Floor Statements

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Colorado who has come to the floor to recognize a very fine public servant who has been with him and the Senate for years. I, too, today rise to speak of an Alaskan who has dedicated a quarter century to service in the Senate, working as my staff person down in Ketchikan,

Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on federal land.

FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue--which I encourage all of my colleagues to examine as well since FERC is seeking to change its collection methodology and increase those fees--but today I am focused on how a technicality in federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC would continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright!

While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use.

However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. But FERC's current interpretation of the FPA is that a PSC qualifies as a significant enough interest in the associated land to justify the collection of full land-use fees.

When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based federal land-use fees. Apparently, while FERC has been perfectly capable of collecting these fees, it has been less diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that 2 have since been transferred away from federal ownership. Despite numerous requests from my office, FERC was unable to produce even a possible list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--10 of which are located in my home state of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents.

The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees is for land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on federal land.

FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue--which I encourage all of my colleagues to examine as well since FERC is seeking to change its collection methodology and increase those fees--but today I am focused on how a technicality in federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC would continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright!

While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use.

However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. But FERC's current interpretation of the FPA is that a PSC qualifies as a significant enough interest in the associated land to justify the collection of full land-use fees.

When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based federal land-use fees. Apparently, while FERC has been perfectly capable of collecting these fees, it has been less diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that 2 have since been transferred away from federal ownership. Despite numerous requests from my office, FERC was unable to produce even a possible list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--10 of which are located in my home state of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents.

The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees is for land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Madam President, I ask for support of the amendment that is before us. This is an amendment that will actually strengthen the role of NOAA as the Federal agency that has oversight over our fisheries.

Currently the FDA is considering an application for a genetically engineered fish, a fish that takes DNA from one salmon and an ell pout to accelerate the growth unnaturally. The FDA is not looking at labeling this fish. The FDA is not considering the environmental impact of escapement on this fish into the marine environment.

What we are asking for with this amendment is as the FDA proceeds in its process that the agency that has oversight of our fisheries be allowed to participate and weigh in as to whether there are any environmental consequences that may come about as a consequence of a release into a marine environment.

This is a situation where people have a right to know about the quality of their fish, where it comes from, what it is made of. What I am asking is for the agency that has oversight of our fisheries to have a role in this process. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of Memorial Day, a day that means so much to me and those I represent in Alaska. For so many of us, it means sunlight nearly all day, the unofficial beginning of summer, and enjoying the great outdoors.

But let us never forget the deep, true meaning of Memorial Day. It means the payment of respect, memories, time and energy to the sacrifices of men and women who have defended the rights and privileges we enjoy today.

Memorial Day first began nearly 100 years before Alaskan statehood, but even in our territorial days we had Alaskans fighting on our own soil against foreign enemies--one of the few States that can say such a thing. It is because of those early successes--and the success of Alaskans from then to those deployed today--that we salute our flag, speak our mind and continue to be a global leader.

As many Alaskans know first-hand, those successes often came at the ultimate price. On Memorial Day we make a small attempt to repay them with our support, prayers and appreciation. I ask that all Alaskans and Americans join me in devoting a few minutes of our time in reflection as a small tribute to those who have given their lives for the cause of freedom.

Although we may not be able to fully measure the cost of our heroes' sacrifice, we can commit ourselves to preserving their memory. So on Memorial Day 2012, I ask that we honor our fallen heroes, comfort the loved ones of those we lost, and carry on our lives in a manner that is worthy of their sacrifice. May God continue to bless our great Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2108.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak to an amendment we will have on the floor tomorrow afternoon. This is an amendment that certainly has generated a fair amount of interest within my State, in fact, most of our coastal States, anywhere where we have an interest in seafood and the seafood industry. It has been kind of unceremoniously dubbed the frankenfish amendment, so my apologies to my colleague who just yielded the floor to me. Certainly no affront to him.

But what we are speaking about today is genetically engineered salmon. It has been somewhat affectionately dubbed frankenfish because of the images this genetically engineered fish conjures up, a fish that would literally be growing in size, doubling in size, unlike the fish we see in our streams and in our waters.

What is happening today is the FDA is on a path to approve an application for this genetically engineered fish. I want to discuss the amendment I have filed which would require NOAA to conduct a full environmental assessment and analysis of economic impact to affected fisheries before the FDA approves any of these genetically engineered fish.

I start my comments by saying I am not looking to pull the plug on the FDA. I am not looking to insert Congress's judgment into the FDA process. I am asking that when we are talking about basically a new fishery for a modified salmon, I am asking the agency that is tasked with our fisheries have some role in what is moving forward. So let me give you a little background in terms of what we are talking about with this genetically engineered fish, this frankenfish. This would be a fish, an Atlantic salmon, that has DNA spliced from a Chinook salmon with that of what they call an ocean pout, which is some kind of an eel type of a fish that apparently is in colder waters. But the technology the FDA is looking at that would allow for this genetic engineering would essentially provide for a fish that would grow to market size in about half the time of a conventional salmon. In other words, a salmon out in the wild takes about 30 months to gain full maturity. With this frankenfish, this genetically modified salmon, they could be of good market size, basically good eating size, within about 15 to 18 months.

You are thinking, okay, well, how can this be bad? We get a salmon that looks like a salmon, and it comes to us in half the time. So how can this be a bad thing? I wish to share with you why I feel this is a bad thing. When I am talking, you will hear me talking about salmon, because that is what the FDA process is engaged with right now. But I will tell you we understand that similar efforts are underway to develop a genetically modified trout, as well as a genetically modified tilapia, again, designed to grow faster than occurs in nature and out in the wild.

The pending application for the salmon would be the very first food from a transgenic animal that has been approved by the FDA, so this is precedent setting. People have suggested that, well, we see this in other forms of agriculture. But the fact is this would be the first food from a transgenic animal application that has been approved by the FDA, so this is quite precedent setting.

What is happening is this approval process for the genetically engineered fish continues to move forward as a new animal drug, rather than what it is, what I mentioned before, which is a new fishery for this modified salmon, this salmon that has been tinkered with, basically a test-tube salmon.

Here are the reasons why I think this is a bad thing, to be messing with Mother Nature, to encourage this unnatural growth. We heard on the floor this morning--the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New York both stood and talked about a measure

that is out there, the march that was out on the Capitol yesterday, mothers concerned about toxins in the food supply, toxins in the world around us, and knowing what is out there, knowing what we are exposed to.

Well, I, along with many consumers out there, am concerned about genetically engineered animal products that are intended for human consumption, including those that are in our marine resources. I am not the best cook in the family; my husband is. But I want to know, he wants to know, our kids want to know, that what we are eating is good and safe and sound.

At home, we eat a lot of salmon. I can stand there and tell my kids: Eat this. This is brain food. This is good for you. It is loaded with omega-3 fatty acids. It is as good as you can possibly get. I can say that with certainty.

