Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I have come to the floor this evening to discuss America's tremendous natural resource potential and to again highlight the fact that if we choose to, we can absolutely produce more of our energy to meet more of our Nation's needs. I also wish to address an argument that is often made in opposition to new domestic production, because I believe each and every Member of this Chamber needs to know the facts and the consequences of our current approach.

Without a doubt, understanding how much energy we have is at the very foundation of an energy policy. The Presiding Officer sits on the Energy Committee with me and we talk about our Nation's energy policy. When we talk about an all-of-the above, balanced energy portfolio, it is important to understand what it is we have. For resources such as wind and solar, it is pretty easy. They are renewable, so theoretically we should never run out. But for conventional resources, which make up about 83 percent of the energy America consumes, it is a different story. Oil and natural gas and coal aren't located on the surface of the Earth, so we don't exactly know what it is we have and where we have it. We have to look around for it.

Finding and quantifying our resources is a tough enough task. Adding to the complexity is litany of technical terms used to describe them. There are proved reserves, probable reserves, possible reserves, unproved reserves, and our demonstrated reserve base. Then we move into the resources which are different from the reserves, and that list includes eight more categories, and every one of them means something different. I would imagine most people don't have a great understanding of these terms, and by and large I suppose that is fine, unless you happen to be a Member of the Senate, because we are tasked with helping to formulate our Nation's energy policy. We need to know the details and the distinctions.

Before we make critical decisions that affect the price and the source of our energy supply, it is our responsibility to know what our experts think we actually have in this country. To help gain a better understanding of our Nation's energy base, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma and I requested a report from the Congressional Research Service. The report was first released back in October of 2009, and then in November the CRS experts updated that report. It is entitled ``U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology Reporting and Summary.'' Fascinating, I am sure. It actually is fascinating, and it should be required reading for each and every Member of the Senate.

Education is not the only reason we released this report, though. We also hope it will help to set the record straight. Too many of the facts presented here, particularly about energy, are based upon foregone conclusions. In some people's minds, we are supposedly running out of oil--well, because we have always been running out of oil. So at our request, CRS also surveyed existing government estimates to determine exactly how much conventional energy we think we might have.

I think most would find the results surprising. The truth is, our experts don't believe we are on the verge of running out of oil, out of natural gas, or of coal. Far from it.

According to the government's own estimates, the United States actually has the largest fossil fuel endowment in the world. To repeat, we have the largest fossil fuel endowment in the world--larger than Russia, far larger than countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. Within our own endowment is an incredible source of oil--an estimated 163 billion barrels of technically recoverable resources--again, going back to that terminology. There are 163 billion barrels of technically recoverable resources, which would be enough to maintain current production for more than 60 years.

We have huge volumes of natural gas, potentially more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet, which would last 90 years at today's rate of consumption. Our coal resources are truly unrivaled, and at 264 billion short tons, our supply will last more than 200 years.

I will put up a chart here and speak to what we are looking at in terms of proven reserves and recoverable resources, when we are talking about oil.

Back to the CRS report. They found that we have a tremendous range of subeconomic resources that are not yet commercialized, including an estimated 100 billion barrels of heavy oil, more than 800 billion barrels of oil shale, and up to 320,000 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrates. For oil shale, that is over 100 years' worth of conventional oil. For methane hydrates, that would be an amazing 14,000 years' worth of natural gas, if we endeavor to find ways to produce it.

Looking at the chart--I am throwing out a lot of numbers and years. It is kind of tough to get your arms around all of this. But if you look to the share of proven reserves only, within our country--that 28 billion barrels of oil, 17 percent--it leaves out the rest of America's recoverable oil, or 135 billion barrels. 83 percent of what is estimated that we have within this country are resources and are, for all intents and purposes, off limits to us. So the share of proven reserves that we are talking about--the 17 percent--versus the 83 percent of recoverable oil which is off limits to us.

The numbers in the CRS report are our best experts' best estimates on how much we have out there--how much oil, natural gas, coal, and unconventional fossil fuels lie within the United States. These numbers can be obtained by anybody who works in Congress, anybody who is capable of navigating to my Web site, or you can go to Senator Inhofe's Web site. I do hope Members in the Chamber will make good use of it.

Not only does this report provide objective figures for the Senate to use, it also casts serious doubt on many of the false arguments made against new domestic production. So I think it is important to recognize again what it is that we have. This is not any classified secret.

I want to give a couple specifics here, if I might. When you hear about some of the language or the statements that are made and are accepted as fact, there is a claim heard regularly on the Senate floor--and I heard it used by the President last week--that the United States has just 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. Well, that line is designed to make the audience think that the United States is both running out of oil and also using it at an unsustainable rate. The truth is that government officials have claimed that in the United States we have been running out of oil since about 1919, but we are still the world's third largest producer, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. But we are well ahead of everybody else.

If you think back to the categories I named earlier--and I am talking about the different categories of reserves and resources--you can see why simply referring to proven reserves is misleading because those account for only a very small sliver of our total oil. So to classify a barrel of oil as a reserve, you literally have to drill and prove that it is there. By definition, that excludes all the lands that have never been explored, so that is the big chunk of the pie on the chart here. It excludes a huge range of places where we believe there is oil, and in the end, it dramatically underestimates our Nation's oil resources.

Consider this: The proven oil reserves of the United States--the share of proven reserves, the 17 percent--have never exceeded 40 billion barrels. But over the past 110 years that the United States has been producing, we have managed to produce nearly 200 billion barrels of oil. On the books, we say there is only 40 billion barrels, but we have been producing nearly 200 billion barrels of oil over the pass century. That alone should cast doubt on the words of so many.

Arguing that we have just 2 percent of the world's oil is like arguing that only your checking account, but not your much larger savings account, counts toward your net worth. I will only count what is in my checking account, not what is in my savings account. But in reality, I have all of this; I have the whole combination. The reality is that if you have money in both accounts, neither provides a complete picture by itself. Oil is much the same way.

Between 2008 and 2009, our reserves actually rose by more than 8 percent, even as we produced about 2 billion barrels of oil, and that was made possible by our substantial resource base. So why claim that America is running out of oil when that is not the case?

The easiest explanation is that it is an attempt to turn perception into reality. If Americans can be convinced that we have no oil, we will stop demanding that our government allow access to it. Instead of running out of oil, we will simply stop producing it. In some people's minds, regardless of the economic consequences, the end result will be the same.

The reason I am so encouraged by the CRS resource report and I am encouraging other Members to review it, and the reason I am so disappointed by continued claims that America has nearly exhausted its resources, is that an understanding of our true energy potential helps point the way to a viable national policy. Instead of locking up our lands, we need to open them up and streamline access, streamline permitting, and bring more of our own resources to market. Doing so will not only allow us to increase domestic production but also decrease domestic consumption. These steps are not mutually exclusive. Given our energy and our fiscal challenges, they are actually dependent upon one another. Let me put it into context a different way.

For years, Alaska's congressional delegation has sought to allow 2,000 acres of the nonwilderness portion of ANWR to be opened to development. Usually, when we talk about ANWR, we talk about how much new oil production could result, probably somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million barrels a day--truly, that would help us out at this time. But left out of that conversation are the tremendous revenues that would accrue to the Federal Government. According to CRS, those revenues would reach more than $150 billion. I will repeat the number because we are looking for dollars. It would reach $150 billion at today's oil prices. If we use those revenues wisely, we could make great and serious progress on deficit reduction and investment in new technology.

Now, there is a bill from the Michigan delegation that would increase incentives for electric vehicles by an estimated $19 billion. It is a great idea, but the reason the bill will not go anywhere is that there is no way to pay for it right now.

Think about what would happen if we brought ANWR into the conversation. We could fully fund incentives to put not just a couple million but upward of 20 million electric vehicles on the road. We could help create an entire industry even as we fully protect our most valuable resource, which is the American taxpayer.

At the end of the day, our decision to produce more of our own oil would be matched by a tremendous reduction in our oil consumption, thanks to the advanced vehicles we deploy from the revenues from oil production. But by holding back production, we hold back progress.

For far too long, I believe the antiproduction arguments have prevented Congress from developing a coherent energy policy. We see them again today. They say, ``oh, it's the speculators'' or ``oh, the producers aren't using the lands they have already leased, that's all.'' But today, we are also seeing the consequences of those arguments: higher gasoline prices, a weaker economy, and a loss of international standing.

The longer our Nation waits to develop its resources, the longer we wait to create new jobs, to improve our energy security, to pay down the debt, and to invest in next-generation technologies. The longer we decide it is acceptable to import oil instead of producing our own, the longer we will continue to export our wealth, export our jobs, and give the benefits of production to other nations.

I think CRS's new report on America's true energy potential should be an eye-opener to us. I intend to circulate a copy to every Senate office. I ask my colleagues to look through this report and understand what it means for our energy policy and then join me to make sure this Congress takes advantage of the opportunity it presents.

