transit; water and sewage systems; and community-owned utilities. Since the enactment of the Federal income tax in 1913, Congress has supported the municipal bond market by exempting municipal bond interest from taxation. Tax exemption confers Federal assistance on State and local capital investments; it also recognizes that decisions about which projects to fund are most appropriately made at the State or local level.

Historically, banks were significant purchasers of tax-exempt debt. But the Tax Reform Act of 1986 severely curtailed banks' participation by automatically disallowing deductions for interest expense whenever municipal bonds are purchased. The 1986 Act left an exception only for bonds purchased from smaller municipalities, those selling no more than $10 million of bonds each year. But because the $10 million level was not indexed to inflation, its purchasing power has eroded significantly since 1986, leaving many smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities either to defer projects to comply with this low limit or find non-bank purchasers.

I was very pleased that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act incorporated a bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2009, raising the $10 million small issuer exception to $30 million. Additionally, the Recovery Act included a provision ensuring that the small issuer is made applicable at the ultimate borrower level, so that bonds benefiting non-profit universities and hospitals will not exceed the limitation merely because they issue bonds through statewide authorities.

Taken together, those steps significantly enhanced demand for debt issued by small municipal governments, enabling municipalities across the Nation, and particularly those in small and rural communities, to finance the critical infrastructure projects that play an important role in growing our national economy.

In 2009, the dollar amount of bank qualified issuances reached $32.7 billion, double the prior year's level, with more than 6,000 issuances. Beneficiaries included a broad range of counties, cities, and school districts in all corners of my home state of New Mexico. For instance, the proceeds of a $17 million bond issued by Santa Fe County financed roads, trails and parks for open space, a fire facility, a solid waste transfer station, water rights acquisition and water projects. The City of Artesia completed two bank-qualified transactions, to finance building a public safety complex and a new waste water treatment facility. The Bloomfield School District placed $19 million in bank- qualified debt to finance capital expenditures. Similarly, in 2010, issuances climbed even further, to $36.8 billion, with more than 6,700 issuances representing a similarly diverse array of counties, cities, school districts, infrastructure districts, and hospitals across my home state of New Mexico and the country.

The ARRA-enacted provisions helped small communities across New Mexico and the country finance critical infrastructure needs and create jobs. The higher bank-qualified limit is a great success and deserves to be made permanent. The bill that Senators Crapo, Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, Grassley, and I are introducing today would do just that, ensuring that smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities can finance their capital needs, particularly in periods of tight credit, and save taxpayer dollars.

At least 14 national organizations representing issuers of tax-exempt bonds are supporting the Act. These include the American Hospital Association; American Public Power Association; Council of Development Finance Authorities; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; National Association of College and University Business Officers; National Association of Counties; National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; National League of Cities; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I urge my colleagues to join these organizations in supporting our bill, to ensure that small municipalities across the country are able to finance critical infrastructure projects at reduced costs to their residents.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2011. This bill is

similar to ones that Senator Crapo and I introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses. I am grateful for Senator Crapo's continued leadership on this issue, as well as the cosponsorship of our Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, and Grassley.

Municipal bonds have long played an essential role in financing the construction, expansion, and repair of schools; highways, roads, and bridges; affordable housing; hospitals; public transit; water and sewage systems; and community-owned utilities. Since the enactment of the Federal income tax in 1913, Congress has supported the municipal bond market by exempting municipal bond interest from taxation. Tax exemption confers Federal assistance on State and local capital investments; it also recognizes that decisions about which projects to fund are most appropriately made at the State or local level.

Historically, banks were significant purchasers of tax-exempt debt. But the Tax Reform Act of 1986 severely curtailed banks' participation by automatically disallowing deductions for interest expense whenever municipal bonds are purchased. The 1986 Act left an exception only for bonds purchased from smaller municipalities, those selling no more than $10 million of bonds each year. But because the $10 million level was not indexed to inflation, its purchasing power has eroded significantly since 1986, leaving many smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities either to defer projects to comply with this low limit or find non-bank purchasers.

