Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise once again to urge my colleagues to come together and address this debt ceiling to reduce our deficit and debt. We are at the 12th hour, and it is vitally important to the American people we move forward. I believe there is opportunity to do that. I think it is important we move forward in a way that makes sure we address the root of the problem. The problem is, we have a deficit and a debt that is out of control. As we work together to reach agreement on this very important debt ceiling issue, we need to be mindful that we have taken a big step forward in reducing the deficit and debt that our country faces.

Let's start by taking just a minute to look at the numbers. Today this country has total revenues coming into the Federal Government at about $2.2 trillion. At the same time, we have expenses of $3.7 trillion, leaving an annual deficit of more than $1.5 trillion. Our debt is now in the range of $14.5 trillion. It is hard to even imagine what $1 trillion is, let alone $14.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and our debt is growing $4 billion a day--$4 billion a day. The unemployment is 9.2 percent, and the latest GDP growth came out for the second quarter for this year. It was an anemic 1.3 percent.

We need to get our economy growing. We need to get people back to work. We need to get people working, and at the same time we have to control our spending. It is time to act.

We are faced with two different pieces of legislation at this point. One is the Boehner plan, or the Budget Control Act of 2011, that the House will be voting on very soon, I believe. Also, there is another plan, the Reid plan, in the Senate. Although they have some similarities, as configured now they are different plans and different approaches.

One, very importantly, gets us on the road to recovery. The other one doesn't. Let's take just a minute to talk about each of those respective plans to make sure we understand them. As they vote on them in the House, and as we face those important votes this evening or tomorrow or, hopefully, very soon, we can understand the differences between these approaches so we can find a way to come together on an approach that we can pass in this Chamber and also in the House, and, of course, that truly moves our country forward.

Under the Boehner proposal there is $917 billion in savings that must be provided in order to raise the debt ceiling, and that allows the first tranche of increase in the debt ceiling in the amount of $900 billion. Those savings have to be identified first--in fact, more than the amount of the debt ceiling increase.

Then the second tranche to increase the debt ceiling beyond that $900 billion, an additional $1.8 trillion in savings, has to be identified and provided--$1.8 trillion in savings. That is $2.7 trillion in savings to get this country back on the road to financial health in order to raise the debt ceiling. That is fundamentally important because that is the fundamental issue. It doesn't fully solve the problem, but it gets us on the right path, and we have to get going on the right path.

The second tranche of savings is done by a committee of six Members of the Senate--three Democrat, three Republican--and six Members of the House--three Republican, three Democrat--in a bipartisan committee. I think that committee offers us real opportunity. Here is why: The committee has to come up with recommendations for real savings by November. It is bipartisan, and it is a straight up-or-down vote in the House or the Senate to put those savings in place, and those savings must be identified before we raise the debt ceiling further. So it is something we have to do.

Let's think about that committee for a minute. That is a committee that can bring in the ideas of the Gang of 6. That is the committee that can bring in the Simpson-Bowles concept. That is a committee that can bring in tax reform. That is a committee that can bring in entitlement reform. These are the things we are going to need to address to get this economy going and get control of our spending. I know we have put together many pieces of legislation that have been bipartisan and have been very important for this country, and I think this committee truly offers us that opportunity. I hope it is something we in the Senate can find a way to come together on and that we can get our colleagues in the House to join us.

In my view, I do think we need to engage in tax reform. I think the right kind of progrowth tax reform--some of the concepts brought forth by the Gang of 6--can truly help us to stimulate

economic activity. I think the real way to get revenue for this country is through economic growth--not higher taxes, through economic growth. Expand the pie, the rising tide that lifts all boats.

If we can engage in tax reform to stimulate economic growth, we reduce that unemployment rate by more than 9 percent. That is good for every American, but it is also the way we create revenue to get us out of this deficit and debt at the same time that we control spending.

I absolutely believe it can work, and I think that we need to convince our Members we need to come together and make it happen.

The Boehner proposal also includes a balanced budget amendment, and I know that has been an issue of great debate in this Senate. I believe we need a balanced budget amendment. I have said it many times before. I come from a background in my State, as a Governor, where we balanced our budget every year. There are 49 States that either have a constitutional or statutory priority to balance their budget. We need that fiscal discipline in Washington, DC. I think we need it to make sure we don't get ourselves into this situation in the future years for ourselves or for these young people we see here today with us.

When we compare the approach of the Boehner plan, it is different from the Reid plan. It is important that we understand that. The Reid plan does provide that we identify $900 billion in savings, but that provides that once we have identified that $900 billion in savings, we raise the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion, unlike the Boehner proposal where we are finding significantly more savings than we are increasing the debt ceiling. This is just the opposite. We are increasing the debt ceiling $2.7 trillion but only requiring $900 billion in savings. That doesn't get at the root of the problem. That continues the underlying problem of too much spending and too much debt. Like the Boehner proposal, the Reid proposal does provide for a committee. That is important. That is good. Unlike the Boehner proposal, it doesn't require that committee bring back the savings and that we put those savings in place before the debt ceiling is increased. It doesn't have the teeth we need to make sure we get this job done for the American people, and that is a problem. They are different approaches, and it doesn't include a balanced budget amendment.

There has been talk that we must work together to find a way to bridge the gap and the differences, and I think that is true. We have to find ways to come together. Time is growing short. We need to get it done now. I think it is the approach identified in the Boehner plan that we need to take. We need to get our colleagues in this Chamber to join with us to do it. It is the only piece of legislation that can pass the House, but, more importantly, it is a big step forward. It is a big step in the right direction for our country.

I thank the Chair.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak to the need to come to an agreement. We need to come to an agreement on how we handle the debt ceiling. We need to come to agreement on addressing our Nation's deficit and debt.

Let us review where we are right now. If you look at our fiscal situation, right now the Federal Government takes in revenues on an annual basis of $2.2 trillion--$2.2 trillion--a year, but at the same time we are spending $3.7 trillion. That is a shortfall, or a deficit, of more than $1.5 trillion a year.

I look at these young people here in this Chamber--these great pages from all over the country--and I think about what that means not only for us today--for our economy, for our standing in the world, for the security of our country--but I think about what it means for future generations. What is it we leave them? Do we leave them a country that was founded on the concept of freedom and liberty, that people could pursue life on their own terms, raise their families the way they wanted to raise their families, live the way they wanted to live, do the work they wanted to do, have an opportunity to start a business, to build a life, and be successful and pass something of value on to their children?

I think that is what we all want. That is the Nation we have--the Nation we have had for over 200 years. That is the Nation we want to pass on to these great young people.

So we have had tremendous debate for an extended period of time--for a long time. Many good ideas have been brought forth by both sides of the aisle, by Republicans and by Democrats, on how we should address this debt ceiling agreement, how we should address the deficit and the debt. Nobody has the corner on good ideas. There have been many good ideas brought forward, but now is the time we have to realize we have to come to agreement. The American people want us to come to an agreement.