We cannot say that, we will not be able to say that with this genetically engineered fish. As a mom, I am not going to say to my kids: Eat this frankenfish. Not quite sure what an eel pout is or an ocean pout; not quite sure how they splice this DNA together; not quite sure whether they have made it sterile.

We are not quite sure what it is, but it came to market quickly, and we are going to be able to get a cheaper price on it. I think we want to know.

The scary thing with the FDA right now is that they are reluctant to label genetically engineered products, even though it allows the public to know what they are eating. The data out there is pretty clear that there are higher human allergen effects with genetically engineered fish. If you are a mom and your kids have allergies, are you going to look at this fish and say: I wonder if this is going to set allergies off. No. You are going to stay away from it. You will not serve that to your kids or your family even though you know the wild stuff is good and healthy. But how do you know which is which if the FDA isn't moving forward to label and you are not quite sure that what you are buying in the grocery store is as advertised? How are we helping the consumer here?

The first problem I have is that this is, again, a product that is intended for human consumption, and we have some real concerns about the safety of the food in the first place. Second--and this is one that, as an Alaskan, where we have very strong fisheries, very healthy fisheries, I worry about what will happen if, in fact, there was escapement into the wild by these genetically engineered fish. You have a frankenfish that gets loose. They will tell you: They are going to be in pens, and we will make sure there is no escape. How can they make sure we are not going to see escapement? We have seen that, clearly, from the farm fish that mingle with the wild stock. We see the disease that can be transmitted. How is any of this good? Even though the genetically engineered fish supposedly is going to be kept in onshore pens, the possibility of escape is recognized, it is out there, and it exists.

Then you are going to have these genetically engineered fish that will breed year-round. They are also going to be eating year-round. They are going to be feeding year-round. What you can very possibly see is this competition with the wild stock. They will compete with one another for the food the species feeds on, and they will wreak havoc with the ecosystem. So you can introduce--granted, not intentionally-- into the ecosystem that fish that just doesn't work with our wild stock. Unlike hatchery produced fish, genetically produced fish would reportedly be sterilized and their hormones altered. But many scientists believe that the FDA testing to confirm the agricultural safety and sterilization of these fish is deficient. We see this in the CRS report that has looked specifically to this issue.

Unlike other agricultural products, if you have an escape of frankenfish, it would be to an uncontrolled marine environment, exposing valued ecosystems to associated risks. If you have a cow that has been genetically modified and that cow is on land and gets out of the pen, you have more ability to control that. You don't have the ability to control in a marine environment. It is just not possible. So what is happening is that we are putting at risk the health and safety of our wild stock. Unacceptable.

Third, many find the FDA process for approving an animal product intended for human consumption as it would a veterinary drug to be insufficient. It lacks the robustness and transparency one would expect for a product that would be treated as a substitute for fish that is currently on our dinner plates in this country today.

The CRS report which I just mentioned will be introduced for the Record. It is a report by CRS, dated June 7 of last year, titled ``Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns.''

One of the concerns raised in this report is this:

A National Research Council report stated that transgenic

fish pose the ``greatest science-based concerns associated

with animal biotechnology, in large part due to the

uncertainty inherent in identifying environmental problems

early on and the difficulty of remediation once a problem has

been identified.

Our fishermen are very highly regulated, and any change to a Federal fishery, including a new GE fishery, should be analyzed for environmental effects and economic impacts to affected businesses and fishing communities. We are bringing NOAA in to be part of this process in this amendment.

The last point I will make on this is that there could be very significant economic consequences of approving genetically engineered fish. Historically, the entrance and growth of farmed salmon in the marketplace has had negative impacts on our salmon industry. We have an incredible abundance in the wild stocks, and we are very proud of it. The seafood industry in Alaska is our second largest employer, valued at $500 million with salmon alone. But the concern is that, although we have very strong wild stocks, we could see the market respond with unreasonable fear and confusion to the introduction and growth of engineered fish, particularly if it is not labeled. This, in my opinion, could have a devastating economic impact on our fish industry and the jobs it supports, clearly at a time that our Nation can't afford it.

Some will come back and say: Hey, this is a new industry, it is going to create new jobs.

I will take you back to that CRS report. One of the things I find interesting is that it says:

To address these concerns, AquaBounty has proposed

producing salmon eggs in Canada, shipping these eggs to

Panama, growing and processing fish in Panama, and shipping

table-ready, processed fish to the United States for retail

sale.

They would ship these frankenfish to the United States for resale. So basically we get all the harm, but we don't get any jobs. But what we are doing is putting at risk the existing jobs within the seafood industry in this country--priority No. 1.

I see that my time has expired.

I commend to my colleagues this CRS Report dated June 7, 2011.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I wish to recognize one of our Nation's literary magazines, the Alaska Quarterly Review. This quiet giant in the Alaska arts scene has earned numerous accolades and high praise. Today I

want to specifically recognize the magazine for reaching its 30-year anniversary and for its continued literary excellence.

Since the magazine's birth at the Anchorage campus of the University of Alaska in 1982, the Alaska Quarterly Review has served as an instrument to give voice to Alaska writers and poets as well as also publishing excellent material from non-Alaskan authors. In other words, while it is firmly rooted in Alaska, it has maintained a national perspective, bridging the distance between the literary centers across the country and Alaska. This balanced presentation of views over the years has earned the Review local, regional, national, and even international recognition.

The founding editor of the Review, Mr. Ronald Spatz, envisioned the Review as a way to break through stereotypes and present Alaska to the greater literary community as a partner. With the Review under his direction for three decades, he has also continued his focus on publishing new and emerging writers. After 30 years of hard work at the Review, each issue still contains the same labor of love and excitement from edition to edition.

Advances in technology have turned publishing on its head, but the Review has remained both a faithful forum for conventional work and an outlet for work that challenges accepted forms and modes of expression. It has established itself as distinctly Alaskan because it is strongly influenced by the place, the people, and the cultural traditions, without ever being restricted by its geographical location. The magazine's body of work is eclectic.

Through its stories, oral histories, folk tales, and poems, the literary magazine seeks to portray Alaska's rich and diverse Native cultures. It pays tribute to the Native language speakers and tradition bearers that keep their cultures alive through their stories and through their words. Over the years Alaskans have learned that one of the best ways to protect the social fabric of Native Alaskans is to protect their culture, thus maintaining their pride in their history and their heritage. In this vein, Ronald Spatz has published stories in Eyak, Haida, Tlingit, Tsimshian, Alutiq, Central Yup'ik, St. Lawrence Island Yup'ik, Inupiaq, and Dena'ina. The Review has done much to preserve the culture and history of Alaska and her people.

To help commemorate these achievements and reaching the 30-year benchmark, the Review is producing an ambitious photojournalism collection in their spring/summer issue. The collection, called ``Liberty and Justice (For All): A Global Photo Mosaic,'' pays tribute to photojournalists Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros, who died in Libya in 2011. The biannual publication will also feature a special section in the fall/winter edition in the form of 60 poems by 60 different poets.