Madam President, I have a short statement recognizing the phenomenal historical win of the Iditarod race. John Baker is an Inupiaq Alaska Native and is the first Alaskan Native to win the Iditarod in 35 years, and it has been around for 39 years. He made it to Nome on the thousand mile-plus Iditarod Trail in record time: 8 days, 19 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds on the trail, which is the fastest time in the Iditarod history. We are exceptionally proud of John Baker.

I had an opportunity to be with John Baker and his phenomenal dog team as they were preparing to leave from Anchorage 2 weeks ago, and John said, ``It's my time, Lisa.'' He has been in the top 10 for 11 tries now, and we are exceptionally proud of him, but not only proud of John Baker and his approach to the care of his dogs and his team, but we are proud of the canine athletes. He has a couple lead dogs, Velvet and Snicker, that are pretty incredible.

I thank the leader. I will share it with you, and I appreciate the indulgence.

Again, I speak on behalf of not only John Baker as a great athlete but his canine athletes. When the mushers leave out of the start in Willow, they leave with about 16 dogs on the team. These are remarkable animals that love nothing more than to be on the trail and to be mushing. His team demonstrated a resolve and a commitment and a dedication to not only their musher, Mr. Baker, but to what the whole sport of dog mushing is all about. For those who follow the Iditarod Trail, you know this is not for the weak. This is over exceptionally rugged terrain, oftentimes in exceptionally rugged circumstances where you have Arctic winds howling down off the coast, blizzards that provide for whiteouts, going down passes that cause encounters that flip you over and break sleds and break bones. It is not for the timid.

But Alaska brings out some exceptional individuals. There were 62 teams that mushed from Willow to Nome this year. They are still out there on the trail as we speak. We wish those who are still coming in well along the way. We had some accidents, but there is never an Iditarod when we do not seem to have Mother Nature intervening in one way or another. The good news for us is that those who have had a happenstance, whether it was a broken collarbone or a happenstance with a knife, those men are doing fine and the dogs, again, are coming in and doing fine.

Again, Madam President, I am thrilled to congratulate Alaskan dog musher John Baker and his exceptional team of dogs, who carried him across the Iditarod finish line for a first place finish in Nome, AK, at 9:46 a.m. Tuesday morning. The Iditarod is not for the faint of heart--the trail is made up of some of the harshest terrain in North America spanning over 1,000 miles of rugged mountains, frozen tundra, and dense forests. Baker and his team made history yesterday beating every Iditarod record after racing eight days, 19 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds on the trail--the fastest time in Iditarod 39-year history by 3 hours.

John Baker is a hometown hero in Kotzebue, a small northwest Alaskan community that rests roughly 33 miles north of the Arctic Circle on the Chukchi Sea. Yup'ik drumbeats and seal calls welcomed John, an Inupiaq Alaska Native and the first Alaska Native Iditarod champion in 35 years, as he and his team raced into Nome yesterday.

The Iditarod is the world's longest dog sled race. It requires mushers to have tenacity and a sort of fearless courage, but even those qualities will not make a winning team. Extraordinary leadership is just as essential of the lead dogs who must guide their

team through the toughest of conditions for days on end. Together, man and dog are pitted against nature and the raw elements of the Last Frontier. John Baker's team of canines is truly the cream of the crop.

I have had the pleasure of meeting his lead dogs Snicker and Velvet. Together, Snicker and Velvet guided the Baker team across frozen lakes and tundra, through freezing temperatures, winds, and snow. Although yesterday was the first time Snicker and Velvet have been draped in flowers and adoration at the finish line in Nome--this is not their first run at the Iditarod. Baker has run the Iditarod 15 times before and amazingly garnered 11 top 10 Iditarod finishes. This was their year--and Alaskans are celebrating with them across the State. John and his team have trained for this, they have fought for this, and they have made history.

I am proud to congratulate the Baker team on this extraordinary victory and I send my best wishes to John and his family today as they celebrate this well-deserved victory in Alaska's great race.

Yes.

The majority leader watched that report well--

The Senator listened to it well. He heard it right. It was an outbreak of diphtheria in Nome. There was no way to get the diphtheria serum to the residents of Nome. It was a true and honest scare in the middle of the winter. The concern was that if they were to take it through a regular route during the winter months, it would not get there in time to save the residents of Nome.

The airfields were not sufficient. They could not travel by air because we did not have the airfields back in the twenties. It was a team of dogs that did a relay across the State. They delivered the serum in time and saved the town.

This race has been resurrected, if you will, to commemorate the Great Serum Race to Nome, as it is called, to commemorate the delivery of the serum, an act that would save that community. It is quite a remarkable story in our State's history.

I, too, will take an opportunity to plug public radio because the majority leader heard the piece on NPR, but in my home State and in many of the villages we are talking about where these teams will go through on their way to Nome, it truly is the public broadcast system that is their means of communication.

Mukluk Telegraph is what he would call it. It was a way to convey birthday greetings to people in the next village. It was a way to say: I made it back from hunting camp safely. It is a way of communication. People do not often recognize that in many parts of our State, and certainly along parts of where these teams are traveling right now, we do not have a level of communication that we see in Washington, DC, or in most parts of the country.

That is our plug for public radio. I appreciate that bit.

There you have it.

Madam President, I appreciate the indulgence of the majority leader. Again I send my warmest well wishes to John Baker and his team. I will be greeting the mushers in Nome on Sunday at the mushers banquet, and I can't wait.

I thank you for the time you have given me. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that really has been 97 years in the making, legislation to authorize the land conveyances needed to permit the Alaska Railroad to be extended another 80 miles southeastward.

On March 12, 1914, Congress originally approved the Alaska Railroad Organic Act that authorized the construction of up to 1,000 miles of mainline track in Alaska, an effort to tie coastal Alaska with the Interior of my State. During the past century 470 miles of mainline track has been built tying Seward, Whittier and Anchorage located on either Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet with Fairbanks and Eielson Air Force base that is located just south of Fairbanks in the Interior of Alaska. Since 1923 when the current mainline track was finished being installed, there has been a dream by many to extend the railroad further, perhaps all the way to the Canadian border 270 miles away so the railroad could eventually be tied into North America's trans- continental rail network.

Today, joined by my colleague, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, I introduce legislation to only authorize the land conveyances from the Federal Government to permit the railroad to reach Delta Junction, Alaska.

The reasons for the extension are many.

One reason is that the Department of Defense has large military training areas south of the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Delta Junction--some of the best areas for joint Army and Air Force training in the nation. Access to the Joint Pacific Area Range Complex, JPARC, is currently limited to ice roads in winter, but a railroad extension would permit vehicles to travel by low-cost rail to a staging area for joint military exercises that could be built immediately south of the river, reducing the time and cost of military exercises and permitting year-round training to occur more readily.

Delta Junction, the home of Ft. Greely, is also the site of an anti- missile defense installation that could also benefit from access to rail transportation.

Rail service to the area also would permit existing agricultural, mining and petrochemical industries to obtain supplies, reducing wear and tear on the Richardson Highway, currently the only means of access to the region. It would improve the economics for several mining deposits located along the 80-mile rail extension right of way, and should the railroad ever be extended further toward the border, it would open more than a dozen other known mineralized areas to potential economic development. A railroad would provide safer all-weather transportation than highways given Alaska's severe winter weather driving conditions.

Planning for such a rail extension has been underway for a number of years. In January 2010 the Surface Transportation Board approved the Environmental Impact Statement for the

rail extension. That means that a route already has been identified. This means that the estimate that this extension will require only roughly 950 acres of land to be purchased/conveyed to the railroad is a firm requirement based on an approved rail route and corridor.

The bill I introduce requires the railroad to pay the full appraised value for the land--an appraisal performed by an appraiser mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the railroad--unless the government accepts railroad replacement property in lieu of cash payment. It requires the railroad to pay all surveying costs of the land transfer--surveying the largest likely cost of any land conveyance by the Federal Government. The bill models the transfer on the 1982 legislation that conveyed the railroad from Federal ownership to the State-based Alaska Railroad Corp., since there are now nearly 30 years of precedent and practice that should make the land conveyance issues involved in a rail extension clearer and easier to resolve.

This bill since it allows the secretary only to clear a right of way corridor does not impact the lone controversy that I am aware of involving the extension. That is the exact location of a bridge needed for the rail line to cross the Tanana River near Salcha. It is certainly my hope that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers early this spring will follow the route approved in January 2010 and locate the bridge near Salcha, where it was cleared to go by the Surface Transportation Board after a four-year environmental review of the project. But whether the Corps approves the route, or whether EPA presses its concerns about the bridge, the bill will still be needed to authorize the right-of-way corridor over whatever final route wins approval.

For a host of reasons, it makes sense for the Alaska Railroad to be permitted to advance this extension, the first major extension of the railroad's track bed in Alaska since lines were run to Whittier during World War II in 1943. My hope is that this bill will receive a thoughtful review by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and be approved by Congress during the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate--hydropower. The first bill I would like to introduce today is the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Risch, Cantwell, Crapo, Wyden, Murray, Begich, and Whitehouse, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support local job creation and economic investment across the Nation.