Today the House is considering the Budget Control Act of 2011, referred to as the Boehner proposal, and they are over there working on it right now. As with any agreement, somebody can certainly find something to criticize. That is always true. No agreement is perfect. But it does represent many of the ideas that both sides have brought forward as a way to come to agreement on this debt ceiling and, more importantly, as a way to start to get our fiscal house back in order. Let's talk about it for just a minute.

Under the proposal, first there would be a reduction in spending, a savings of more than $900 billion, and that would also provide for a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling to get us past this immediate issue. Then, at the same time, it appoints a committee--not a commission but a committee--of Senators and Representatives, 12 members--6 Senators, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat; 6 House Members, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat--who are required to find at least another $1.8 trillion in savings. Those savings have to be found before there is another increase in the debt ceiling.

That is the right way to do things. That is getting the horse in front of the cart, not the reverse. So they have to find those savings in a bipartisan way, and they have to bring those concepts back to the House and to the Senate, and the House and the Senate will have a straight up-or-down vote--the elected representatives of the people doing their job for the people in an open and transparent way.

Think about this committee for a minute. Again, there are 12 members: 6 Republicans, 6 Democrats; 6 Senators, 6 Members of the House. They can bring forward all of these great ideas that have been debated in recent months. They can bring forward ideas from the Simpson-Bowles Commission that have gained support. They can bring forward ideas from the Gang of 6 that people believe are meritorious. They can bring forward ideas for savings. They can bring ideas forward for reform. They can bring ideas forward for tax reform that don't raise taxes but actually eliminate loopholes, reduce rates, create a progrowth environment, and the revenues come from a growing economy, not from higher taxes. They can come forward with all of these ideas and more.

But the important point is they must come forward by November with $1.8 trillion in savings to help get us back on the right path, the right path to good fiscal management. The debt ceiling is not increased in that second step until they do. That is making sure we fulfill our responsibility and do things in the right order.

Then this bill also provides that we have a vote on a balanced budget amendment, and that vote on the balanced budget amendment must be sometime between October 1 and the end of the year. Myself and others have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, and I strongly believe that is what we need.

I understand there are differences of opinion, but when we look at the situation we recognize we need that fiscal discipline in Washington, DC. If we just think about it for a minute, a balanced budget amendment, how does it work? Well, it works in a way that gets everybody involved, not just in Washington, DC, but throughout this great Nation--because what are we doing? By passing a balanced budget amendment in the Congress, which we have to do with two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House, what we are doing is starting that balanced budget amendment on its way traveling throughout this country and saying to the people of this good country: What do you want to do?

Why not ask the people? That is how our democracy works. Why not ask them: Do you want to make sure we have a balanced budget that requires Congress to see that, year in and year out, we are living within our means?

Forty-nine States have either a constitutional or statutory requirement to balance their budget to live within their means. Cities do, counties, families, businesses. Since three-fourths of the States would have to ratify that balanced budget amendment as well, we say to them: Look, we think we need a balanced budget, and we are going to make sure you have an opportunity to say what you think. I believe that is exactly what we should do.

I bring experience as a Governor. I served as a Governor for 10 years, and we were required to balance our budget every single year. We went to the people and we talked to them.

We said: Here is the plan. We don't have the dollars right now to fund all the things you want. This was back in 2000-2002 when we actually had to reduce our budget, make reductions across the board. We said: But do you know what we are going to do? We are going to make sure we live within our means and we create a progrowth environment, legal taxes and regulatory certainty that will enable business expansion, business growth, entrepreneurship, private investment, and get this economy growing, get jobs, get economic growth. Then with that growth we will make sure each year we fund our priorities; that we set some aside, some reserve aside for a rainy day, and that we do our best to continue to reduce the tax burden on our hard-working citizens. It doesn't happen in a week, it doesn't happen in a month, a year, or 2 years. It takes time to build to the position that you want. But we can do it. We have done it before.

If we look at the late 1980s, coming out of the stagflation of the 1970s and the early 1980s, in the late 1980s we had stagflation-- meaning high inflation, meaning high unemployment, an economy that was moribund, people weren't working, a growing deficit. But by creating a progrowth environment and good fiscal management from the late 1980s over into the decade of the 1990s, we not only put people back to work, we eliminated that deficit and we built a surplus. We can do it again. It is all about the right approach.

So here we are today. Today we need to take that first step, and I come back to where I started. It may not be the plan exactly the way everybody wants it, but it is a plan that we can approve, and it brings together concepts that people on both sides of the aisle have brought forward. So now we need to come together and do our work for the American people. We need to come together and pass this agreement.

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

Mr. President, today I honor the life and exemplary service of North Dakota's late Senate majority leader Bob Stenehjem. Bob died last week in a car accident in Alaska on his way back from doing one of the things he loved best when not working: fishing in the great outdoors.

During the 10 years he served as majority leader of the North Dakota Senate and the nearly 20 years he served as a State senator, I counted Bob as a friend, a colleague, and a partner in the important work we were doing to build a stronger, more dynamic North Dakota.

It has been said many times by many people that Bob had the ability to see all sides of an issue and appreciate everyone's interest. That is an invaluable quality for a leader and essential to a good legislator. He worked well with others and considered among his dearest friends many on the opposite side of the aisle who held a different philosophical viewpoint. Bob could disagree without being disagreeable and always respected the opinions of others. It was that ability that helped him to forge good legislation for the people of North Dakota.

As a public servant, as a citizen, Bob's deep love of North Dakota informed every decision he made in the legislature, and his legacy today is a more vibrant and secure State than it was when he was first elected to represent District 30 in 1993. His remarkable service and devotion to North Dakota benefited our State and our people in countless ways over the years, helping to bridge differences and improve the quality of life for all North Dakotans.

Mikey and I extend our deepest sympathy to his wife Kathy and the entire Stenehjem family on this tragic loss. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and we pray that they will take comfort in knowing that he served his State and his fellow North Dakotans well.

I thank Senator Johanns. It is an honor to be here with him, and also with the good Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander. It is great to be here with them as well as Senator Risch from Idaho. We have a common shared experience as Governors. It is wonderful to draw on that.

I also have to mention that the Presiding Officer in the Senate today, Senator Shaheen, is a former Governor as well. So we have that common, shared experience, actually, here today on both sides of the aisle. It is an honor and it is a pleasure to be here with you and talk about this matter that is so very important, particularly as we face the need to do something on the debt ceiling. This issue of dealing with a balanced budget is paramount for our entire country and your lead-in is exactly right. We served together as Governors. As a matter of fact, the truth is, I would call the Senator--because he was elected Governor before I was--for advice and ask him about some of the things he was working on in Nebraska. Our States share many things in common; one the Senator mentioned, a low unemployment rate. The unemployment rate in our State is 3.3 percent. Again, I attribute that to the ability of building a probusiness, progrowth, projobs environment that stimulates private investments, stimulates jobs. The Senator mentioned so very accurately that jobs are created by the private sector, not by government. We have to create an environment that stimulates and encourages and helps create a forum for that private investment. That is how we create jobs and get this economy going.