Alaska, and America, is far richer because of the Alaska Quarterly Review. I commend it and its contributors for its many achievements, as well as the University of Alaska board of regents and the leadership of the University of Alaska Anchorage for its support of the publication. It has taken a tremendous commitment to academic and artistic excellence to continue publication these 30 years. Again, congratulations to the Alaska Quarterly Review for reaching 30 years of continued literary excellence.

Mr. President, as we speak, the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault's 24-hour hotline that allows folks to seek assistance--their numbers are ringing. This evening, 363 Alaskans will spend the night in an emergency domestic violence shelter or in transitional housing provided by an Alaskan domestic violence program, programs such as the Lee Shore Center in Kenai, the Safe Shelter in Dillingham, the WISH shelter in Ketchikan, and the AWAIC shelter in Anchorage. The number of Alaskans seeking shelter is rising on the order of over 5 percent per year. These programs and the Alaskans who benefit from them are all supported by the Violence Against Women Act.

As we debate and deliberate on the reauthorization of VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, we express our respect for the volunteers and the professionals who support and who constantly advocate on behalf of these victims. These are Alaskans such as Peggy Brown and Katie TePas, who lead the effort across my State, and others like them throughout Alaskan communities. It is important that as we again reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, we do so as a tangible display of our support for their very important work.

Let me share some statistics with you, as others have shared from their respective States. In Alaska, somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of all domestic violence assaults are witnessed by children. On a national scale, more than 90 percent of abusers are people whom children know, love, and trust.

I come to the floor today to express my support for the Leahy bill, S. 1925. I have proudly cosponsored this effort and came on very early in the effort. It is the product of literally thousands of hours of work by domestic violence advocates and dedicated Senate staff members. I do believe it represents a real improvement in the services that are offered to victims even in a difficult budget environment. I would like to give a few illustrations.

Back in 2010, there were more than 800 Alaskans who sought pro bono legal assistance from the Alaska Legal Services Corporation and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. A little over 500 of these victims could be served. Another 300 had to be turned away due to the lack of resources--turning people away who are victims because we don't have the resources to provide the help. This bill establishes a new pro bono legal program within VAWA to ensure that victims of domestic violence have access to lawyers.

Back in 2011, 12 percent of Alaska high school students reported they were hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or their girlfriend, and 9 percent reported they had been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want it. This bill focuses resources on the protection of our young people--and rightfully so--because 70 percent of all reported sexual crimes in the United States involve children. This legislation devotes needed resources to protect our children, and it also devotes increasing resources to protect our elders, who are increasingly victims of sexual assault and domestic violence--again, a side that most people don't want to acknowledge or talk about, but our statistics cannot be denied.

In addition, S. 1925 sends a strong message to offenders that they will be held accountable. In the remote Native villages of Alaska, where the victims of domestic violence literally have no place to hide, reauthorization of VAWA will mean there will be more funds to hire village public safety officers who are first responders in the last frontier.

I would like to express my appreciation to the Judiciary Committee for including a provision I have requested concerning the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission. The Rural Justice Commission is a joint Federal, State, and tribal planning body that was created by the late Senator Ted Stevens back in 2004 to coordinate the public safety efforts in our remote rural villages. It is in danger of shutting its doors at this point in time, and the legislation before us establishes the framework for the Rural Justice Commission to continue its very important work.

Last weekend there was a great deal of concern that arose particularly amongst Alaska tribes that the version of S. 1925 that came out of the Judiciary Committee diminished the ability of the Alaska tribes to issue domestic violence protection orders that would enjoy full faith and credit from the State of Alaska. The concern we had was the result of an inadvertent technical drafting error that expanded certain tribal powers within Indian Country, but it appeared to repeal other existing tribal powers that are currently held by Alaska tribes. Our State has very little Indian Country. We do not have reservations, with the small exception of one reservation down in southeastern Alaska. So for the past couple days, I have been working, along with Senator Begich, to address this issue and have worked on a technical correction to address the concern in a way that ensures that Alaska tribes lose none of the jurisdiction or the authority they presently have to issue and to enforce their domestic violence protection orders.

It was just this morning that I received a copy of a letter from Ed Thomas, who is president of the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of the State, and he has come out clearly endorsing the amendment.

I would note that Senator Leahy has included these technical corrections in the substitute amendment he intends to bring forward, and I would certainly urge that it be adopted.

As my colleague from Idaho just mentioned, there is a divergence of views within this Chamber on what the reauthorization of VAWA should say. It is important to point out that we are in agreement on the vast majority--well over 80 percent--of the provisions in S. 1925. The disagreement is in a few smaller areas. There are Senators whose ideas were not incorporated in the Leahy bill and who wish to be heard, and I think it is appropriate that they be heard.

Again, I would concur with my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, in stating that when the Violence Against Women Act was first initiated back in 1994, it was a bipartisan effort. It was a collaborative effort. The effort this year with the reauthorization should be no less. I have every confidence that this body will once again act in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize this very critical piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a resolution I have submitted designating April 20 through 22, 2012, as Global Youth Service Day.'' My resolution recognizes and commends the significant community service efforts that youth are making in communities across the country and around the world on this weekend in April and every day. This resolution also encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support these volunteer efforts. Passage of this resolution sends a very strong message of support to the thousands of youth across our great Nation who are contributing positively to their communities--your efforts are recognized and appreciated.

Beginning Friday, April 20, youth from across the United States and around the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. Through this service, many will embark on a lifelong path of service and civic engagement in more than 100 countries around the world.

Mr. President, the participation of youth in service to their communities is more than just a way to spend a Saturday afternoon. All year long, young people across America, indeed--across the globe-- identify and address the needs of their communities, make positive differences in the world around them, learn leadership and organizational skills, and gain insights into the problems of their fellow citizens.

The positive effects of this service are not limited to the projects our young people complete. Youth who are engaged in volunteer service and service-learning activities do better in school than their classmates who do not volunteer because they see a direct connection to what they are learning and the real world in which they live. Youth who engage in volunteering and other positive activities are also more likely to avoid risky behaviors, such as drug and alcohol use, crime, and promiscuity. Service within the community also contributes positively to young people's character development, civic participation, and philanthropic activity as adults.

Youth service also plays a role in encouraging our young people to stay in school. A survey by Civic Enterprises found that 47 percent of high school dropouts reported that boredom in school was a primary reason why they dropped out. High quality service-learning activities can, however, help young people see that school matters to them personally.

It is important, therefore, that the Senate encourage youth to engage in community service and to congratulate them for the service they provide.