I was very pleased that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act incorporated a bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2009, raising the $10 million small issuer exception to $30 million. Additionally, the Recovery Act included a provision ensuring that the small issuer is made applicable at the ultimate borrower level, so that bonds benefiting non-profit universities and hospitals will not exceed the limitation merely because they issue bonds through statewide authorities.

Taken together, those steps significantly enhanced demand for debt issued by small municipal governments, enabling municipalities across the Nation, and particularly those in small and rural communities, to finance the critical infrastructure projects that play an important role in growing our national economy.

In 2009, the dollar amount of bank qualified issuances reached $32.7 billion, double the prior year's level, with more than 6,000 issuances. Beneficiaries included a broad range of counties, cities, and school districts in all corners of my home state of New Mexico. For instance, the proceeds of a $17 million bond issued by Santa Fe County financed roads, trails and parks for open space, a fire facility, a solid waste transfer station, water rights acquisition and water projects. The City of Artesia completed two bank-qualified transactions, to finance building a public safety complex and a new waste water treatment facility. The Bloomfield School District placed $19 million in bank- qualified debt to finance capital expenditures. Similarly, in 2010, issuances climbed even further, to $36.8 billion, with more than 6,700 issuances representing a similarly diverse array of counties, cities, school districts, infrastructure districts, and hospitals across my home state of New Mexico and the country.

The ARRA-enacted provisions helped small communities across New Mexico and the country finance critical infrastructure needs and create jobs. The higher bank-qualified limit is a great success and deserves to be made permanent. The bill that Senators Crapo, Kerry, Snowe, Cardin, Grassley, and I are introducing today would do just that, ensuring that smaller governments and non-profit educational and health care facilities can finance their capital needs, particularly in periods of tight credit, and save taxpayer dollars.

At least 14 national organizations representing issuers of tax-exempt bonds are supporting the Act. These include the American Hospital Association; American Public Power Association; Council of Development Finance Authorities; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; National Association of College and University Business Officers; National Association of Counties; National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; National League of Cities; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I urge my colleagues to join these organizations in supporting our bill, to ensure that small municipalities across the country are able to finance critical infrastructure projects at reduced costs to their residents.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Subcommittee will also consider S. 268, a bill to sustain the economic development and recreational use of National Forest System land and other public land in the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National Wilderness Preservation System, to release certain wilderness study areas, to designate new areas for recreation, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing will be to hear testimony on the following bills related to oil and gas development:

S. 516. A bill to extend outer Continental Shelf leases to accommodate permitting delays and to provide operators time to meet new drilling and safety requirements.

S. 843. A bill to establish outer Continental Shelf lease and permit processing coordination offices, and for other purposes.

S. 916. A bill to facilitate appropriate oil and gas development on Federal land and waters, to limit dependence of the United States on foreign sources of oil and gas, and for other purposes.

S. 917. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to reform the management of energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan_Gins@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Linda Lance or Meagan Gins.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on policies to reduce oil consumption through the promotion of advanced vehicle technologies and accelerated deployment of electric-drive vehicles, as proposed in S. 734 and S. 948.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Mike Carr or Abigail Campbell.

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 for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced two bills on a subject of great importance--two different subjects--related to our national energy policy. The two bills were the Oil and Gas Facilitation Act of 2011. The second was the Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2011.

Both of these bills are based on bipartisan, largely consensus work, that was done in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the last Congress. I should note that these important issues are being addressed in separate bills very consciously and for a reason. In the past we have crafted comprehensive energy bills that attempted to address all of the energy policy issues of the day in a single piece of legislation. There are obvious advantages to that. But there are well- documented disadvantages as well. I wish to avoid those disadvantages this year in furtherance of completing our important work.

There is no disagreement in the Senate about the need to have robust and responsible domestic production of oil and gas. At the same time, there is probably considerable disagreement about how best to address that issue. We need to begin work on that. However, ensuring the safety and viability of our operations on the Outer Continental Shelf is a separate matter which deserves attention on its own. The question of how we undertake oil and gas exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf appropriately, in my view, stands apart from the question of where we undertake those activities.