On one side, we have to have a growing economy, which we don't have at the national level right now, and on the other side we have to live within our means. We have to control our spending, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to control its spending just as the States do, just as businesses do, just as families do. We have to not only balance this budget, we have to live within our means on an ongoing basis. We have 49 of the 50 States with either a constitutional or a statutory requirement that they balance their budget every year. Every single Governor with us today had to balance their budget every single year. It was recently reported that 46 States are already on track to make sure their budget is balanced by the end of their fiscal year. The Federal Government needs to do the same thing.

Look at our situation right now. The Federal Government takes in $2.2 trillion in revenues. We take in $2.2 trillion in revenues, but we spend $3.7 trillion. That is a $1.5-plus trillion deficit every year, and that is rolling up to a debt that is now closing in on $14.5 trillion. We have to address this. This is not something we can hand off to future generations. So our message to the administration is, you are making it worse. We have to start living within our means. We cannot keep spending and then borrowing and then raising taxes and expect to have an economy that grows and a government that lives within its means, and that is exactly why we are here today talking about the need for this balanced budget amendment.

If one thinks about it, the balanced budget amendment gets everyone involved both now and for the future because it has to be passed by both Houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority. That has to be done on a bipartisan basis and then it goes out to the States and three- fourths of the States have to ratify it for it to become part of the Constitution. That gets everybody involved in doing exactly what we need to do; that is, getting on top of this deficit and this debt, both now and for future generations.

Again, I wish to thank the good Senator from Nebraska for holding this colloquy and for inviting me to be part of it with my fellow Governors. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my fellow colleagues, to again address the need to reduce our deficit and our debt. The United States is the strongest country in the world--in the history of the world--but that will not be the case for long if we do not solve our deficit and our debt crisis. It is vital we solve it now for our generation, but it is vital we solve it for future generations as well.

The wealth, the economic activity of this country, is created by the private sector, by hard-working men and women, not by the government. The government creates the forum, the environment, if you will, that fosters or allows economic activity. But the key is, the government should not just allow economic activity, the government needs to create an environment that truly empowers, that promotes economic activity, that encourages private investment, that encourages entrepreneurship, business expansion and job growth, innovation--the very entrepreneurial activity that has built this country. That is the success of America, that is the strength of our country, that is how America has become the greatest economic powerhouse in the history of the world. That is why our people enjoy the highest standard of living.

But our current administration believes more government is the answer--more spending, more regulation, and more taxes. It is not the answer. That is the problem, and it is making the situation worse.

Let's go through just some of the economic statistics.

Today, we have 13.9 million--almost 14 million--people unemployed. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent. Gas prices, since the current administration took office, are up to more than $3.50 a gallon. That is almost a 100-percent increase in the cost of gasoline. Our Federal debt is closing in on $14.5 trillion. For every man, woman, and child in this country, that is almost $50,000 for every single person. We have 45 million people on food stamps today. Health insurance. In spite of the health insurance legislation, health insurance premiums are rising, and home values are going down.

Clearly, we need to get our economy going. We need to get people back to work. We need that economic growth and dynamism that has been the hallmark of this country.

Clearly, we need to reduce our deficit and our debt. The reality is, we can do it. We absolutely can do it, and we have done it before. But we need to begin with a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit and the debt. Any agreement to raise the debt ceiling needs to include a comprehensive agreement to reduce the deficit and the debt.

By a comprehensive agreement, I mean something that includes a balanced budget amendment, reduction in spending, and living within our means on an ongoing basis. It means reforming entitlement programs to save them from bankruptcy, not only to protect our seniors today but to make sure those programs are solvent and there for future generations.

All these things and more can go into a comprehensive plan. But we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt as part of the debt ceiling issue we need to deal with now--not put off but deal with now.

If we think about it, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. Forty- nine of the fifty States--49 out of 50 States--have either a constitutional or a statutory requirement that they balance their budget--not just this year but every year. States balance their budgets. Cities balance their budgets. Businesses balance their budgets. Families balance their budgets, live within their means. Our Federal Government needs to do the same. Our Federal Government needs that fiscal responsibility, needs that fiscal discipline.

Also, if we think about it, a balanced budget amendment gets everybody involved. It gets everybody involved in Congress. It takes a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House to pass a balanced budget amendment. Then what happens? It goes out to the States. It goes out to the 50 States, and three-fourths of the States must ratify that balanced budget amendment in order for it to be approved. So we not only have everybody at the Federal level working to live within our means and balance the budget, but we get all the States involved as well.

This is a challenging problem--no question about it--getting on top of these deficits and our long-term debt not only now but for the future as well. So let's have everyone involved. A balanced budget amendment will do just that.

Of course, at the same time, we have to reduce our spending both now and make sure we continue to live within our means going forward. The statistics are very clear. The statistics right now show that this year the Federal Government will take in about $2.2 trillion in revenue.

So our revenue is about $2.2 trillion, but our expenses are $3.7 trillion. That is about a $1.5 trillion deficit. This year, actually, it will be larger than that number. So you can see that is why our Federal debt now is closing in on $14.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend--40 cents of every dollar we spend--and every single day our debt goes up $4 billion. That is simply unsustainable.

That is why any vote to increase the debt ceiling must include a comprehensive plan to reduce our deficit and our debt. No question, we need to control spending, but as we do that, at the same time, in order to truly solve the problem, we have to create, as I said at

the outset, a government environment that not only encourages government investment but empowers private investment across our Nation.

This next chart shows some of the challenges--barriers, if you will-- to doing that. We need legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to encourage private investment. A probusiness, progrowth, projobs environment is one that creates legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to not only encourage but empower private investment.

One of the ways we do this is by reducing the regulatory burden. We have an incredible regulatory burden at the Federal level. We need to find ways to reduce that. That is what this chart shows.

Earlier this year, President Obama issued an Executive order that proposes to review regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and also to modify, streamline, or even repeal them. Just a week ago, he said again:

What I have done--and this is unprecedented--is I have said

to each agency, look at the regulations that are already on

the books, and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of

them.

That is what he said. I absolutely agree with that. Yet, over the past 2 years, the administration has issued 502 proposed or enacted regulations and is on pace this year to exceed $100 billion in total regulatory cost burdens to industry. That is a huge regulatory burden.

This chart shows the cost of major new regulations in billions of dollars over the last 30 years. As you can see, when the cost of regulation is low, the economy is strong, and when the cost of regulation is high, as it is now, the economy is weak; more important, job growth is weak. Look at 2010. In 2010, you see the highest regulatory burden, in adjusted dollars, in the last 30 years. How did our economy do in 2010?