In an effort to recognize and support youth volunteers in my State, I am proud to acknowledge some of the young people who have participated in community service activities over the past year. Last year, the members of the Youth Advisory Board for Anchorage's Promise partnered with various community and faith-based organizations in Anchorage and held a ``Solidarity Sleep Out'' event that taught both middle school and high school students what it means to be homeless and what can be done to help. I am told that the impact of this event was huge and long-lasting. This year, these young leaders have decided to focus on the problems of suicide and bullying--two major issues facing Anchorage and our entire State. Their goal is to find ways to bring more awareness, resources, and funding to these two issues.

In addition to these efforts, young people from across my home State and this country have and will continue to engage in projects such as helping the homeless, the hungry, and the elderly. In fact, young people from across Alaska turn their energy and initiative to projects such as restoring salmon streams, combating domestic violence, raising money for community needs, and providing other significant acts of service for their peers and for adults.

I am so proud of all of these young Alaskans. I value their idealism, energy, creativity, and unique perspectives as they volunteer to make their communities better and assist those in need.

Many similarly wonderful activities will be taking place all across the Nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to learn about and applaud the selfless and creative youth who are contributing in their own States this year.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the courtesy of my colleague from Illinois, and I also will follow on Senator Boxer's comments on the importance of this highway transportation bill.

I think we recognize that, while far from being perfect--I am not convinced we develop any perfect legislation around here--it is an extraordinarily good-faith effort, a very strong bipartisan demonstration in this body, and deserves to have this support. I applaud Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for their work on that.

Violence Against Women Act

Madam President, just very briefly, I wanted to take a few minutes this morning to speak about an event that just happened outside on the lawn of the Capitol. About maybe 50 or 60 Alaskans and some wannabe Alaskans gathered in a rally, a march that we have entitled ``Choose Respect.'' This is an effort that has stemmed from the actions of our Governor in Alaska to shine the spotlight on domestic violence and sexual assault and to come together as communities, as a State, to speak up and to turn around the statistics that are so devastating in our State when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Over the past few years, the Governor has led the charge in organizing rallies in the State of Alaska during the last week of March. This morning in our State there will be 120 different rallies going on in communities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks, our larger communities, but also in smaller villages such as Kooskia and Tanana, communities where the numbers are small but the passions on the issues I think are very strong and robust. The Governor has commissioners in Barrow, in Tanana, in Cordova, in Nome, and in Galena, all leading the march to stand up and speak out about domestic violence. I wish to acknowledge what the Governor has done in his effort to spotlight this and to work to reduce the rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse through this ``Choose Respect'' initiative. We have great Alaskans standing together and, again, a real commitment to make a difference.

Unfortunately, my colleagues have heard me say this before, that in a State such as Alaska where I think we have unparalleled beauty, we also have an ugly side to our State that is manifested in statistics we see with violence against women and particularly violence against Native women. Violence against Native women has reached epidemic proportions. We are at a point where Native women experience domestic violence and sexual assault at rates 2\1/2\ times higher than other races. In the lower 48, women on reservations are 10 times more likely to be murdered. Systematic legal barriers and ineffectual or deficient law enforcement mechanisms result in women, children, and families living in fear. In Alaska, nearly one in two women has experienced partner violence and close to one in three has experienced sexual violence. Overall, nearly 6 in 10 Alaska women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. This is absolutely unacceptable. That is the reality we are living with as a State now, and it is absolutely unacceptable.

Alaska's rate of forcible rape between 2003 and 2009 was 2.6 times higher than the national rate. Tragically, about 9 percent of Alaska mothers reported physical abuse by their husband or their partner during pregnancy or in the 12 months prior to pregnancy. These are horrifying statistics.

These statistics bring me to the issue of violence against women and the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, the bill we have been talking about and hopefully will be bringing to the floor soon. A measure such as this I think is incredibly important as a vehicle for us to stand behind women and men. It doesn't make any difference if one is from a rural part of the country or an urban part of the country; it is an issue that I think we know rips at the heart of who we are.

In so many of the Alaskan villages, victims of domestic violence and sexual assault face some pretty unique challenges and therefore horrific challenges. It may be that there is no full-time law enforcement presence, there is no local justice infrastructure. In many situations villages are landlocked. There are no roads in. The only way in and out is by airplane. So we have a situation where we can have an individual who has been victimized, with no law enforcement presence in the community whatsoever. It may take State troopers days--days--to be able to respond to an incident, depending on weather conditions. Imagine yourself in that situation. You have been a victim of domestic violence. You seek help. There is none in the village and no way away from your perpetrator.

I think we recognize that one thing we can and must do is make sure there is a safety net available to address the immediate survival needs of the victim and the survival needs of their children in the short term. Only with this level of confidence can one gather the courage to leave an abusive situation.

One final comment on VAWA, and then I will yield to my colleague who has given me the courtesy of the floor right now. I think we recognize in Alaska that the Violence Against Women Act does offer a ray of hope, if you will, for those who are not only the victims but for those who help assist the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in our villages. It will provide for some increased resources to our rural and to our very isolated communities. It will help to establish a framework for the Alaskan Rural Justice Commission which has been a great venue to make sure we are all understanding what the tools are and how we adapt to those tools. It also recognizes Alaska's Village Public Safety Officer Program as law enforcement so that VAWA funds can be directed to providing a full-time law enforcement presence in places that have none.

We have a lot of issues we need to work through. We believe the reauthorization of VAWA will help us with that. So as we join with other Alaskans in the State and those here in Washington, DC, to choose respect for all women, for all in our communities, I think it is important that there are some tools we can put in place to help not only the people of my State but victims of domestic violence wherever they may be.

With that, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would officially rename the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, Alaska, the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.

The Talkeetna Ranger Station, which is the home of Denali National Park's mountaineering rangers, sits just about 100 miles south of the entrance to the park. Of course, the landmark that's most commonly linked to both the park and the ranger station itself happens to be the mountain that features a summit which represents the highest point in North America: Denali.

In fact, anybody who intends to attempt a climb of Mt. McKinley is required to first stop at the Talkeetna Ranger Station for their permit and mountain orientation.

It is only fitting, then, that we honor the memory of Alaska Native Walter Harper by forever linking his name with this specific ranger station. It was Mr. Harper, that 100 years ago next year became the first person to reach the summit of Mt. McKinley.

My bill is a simple one, and it is not likely to gain much notice outside of Alaska. Within my home state, however, this small gesture means a great deal. Alaskans, like the people who call any other state home, are proud of the historical accomplishments of their fellow Alaskans. Walter Harper was one such Alaskan, and his feat is one that will always be remembered.

Certainly, officially designating the Talkeetna Ranger Station--the very building where any hiker today planning to climb Mt. McKinley is required to first stop--the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station is a fitting tribute to the man himself, as well as his spot in our state's history books.

June 7 of next year, 2013, will mark the 100 year anniversary of Mr. Harper's historic climb. It would truly be special for Alaska and Alaskans to have this designation in place by that date.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would officially rename the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, Alaska, the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.