I do not believe it would make sense to try to trade off safety or environmental protections against the issue of access, for example. I believe the Congress should set an appropriate level of safety and environmental compliance, regardless of where the oil and gas exploration and production is occurring.

I will also observe that there was much greater consensus on the need to reform the rules governing Outer Continental Shelf production in the last Congress than on other issues such as those related to access to particular areas. So conflating these separate issues in the one bill is not likely to be the best path to success in enacting a bill into public law. Accordingly, we have introduced two bills.

That is not to say we don't have a responsibility to address both issues. We do. I believe they should be addressed on parallel tracks and not in combination. I hope to be able to move forward in the committee with consideration of both of these bills later this month.

The first of the bills, the Oil and Gas Facilitation Act, is intended to enhance sufficient and appropriate domestic production of oil and gas and to limit the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of oil.

The last 2 years have been a time of real success in increasing our domestic production of both oil and gas and in reducing our reliance on imported oil. We are currently the third largest producer of oil in the world. The percentage of the oil we use that is imported has declined from 60 percent in 2008 to about 51.5 percent in 2009 and to about 49 percent in 2010. We want to be sure we continue this progress while protecting our other natural resources and our communities' health and safety.

This bill, the Oil and Gas Facilitation Act, addresses production issues in

a variety of ways. It requires a comprehensive inventory of the oil and natural gas under the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf to inform decisions about where leasing is likely to be most productive. To improve the efficiency of the permitting process for development on Federal lands and waters, permit coordination offices are reauthorized, and a new coordination office is established for the Alaska region of the Outer Continental Shelf.

Two provisions facilitate the transportation of Alaska's abundant oil and gas resources. The amount of Federal guarantee instruments is increased to support the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline and the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline system is exempted from certain requirements that unnecessarily slow the permitting process.

Coproduction of geothermal energy by existing oil and gas leaseholders is encouraged by making leases available for that purpose on a noncompetitive basis.

Finally, the bill will potentially contribute millions to the Federal Treasury by repealing the current law that requires the Secretary of the Interior to give relief from royalty payments to certain offshore oil and gas production. This bill would allow the Secretary to provide such relief in appropriate circumstances, but it would not require such relief. This avoids inappropriate giveaways of taxpayer-owned oil and gas resources to industry when it is unnecessary for us to maintain robust domestic production.

These provisions are drawn almost verbatim from S. 1462 which was reported by our committee on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress. The one significant change is that certain funding for the offshore oil and gas inventory provided by S. 1462 is redirected by the committee in subsequent legislation to be used for research on safety issues related to offshore oil and gas drilling. To avoid spending the same money twice, we have eliminated that funding here so it could be included in offshore safety legislation. At the same time, the bill retains the authorization of significant appropriations to be used for this oil and gas inventory.

The Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act is the other bill I am introducing. It is a verbatim reproduction of S. 3516 which was reported unanimously by our Energy Committee in the last Congress. Because of the widespread support for this bill, I have reintroduced it exactly as reported, since I believe it is a good place to begin our work this year. It will need a bit of updating as we move forward. A few of the provisions have largely been overtaken by events and we have learned from the President's Oil Spill Commission and others about some refinements we should make in this legislation.

I have been having discussions with Senator Murkowski and others who supported last year's bill and I will continue those discussions as we move forward. I hope we will have the same strong bipartisan support for these efforts as we did last year when we reported this bill during the midst of the worst oilspill in our Nation's history. Our commitment to responsible operations in the gulf and protection of our citizens and communities should be well understood by all.