Senator Roberts, my colleague from Kansas, myself, and others have taken the President up on his pledge to review these regulations. We have introduced the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, a measure that would give teeth to the President's directive. Regulators will have to show the benefits of a new rule and show that the benefits outweigh its cost. They will have to show that it imposes the least burden on society and that it maximizes economic benefits. That is an approach which would not only encourage but truly empower private investment.

Let me give you another example of what I am talking about with the regulatory burden--again, trying to create that legal and tax certainty that stimulates the private investment we need to get this economy going, not more government spending. We are spending way beyond our means. What I mean is, more private investment that gets this economy going, gets people back to work, and generates revenue, which will help us, over time, reduce our debt.

When we talk about onerous regulations, a key area of the economy that is incredibly overburdened and where we see a prevention of investment because of the regulatory burden is the energy industry.

My next chart illustrates the long reach of the EPA and how it is sidelining and dampening job growth in the energy sector. It shows a long, complex obstacle course, if you will, of expensive standards and procedures and regulations that are not only being implemented now but will go on for the foreseeable future.

How would you like to be an energy company looking at investing and putting hundreds of millions, billions of dollars into new plants and investments, whether it is producing oil and gas, whether it is biofuels or biomass--you name it--how would you like to make those investments on behalf of your shareholders and have some idea what rate of return you are going to be able to get and what rules of the road you are going to have to follow?

This is just a small sampling of the regulations that are now coming into being and will continue to come into place for the foreseeable future. At a time of high oil prices, unrest in the Middle East, and sluggish economic growth, we are not only failing to provide Americans with affordable energy for their homes and vehicles, but we are actually discouraging the very investment that will make it happen, and this is just one small example.

To remedy that, we need new legislation. I know the occupant of the chair and others are working on a lot of new legislation that will streamline regulations and encourage investment.

I will give just a couple of examples. One of them I am working on with Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. He introduced it, and it is called the EPA Fair Play Act. It would prohibit rescinding properly approved 404 permits. When EPA approves a 404 permit for mining, it says you can't arbitrarily withdraw that permit. So a company that has invested millions or billions of dollars can't find itself high and dry after it has already gotten the proper permit.

Another example of legislation that we have introduced that would make a difference is Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. The primary sponsor of that is Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. This legislation ensures that Congress makes the call on regulating greenhouse gases, not the EPA through regulatory fiat.

Another example is the Gas Accessibility and Stabilization Act, which I am pleased to cosponsor with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri and others, which will simplify the complex rules and regulations that govern refining and distribution of fuel throughout the United States.

There are many other examples I could give as well.

The point is, with 14 million Americans out of work, we can no longer delay. It is not just regulations, it is legal, tax, and regulatory certainty that will empower investment by entrepreneurs and companies all over this great Nation.

We don't just have to talk about regulations. Let's talk about trade for a minute. Right now, we have three trade agreements pending: the United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the free-trade agreement with Panama, and another one with Colombia. These agreements have been pending since 2007. The benefit of these agreements, for example, is that they would generate more than $13 billion a year in economic activity for this country and create up to 250,000 American jobs. If we fail to act, we will lose on the order of 380,000 jobs to the European Union and Canada, which have already approved their trade agreements. Why aren't we dealing with those trade agreements now, when we have 14 million people out of work, when we have an economy we need to get going, and when we have huge deficits and debt, increasing at the rate of $4 billion a day?

Well, the deadline on the debt limit is fast approaching. The time to act is now. The simple truth is this: We cannot continue to spend more, tax more, and regulate more. It is time to control our spending and create an environment that unleashes the entrepreneurial power and spirit of the American people. We can do it. In fact, we have done it before. We just need the will to act for ourselves today and for the benefit of future generations.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, for taking the lead on this balanced budget amendment. I am pleased to join him, pleased to be one of the original cosponsors, and I am extremely pleased every member of the Republican caucus--all 47 Senators are supporting this balanced budget amendment and doing everything we can to reach across the aisle and bring our Democratic colleagues with us and then to send this balanced budget amendment to a vote--to pass this balanced budget amendment by a two- thirds vote--and then send it out to the States for ratification. Three-fourths of the States would have to ratify it as well. I believe they will.

What a great way for us to join together at the Federal and State level to make sure we live within our means, that we balanced our budget, that we do the things we need to do to not only get this economy back on track but to make sure future generations can enjoy the great country, the great opportunity we and those who have gone before us have enjoyed in the United States of America. We have that opportunity. We need to seize that opportunity by passing this balanced budget amendment.

As the senior Senator from Utah correctly mentioned just a minute ago, I had the opportunity--the great honor and privilege--to serve my State as Governor. As a matter of fact, at the time I was elected to the Senate, last year, I was the longest serving Governor in the United States. I served for a decade. Every single year we balanced our budget.

Madam President, 49 of the 50 States have some form of balanced budget requirements. The only one that does not is Vermont. Forty-nine States have that requirement. This year, so far, 46 of the States are expected to balance their budgets.

Families balance their budgets. Businesses have to balance their budgets. Cities have to balance their budgets. States have to balance their budgets. The Federal Government needs to balance its budget. It is not doing that.

When we look at the statistics--we have gone through them before, but these statistics we have to continue to talk about; our current situation is something we have to continue to talk about with the American people--right now, our revenues are $2.2 trillion. The annual revenues to the Federal Treasury, $2.2 trillion. Our expenses are $3.7 trillion. That is about a $1.5 trillion, 1.6 trillion deficit each and every year.

When we roll that up, that is why we are now at $14.5 trillion in debt, and that debt continues to grow. But it is similar to any debt, as any family can tell us or any business can tell us or any State can tell us, that as we continue to accumulate and grow that deficit and accumulate that debt, it gets harder and harder to get on top of it. It is akin to having credit cards. As one continues to charge and add to that balance on the credit card, it gets more and more difficult to get on top of that debt and deficit and reduce it.

So we have to get started. We have to get going. The task gets harder, not easier. That is what the balanced budget amendment is all about. We need the President to lead. When we talk about getting this debt under control, we need the President to lead. We cannot have a situation where we spend more and then simply borrow more or try to raise taxes to cover that spending. That is making it worse. We need this administration to join us. We need our colleagues to join us, to get a grip on this spending, to start by passing this balanced budget amendment.

If we look back to the decade of the 1980s and then into the 1990s and we look at President Reagan and his approach and his leadership for this country, he came and said: We have the most dynamic economy in the history of the world, so we have to create an environment, a pro-jobs, pro-growth environment that stimulates job creation, that stimulates private investment, that puts people back to work, that gets this economy growing. As we get that economy growing, we have the resources then to do the things we need to do: to invest in infrastructure, to make sure we take care of those who need help, to make sure we have health care for our citizens. But at the same time--at the same time-- we need to control our spending and live within our means. That is the rising tide that lifts all boats. That is how we make sure everybody participates in the great opportunity that is the very foundation of this country.