The Talkeetna Ranger Station, which is the home of Denali National Park's mountaineering rangers, sits just about 100 miles south of the entrance to the park. Of course, the landmark that's most commonly linked to both the park and the ranger station itself happens to be the mountain that features a summit which represents the highest point in North America: Denali.

In fact, anybody who intends to attempt a climb of Mt. McKinley is required to first stop at the Talkeetna Ranger Station for their permit and mountain orientation.

It is only fitting, then, that we honor the memory of Alaska Native Walter Harper by forever linking his name with this specific ranger station. It was Mr. Harper, that 100 years ago next year became the first person to reach the summit of Mt. McKinley.

My bill is a simple one, and it is not likely to gain much notice outside of Alaska. Within my home state, however, this small gesture means a great deal. Alaskans, like the people who call any other state home, are proud of the historical accomplishments of their fellow Alaskans. Walter Harper was one such Alaskan, and his feat is one that will always be remembered.

Certainly, officially designating the Talkeetna Ranger Station--the very building where any hiker today planning to climb Mt. McKinley is required to first stop--the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station is a fitting tribute to the man himself, as well as his spot in our state's history books.

June 7 of next year, 2013, will mark the 100 year anniversary of Mr. Harper's historic climb. It would truly be special for Alaska and Alaskans to have this designation in place by that date.

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

Madam President, we continue the discussion about the impact of high energy prices, high gasoline prices at the pump, what they mean to families from Alaska to New York--the very reality we face as a nation that is struggling still, coming out of a recession. We are worried about jobs. We are clearly worried about the high price of energy and what can be done. I think it is important to note this is something to which there are no clear and easy answers. There are no short-term, quick, flip-the-switch fixes we can do. But there are a lot of things we can help to make happen by either affirmative action or, in many cases, getting the government out of the way.

In doing so, I think it is important we speak honestly about the situation before us, about what the potential solutions are and how they translate. In the past day or so, I have heard some comments from some of my colleagues that I think deserve a fair and honest

rebuttal so this conversation, the dialog, can continue and be better understood in terms of what we are talking about with these oil and gas tax increases--because that is exactly what the Menendez proposal would do. It would increase the taxes on an industry that is providing not only much needed resources for this country but much needed jobs.

The first point I have heard is that American taxpayers are, somehow or other, subsidizing the oil companies. Again, it is important to put this in context. This argument I think rather bizarrely labels basic tax deductions, somehow or other, as a subsidy, as though the Federal Government allowing businesses to retain more of their earned dollars-- because that is what is happening with the situation of the oil companies; they have earned the dollars and they are basically keeping more of the dollars they have earned--that, somehow or other, that action is the equivalent to handing them a check from the government; whether it is what we see, for instance, with the situation at Solyndra, where they got a check from the government. It is important to put in context that when some say we need to end subsidies for oil companies, I think what that translates into is raising taxes on oil production.

I think it important to note and understand this is an industry that does pay substantial taxes to the Treasury. Their taxes are already higher than we see in most other industries. The four largest companies have an effective tax rate that is over 40 percent. In 2010, they paid $55 billion in income taxes to Federal, State, local, and foreign governments. That is a huge sum. It probably increased, along with the oil prices, back in 2011. These numbers are from 2010. But when people say we all need to pay our fair share, I think it is important to ask the question: How much does the industry have to pay before it is sufficiently considered to be doing its part?

One of the other points of contention that has been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that raising taxes on oil companies will not increase gas prices. Well, it is certainly not going to lower them. I think we can probably agree on that.

If we raise taxes on oil production, we are going to get less oil production, and it is a question that I think we need to ask. Think of any situation where if we tax it more, we will have more of it, and it will be more affordable. It just doesn't make sense here.

Both the President and the sponsor of the legislation before us have publicly stated that more production can help lower prices. Loss of oil production due to punitive taxes--I think we have seen this play out time and time again. Back in the Carter administration they advanced a failed windfall profits tax.

I mentioned yesterday on the Senate floor the example that we are seeing play out in Great Britain right now. One year ago the United Kingdom decided to do essentially what is being proposed here. They reacted to high oil prices by raising taxes on the industry, and the net result was companies produced less, and they diverted their investment elsewhere.

In the year since the UK imposed its tax hikes, the production decline has tripled from 6 percent to 18 percent. They are now looking at reversing that decision and have announced new oil tax breaks to try to bring back that production.

Another point that has been raised is that somehow or other oil companies are getting special treatment, and I just mentioned this a little bit. Again, the four largest oil companies have an effective tax rate that is over 40 percent. What that means in terms of where they stack up with other industries--this is a higher effective rate than in most other industries that we would see there.

Another point that has been raised is that oil companies are not investing their profits in more oil production. The President seems to disagree with this statement, arguing that the United States is producing the most oil it has seen in years. But the reality is, efforts to produce oil here in this country have been blocked or slowed by the Federal Government seemingly at every turn. Again, I think it is important to put this in context in terms of where we are seeing increased production because that part of the discussion is true. We are seeing increased production but not necessarily on our Federal lands.

On this map of the lower 48, the Federal lands are all these areas in yellow. The red dots are Federal shale well operations on Federal land. The blue is the shale well private land operations. So we have a situation where 96 percent of all production increases have occurred on our States and on our private lands. This comes from the administration's own EIA that we have seen production on the Federal side drop under this administration. The fact that exists is that America's largest untapped oilfields--whether they are in the offshore areas, the mountain west, Alaska, which is not even on this map--are still off-limits under Federal law. None of these resources are counted when people say the United States only has 2 percent of the world's reserves.

I showed a chart yesterday that indicated we are not even allowed to count these areas that have not been truly proven. It is because of the lands being off-limits or the permitting delays that we see that the United States is not a larger producer of oil. If the Federal Government wanted to, it could allow us to become the world's top oil producer and be virtually independent of OPEC sources.

A fifth point that deserves some comment: Yesterday, the majority leader said for every 1 cent increase per gallon of gas, Big Oil profits rise by $200 million. Presuming this figure is true in the general sense that it has been alleged, I think my Democratic colleague appears to prefer that perhaps those profits should go to OPEC rather than to U.S. companies or to the pension holders. At least in the United States those dollars are taxable. They support jobs--including 9.2 million jobs within the oil and gas industry--and help us with the balance of trade issues. So, again, that is a contention that needs to be directed, some commentary.

Another point is that America is now a major or net exporter of oil. This was raised yesterday by the Senator from California when I was on the Senate floor. She said: We are now a major or net exporter of oil. That statement is absolutely false and needs to be corrected. Under 15 CFR 754.2, it is illegal to export crude oil from the United States without a rare and very special waiver. Therefore, 99 percent of the oil that is produced here stays here. Ninety-nine percent of the oil produced in this country stays in this country. Only 1 percent of U.S. oil is exported.

The very small, very insignificant exports of crude that do occur require a very extensive review process. It is typically sent to Canada or Mexico for refining purposes. Ultimately, that fuel is returned for use in the United States.