There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The 100,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about seven percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydro-electric generation is carbon- free baseload power that allows us to avoid approximately 200 million metric ton of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean, efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource.

Perhaps it is because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an under-developed resource--something we certainly understand in my home State of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the State's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every state, not just Alaska.

According to the Obama administration, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only three percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid.

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase our Nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean power generation and create domestic jobs. The legislation establishes a competitive grants program and directs the Energy Department to produce and implement a plan for the research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower capacity. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend preliminary permit terms; to work with federal resource agencies and stakeholders to make the review process for conduit and small hydropower projects more efficient; and to explore a possible two-year licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects. The act also calls for studies on the resource development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities and in conduit projects, as well as on suitable pumped storage locations. Importantly, by utilizing existing authorizations, the bill does not represent new funding.

It is my hope that as the Senate considers our Nation's long-term energy policy, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, to our clean energy goals. This legislation is supported by the National Hydropower Association, the American Public Power Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Water Resources Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is designed to speed up the development of renewable ocean energy--wave, current and tidal energy--across the nation and also in my home State of Alaska. The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

Since 2004 I have had a strong interest in working to promote the research and development of marine hydrokinetic energy--the effort to produce electricity from waves, current and tidal energy--all of which is indirectly driven by the sun. With 70 percent of our planet covered with water, marine hydrokinetic energy has the potential to be a major source of the world's clean, non-carbon emitting power in the future.

The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated that our Nation's ocean resources could generate 252 million megawatt hours of electricity--63 percent of our entire electricity generation--if ocean energy gained the same financial and research incentives currently enjoyed by other forms of renewable energy.

In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we started the process of leveling the playing field. In that bill, Congress authorized Federal research and included ocean energy in both the federal renewable energy purchase requirements and the federal production incentives. In the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, we authorized ocean energy research and demonstration centers. In 2008, we finally qualified ocean energy

to receive a renewable energy Production Tax Credit, although unfortunately at a lower rate than some other renewable energy resources receive.

The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, along with a related tax measure that I will discuss next, seeks to increase the industry's growth through additional federal aid. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Department of Energy to expand its research and development efforts on marine hydrokinetic energy via advanced engineering and integration systems. It further authorizes the Department to transfer environmental data throughout the industry in order to expedite environmental assessments and demonstration project approvals. The legislation calls for the creation of three testing facilities to be developed by states, universities, or non-profit entities to test marine hydrokinetic technology.

Importantly, the legislation directs the development of a Federal Marine-Based Energy Device Verification program. Through this program, the government will be able to certify the performance of new marine technologies in order to reduce market risks for utilities purchasing power from new devices. The bill also authorizes the Federal government to set up an adaptive management program and a fund to help pay for the regulatory permitting and development of new marine technologies. This program should help demonstration projects to win permitting approvals.

This bill further amends Section 803 from the Energy Independence and Security Act. This was a provision I had authored in that 2007 energy bill to create a renewable energy deployment grants program for all forms of renewable energy. That program has never been funded because it has been inaccurately perceived as an Alaska-only program. The amendments make clear that the renewable energy grants program is national in scope and is available to assist projects in high-cost areas, where power costs exceed 125 percent of the national average.

The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is very similar to marine and hydrokinetic provisions that won the approval of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress and were included in S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. This bill, however, is far less expensive, authorizing up to $225 million in aid over 3 years to jump start marine hydrokinetic power-- substantially less than the $3.25 billion authorized by the original legislation. Moreover, the spending authorized in this legislation is offset via the reprogramming of previously un-utilized Congressional authorizations.

Coming from Alaska where there are more than 80 large communities located along the State's 34,000 miles of coastline and major river systems, it is clear that perfecting marine energy could be of immense benefit to the Nation. It simply makes good sense to harness the power of the sun, wind, waves, and river and ocean currents to make electricity. When the fuel is free, it's obviously economic to harness its power.

This legislation is designed to aid development nationally, but also in Alaska where several companies already have proposed test projects in the Yukon and Tanana Rivers and in Cook Inlet, along with Kachemak Bay and Inside Passage waters. Projects are under consideration at Eagle, Galena, Ruby, Tanana, in addition to near Anchorage, with others being considered near Homer and in Southeast.

This bill would allow the marine industry to be on a level playing field with other renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal power, all of which have received large budget increases in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. It would truly help the industry prove whether the technology can achieve the technical success and the economies of scale needed for it to become a major component of the nation's energy mix. I hope that Congress will give real consideration to the Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, as well as the other bills that I am introducing today to aid hydroelectric development throughout the country.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011, legislation to extend certain benefits and income tax provisions to energy generated by hydropower resources. This legislation is co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

We have an incredible amount of hydropower potential in my home State of Alaska. To date, we have almost 50 hydropower projects--in a range of sizes from the 126 megawatt Bradley Lake project to the 7 kilowatt Walsh Creek project--that produce about 24 percent of the State's electricity needs. Alaska is proof that the hydropower resource is not tapped out--not even close. Currently, there are 32 additional hydropower projects, just in Southeast, that are either under construction or on the drawing boards. Statewide there are another 200 areas that have been identified as promising sites for lake taps, run of river, pumped storage and even new hydroelectric reservoirs. With the proper financing, we could keep a dozen hydro construction companies fully employed in the State for a decade or even longer. That is just in Alaska. There are tremendous opportunities in each and every State to further develop this clean energy alternative.

Hydropower, by definition, is a renewable resource. It produces no carbon emissions and through rainfall and melting snowpacks it is able to be replenished. Yet there are some who would deny this important classification to the hydropower resource. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 directs that the generation of hydroelectric power be treated as a ``renewable'' resource for purposes of any Federal program or standard. This reclassification of hydroelectric generation should help to incent the further production of this important and often undervalued resource.

Next, the bill provides parity treatment for hydropower resources in the Production Tax Credit, PTC. Currently, companies that generate wind, solar, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass systems are eligible for the PTC which provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour, kWh, benefit for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation. Other technologies, such as incremental hydropower, certain generation at non-powered facilities, and wave and tidal receive a lesser value tax credit of 1.1 cent per kWh. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 eliminates the distinction between the two categories so that all qualified hydropower resources receive the full PTC credit. The bill further expands upon the types of hydropower resources that can qualify for the PTC, allowing new hydro generation, small hydropower under 50 megawatts, lake taps, and pumped storage facilities to qualify as well.

The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 also carries this expanded qualification of hydropower to the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, CREBS, program.

Because non-profits like rural electric cooperatives and public power providers are not eligible for the PTC due to their tax-exempt status, CREBS was created to encourage these entities to undertake renewable energy development as well. This program has been wildly popular and has been oversubscribed since its inception. There are endless possibilities for increased hydropower production by electric cooperatives and public power providers and they should be given the proper financial incentive to do so.

Finally, the bill provides for a 5-year accelerated depreciation period for equipment which produces electricity from marine and hydrokinetic energy, as well as conventional hydropower resources.

I ask my colleagues to support this hydropower tax legislation. The further development of this untapped renewable resource will help us meet our clean energy goals through the generation of carbon-free, baseload power. At a time of record unemployment, the addition of hydropower capacity throughout the nation will lead to hundreds of thousands of good paying, domestic jobs.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that really has been 97 years in the making, legislation to authorize the land conveyances needed to permit the Alaska Railroad to be extended another 80 miles southeastward.

On March 12, 1914, Congress originally approved the Alaska Railroad Organic Act that authorized the construction of up to 1,000 miles of mainline track in Alaska, an effort to tie coastal Alaska with the Interior of my State. During the past century 470 miles of mainline track has been built tying Seward, Whittier and Anchorage located on either Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet with Fairbanks and Eielson Air Force base that is located just south of Fairbanks in the Interior of Alaska. Since 1923 when the current mainline track was finished being installed, there has been a dream by many to extend the railroad further, perhaps all the way to the Canadian border 270 miles away so the railroad could eventually be tied into North America's trans- continental rail network.

Today, joined by my colleague, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, I introduce legislation to only authorize the land conveyances from the Federal Government to permit the railroad to reach Delta Junction, Alaska.

The reasons for the extension are many.

One reason is that the Department of Defense has large military training areas south of the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Delta Junction--some of the best areas for joint Army and Air Force training in the nation. Access to the Joint Pacific Area Range Complex, JPARC, is currently limited to ice roads in winter, but a railroad extension would permit vehicles to travel by low-cost rail to a staging area for joint military exercises that could be built immediately south of the river, reducing the time and cost of military exercises and permitting year-round training to occur more readily.

Delta Junction, the home of Ft. Greely, is also the site of an anti- missile defense installation that could also benefit from access to rail transportation.