But to get back to that point, we need this balanced budget amendment. We need this fiscal discipline in Washington to make sure we continue to honor the legacy we have, the legacy we have been given, and that we continue to make this country the country of opportunity. I know we can do it.

I thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership in this effort, and I thank my colleagues for joining together on this balanced budget amendment. I ask all our colleagues to join with us so we can pass it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to my home State of North Dakota where we have terrible flooding occurring. We have flooding today on the Souris River and the community of Minot is now in the process of evacuating more than 11,000 people from their homes. In truth, we have had tremendous challenges with flooding all spring, throughout the State of North Dakota--the Red River Valley, Cheyenne River Valley, James River Valley around Devil's Lake, the Missouri River, Bismarck, Mandan area, up and down Missouri, all the points throughout western North Dakota and today it is in north central North Dakota. The Souris River is flooding, not only in the community of Minot but also in communities upstream to the north, small communities, counties, rural areas, and downstream as well, creating real hardship for citizens.

Even as I speak, more than 11,000 people are leaving their homes in and around the community of Minot. The Minot community is something over 40,000 people, so somewhere between a third and a fourth of our citizens in that community and the region will be displaced from their homes and their businesses. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to all of them.

At the same time we must do all we can to help them, both now at this time of need but also in the days coming as we go forward. Minot and the region have been in this flood fight for some time. In fact, together with the Corps of Engineers, with the National Guard, with local contractors, with the local officials, State support, the Federal agencies, the citizens have been fighting a battle against flooding for months this spring. They have built up their defenses. They have built levees along the river, the Souris River that flows through the Minot community and through the region. They built those levees up to an elevation of 1556. They built levees and dikes along the river.

In addition, years ago the community in fact levied a sales tax on itself to help build dams in Canada, Rafferty Dam and Alameda Dam, to try to have permanent flood control in place. This is a community and this is a region of our State that has worked very hard, using its own local dollars along with State and Federal sources, to build permanent flood protection--dams in Canada, as well as levees along the river.

Those defenses have stood for more than 30 years and protected the community and the region from flooding but this time they are not enough. As I say, the elevation is about 1556 on those levees along the river and it looks as though the crest will be 1563, 7 to maybe 10 feet higher than the levees provide defense. That means people have to leave their homes and their businesses and their property.

Ironically, 3 weeks ago with the projections that we had at that time, roughly 10,000 to 11,000 people were forced to leave their homes at that time. But fortunately the crest came in lower than was projected and, with the work they were able to do on the levees, raising the levees yet again, they were able to keep the water within the banks of the Souris River so people were able to return to their homes and their property was not damaged. But unfortunately that is not the case now. Already the water is rising to the very tops of the levees and, as I say, the crest is projected to be well above those levees.

The first priority must be to keep people safe, to protect lives and protect people. The mayor, Mayor Zimbelman, is working with local officials and our Governor, Governor Jack Dalrymple. The National Guard is there. On the order of 500 National Guardsmen are helping with this evacuation process. Local law enforcement, fire emergency responders, they are all engaged. We truly appreciate their help and their efforts.

Minot Air Force base, a major Air Force base for our Nation, is located right near the community. I think there are on the order of 12,000 more people who live at that Air Force base. Some of the air men and women who are stationed at the base of course live in the community. Those men and women of the Air Force are helping the community. Minot Air Force base is providing a place for shelter for our citizens and providing help. I have spoken with the Air Force officials and we truly appreciate their help with manpower, with transportation, and with shelter.

Also Minot State University, our local university, is providing shelter for people who need it in the community. We have the relief organizations there as well, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and others.

Of course, in addition to all of that, we have citizens helping each other. That is truly the North Dakota way and they are doing a fine job. As a matter of fact, in the recent evacuation I mentioned several weeks ago, even though more than 10,000 people were evacuated, very few ended up staying in the shelters because friends and family, caring people in the community and in the region, provided a place for so many to stay. Of course, we know that will happen again as people open their homes to help others in a time of need. But clearly more help will be needed and help with recovery will be needed as well. That means Homeland Security, that means FEMA, that means the other Federal agencies as well. Many homes and many businesses will be flooded and those homes and businesses will be likely in floodwaters until into July. That assistance will be very much needed, very much required.

That means programs such as public assistance and individual assistance through FEMA to help with public infrastructure that is damaged, to help individual homeowners with damage to their homes, will be necessary, along with flood insurance, SBA disaster assistance for businesses--because this flood is right through the very central part of the community so it affects not just homes and property but many businesses as well. Of course, it will affect public infrastructure.

To that end, I am already meeting with the Director of FEMA Craig Fugate this afternoon. We must be committed to that process, to help all we can, both in this flood fight and in the ensuing recovery.

It has been a real challenge this year. As you look around the country, look around our State, the flooding I described, not just here in Minot but throughout the State, and as you look around the country with flooding up and down the Missouri, up and down the Mississippi, and you look at the tornadoes and now look at fires occurring in the Southwest--this has been a tough year. It is a challenging year. So we need to pull together and we need to help each other. I know we will, because that is the American way. That is the way we have always done it and I know we will be there to help each other, to help our citizens in Minot, in the Minot region, throughout the State of North Dakota, but in other places around the country as well. As I say, that is the American way. We will prevail in this endeavor.

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

Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about America's energy future. The reality is we need a diversified energy future. What I mean by that is we need to develop all of our energy resources. In my home State of North Dakota, we are doing just that. We have coal, and we are developing clean coal technologies. We have oil and gas. We have hydro. We have biofuels--ethanol and biodiesel. We have solar. We have wind. We have biomass. We are working aggressively to develop all of them, both traditional sources of energy and our renewable sources of energy.

Ten years ago, in 2000 when I started as Governor of North Dakota, we set a course to develop a comprehensive energy plan to develop all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable, and to do it in tandem, by encouraging private investment that would spur the development of new technologies--new technologies to develop traditional sources of energy and renewable sources of energy, and create new and exciting synergistic partnerships that would both diversify our energy mix, help us produce more energy most cost effectively, create good-quality jobs and improve environmental stewardship.

That is exactly what is happening. That is exactly what is happening in our State. That is exactly what we need to do as a nation. Let me give you some examples from our State. Oil and gas. Oil and gas development has taken off in North Dakota. We are now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the Union. We recently passed States such as Oklahoma and Louisiana, producing more oil, and we are producing it from new formations such as the Bakken Shale and the Three Forks, and we are doing it with new technologies: directional and horizontal drilling. We figured out how to use those technologies such as directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing in new ways that produce more energy but do it with good environmental stewardship. For example, in the case of hydraulic fracturing, we recycle the water. We go down 2 miles underground, we drill directionally underground for miles. So it is a small footprint. One well now produces what maybe 10 or 12 wells used to produce. The water we use to force the oil to the surface we send back down; we recycle it--we use it again--and ultimately we put it back down the hole where we drew it from in the first place when it came up with much of the oil that is produced.