In terms of exporting refined products, if that is the concern, Secretary Chu came before the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and stated that the only refined product exports from the United States consist of certain types of diesel fuel and products we don't use in the United States. So that is a big difference between refined product and crude.

But it is important to correct the record and demonstrate that we are not in a situation where, as a country, we are exporting our crude oil. It is totally inaccurate to say the United States is running a surplus or acting as some major exporter of any of the fuels which Americans need and use to fill up their vehicles or heat their homes. As a result, almost 90 percent of refined products stay in this country. Pretty much the only products that are exported are those products we don't use.

The last and final point I would like to make is about a statement that was, again, made yesterday that somehow or other Republicans only want to drill, and they are not interested in renewable energy. Again, I think that statement is a false one and needs to be corrected.

I come from an oil-producing State and certainly believe very strongly that we need to also focus our efforts on renewable energy. Republicans are simply proposing that we pay for renewable energy research and development without raising taxes on employers and consumers.

I have been pushing for years to allow for revenues from the development of ANWR to help us build out that next generation of energy source for our country. ANWR revenues alone could provide as much as $300 billion in Federal revenues for renewables--depending on what the price of oil is--if Democrats would simply allow access to it. Instead, they propose to raise taxes on whatever production is taking place and hand out loan guarantees, unfortunately, to many unstable companies.

I would also point out that allowing the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with drilling. Neither does pressing the EPA to settle down with its regulations that are making refineries so expensive to operate and in some cases actually shutting them down. I think most Republicans also support the new CAFE standards and many of the other renewable provisions that were in the energy law passed in 2007. This Congress has passed multiple efficiency and renewable bills out of the Energy Committee. Unfortunately, none of them have been allowed a vote on the floor of the Senate.

So I think it is wrong to suggest that Republicans are not willing to talk about anything but drilling. We just want it included in part of that discussion when we are talking about ``all of the above.'' I think we absolutely need to mean all of the above, and that includes increased domestic production and it includes a strong future for renewables. It must focus on conservation and efficiency. This is how we will get to a true level of energy independence and reduce our energy vulnerability on our insecurity.

With that, I know my time has expired. I would ask unanimous consent that the time during all quorum calls be divided equally.

Mr. President, I follow my friend and colleague from North Dakota who has been a real leader in these Chambers trying to educate not only those in these Chambers but people across the country as to the value and importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline and what it means to this country, not only in terms of a resource we need but also in terms of jobs and not only construction jobs but what it means to fill a pipeline and provide for a product that goes down to our refineries.

Again, when we are talking about an economic boom, where better to look than to our neighbors to the north, and I thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue.

I too wish to talk about our opportunity as a nation to do more when it comes to increasing supply within our own country. As has been mentioned on this floor numerous times today, numerous times yesterday, we are in a position as a nation to be doing more to access our own resources, to make us less dependent on countries that do not like us, to make us more energy secure, less energy vulnerable. At a time when the geopolitical scene is so shaky, every step we can take to make us more secure from a national security perspective and an energy security perspective is clearly important.

I have a substitute amendment that I have filed, which I think is important to this debate. I think it is important when we are talking about our access to supply.

What I will discuss in my 10 minutes is not new. Members have heard me talk over and over about the prolific oil resources that reside in Alaska. According to the Energy Department, we have over 40 billion barrels of oil that could be produced up North, providing not only the energy but the energy security, the jobs, and new revenues. We have a pipeline that is built already. We don't need to deal with the permitting issues there. It is there waiting to carry oil. We have overwhelming support from Alaskans.

What we don't have is what is perhaps most important, which is permission from the Federal Government to actually develop our huge oilfields. The biggest on the continent is in the northwest corner of ANWR. For years, we have sought to develop a total of 2,000 acres in what is known as the 1002 area, which Congress set aside back in 1980 to access for energy exploration. They knew then that this area had great potential. The 1002 area is projected to contain more than 10 billion barrels of oil. If you were to put it into context this way, it would be 1 billion barrels a day coming down that pipeline to us from ANWR. That is enough to replace Venezuela or Saudi imports for about 30 years. To think that we could get off of Venezuela and we would not need to go to Saudi Arabia with tin cup in hand because we are producing ourselves here--think about what that means to us. For those who bring about the speculation and argument of what that does to prices, think how this would mess up speculators if you add a million barrels a day online. Instead of embracing this as an opportunity, every excuse in the book has been thrown at us against development. You hear that the environment will be degraded, wildlife will be disturbed, and that despite a better environmental record than just about anywhere else in the world at Prudhoe Bay, we cannot do it. They don't trust us to do it. But for 20 years we have been hearing: Don't go toward ANWR; don't develop ANWR because it will take you 10 years to get that online; therefore, it is not even worth considering.

Even the late-night TV shows talk about it. Jay Leno joked about that and said, ``Democrats said it would take 10 years 10 years ago.'' If you don't get started, it is never going to happen. We are going to keep that money in the ground indefinitely if we don't get moving on it. I don't accept the arguments that have been tossed out, but they have not accepted the facts that we have presented.

I have an amendment that has changed a little bit. It is designed to address this debate. It would prohibit surface development entirely. Yet, it still allows for a very substantial portion of the oil to be accessed from our State lands, with drills reaching beneath the Coastal Plain. We do this by allowing only subsurface occupancy. We use extended horizontal drilling production. Right now, it can reach about 8 miles underground in all directions. As the technology advances, more and more of that refuge's oil could be tapped. Again, we are not going to be occupying the surface. There is no surface occupancy in this legislation. All land-based structures would be located on adjacent State lands. You would not see permanent roads, wells, buildings, and pipelines constructed on the surface of the refuge.

If you were to put together a slide show of development, the surface would be unchanged before, during, and after

production. This is a photo of ANWR, and this is probably in the spring because you have tufts of grass coming up through the melting snow. This is what it would look like before, during, and after because we are underneath through the technology.

The amendment I am offering gives the Senate a chance to put reason ahead of rhetoric, policy above politics, when it comes to oil production in this State. It is a chance to end this decades-old dispute about whether development can proceed safely.

We have not just met the opposition halfway here on ANWR; we have met them 90 percent of the way. We have written into the amendment more stringent environmental safeguards than on any other Federal lands. We sacrifice 90 percent of the revenues, which Alaska is entitled to under our statehood agreement. We proposed a 50 50 Federal split. It seems that we are now begging to access a small fraction of the reserves from miles away.

It defies logic to think that, again, an idea, a concept like this would be kept off the table. I realize many are dug in on this issue. I have attempted to change the debate, change the conversation. I would ask the Senate to take a moment to consider how far we have compromised on this amendment and understand why it is different. I hope we can get a vote on it.

I ask, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, when the Senate resumes consideration of the pending energy tax bill, would it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 1976 at that time?

The Chair is saying that the amendment slots have been filled by the majority leader, is that right?