Rail service to the area also would permit existing agricultural, mining and petrochemical industries to obtain supplies, reducing wear and tear on the Richardson Highway, currently the only means of access to the region. It would improve the economics for several mining deposits located along the 80-mile rail extension right of way, and should the railroad ever be extended further toward the border, it would open more than a dozen other known mineralized areas to potential economic development. A railroad would provide safer all-weather transportation than highways given Alaska's severe winter weather driving conditions.

Planning for such a rail extension has been underway for a number of years. In January 2010 the Surface Transportation Board approved the Environmental Impact Statement for the

rail extension. That means that a route already has been identified. This means that the estimate that this extension will require only roughly 950 acres of land to be purchased/conveyed to the railroad is a firm requirement based on an approved rail route and corridor.

The bill I introduce requires the railroad to pay the full appraised value for the land--an appraisal performed by an appraiser mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the railroad--unless the government accepts railroad replacement property in lieu of cash payment. It requires the railroad to pay all surveying costs of the land transfer--surveying the largest likely cost of any land conveyance by the Federal Government. The bill models the transfer on the 1982 legislation that conveyed the railroad from Federal ownership to the State-based Alaska Railroad Corp., since there are now nearly 30 years of precedent and practice that should make the land conveyance issues involved in a rail extension clearer and easier to resolve.

This bill since it allows the secretary only to clear a right of way corridor does not impact the lone controversy that I am aware of involving the extension. That is the exact location of a bridge needed for the rail line to cross the Tanana River near Salcha. It is certainly my hope that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers early this spring will follow the route approved in January 2010 and locate the bridge near Salcha, where it was cleared to go by the Surface Transportation Board after a four-year environmental review of the project. But whether the Corps approves the route, or whether EPA presses its concerns about the bridge, the bill will still be needed to authorize the right-of-way corridor over whatever final route wins approval.

For a host of reasons, it makes sense for the Alaska Railroad to be permitted to advance this extension, the first major extension of the railroad's track bed in Alaska since lines were run to Whittier during World War II in 1943. My hope is that this bill will receive a thoughtful review by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and be approved by Congress during the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate--hydropower. The first bill I would like to introduce today is the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Risch, Cantwell, Crapo, Wyden, Murray, Begich, and Whitehouse, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support local job creation and economic investment across the Nation.

There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The 100,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about seven percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydro-electric generation is carbon- free baseload power that allows us to avoid approximately 200 million metric ton of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean, efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource.

Perhaps it is because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an under-developed resource--something we certainly understand in my home State of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the State's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every state, not just Alaska.

According to the Obama administration, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only three percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid.

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase our Nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean power generation and create domestic jobs. The legislation establishes a competitive grants program and directs the Energy Department to produce and implement a plan for the research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower capacity. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend preliminary permit terms; to work with federal resource agencies and stakeholders to make the review process for conduit and small hydropower projects more efficient; and to explore a possible two-year licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects. The act also calls for studies on the resource development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities and in conduit projects, as well as on suitable pumped storage locations. Importantly, by utilizing existing authorizations, the bill does not represent new funding.

It is my hope that as the Senate considers our Nation's long-term energy policy, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, to our clean energy goals. This legislation is supported by the National Hydropower Association, the American Public Power Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Water Resources Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is designed to speed up the development of renewable ocean energy--wave, current and tidal energy--across the nation and also in my home State of Alaska. The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

Since 2004 I have had a strong interest in working to promote the research and development of marine hydrokinetic energy--the effort to produce electricity from waves, current and tidal energy--all of which is indirectly driven by the sun. With 70 percent of our planet covered with water, marine hydrokinetic energy has the potential to be a major source of the world's clean, non-carbon emitting power in the future.

The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated that our Nation's ocean resources could generate 252 million megawatt hours of electricity--63 percent of our entire electricity generation--if ocean energy gained the same financial and research incentives currently enjoyed by other forms of renewable energy.

In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we started the process of leveling the playing field. In that bill, Congress authorized Federal research and included ocean energy in both the federal renewable energy purchase requirements and the federal production incentives. In the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, we authorized ocean energy research and demonstration centers. In 2008, we finally qualified ocean energy

to receive a renewable energy Production Tax Credit, although unfortunately at a lower rate than some other renewable energy resources receive.

The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, along with a related tax measure that I will discuss next, seeks to increase the industry's growth through additional federal aid. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Department of Energy to expand its research and development efforts on marine hydrokinetic energy via advanced engineering and integration systems. It further authorizes the Department to transfer environmental data throughout the industry in order to expedite environmental assessments and demonstration project approvals. The legislation calls for the creation of three testing facilities to be developed by states, universities, or non-profit entities to test marine hydrokinetic technology.

Importantly, the legislation directs the development of a Federal Marine-Based Energy Device Verification program. Through this program, the government will be able to certify the performance of new marine technologies in order to reduce market risks for utilities purchasing power from new devices. The bill also authorizes the Federal government to set up an adaptive management program and a fund to help pay for the regulatory permitting and development of new marine technologies. This program should help demonstration projects to win permitting approvals.

This bill further amends Section 803 from the Energy Independence and Security Act. This was a provision I had authored in that 2007 energy bill to create a renewable energy deployment grants program for all forms of renewable energy. That program has never been funded because it has been inaccurately perceived as an Alaska-only program. The amendments make clear that the renewable energy grants program is national in scope and is available to assist projects in high-cost areas, where power costs exceed 125 percent of the national average.

The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is very similar to marine and hydrokinetic provisions that won the approval of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress and were included in S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. This bill, however, is far less expensive, authorizing up to $225 million in aid over 3 years to jump start marine hydrokinetic power-- substantially less than the $3.25 billion authorized by the original legislation. Moreover, the spending authorized in this legislation is offset via the reprogramming of previously un-utilized Congressional authorizations.

Coming from Alaska where there are more than 80 large communities located along the State's 34,000 miles of coastline and major river systems, it is clear that perfecting marine energy could be of immense benefit to the Nation. It simply makes good sense to harness the power of the sun, wind, waves, and river and ocean currents to make electricity. When the fuel is free, it's obviously economic to harness its power.

This legislation is designed to aid development nationally, but also in Alaska where several companies already have proposed test projects in the Yukon and Tanana Rivers and in Cook Inlet, along with Kachemak Bay and Inside Passage waters. Projects are under consideration at Eagle, Galena, Ruby, Tanana, in addition to near Anchorage, with others being considered near Homer and in Southeast.

This bill would allow the marine industry to be on a level playing field with other renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal power, all of which have received large budget increases in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. It would truly help the industry prove whether the technology can achieve the technical success and the economies of scale needed for it to become a major component of the nation's energy mix. I hope that Congress will give real consideration to the Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, as well as the other bills that I am introducing today to aid hydroelectric development throughout the country.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011, legislation to extend certain benefits and income tax provisions to energy generated by hydropower resources. This legislation is co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

We have an incredible amount of hydropower potential in my home State of Alaska. To date, we have almost 50 hydropower projects--in a range of sizes from the 126 megawatt Bradley Lake project to the 7 kilowatt Walsh Creek project--that produce about 24 percent of the State's electricity needs. Alaska is proof that the hydropower resource is not tapped out--not even close. Currently, there are 32 additional hydropower projects, just in Southeast, that are either under construction or on the drawing boards. Statewide there are another 200 areas that have been identified as promising sites for lake taps, run of river, pumped storage and even new hydroelectric reservoirs. With the proper financing, we could keep a dozen hydro construction companies fully employed in the State for a decade or even longer. That is just in Alaska. There are tremendous opportunities in each and every State to further develop this clean energy alternative.

Hydropower, by definition, is a renewable resource. It produces no carbon emissions and through rainfall and melting snowpacks it is able to be replenished. Yet there are some who would deny this important classification to the hydropower resource. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 directs that the generation of hydroelectric power be treated as a ``renewable'' resource for purposes of any Federal program or standard. This reclassification of hydroelectric generation should help to incent the further production of this important and often undervalued resource.

Next, the bill provides parity treatment for hydropower resources in the Production Tax Credit, PTC. Currently, companies that generate wind, solar, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass systems are eligible for the PTC which provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour, kWh, benefit for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation. Other technologies, such as incremental hydropower, certain generation at non-powered facilities, and wave and tidal receive a lesser value tax credit of 1.1 cent per kWh. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 eliminates the distinction between the two categories so that all qualified hydropower resources receive the full PTC credit. The bill further expands upon the types of hydropower resources that can qualify for the PTC, allowing new hydro generation, small hydropower under 50 megawatts, lake taps, and pumped storage facilities to qualify as well.

The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 also carries this expanded qualification of hydropower to the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, CREBS, program.

Because non-profits like rural electric cooperatives and public power providers are not eligible for the PTC due to their tax-exempt status, CREBS was created to encourage these entities to undertake renewable energy development as well. This program has been wildly popular and has been oversubscribed since its inception. There are endless possibilities for increased hydropower production by electric cooperatives and public power providers and they should be given the proper financial incentive to do so.