In the case of coal, we take lignite coal and we produce synthetic natural gas. We put it in pipelines and we send it to other parts of the country, just like the gas you pull out of the ground. At the same time, in one of our plants, we are capturing CO2, the carbon dioxide. We are capturing it, we are compressing it, we are putting it in pipelines, and we are sending it off to the oilfields for second or tertiary oil recovery.

Those are some of the new developments we are undertaking in traditional sources of energy. But as we do that with things such as oil and gas and coal, we are also developing the renewables. For example, wind. Our State is now the ninth largest wind energy State of all 50. We are continuing to move up the ranks, and that includes investing billions of dollars to make it happen. Again, that is more energy for our country, from more diversified sources, creating good jobs in the process.

Think how important that is. Think how important it is to create good jobs at a time when we have more than 9 percent unemployment, 15-plus million people out of work, an economy that we need to get going and growing. Energy development represents an incredible opportunity to make that happen. But when we talk about energy development, we need all of the different sources of energy. Each has strengths and each has weaknesses. That is why we need the mix.

In our State we also produce biofuels: ethanol and biodiesel. Clearly the discussion today is how do we best create that environment to continue the development, the production, and the growth of ethanol in a way that is cost effective, that serves the taxpayers of the country, but continues to develop that vital industry for our country at a time when we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, when we need more domestically produced energy, when we need quality jobs, when we need a growing economy.

We can do it. We can do it with the right kind of energy policy--with the right kind of energy policy--and that is what we are talking about today. Think about ethanol. It helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For every gallon of ethanol we use as part of the fuel mix, that is 1 less gallon of gasoline we are bringing in from the Middle East, and by increasing supply we help reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump for our consumers.

In addition to that, we are creating good-paying American jobs. In 2010, the ethanol industry employed 400,000 workers in good jobs throughout the United States--400,000 jobs. It provided an important market for American farmers throughout our country. It displaced the need for 445 million barrels of foreign oil. Let me repeat that. It displaced the need for 445 million barrels of foreign oil. It reduced the price of gasoline at the pump by 80 cents a gallon for the American consumer.

In addition to all of that, the ethanol industry paid $11 billion in Federal taxes in 2010. I want to emphasize that point. In 2010, the ethanol industry paid $11 billion in Federal tax. So it is an important industry to our country and we need it to continue.

The point of the discussion today, though, is how best to do that. So for this discussion today, how do we create the right environment to stimulate private investment so we have that growing economy, we have more jobs, we have more energy, but we also generate more tax revenues with less government spending so we both grow our way out of this debt and deficit, we get this economy going, we create a better energy future for these young people and young people all over our great country.

That is why I have sponsored legislation, along with Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar, that will reform the ethanol tax credit. It will provide deficit reduction and set us on the right path for alternative fuel development in our country for the long run. The legislation is called the Ethanol Tax Reform and Deficit Reduction Plan.

It is the right way to transition from the current VEETC, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, rather than the amendment today to simply do away with VEETC. This is the right transition for us to make from the VEETC to creating the right environment to stimulate investment and energy growth in biofuels for the future. The ethanol tax reform and deficit reduction plan provides $1 billion in deficit reduction right away--provides $1 billion in deficit reduction. But it also provides the right transition for ethanol by providing the right kind of energy policy. Specifically, we provide incentives for things such as blender pumps that offer consumers choice. We provide the right kind of incentives for research, development, and deployment of second- generation ethanol, specifically cellulosic ethanol, so that instead of making ethanol from food products, we make it from stover and wheat straw and other sources.

By combining blender pumps, flex fuel vehicles, and commonsense regulation on the part of the EPA that encourages higher fuel blends, we create the business environment that will foster growth in the ethanol industry.

What does that mean? That means, No. 1, we avoid the ongoing cost of subsidies such as the VEETC. Second, we set the ethanol industry up for long-term growth. Third, we gain jobs. We gain jobs at a time when we badly need them. We produce more energy, which reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and we gain tax revenues. We gain tax revenues to help reduce our deficit.

So we not only spend less directly, helping to reduce the deficit, we grow our economy, and that growing economy builds on the $11 billion that the industry is already paying in Federal taxes, and we grow that base while we are growing our jobs. That is the right way to move forward, to move out of our deficit situation in this economy, to get our economy going and also to produce more energy.

This is a market-based approach that will give customers more choice and also reduce their fuel costs. For example, you go into the station, there is a blender pump there. You have a flex fuel vehicle. You can dial up whatever blend you choose, anywhere from 0 percent biofuels all the way up to 85 percent, whatever works best for you, whatever works best for your pocketbook, whatever works best for your vehicle.

We have blender pumps in my State. We have an incentive for blender pumps in my State. As a result, we have more blender pumps than any other State in the country. The reality is today, if you buy fuel in North Dakota, almost all of the fuel you buy will have ethanol in it and you do not even realize it. Why? Because at a 90-10 percent blend, every vehicle can use it, and it is the lowest price gasoline at the pump, so dealers want to sell it. Consumers buy it. They simply buy it because they pick the lowest priced fuel at the pump. It is a 90-10 blend.

That is where we are going with this, a market-based approach. That is how it can work for the benefit of our economy, for the benefit of our energy future, for the benefit of reducing spending, and for the benefit of growing our tax revenues. That is the choice we have today. That is the right way to approach job creation and energy development in our country. We are reducing spending. We are improving and creating an environment for private sector investment that will help us build a probusiness climate for energy and economic growth in our country.

I urge my fellow Senators to make that progrowth choice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with Senator Snowe and to rise in support of her legislation, the Freedom Act of 2011. I will be brief in my comments. I know she has comments to make. I also appreciate Senator Boxer's comments in regard to Republican and Democrats coming together on this legislation. I think that is exactly what needs to happen with the Snowe-Coburn amendment, the Freedom Act of 2011.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I draw on 10 years of experience as a Governor in our State in expressing how very important it is that we create the kind of legal tax and regulatory structure at the Federal level that will help us to stimulate private investment and get this economy going and growing and get people back to work. I know that is exactly what Senator Snowe hopes to achieve with this amendment, and will. That is why we need to pass it.

Just this morning, jobless claims came out. New jobless claims were higher than anticipated, at 427,000. Last week, we got the employment numbers, and we gained only 54,000 jobs. Unemployment is 9.1 percent. At the same time, we face a more than $14 trillion debt, and our deficit is more than $1.5 trillion. We are spending $3.7 trillion a year and only taking in $2.2 trillion in revenue. Clearly we need to get a grip on spending, but to get out of this deficit and debt and to get people back to work, we need to get this economy growing. That doesn't mean the Federal Government spending more; it means the Federal Government spending less and creating the kind of progrowth, jobs- oriented economy and legal tax and regulatory structure that will help us grow.