Mr. President, I have another issue I wish to bring up today in the remainder of my time. I have two other amendments I would like the body to consider. I understand what the Chair has just said.

One of the things that I think we recognize is much of our country's production can lag due to an accumulation of redtape due to permitting issues. We know the Federal Government cannot necessarily set global commodity prices, but it can create a situation where capital that might be invested in American mineral production is stranded for long periods of time. That is what we see happening, and it is unacceptable.

What we should not do, particularly in the case of energy and minerals development, is subject a project to an unnecessarily long permitting process. I have an amendment that would begin to remedy this situation, and it would do so by using the very language the President used last week with his executive order, which he signed March 22. My amendment incorporates provisions that had pretty broad bipartisan support on the highway bill considered by this body. These provisions will work. According to the September 2010 report by the Federal Highway Administration, these reforms have cut the time required to complete environmental reviews and have mitigated the delays caused by last-minute legal challenges. What they do, more specifically, is take the President's executive order and put some teeth to it, if you will.

The President simply asked the agencies to consider making certain improvements. What I have done through my legislation is ask for a process for States to nominate items that might be subject to NEPA, allow for a shortening of review periods, and the designation of a single lead Federal agency. It is a situation that I do think rests on a good premise. The President has suggested that this is an approach that needs to be considered when, again, making such improvements.

I suggest that if it is good enough for the President and for our transportation needs, as we have seen demonstrated in the highway bill, then it is good enough for energy, mineral, and infrastructure needs as well.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1985, which includes all of the provisions I have described.

Mr. President, I am disappointed we won't have an opportunity to offer the amendments. Several of my colleagues will be coming down to offer their amendments. We have been told that the tree has been filled. The amendment I am proposing--I actually have two. One, as I have described, is probably broader in scope, but I have a second amendment that literally takes the President's executive order and provides instructions to the agencies to do a rulemaking to implement them within 1 year. This is not something that the Senator from Alaska has designed; this is the President's executive order. I think it is designed to get us to an expedited permitting process so we don't have the lag times, whether it is on transportation infrastructure or energy issues.

I think it is a good measure, and I ask my colleague from Illinois, in the effort to work together, which I appreciate, to take a look at this amendment. I apparently will not be able to introduce or call up amendment No. 1986. But again, what that bill would do is pretty simple. It is to codify portions of the President's executive order. The title is ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting.'' He suggested it, and I thought it made sense. Now we are urging the agencies to provide for an implementation.

Again, I think this debate we are having on the floor this week is an important one. We are focused on the issues that people in this country are talking about. Folks back home are very concerned. I just met with a group of students. One young man is a high schooler from Yakutat, probably driving his first car, and they are paying in excess of $5.50 a gallon at the pump. When you are a 16- or 17-year-old boy, that is pretty high. Even when you are a person our age, that is high. He wanted to know what we are doing as a Congress to help address these issues.

I cannot overstate my disappointment, as we are dealing with these difficult issues in what we all know to be a great deliberative body, that we cannot move to a process where we can allow for fair and germane amendments that I think would help address some of the energy challenges we face, recognizing where we are today.

I see my colleague from Louisiana has joined us on the floor. My time has expired.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 5 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues who have come down to the floor this afternoon for their efforts to offer what I believe are very substantive, very meaningful amendments to the legislation that is before us. I think we can condense the message you have heard here this afternoon pretty easily.

The fact is that the bill before us is highly misleading, and I don't believe it will work. The legislation that has been introduced, S. 2204, is not going to put an end to Federal subsidies for oil and gas producers because there are none. There are no subsidies here. The oil and gas industry actually sends money to the Federal Government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year, and it is not the other way around. Basic tax deductions that allow businesses to retain more of their earned dollars is not the equivalent of handing them a check. So I think that is the first thing we need to get out on the table and make very clear.

The second point I want to reinforce is that S. 2204 is simply not going to work. By definition, increasing costs will not lower prices. There is nothing I can think of that, if we tax it more, it will make it more affordable and more abundant. It just doesn't work that way. And judging from both history and some recent international examples, it is virtually certain that S. 2204 would have damaging effects on this country.

Back in 1980 the Carter administration imposed a windfall profits tax. We remember that. This was a tax that was imposed on domestic crude oil. According to the Congressional Research Service, that tax reduced domestic oil production, it increased our dependence on foreign nations, and it collected far less in revenue than was expected.

The example that is more current on the international scene is one I spoke to yesterday, and that is the example in Great Britain. A year after raising its oil tax rates, production declines in Great Britain have increased from 6 percent per year to 18 percent per year. As a result, Great Britain is reversing that course. They are now planning to offer new incentives to encourage producers to return to the North Sea.

So all we need to do is look at a real-time example of what one country did in an effort to deal with high gas prices. They increase the taxes, and investment and production goes overseas. Now they are turning the corner on this, and they are working to reduce their taxes.

I think there is clearly a better way. The other side of the aisle has refused to even consider amendments that will increase Federal oil and gas production, create good jobs in this country, generate billions of dollars of Federal revenues at a time that we desperately need them, restrain if not reduce gasoline prices, and increase our domestic energy security.

We believe very strongly that the solution to these many problems should be a reasonable combination of increased domestic production, for which we have huge world-class untapped resources that are still locked up by our Federal Government--America could be the world's largest oil producer, and we could be independent of OPEC. That is real. That is achievable. But we have to set our mind to it, we have to make that happen, and we have to have the Federal Government get out of the way or help us with the right incentives to do so.

The hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal revenues from increased production could, and should, help support the research and the development of our renewable resources, our alternative energy, as well as efficiency and conservation. We know that building out the energy of the future--renewables, alternatives--is expensive. How are we going to fund it? Well, many of us believe that resources that come from expanded production could help us with that. Yet what we are presented with today is a bill that does nothing more than raise taxes--raise taxes on an industry that has created good jobs, is providing us with the resource that we need, and we are not even allowed to offer a single amendment to produce one additional drop of American oil. I think that is unfortunate. I wish it were otherwise.

But I do think the debate, the discussion we have had on this floor in the past couple of days has been good and helpful in helping to educate the American public in terms of what we truly have as a nation in terms of our capacity and our capability to produce if given the opportunity.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a good discussion on the floor today. I join with my colleague from California in urging that the House move to the Transportation bill. But that is not why I rise this afternoon.

I wish to speak on the legislation that is before us. This is the Menendez proposal to raise taxes--raise taxes on American energy companies and I think inevitably prices to American consumers. It has been described as something else, but I suggest to my colleagues any effort to increase taxes on the energy companies that are providing a resource to us is nothing more than a tax on our energy companies. As we tax those energy companies, it is sure not going to make them produce things that are more affordable, more abundant. In fact, it will have the resultant effect: to impact prices to American consumers negatively.