Finally, the bill provides for a 5-year accelerated depreciation period for equipment which produces electricity from marine and hydrokinetic energy, as well as conventional hydropower resources.

I ask my colleagues to support this hydropower tax legislation. The further development of this untapped renewable resource will help us meet our clean energy goals through the generation of carbon-free, baseload power. At a time of record unemployment, the addition of hydropower capacity throughout the nation will lead to hundreds of thousands of good paying, domestic jobs.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, as well as the ranking member, for their work on this legislation. Senator Landrieu has spoken about the necessity, particularly in this environment today, as we are coming out of a recession, to ensure we have a conducive environment for our small businesses to thrive. It is not just about incentives and opportunities, it is that business environment.

One of the things I think is important for us as policymakers to look at is those things that are put in place that perhaps smother our businesses, whether it is through regulation or the cost of permitting, but also those things that create uncertainty. That is what I would like to speak to for just a few minutes this afternoon.

The minority leader put forth an amendment several hours ago that would put a stop to the EPA's command-and-control climate regulations. This is an amendment for which I am rising today to offer my support. This is not the first time I have had an opportunity to be here on the Senate floor to speak about my concern about the agency advancing policies ahead of the Congress; of the EPA advancing regulations that set climate policy--again, before the Congress had acted. We spent a considerable amount of time here last year discussing the pitfalls of EPA's massive and unprecedented expansion of regulatory powers as they sought to advance those regulations that would impose that uncertainty on our businesses.

I remain as convinced now as I was when we had the arguments previously, when we were talking about this resolution of disapproval against the EPA, I remain as convinced as ever that EPA's efforts to impose these backdoor climate regulations is the wrong way, and perhaps it is the worst way to address our Nation's energy and climate challenges.

Our country is struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn in our modern history. We talk daily about the need for us, as lawmakers, to advance those policies that will help our Nation restore job growth. All this is going on in the midst of global events that are clearly out of our control. We have chaotic global events that have driven our energy prices to near 2-year highs. The last thing in the world for us to do would be to allow unelected bureaucrats to impose new economic burdens on our families and on our businesses.

In combination with these recent events overseas, the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases is contributing to increased energy prices. The proliferation, the numbers are astounding in terms of what the EPA is advancing in terms of these regulations that hit our businesses every day. The proliferation of EPA rulemaking on climate change is creating pervasive uncertainty throughout our economy. It has stymied and delayed new investments in energy production and this will only become worse once the temporary relief provided by the EPA's ``tailoring rule'' is tossed out by the courts or perhaps ratcheted down by EPA's own timeline.

What is most troubling is that the EPA has consistently failed to consider what the economic impact of their rulemaking is. We have asked repeatedly. Yet there is no response back from the EPA. It is kind of a shell game that we have seen moving forward. First, the EPA claimed its endangerment finding is simply a scientific finding, it is nothing more; there is not going to be any regulatory burden that will be created as a result of this.

Then we saw a deal struck between the automakers and the State of California and the environmentalists and the EPA to tie emissions standards to already enacted mileage increases for light-duty vehicles. That move then triggered regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act for all emitters, including stationary sources. But here again there was no economic analysis provided by the EPA. A lack of this analysis or this assessment and the lack of information led many Members of Congress, myself included, to repeatedly ask for a study of the potential impacts. But EPA has disregarded these requests. Finally, they published their tailoring rule, which was not only finished without a real economic analysis, but it was somewhat brazenly pitched as regulatory relief. They first said this was not a burden that had been imposed, and then they come back and say now we are providing regulatory relief. That is kind of an odd claim to have made.

But what became clear throughout all of this is that the EPA wants us to believe that none of their actions have imposed new regulatory requirements and therefore there is no cost. If we have not added any regulatory burden there is not going to be any subsequent cost.

But this assertion simply denies logic. Their regulations require that expensive new permits be obtained. To do that you have expensive new technologies that have to be purchased, installed, and operated.

In the next few years these requirements will become more severe and more businesses will be folded in to face them. To accept these economy-wide climate regulations with no substantive analysis of their economic impacts is to take a huge gamble with an already fragile American economy. This is a gamble that I believe we should not take. The amendment from the minority leader that was presented earlier today would ensure that we do not.

As I mentioned just starting off on my comments, I think it is fitting that this debate does take place on legislation that is designed to help our small businesses. It is true that because the EPA has decided they are not going to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act--but not according to it--they are not going to regulate the small businesses at this point in time. Soon, however, they are going to be caught up in the same net as their larger counterparts. In the meantime, as the customers of the refiners and powerplants throughout the country that are now regulated, our small businesses will inevitably face increased costs. Innovation should not mean having to find creative ways to comply with government regulations in order to keep your doors open.

Fortunately, it is not too late to prevent this situation from becoming worse. The first round of regulations kicked in at the start of this year, and then the so-called New Source Performance Standards for refineries and powerplants, one of the next steps in the EPA's regulatory process, are not expected until later this year. We can and we should step in now to prevent this additional growth of the now sweeping regulatory burden from the EPA. If we do not act now, if we fail to act now, America's competitive position in the world will continue to deteriorate.

This should be cause for concern for all of us serving here in the Congress. Unfortunately, we have not only failed to put a stop to this agenda but some have actually embraced it. Explanations are out there, I am sure. Perhaps the most common is a misplaced hope that by forcing consumers to pay more for energy, somehow or other this is going to usher in the green jobs to manufacture the wind turbines and other equipment that can just as easily be made overseas. It is this kind of thinking that brought us to where we were last year, or the year before, with the tremendously unpopular cap-and-trade bill.

For too many in this town, here in Washington, DC, higher energy prices have been an explicit goal. The President, when the cap-and- trade proposal was being debated, very clearly stated--his words-- ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''

The Secretary of Energy has said a couple of years ago, ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Notably, I think those comments were made when gasoline was even more expensive than it is today.

But every Member of this Chamber should recognize where EPA is going with these regulations. They are the administration's plan B, initially meant to force us here in Congress to pass cap-and-trade and now of course substitute for it. I think the question that is worth asking is, if cap-and-trade could not pass for lack of support, why should we let these regulations replace them? If we would not agree to a legislative program because it was too damaging, why would we let command-and- control regulations, pressed into place through rulemakings, be the answer instead?

If we knew these regulations are a bad idea whose time should not have come, why--why--would we let American families and businesses suffer greater and greater consequences?

In the midst of our economic recovery and high energy prices, we need to protect our small businesses, not expose them to new regulatory burdens. I think the amendment of the minority leader would do just that. I am hopeful the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on it and pass it within the near future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill and talk about an issue that has, unfortunately, become a regular occurrence in Alaska and holds great interest to the Nation and the world. I am talking about volcano monitoring. While erupting volcanoes are a early constant part of our lives in Alaska, it usually takes a worldwide event such the eruption last year of a volcano in Iceland, which disrupted air traffic in Europe and around the world, to capture the public's attention.

Two years ago it was the eruption of Mount Redoubt, which cancelled hundreds of flights in Alaska that motivated me to introduce the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act. I reintroduce the bill now because it is still vitally important to the United States.

The volcanoes in Alaska make up well over three-quarters of U.S. volcanoes that have erupted in the last two hundred years. About 50 volcanic eruptions occur around the world every year, according to the United States Geological Survey, USGS. The United States ranks third, behind Indonesia and Japan, in its number of historically active volcanoes.

That is why it is so important to fund volcano monitoring, which in Alaska is through the Alaska Volcano Observatory. The Alaska Volcano Observatory, AVO, is one of five Volcano observatories in the United States. It is a joint program of the United States Geological Survey, the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. AVO is unique in the United States and probably the world, in that it is a thoroughly collaborative undertaking of federal scientists, state scientists, and university faculty and students.

AVO was formed in 1988, after an eruption of Mount Augustine, and uses federal, state, and university resources to monitor and study Alaska's hazardous volcanoes, to predict and record

eruptive activity, and to mitigate volcanic hazards to life and property. Alaska has over 30 active volcanoes currently being monitored by the Alaska Volcano Observatory. No other observatory in the world comes even close to that number. AVO also analyzes available satellite data twice daily for thermal anomalies and ash plumes at about 80 volcanoes in the north Pacific. Russian volcanoes frequently put ash into areas where the U.S. has aviation safety responsibilities. Alaska's active volcanoes also offer superb opportunities for basic scientific investigations of volcanic processes. An important component of AVO's program is to conduct research at selected volcanic centers.

Alaska's volcanoes are potentially hazardous to passenger and freight aircraft as jet engines sometimes fail after ingesting volcanic ash. On December 15, 1989, a Boeing 747 flying 240 kilometers, 150 miles, northeast of Anchorage encountered an ash cloud erupted from Redoubt Volcano and lost power in all four jet engines. The plane, with 231 passengers aboard, lost more than 10,000 feet of elevation before the flight crew was able to restart the engines. After landing, it was determined the airplane had suffered about $80 million in damage. The U.S. Geological Survey said about 100 encounters of aircraft with volcanic ash were documented from 1983 to 2000. In some cases engines shut down briefly after sucking in volcanic debris, but there have been no fatal incidents.