If you look back at the 1990s, when we had a deficit, and even before, when we had stagflation, it was a combination of a growing economy and better fiscal management that got people back to work and got us out of the deficit and to a surplus. We need to do that again. We need this kind of legislation that will help us create a regulatory environment that stimulates business investment, creates jobs, gets

people back to work, and gets the economy growing, and then, with good fiscal restraint, will help us get on top of this huge deficit and our debt. It is vitally important for us now, and it is vitally important for future generations.

This is an important step in the right direction. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with the Senator from Maine. I look forward to hearing her remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

Third, our workforce was aging.

And, fourth, transportation constraints limited production. In other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak this afternoon about the escalating cost of gasoline at the pump--something that affects every American consumer. Crude oil prices are now more than $100 a barrel and the price of gasoline at the pump for our consumers is about $4 on average across the Nation. It is even more here in the District. Despite some correction recently in the oil commodity markets, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects that prices this summer will average $1 more than they did just a year ago.

Gasoline price spikes are a form of stealth inflation eating away at the income of American families, impacting our economic growth, and deepening the hardship to the almost 14 million people we have still looking for work. Some economic analysts indicate that for each $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it has the impact of reducing our economic growth by about two-tenths of 1 percent. Each two-tenths of 1 percent equates to 120,000 fewer jobs that are created just in the first year of that type of increase. So you can see it has a very significant cumulative impact.

Imported oil also greatly affects detrimentally our balance of trade. Last year alone that contributed to a $265 billion trade imbalance for our Nation. The high price of oil, whether it is at the wellhead or the price of gasoline at the pump, impacts every sector of our economy. It affects jobs, it affects economic growth, and it certainly affects the purchasing power of the American family; therefore, their standard of living and our quality of life.

So what do we do? Well, the fact is, oil prices are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as other commodities. When we increase the supply, that helps bring prices down. When we reduce demand, that helps bring prices down. Of course, just the reverse is true as well. When we have less supply or more demand, that tends to push the price higher. So clearly--clearly--we need to do all we can to produce more energy in this country, and certainly we need to produce more domestic fuel, more domestic oil and gas.

I don't know how many people realize it, but over the last few years--over the last approximately 5 years--oil imports into this country have actually been going down, and that is why I have brought this chart along which was prepared by the Congressional Research Service. As we can see from the chart, domestic oil was shrinking from about 1985 to 2005, and by 2005 we increased our imports to a total of 12.4 million barrels a day, approximately 60 percent of the total oil we consumed in 2005.

However, since 2005 things have begun to change. We have made progress. We have made progress both because we are producing more oil and gas in this country and also because we are using less. So we can see from 2005 to 2010 we have actually reduced the amount of oil we import into this country from about 60 percent of what we use to less than 50 percent. Today, about 49 percent of the fuel we consume is actually produced in this country. That is a significant reduction in our imports of about 3 million barrels a day from 2005.

So what changed? Well, what changed is we are producing more oil. We are producing more oil offshore and onshore in the lower 48, and we are also producing more natural gas liquids. As I said just a minute ago, we are also consuming less, and we need to continue to do both. In addition to those things, though, we are also increasingly relying on friendly governments for our imports rather than governments that are hostile to our country.

For example, by last year we were importing twice as much oil from Canada as we were from Saudi Arabia, and that is certainly a good development. We need to continue to not only produce more domestic oil but, to the extent we import oil, we need to bring it in from countries that are friends rather than countries that are foes, or certainly that may not share our beliefs and our interests. We have opportunities to do that.

For example, right now, very close to my State, we are working on a project which is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is designed to carry

crude oil from the Canadian oil stands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. The problem is, we are still awaiting approval for that pipeline. U.S. approval of this project will cost our Nation not one penny but will increase the supply of oil and gasoline in our country and help hold down the price of gasoline at the pump. At the same time, it will help reduce our dependence on oil from volatile parts of the world and create thousands of good jobs in America. We all know how important that is at a time when our Nation still has 9 percent unemployment and millions of people are out of work.

We have similar opportunities to boost the supply of domestic oil and gas on American soil as well, and not just in the lower 48 but also in Alaska. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline could help increase supply enormously, but right now it is only carrying about one-quarter of its capacity. The pipeline has the capacity to carry 2 million barrels of oil a day. Right now it is carrying something over 600,000 barrels of oil a day. So, clearly, that is a tremendous capacity that is not being utilized.

Senator Murkowski has eloquently pointed out that the State of Alaska holds an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of more than 60 years' worth of imports from the Persian Gulf. Yet that oil is excluded from our Nation's reserve figures. The United States is already the third largest oil and gas producing Nation on Earth, with 28.4 billion barrels of proven reserves. But it also has an estimated 162, almost 163 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Congressional Research Service. Only Russia and Saudi Arabia produce more than our country.

So the lesson in all of this is clear. We can and we must increase domestic production of oil and gas in our country. The record over the past 5 years clearly indicates we can do it. As a matter of fact, we are on our way to doing it, and we can do much more. For example, in my home State of North Dakota, we have been working over the last decade to increase oil production, and we have. Since 2005, North Dakota has increased its production of oil by more than 200,000 barrels a day. North Dakota is now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the Nation. We have passed States such as Oklahoma and, more recently, Louisiana. We have the opportunity to produce much more. We have just barely scratched the surface.

Last month, I hosted a meeting of the U.S. Geological Survey in Bismarck to make the case for a new, updated study of recoverable reserves in the Williston Basin. Of course, the Williston Basin covers parts of North Dakota, Montana, and extends into Canada as well. The last agency study was completed in 2008, and it indicated there are 3.5 to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken Shale Formation, which is in the Williston Basin--3\1/2\ to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Industry scientists and engineers, however, who are working out in the Williston Basin right now feel that figure is low and the reality in terms of recoverable oil reserves in the Williston Basin is much higher.

That is why we are asking the U.S. Geological Survey to come out and do a reassessment. If they are right, the results will attract tens of millions of dollars in new investment to the region, creating more domestic fuel and lower prices for American consumers, more jobs in our State, in Montana, and more jobs for our country. Also, it will help us develop infrastructure and sustain economic growth throughout the region.

In North Dakota we focused on creating more energy, more oil and gas, and more other types of energy as well by creating a legal, tax, and regulatory climate--a business climate--that encourages private investment and job creation. I have spoken several times on the floor of the Senate and more times than I can count at home and around the country about the need to forge a legal, tax, and regulatory climate in America that will attract investment in the energy industry--whether it is wind, biofuels, coal, or oil and gas.

At a time when America is struggling with a 9-percent unemployment rate, the need to create private sector jobs is absolutely paramount. It is job No. 1. Building our domestic energy industry is one of the keys to accomplishing that. The oil and gas industry alone supports 7.5 percent of the U.S. domestic product and more than 9 million American jobs. Government doesn't create those jobs, but government creates the environment that empowers and unleashes the creativity and energy of American enterprise.