This bill is intended to respect those who lost their lives in the Deepwater Horizon accident and respect the people of the gulf who have suffered serious economic and emotional harm by doing what we can to create a better future for them. It is the particular responsibility of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to look at the future of the regulatory agency and the industry it regulates. As I said last year when we introduced this bill, our goal must be, of course, to prevent future disasters, but we can and must do more than that. Congress should create organizational resources and a set of requirements that will have safety and environmental protection and innovation at their core. We should require that both industry and agency employees have the expertise, the experience, and the commitment to quality that is necessary to handle the complex issues involved, and we should set principles in place to create a culture of excellence for the regulatory agency and for the industry that will be a model for the entire world.

Thus, this bill reforms the structure of the offices of the Department of the Interior dealing with offshore oil and gas leasing and development to avoid organizational conflicts of interest. It clarifies the breadth of the Department's responsibilities in managing the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf.

It increases the safety requirements for exploration and well drilling and production. It mandates use of best available technology, an evidentiary safety case, and a risk management system that identifies and addresses hazards in advance and manages for change. It provides for third-party review by qualified parties outside the agency of key equipment and well design.

It addresses the essential need for the Department of the Interior to have in-house research capacity on both the safety and the marine environment issues necessary for the exercise of its regulatory authority. Research departments in these areas will no longer be optional, but are required, and funding is redirected from other areas of research to ensure this will happen.

In order to ensure that the rules are enforced, the bill requires the collection of fees from industry to fully fund the necessary teams of inspectors. It provides for independent investigations of accidents and the sharing of data so that all can learn from mistakes. It also provides the Department of the Interior with adequate time to carry out necessary reviews and it makes the input of other Federal agencies occur in a transparent way. And it increases the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the law and regulations.

I believe these policies and resources can set us on a new and constructive path toward managing the incredible natural resources we have on the Outer Continental Shelf. We must commit ourselves to the goal of excellence in this important endeavor. The fact that oil is no longer gushing into the Gulf of Mexico in no way diminishes the importance of this work.

Both of these bills address issues of great national importance. We will shortly be scheduling the necessary hearings and preparing these bills for committee consideration. If at all possible, we will do so before the Memorial Day recess. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and in the rest of the Senate on a bipartisan basis as we have in the past to address the vital issues presented by both of these bills.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Thursday, May 12, 2011, will now begin at 9 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on carbon capture and sequestration legislation, including S. 699 and S. 757.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail Campbell@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing will be to hear testimony on seven items:

S. 201, a bill to clarify the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir, and for other purposes.

S. 333, a bill to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project involving the Little Wood River Ranch.

S. 334, a bill to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project involving the American Falls Reservoir.

S. 419, the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System Act of 2011.

S. 499, the Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act.

S. 519, the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011.

S. 808, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan_Gins@energy .senate.gov

For further information, please contact Tanya Trujillo or Meagan Gins.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Oil and Gas Facilitation Act of 2011. This is a bill to facilitate appropriate oil and gas development on Federal land and waters, and to limit the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy.

For example, its provisions will increase our understanding of our oil and gas resources, coordinate interagency activity on permitting for oil and gas development, and facilitate transportation of Alaskan oil and natural gas.

Its provisions are drawn from a bill reported out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we move forward on these issues in this Congress.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2011. This is a bill intended to reform the management of energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, and to create a culture of excellence for the industry and the regulatory agency going forward.

Following the tragic Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident last year, we have learned a lot about changes that need to be made by the industry and the regulatory agency to ensure that accidents like this never happen again. In addition, we should do more, and create a system for the management of offshore energy development that is a model for the world.

This bill is intended to put in place the changes that can achieve these goals. It is identical to a bill reported unanimously by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the last Congress. In the intervening time since the committee's action, there have been developments and new information that may indicate the need to update or change some parts of the bill. But, as we begin to work on this issue again in the committee, I believe that it is sensible to start with last year's bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address these important issues.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Oil and Gas Facilitation Act of 2011. This is a bill to facilitate appropriate oil and gas development on Federal land and waters, and to limit the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy.

For example, its provisions will increase our understanding of our oil and gas resources, coordinate interagency activity on permitting for oil and gas development, and facilitate transportation of Alaskan oil and natural gas.

Its provisions are drawn from a bill reported out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we move forward on these issues in this Congress.

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