The FAA estimates, based on information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, that more than 80,000 large aircraft per year, and 30,000 people per day, are in the skies over and potentially downwind of many of Alaska's volcanoes, mostly on the heavily traveled great-circle routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. Along this route, which coincidently follows the northern portion of the Pacific ``ring of fire'', are over 100 volcanoes capable of depositing ash into the flight path. Some are in Japan, many are in Russia, but about half are in Alaska. By analyzing satellite imagery and working with the National Weather Service to predict where winds will carry the ash, AVO assists the Federal Aviation Administration in warning aircraft of areas to avoid.

Volcanic eruptions from Cook Inlet volcanoes, Spurr, Redoubt, Iliamna, and Augustine, can have severe impacts, as these volcanoes are nearest to Anchorage, Alaska's largest population center. The last major series of eruptions of Mt. Redoubt occurred in the spring of 2009. The Alaska Volcano Observatory had recorded 26 volcanic eruptions and/or explosions at Redoubt volcano.

There were several impacts from this series of eruptions from Mount Redoubt. Two major lahars, mudflows, moved down the Drift River and partially inundated an oil terminal. Airborne ash clouds posed a hazard to aviation and caused multiple flight cancellations and reroutes. Alaska Airlines cancelled approximately 200 flights. FedEx, United Parcel Service and several other cargo airlines rerouted aircraft to Seattle. Ash fall forced Ted Stevens International Airport, the third busiest cargo airport in the world, to close for 20 consecutive hours. Disruption to the aviation industry was significant for passenger travel and cargo transportation between Asia and North America. Minor ash fall impacted several communities as far downwind as Delta Junction, Alaska, 400 miles northeast of Anchorage. Elmendorf Air Force Base assets were temporarily relocated. There were also impacts to oil field operations due to the cessation of oil storage at Chevron's Drift River Oil Terminal. The economic impact is estimated to be less than or equal to the Redoubt eruptions also disrupted air traffic in the region. Hundreds of commercial flights were cancelled and cargo companies were significantly impacted. This resulted in employees being placed on unpaid leave during periods when airport operations were shut down.

International volcano monitoring is also a role of the Federal Government. It likely saved many lives--and significant money--in the case of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, where the United States had military bases at the time. The cataclysmic eruption lasted more than 10 hours and sent a cloud of ash as high as 22 miles into the air that grew to more than 300 miles across. The United States Geological Survey spent less than $1.5 million monitoring the volcano and was able to warn of the impending eruption, which allowed authorities to evacuate residents, as well as aircraft and other equipment from U.S. bases there. The USGS estimates that the efforts saved thousands of lives and prevented property losses of at least $250 million.

It is not enough to justify a program by just identifying a danger. The more important question is whether something can be done to reduce the impact of a volcanic eruption in terms of property damage and loss of life. That means getting people out of harm's way by providing advance warning. And this is exactly what the USGS Volcano Hazards Program seeks to do through the existing volcano observatories in the United States.

The advances made in monitoring can now provide much more accurate and timely predictions of eruptions. As an example, in 1989, AVO was only able to provide a few days warning before Mount Redoubt erupted. This year, they began to detect activity and notified the public two months before it eventually erupted.

The biggest challenge remains finding an adequate and stable source of funding. The USGS Volcano Hazards Program has been constantly underfunded. Both USGS and the FAA provide funding, but it is not enough to manage all the observatories or provide for an expansion of the system to cover increased monitoring and volcano research.

It is because of the inadequate funding, and critical importance of this program, that I intend to introduce a bill that will provide the funding stability that volcano monitoring needs. This program shows that with a modest investment, a very large benefit can be produced in reducing the impacts of catastrophic events.

My legislation will establish a National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System within the United States Geological Survey to monitor warn and protect citizens from undue and avoidable harm from volcanic activity. The USGS will coordinate a management plan with the other relevant federal departments, including the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The legislation authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually to the Department of Interior to carry out the Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill and talk about an issue that has, unfortunately, become a regular occurrence in Alaska and holds great interest to the Nation and the world. I am talking about volcano monitoring. While erupting volcanoes are a early constant part of our lives in Alaska, it usually takes a worldwide event such the eruption last year of a volcano in Iceland, which disrupted air traffic in Europe and around the world, to capture the public's attention.

Two years ago it was the eruption of Mount Redoubt, which cancelled hundreds of flights in Alaska that motivated me to introduce the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act. I reintroduce the bill now because it is still vitally important to the United States.

The volcanoes in Alaska make up well over three-quarters of U.S. volcanoes that have erupted in the last two hundred years. About 50 volcanic eruptions occur around the world every year, according to the United States Geological Survey, USGS. The United States ranks third, behind Indonesia and Japan, in its number of historically active volcanoes.

That is why it is so important to fund volcano monitoring, which in Alaska is through the Alaska Volcano Observatory. The Alaska Volcano Observatory, AVO, is one of five Volcano observatories in the United States. It is a joint program of the United States Geological Survey, the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. AVO is unique in the United States and probably the world, in that it is a thoroughly collaborative undertaking of federal scientists, state scientists, and university faculty and students.

AVO was formed in 1988, after an eruption of Mount Augustine, and uses federal, state, and university resources to monitor and study Alaska's hazardous volcanoes, to predict and record

eruptive activity, and to mitigate volcanic hazards to life and property. Alaska has over 30 active volcanoes currently being monitored by the Alaska Volcano Observatory. No other observatory in the world comes even close to that number. AVO also analyzes available satellite data twice daily for thermal anomalies and ash plumes at about 80 volcanoes in the north Pacific. Russian volcanoes frequently put ash into areas where the U.S. has aviation safety responsibilities. Alaska's active volcanoes also offer superb opportunities for basic scientific investigations of volcanic processes. An important component of AVO's program is to conduct research at selected volcanic centers.

Alaska's volcanoes are potentially hazardous to passenger and freight aircraft as jet engines sometimes fail after ingesting volcanic ash. On December 15, 1989, a Boeing 747 flying 240 kilometers, 150 miles, northeast of Anchorage encountered an ash cloud erupted from Redoubt Volcano and lost power in all four jet engines. The plane, with 231 passengers aboard, lost more than 10,000 feet of elevation before the flight crew was able to restart the engines. After landing, it was determined the airplane had suffered about $80 million in damage. The U.S. Geological Survey said about 100 encounters of aircraft with volcanic ash were documented from 1983 to 2000. In some cases engines shut down briefly after sucking in volcanic debris, but there have been no fatal incidents.

The FAA estimates, based on information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, that more than 80,000 large aircraft per year, and 30,000 people per day, are in the skies over and potentially downwind of many of Alaska's volcanoes, mostly on the heavily traveled great-circle routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. Along this route, which coincidently follows the northern portion of the Pacific ``ring of fire'', are over 100 volcanoes capable of depositing ash into the flight path. Some are in Japan, many are in Russia, but about half are in Alaska. By analyzing satellite imagery and working with the National Weather Service to predict where winds will carry the ash, AVO assists the Federal Aviation Administration in warning aircraft of areas to avoid.

Volcanic eruptions from Cook Inlet volcanoes, Spurr, Redoubt, Iliamna, and Augustine, can have severe impacts, as these volcanoes are nearest to Anchorage, Alaska's largest population center. The last major series of eruptions of Mt. Redoubt occurred in the spring of 2009. The Alaska Volcano Observatory had recorded 26 volcanic eruptions and/or explosions at Redoubt volcano.

There were several impacts from this series of eruptions from Mount Redoubt. Two major lahars, mudflows, moved down the Drift River and partially inundated an oil terminal. Airborne ash clouds posed a hazard to aviation and caused multiple flight cancellations and reroutes. Alaska Airlines cancelled approximately 200 flights. FedEx, United Parcel Service and several other cargo airlines rerouted aircraft to Seattle. Ash fall forced Ted Stevens International Airport, the third busiest cargo airport in the world, to close for 20 consecutive hours. Disruption to the aviation industry was significant for passenger travel and cargo transportation between Asia and North America. Minor ash fall impacted several communities as far downwind as Delta Junction, Alaska, 400 miles northeast of Anchorage. Elmendorf Air Force Base assets were temporarily relocated. There were also impacts to oil field operations due to the cessation of oil storage at Chevron's Drift River Oil Terminal. The economic impact is estimated to be less than or equal to the Redoubt eruptions also disrupted air traffic in the region. Hundreds of commercial flights were cancelled and cargo companies were significantly impacted. This resulted in employees being placed on unpaid leave during periods when airport operations were shut down.