The challenge confronting the U.S. energy industry today, however, is a climate of legal, tax, and regulatory uncertainty. This uncertainty is not only sidelining investment and impeding production but also hindering job creation and raising fuel prices at the pump for American consumers.

We all want to ensure we have clean air and water, but at the same time we all want to develop our Nation's abundant natural resources and do it with good, sound environmental stewardship. Clearly, we need to look at our current legal, tax, and regulatory environment to make sure we have the commonsense, reliable rules that not only enable but actually empower companies to invest the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in new technologies that will help us unlock the energy resources in this country, and do it with the kind of environmental stewardship we all want.

It is vital for the rest of our economy. The reason for that is simple. If the energy industry cannot grow, neither can our other industries. They cannot create the jobs and opportunities our Nation so very much needs, and they cannot provide the affordable energy American families and businesses depend on every day. Impeding domestic energy production, moreover, is a national security issue as well as an economic issue. Increased dependence for oil on unstable parts of the world, such as the Middle East and Venezuela, puts not just our economy but our Nation and our Nation's security at risk. Yet rather than reduce constraints on production, rather than encourage more exploration and recovery, rather than make our country a better place to do business, our laws and regulations too often seem aimed at serving every other purpose but increasing domestic energy production and supply.

Ironically, at a time when we need to invest and create jobs, billions of dollars are not being deployed. That is because energy investors are waiting to see what kind of rules will govern things such as fracking for domestic oil, hydraulic fracture, CO2 management, and transmission line siting. Companies out there are ready to make billion-dollar investments that will have a lifespan of more than 40 years, but they do not know the rules of the road. By certainty, I don't mean more restrictive rules and regulations; I mean commonsense rules of the road that would not change arbitrarily or according to political crosswinds.

A number of us in the Senate on both sides of the aisle are already working on commonsense initiatives to ensure that Congress, rather than government agencies, establish those rules. I have already spoken about some of those on the Senate floor. Today, I would like to talk about another one. Today, I want to discuss, for just a short period, another piece of legislation that I believe will help reduce the price of fuel at the pump--not by increasing production but simply by applying good judgment to the rules that govern distribution of gasoline in the United States.

Senator Roy Blunt, myself, and a number of other Senators are promoting a bill called the Boutique Fuel Reduction Act of 2011. This legislation would simplify the Nation's fuel standards and make more fuel available to American consumers. It would give the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA--the flexibility to waive certain agency requirements pertaining to the use of specific or boutique fuels--specialty fuels--when extreme or unusual distribution problems are limiting supply.

Currently, the increased use of different types of fuel for different parts of the country is causing artificial shortages in some retail markets and, consequently, higher prices at the pump for our motorists. A service station in one city that runs out of fuel may not be able to use a certain blend of gasoline available just 50 miles away because it is not approved by the EPA for use in that location. Unfortunately, under current law, the EPA can waive the requirements only during a natural disaster, not to meet shortages or price spikes such as we have today. The law we are sponsoring would change that.

In addition to the bill, myself and a group of Senators--and House Members as well--have also sent letters to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, calling on the agency and the Department of Energy to complete the fuel harmonization study which Congress requested more than 5 years ago. That report was due in 2008. This report would examine the effects of the Nation's varying boutique fuels on retail prices and also assess the feasibility of developing national or regional standards to reduce the multiple varieties required today by the EPA.

Having fewer types of fuel would make more fuel available during shortages, thereby putting downward pressure on prices at the pump. It would give refineries more options to meet demand and help stabilize and reduce the retail price of gasoline.

We expect EPA and the Department of Energy to follow through on the congressional intent that was outlined in the 2005 law and conduct and complete that study as soon as possible, which correlates closely with the legislation we are sponsoring.

Bear in mind, the measures I just discussed do not cost anything. They take no funding to work. Yet they can help us reduce fuel prices for the American consumer, for our American families. They can make doing business in America more affordable, reduce our trade deficit, and help get Americans back to work again.

We need to increase domestic fuel production, and we need to provide regulatory relief in order to do it because high energy prices, whether it is fuel for our cars or electricity for our homes and businesses, impact virtually every sector of American life. That includes jobs, that includes economic growth, that includes the purchasing power of the American family, and ultimately includes our standard of living and our quality of life.

Our future is fueled by energy and that future depends on the decisions and the choices we make right now. We need to get them right.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I say to my colleagues, Senators Portman, Alexander, Barrasso, and Cornyn, that it is great to be here this morning to engage in this colloquy. I want to follow up on the points that my esteemed colleague referred to on both energy and trade. They are very important in terms of job creation for our country.

If I could, I will start for a minute on the comprehensive nature of this jobs plan that Republicans have put together. If we look at it, we will see that it is truly comprehensive. It is about living within our means, about reforming our Tax Code, without raising taxes, to create a progrowth environment, create jobs, and get our economy moving. It is about unburdening our economy from the overregulation that is hurting job creation. It is about helping to create a more competitive workforce to compete in a global economy. It is about increasing our exports, and it is about a truly comprehensive approach to energy that will help us develop all of our sources of energy, both traditional and renewable. It is also about commonsense health care reform. We need to do that because we have more than 15 million people who are unemployed. Every day they are unemployed is one day too many. We also have to get on top of this deficit and debt we face. That means controlling our spending, reducing our spending, but it also means growing our economy. That is the way to not only get people back to work but reduce the debt and deficit.

If we look at the 1990s when we were in a somewhat similar situation, that is exactly what we did. We need to go back and do that. North Dakota is a large energy-producing State--oil, gas, clean coal technology, and also the renewables, biofuels, and wind. But the way we did it wasn't through government spending. It was through creating a legal, tax and regulatory environment and creating certainty so that companies and entrepreneurs could invest in energy and advanced manufacturing and technology--the whole gamut. But there are hundreds of millions to billions of dollars today that would go into investments all over this country in the energy patch, both traditional sources and renewable sources of energy, with the latest, greatest technology--more energy, more dependable, and cost effective, with better environmental stewardship.

That is what this is about, creating the right environment. By the same token, we are looking at three different trade agreements: the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama Free Trade Agreement. These would create more economic activity. The Korea agreement alone is expected to increase U.S. exports to South Korea by $10 billion a year. We are talking hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We need to be working on those free-trade agreements right now, today, to approve them. I urge our leadership and the administration to work with us to get those trade agreements to the floor and get them approved as part of this comprehensive jobs plan.

I thank my esteemed colleagues again, and I commend Senator Portman for his outstanding work on this plan. I thank all of the members of our caucus for the contributions they have made to this plan. Also, again, I express our desire to go to work with our friends across the aisle on all of these provisions for the benefit of all of those who are looking for work, for the benefit of our economy, and for the important role that economic growth, along with spending restraint, will play in helping us get on top of our debt and deficit.

With that, I turn the colloquy back over to Senator Portman for his additional remarks.