This legislation before us is not a new idea. This is something we have seen before. I think the numerous times we have rejected it leads me to the conclusion that it still remains a bad idea. It is a messaging bill that has failed over and over, and I think it deserves to see that same fate again.

This very Congress, just a little less than a year ago, rejected this same tax hike. Anybody who is curious to see what it is we did back then just needs to look up vote No. 72, which was back in May of last year, just to see how all 100 Members of the Senate voted.

Some have accused Republicans of using this opportunity, when gas prices are high, to push our cause, if you will, for increased supply and that somehow we welcome the aspect of higher gasoline prices. It was actually the President himself who said some see a political opportunity to call for greater domestic energy production.

With oil sitting at over $100 a barrel, I think we all recognize there is impact out there. But I can tell my colleagues for a fact that my constituents don't view this as a political opportunity.

I get a weekly summary of what is happening with gas prices around my State. Right now the average price of a gallon of unleaded in the United States is just a little shy of $4. Well, in my hometown of Anchorage, we are paying $4.14. In Juneau, which is our State capital, we are paying $4.24. In Barrow, the top of the world, they are at $5.75. Bethel is paying $6.33. They long for the day they could be paying closer to $4. We are so far beyond the national average, they don't view higher gasoline prices as any kind of a political opportunity. What they are asking for is that they do more. In fact, there is an imperative that we in Congress do more to address prices.

I believe there is no question--there is no question--that we can bring additional resources on line, that we can bring several million additional barrels of American resources to market. There is no question but what it would do. It is going to help to create jobs. We know that for a fact. It will absolutely generate revenues. It will better insulate our Nation from the instability we have with the global price markets. We know that is what is happening right now. Every time Iran is mentioned, everything gets a little shaky out there.

We know so much of this is due, in effect, to the fact that there is little spare capacity in the global markets. So let's look closer to home. What do we have closer to home?

The President has suggested time and time again we only have 2 percent of the world's reserves. Well, in fact, this myth about the U.S. oil scarcity is just exactly that. We talk about proven reserves. In fact, it is a much smaller piece of the pie: 20.6 billion barrels of proved reserves. But what needs to be understood and, unfortunately, doesn't make a good bumper sticker is that we have, as a nation, demonstrated incredible national reserves: 5.6 billion barrels of technically recoverable resources. We don't even count the 800-

plus billion barrels of oil shale that are out there.

So one asks the question: Why are we not going after the rest of the pyramid, the part in blue. So much of what we are facing is that so much of this is put off-limits. It is not accessible, and it is not accessible because of our government policies.

I recognize there is more to it when it comes to an energy policy than just drilling, just increased domestic production. But it must be part of the solution, and it must be a significant part of the solution if we are going to talk about true North American energy independence. We must do more when it comes to conservation and efficiency. We need to build out toward the renewable energy sources of the future. If we want to have a bumper sticker, it is, ``Find More, Use Less.'' It is pretty simple.

The chart lets us know we truly can find more here. But what we are facing with the Menendez bill that is in front of us takes us in a completely different direction. What the President and the Democratic leadership are proposing cannot by its own definition reduce our gas prices. If anything, we are just going to see them pushed higher, and my constituents back home just can't afford to see them pushed higher when they are paying above $5, above $6 per gallon at the pump.

We know pretty basic economic principles are at play. Taxing something does not make it cheaper and more abundant. We know from past experience. Due to a failed experiment with the windfall profits tax that harmed domestic fuel production and collected far fewer revenues than what was expected, we know this is taking us in the wrong direction.

Again, our problem is high fuel prices and their effect on average Americans. I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how raising taxes is going to lower prices. Even when we look at the subsidies that are extended in the Menendez bill, not even half of these are related to the transportation fuels.

The first section in his bill is extension of credit for energy- efficient existing homes. Well, I am all for that, but tell me how this ties in somehow to our Transportation bills. In terms of costs, it is even more unbalanced. So I am left at a loss to understand how permanent tax increases for oil and gas producers, in exchange for another year of subsidies for efficiency and renewable energy, is going to make any kind of a meaningful difference. It kind of says to the American people: Well, that $4 you are paying at the pump, too bad about that. But how about a government-subsidized dishwasher? That just doesn't work.

Some will also come here to argue that increasing taxes will have no effect on production. In response to that, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point two news stories from last week.

Mr. President, these are news stories, not editorials. One is from Platts Energy; the other is from the Wall Street Journal. Both detail an announcement from the British Government that it is going to reverse its own taxes on the oil companies.

Last year, England decided to do essentially what is being proposed with the Menendez bill. They were responding to high oil prices, and so they moved to increase taxes on the industry. Well, the result is not going to come as a surprise. When the government made it less economical to produce oil by hiking their tax rates, companies stopped producing and they were making their investments elsewhere.

In the years since Great Britain imposed its tax hikes, its production decline has tripled from 6 percent to 18 percent. Let me repeat that. In the year since Great Britain imposed tax increases on oil producers, production decline accelerated from 6 percent a year to 18 percent a year. Now Britain is in the process of doing an absolute about face. They are likely going to offer $5.5 billion in tax relief to the oil companies to try to bring the production back.

I am sure some here would refer to that tax cut as a subsidy and ignore the inconvenient fact that higher tax levels lead to lower production. They don't lead to cheaper fuel; they lead to lower production. Yet even in the face of high fuel prices and compelling empirical evidence, the proposal in front of us is going to take us down the exact same path that Great Britain went down last year. It would make the clear mistake of driving production away when I think we need it most. The outcome in England just helps prove this is a seriously defective idea and a dangerous one. So we just need to look at what has happened across the pond.

If the Senate were really serious about addressing gasoline prices, we would be taking long-overdue steps.

Mr. President, I don't see anyone in the queue, if I may have another minute to wrap up.

If we are really serious in the Senate about what we are doing in terms of increasing our long-overdue requirement to up our oil resources, our oil production and supply, we know how. We have opportunities from our neighbors to the north in Canada with the Keystone Pipeline. We clearly have opportunities in Alaska from the Outer Continental Shelf, from the Rocky Mountain West. We still import about half of our oil supply and about half of that is from OPEC.

One last chart, if I may. Right now, about 47 percent is OPEC; non- OPEC is 53 percent. If we were to add to our mix in this country what we could get from Keystone, which is the middle pie, but look where we would be as a nation. If we were to plus up our activity with domestic production, bring on Keystone, and with our existing resources, our imports from OPEC are reduced to a minimal amount. We talk about North American energy independence, and we truly could be in that position where we are not vulnerable--not vulnerable to the volatility of the markets, not vulnerable to the volatility that comes from OPEC setting the prices as they do, not in a situation where we are spending millions and billions of dollars to import a resource we need but that we have as a nation.

I can't fathom why the Congress would want to drain our economy by raising taxes on the very businesses that help minimize our foreign dependence, help create good-paying jobs for our families, and truly help to make a difference to Americans around the country in the long run.

With that, I yield the floor.