International volcano monitoring is also a role of the Federal Government. It likely saved many lives--and significant money--in the case of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, where the United States had military bases at the time. The cataclysmic eruption lasted more than 10 hours and sent a cloud of ash as high as 22 miles into the air that grew to more than 300 miles across. The United States Geological Survey spent less than $1.5 million monitoring the volcano and was able to warn of the impending eruption, which allowed authorities to evacuate residents, as well as aircraft and other equipment from U.S. bases there. The USGS estimates that the efforts saved thousands of lives and prevented property losses of at least $250 million.

It is not enough to justify a program by just identifying a danger. The more important question is whether something can be done to reduce the impact of a volcanic eruption in terms of property damage and loss of life. That means getting people out of harm's way by providing advance warning. And this is exactly what the USGS Volcano Hazards Program seeks to do through the existing volcano observatories in the United States.

The advances made in monitoring can now provide much more accurate and timely predictions of eruptions. As an example, in 1989, AVO was only able to provide a few days warning before Mount Redoubt erupted. This year, they began to detect activity and notified the public two months before it eventually erupted.

The biggest challenge remains finding an adequate and stable source of funding. The USGS Volcano Hazards Program has been constantly underfunded. Both USGS and the FAA provide funding, but it is not enough to manage all the observatories or provide for an expansion of the system to cover increased monitoring and volcano research.

It is because of the inadequate funding, and critical importance of this program, that I intend to introduce a bill that will provide the funding stability that volcano monitoring needs. This program shows that with a modest investment, a very large benefit can be produced in reducing the impacts of catastrophic events.

My legislation will establish a National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System within the United States Geological Survey to monitor warn and protect citizens from undue and avoidable harm from volcanic activity. The USGS will coordinate a management plan with the other relevant federal departments, including the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The legislation authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually to the Department of Interior to carry out the Act.

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

Madam President, last week I spoke on five of the steps we need to take to increase domestic oil production. Today I wish to take a few moments to speak more broadly about our Nation's energy policy as a whole, what the proper goals for such a policy should be, and the false choice between increased domestic production and reduced oil consumption.

Energy policy has repeatedly been brought up as an area where this Congress and this President can find common ground. Knowing something actually needs to be done, however, is no guarantee it will be done. The truth is most of us know we can improve in the area of energy. With oil prices at above $100 a barrel and the price at the pump heading toward $4 a gallon, we need to develop a coherent national energy policy to find that common ground, and that need has taken on even greater urgency.

So what makes for good energy policy and how can we ensure that agreement is finally reached on meaningful energy legislation? I think we should have essentially five goals, and those five goals are: an energy that is abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and domestic. I realize these words, especially in combination with one another, don't lend themselves to a clever acronym or a catchy slogan, so maybe we need to rearrange them and figure out what word we can make. But if we follow these as our guiding principles and make sure our legislative efforts reflect each and every one, I believe genuine progress can be within our reach. So let's start with the concept of affordable energy, because that is certainly the most relevant topic right now.

Times such as these serve as a wakeup call as to how important energy--and particularly affordable domestic energy--is to our Nation. Energy provides the base of everything we do; not just heat and power and light and transportation, but the food we eat, the clothes we wear--everything. Whether for a server farm or for a soybean farm, abundant and affordable energy is the foundation for a robust economy. But, unfortunately, there seem to be those who feel the key to clean energy is to make energy scarce and expensive. We don't need an experiment or an act of Congress to know an economic recession reduces emissions, and a depression, of course, would even do that more so. The current price of oil is a stark reminder that while making energy scarce and expensive may, in fact, reduce our emissions, it is an even more effective way to crush an economic recovery. That is not good for us.

The President has proposed we should raise the taxes on oil companies, but in the middle of tough economic times, the American people are not open to those policies that will increase their energy costs. There is a better path that would do more to bolster our energy security, more to create jobs, more to generate government revenues and, equally, more to reduce our deficit. Instead of punishing one industry to promote another, let's use our tremendous reserves of conventional resources which account for more than 80 percent of our energy supply. Let's use these to fund the next generation of clean technologies. Let's prove up and produce our resources and then put these revenues toward--whether it is tax incentives, whether it is additional research, whether it is studies at our universities, you name it, but let's use these wisely.

Speaking specifically to the regulatory burdens on energy, I think we all recognize the Clean Air Act has made our air cleaner and certainly improved our health. Carbon monoxide, SOX, NOX, and a host of other pollutants have largely been removed from smokestack and tailpipe emissions. I think we recognize there is more we can do in terms of the regulation of HFCs and other greenhouse gases which, while they emit much lesser quantities, they certainly have potent greenhouse effects. But the Clean Air

Act is not the proper legal framework for regulation of carbon dioxide, which is emitted in huge quantities by almost every human activity and whose effect cannot be confined to a nonattainment area, and which, in itself, is not harmful to health. All of us want a cleaner energy supply, but the approach taken over the last several years seems to have been one of all or nothing instead of the all-of-the-above approach, and I think it has been counterproductive. We need to seek out and accept policies that will lead to steady progress.

We don't yet know the best way to provide energy that is clean and abundant and affordable, but what we do know is there is a whole myriad of opportunities. We have oil and natural gas; we have wind; we have solar; we have hydro; we have geothermal. We have coal, biofuels, fission, fusion. Just naming the types of energy and the subcategories within energy is a whole floor speech in and of itself. Whether it turns out to be fireflies we collect in a bottle or something we simply haven't even imagined yet, we don't know what source or what combination of sources will actually turn out to be best for America. That should be cause for those of us here in Congress to be extraordinarily careful in trying to predetermine what sources should either win or lose. We are always talking around here about we need to steer clear of picking winners and losers, and yet it seems that is what we do all the time. A diversity of energy sources provides the best proving ground and insurance against overreliance on any one source, and a healthy economy provides the best demand for the cleanest sources available.

Winston Churchill once said:

On no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on

no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent.

Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone.

Winston Churchill was talking about oil, but his words are just as applicable to our need for diversity in all of our types of energy.

Finally, the need to make our energy domestic to the greatest degree possible is something we have all known--we all know we need to do this--but we have failed to do anything about it for decades. It shouldn't take an upheaval in North Africa to convince us that sending billions of dollars a day out of our economy to countries that are not our friends is a bad idea.

We know it is a bad idea. Yet we continue year after year after year. We need to focus on two parallel tracks: increased domestic production and decreased consumption. We absolutely should reduce our dependence on oil. In our early days of the automobile, we saw a wide range of experiments as inventors and entrepreneurs strove to find the best approach. Again, I think we are on the verge of a renaissance in vehicle technologies where we explore electric vehicles, biofuels, fuel cells, efficient diesels, natural gas, propane, and other approaches. But for right now, today, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day, and for the vast majority of its uses there is no imminent substitute.

I said last week in my comments that for the sake of our national economy, for the sake of our Nation's security, and for the sake of the world's environment, we should produce at home the highest possible percentage of the oil we do consume.

Domestic production is currently being stifled by those who engage in what I guess you would call magical thinking--that if only we stop producing oil in the United States, then the world's need for oil is going to go away and Skittles are going to fall from the sky and unicorns will prance in the streets. It is just not real.

The harsh reality is our foreign oil dependence contributes to conflicts where young men and women die or come home without limbs, and we wreck our economy. There always will be future conflicts in the world, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. As a nation, we will have to decide on our proper role in each. We can and should do everything possible, however, to eliminate foreign oil dependence as a strategic consideration.

Madam President, none of this is due to America running out of oil. In Alaska, my home State, we have estimated reserves in excess of 65 years' worth of Persian Gulf imports. So, again, in Alaska alone--one State--we have reserves in excess of 65 years of what we take from the Persian Gulf. There are also, of course, tremendous reserves in other States and, of course, offshore.

For decades, opponents of domestic production have argued that we should not produce more because we are not going to see this come online for years to come. If, 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago we had ignored those who had said ANWR was unacceptable because it would take a decade to develop, we would now, at this point in time, be enjoying another 1 million barrels of domestic production per day. But we said, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, it is going to take too long to bring that ANWR oil online, so we just ought not do it. Look where it puts us today.

Opponents also like to say that a policy of increased domestic production will have no immediate effect on oil prices. We don't even want to waste time arguing the folly of trying to dismiss good national energy policy because it is long term. I also note that using the Strategic Oil Reserve to mitigate high oil prices--to maybe push them back below $100 a barrel for a short term, a couple weeks--should be unacceptable to us. We need a viable long-term answer, not a short-term and shortsighted political alibi.

There is nothing that OPEC fears more than America committing to the twin tracks of increased domestic production and reduced consumption. Were we to do so, we would see OPEC doing everything in their power to drive down world oil prices to make us abandon our policies and, once again, hamstring ourselves and make us reliant upon them for our oil.

I want to offer an important perspective. Even if we cannot accept that America increasing production and decreasing consumption would affect global oil prices, remember, price is not the only reason to advance such a policy. Right now, the high price of oil works against America, and it works for every nation that deliberately produces its reserves. Production provides them with jobs, it provides them with revenue for their government, and it provides better trade balances and national security, but all at our country's expense.

We are the only country that has identified a huge resource base and then absolutely refused to produce it. So often we hear on this floor discussion about China eating our lunch in clean energy, about Japan and Germany outpacing us in wind and solar technology. But does anybody think if those countries had a Gulf of Mexico or an ANWR, they would not be drilling in those areas as we speak? Does anyone think those nations demagog nuclear power or refuse to permit coal plants? Their energy policies are on a better track than ours. They are not just looking at what is happening today; they are looking at tomorrow, at today--they have an energy policy that carries them out.

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal of yesterday by Nansen Saleri. He concludes his article with this statement:

The U.S. does not have an energy problem. It has an energy

strategy problem.

Think about that. It is not lacking the resources; it is the strategy for how we develop our energy resources.

During his campaign, President Obama liked to quote Dr. Martin Luther King and talk about ``the fierce urgency of now.'' There are few issues more important or more fundamental to our Nation's long-term success than a viable energy policy. People are very correct when they say that parts of this will take time, and parts will take a longer period of time. But now is never more fiercely urgent than when we have such an important and long journey ahead of us. If we are ever going to take control of our energy future, now is the time to come together and support policies that promote abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and domestic energy. It is critically important to us.

I look forward to these conversations that we will continue on the Senate floor as we talk about ways we not only work to reduce our budget, ways we not only work to create jobs in this country, but ways that we truly build a strategic energy policy for the long-term for this country.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, clearly some very serious subjects are

being discussed today. I applaud my colleague from Kentucky for bringing up the tough stuff. We cannot escape reality. Our reality is in the entitlements; that we will finally grapple with the insurmountable debt we are faced with as a nation, some very difficult issues in front of us with equally difficult solutions. As we stand and present them, try to educate one another, much less those we represent, this is a critical time for us to be talking about all the issues that need to be on the table.

One of the issues being discussed around family dinner tables is what is happening in this country as it relates to the price of oil and how that translates more personally to American families who, every time they go to fill up the tank, it is costing them more and more. Every time we pick up a newspaper, every time we turn on the TV, we see a story about the rising prices of oil. They are asking: What is going on. They look at the situation in the Middle East and the combination of international events that is driving it. It is also domestic policies that have helped to push oil above $100 a barrel.

All of us are concerned about what those higher prices mean for us as a nation. We are committed to protecting the American people and our businesses and ensuring we have an ability to deal with rising prices at the same time we are trying to emerge from this difficult recession period. This is a tough time for us.

I have come to floor to outline several steps I believe we can and should take to improve our energy policy.

First, I wish to touch on how we again find ourselves in this situation. The civil unrest we are seeing, the political instability in other nations is certainly not new. They are facts of life in many nations that provide this Nation's imports. Iran now holds OPEC's presidency. They are perfectly comfortable with $100-a-barrel oil. It is far from guaranteed that OPEC is even capable of moderating any prices in the way it claims it can with spare capacity.

With Libya's supply either offline or unreliable, any other disruption anywhere in the world can likely spike global oil prices to levels that will swamp our economic recovery and result in a genuine hardship for America's families.

It is not only the situation internationally that has brought us to this point. The costs and consequences associated with our dependence on foreign oil are largely our own fault. We have brought this upon ourselves. Over the years our lands have been locked up. Many of our most promising opportunities have been put out of reach. In this country we sit on tremendous oil reserves in the offshore, whether it is up in Alaska, in the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas, or whether it is in the Gulf of Mexico. We have onshore opportunities in my home State that are considerable. We have them in the Rocky Mountain West. We have massive shale formations that are not even accessible for research and development. We can't even begin to look.

Charles Krauthammer, the columnist, wrote last year:

We haven't run out of safer and more easily accessible

sources of oil. We've been run off them. . . .

I couldn't agree more. Today our energy policy has gone beyond frustrating. It is irresponsible. The American people expect their government to help keep energy affordable and to see to it that we can benefit from our natural resource development in a responsible way. That is what they are asking for. They expect us to take an honest look at where increased domestic production is possible, how it can protect against the higher prices we are seeing now, how it can protect against potential supply disruption, and what domestic production will do to increase our security and restore our trade balance.

That is what we are talking about today: generating government revenues, creating jobs. Right now when we import oil, we are exporting those benefits. It is our loss, and it is their gain.

We ignore the positive benefits of domestic production at our own peril. About a month ago we had a hearing in the Energy Committee where there was a statement presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center. It is a pretty sobering reminder to us all. The statement was:

A one-dollar, one-day increase in a barrel of oil takes $12

million out of the U.S. economy. If tensions in the Mideast

cause oil prices to rise by $5 for even just three months,

over $5 billion will leave the U.S. economy. Obviously, this

is not a strategy for creating new jobs.

That was about a month ago. Think about what has happened in the course of a month and where we have seen the price go. About a month ago, it was sitting at about $82 a barrel. We are now over $100 a barrel. We are looking at a rise of 20 bucks in the past month. What that means to us in terms of dollars that have been sent outside of our economy is about $15 billion.

Last year, putting it in context of what went on at that time, we spent an estimated $337 billion on oil imports, a huge amount of money. As we are talking about how we deal with budget matters and decide which programs and services to continue, to terminate, this has an incredible impact on the discussion.

Today I am renewing my call for a realistic and aggressive approach to our energy challenges. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of our economy, and for the sake of the world's environment, America should produce as much oil as it uses as possible. It is this balance, in concert with the resulting revenues we will see, the benefits to manufacturing and transportation industries, that will allow us to take control of our energy future.

I have five concepts that will support greater domestic oil production. I will speak very briefly because we will have time to develop this.

First, look north, north to Alaska. We used to have that on our license plates. We have an incredible supply of oil waiting to be tapped for the good of the Nation. The National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska is sitting there waiting. Two thousand acres of the nonwilderness portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas hold at least 40 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That is enough to replace crude imports from the Persian Gulf for over 65 years. We can do this in one State. We have those opportunities in Alaska. All three areas right now, as we speak, are effectively off-limits to new development because of decisions made by this administration or prior administrations. We have an opportunity if we just look north.

Second, end the ``permitorium'' and bring back production in the Gulf of Mexico. This administration has slowed permits for new deepwater development to practically a crawl. The Secretary of the Interior announced one new permit a couple days ago. That is a start, but we are just barely crawling. This could cost the United States an estimated 200,000 barrels of new supply if left in place for a year, far more if left in place longer, and tens of thousands of jobs in the meantime. Courts have also ruled repeatedly that the administration's ``permitorium'' is unlawful. A district court judge ruled last year that it was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' More recently the Interior Department was actually held in contempt for its ``dismissive conduct'' and ``determined disregard''--the words of the court--of previous orders to end this de facto moratorium.

The third item we can do is cut redtape. Let's make this work. In January the President ordered his executive agencies to review their regulations to ensure that they are cost-effective, that they are not unduly damaging economic growth and job creation. A great task. The Interior Department, though, is sitting in a situation where they have an awful lot of work to do.

In late 2008, the Interior Department stated that ``the number of required plan and permit approvals is on the order of about 25 to 30'' for a typical oil lease. Yet over the past 2 years, instead of reducing that, this administration has sought to add even more layers to these already significant requirements which are a major reason leaseholders need years to begin production. We just can't get to it.

Fourth, we need to look at how we as a nation consider this all-of- the-above energy policy. The alternatives to conventional oil, to natural gas, to coal should not be limited to the favored sources: wind, solar, geothermal. We have so much we can be doing. We recognize that. I have stood before this body on many occasions talking about the different ways we can build our energy portfolio, how we can work to

move the transportation fleet to that next generation, whether it is electric vehicles or fleets powered by natural gas.

The final item in terms of what we can do to help address our Nation's energy policy is to shelve bad ideas. There is an awful lot of bad ideas holding us up. This is the stop-the-bleeding element of the proposal. With oil prices on the rise, the administration and many in Congress seem to have forgotten that the oil industry actually provides Americans with energy and jobs. Yet sometimes they are viewed as an untapped source of government revenues.

Proposals to take more from oil companies have included a range of tax increases, the use-it-or-lose-it proposal and similar fees, and substantially shorter lease terms. All of these antiproduction efforts deprive companies of stable operating environments and reduce their willingness to invest in America. We need to look at what we are doing. If they are bad ideas, let's set the bad ideas aside. Let's adopt a constructive approach instead of seeking to punish. Let's figure out a better way forward so we can tap into more of America's vast resources and then make good use of the resulting revenues.

We clearly do have options. I look forward to discussing them more in detail, how we can develop these goals of a national energy policy. For today, I emphasize that responsible domestic production will reduce our energy prices, create jobs, improve security, raise revenue to pay down debt, and allow America to invest in technologies for the future. We cannot afford to wait on any of these benefits.

I urge Members, as we talk about ways to reduce our budget, ways to create more jobs for the country, we need to look critically at what is happening with our energy policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 24, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.