helped us get it through. so there is a clear path. they pull their 60-day extension off the floor of the house. there's a good thing. and now they should put the senate bill on the floored and both sides should embrace it an pass it and let me tell you a signal it will send to our people at home, a signal of job growth in the future. a signal that we're working together. a signal that we're going to get out of this recession. a signal that we put aside politics for the good of these hard-hat workers and the companies that employ them. they deserve it. they got hurt by wall street. you know, everybody in the country did, but these construction workers, because of all this messing around with these mortgage-backed securities, it killed the construction industry and housing. we have a chance to help some of

the most -- some of the hardest-working people in our nation. and i call on the house leadership to take a page out of our bipartisan book here, pass the senate bill. i thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: this week the majority brought a bill to the floor to talk about gas prices and energy-producing companies. today the majority -- that was yesterday. today the majority brought a bill to try to move away from that bill. we ought to be talking about gas prices. we should be talking about the thing that impacts so many families and so many businesses and so many individuals. i talked to somebody on the phone just yesterday, a friend of mine from st. charles, missouri. gasoline is about $3.50 a

gallon, a little lower than it is maybe where it is $3.90, the national average. i'm sure you could find a place in st. charles where the gas is $3.90. my friend told me about gas prices, how it affects his business, restaurant business. i've said on the floor before when american families stands before the gas pump and the gas pump goes from 40 to 50 to 60 to 70, almost every family in america watches those numbers and thinks of something they were going to do this week or this weekend and what they're not going to do. if you're in the restaurant business, as my friend is, he knew that. he said i was at the gas station just yesterday, and there was a woman there in a car with a child, and she said could you just give me $5. i don't think i can get home with the gas i've got. i don't have any money. i need to put a little more than a gallon of gas in the car just to know i can get home. could you put five gallons of gas in the car for me? and he said i put $20 of gas in

the car. $20 at $3.90 a gallon, the national average, doesn't last very long. people who are putting $5 or $10 in their gas tank aren't doing it because they love to go to the gas station. they're doing it because they can't afford to put the gas in the car that they need to do the things that we need to do. the national average hit $3.90 just day or two ago, and it's on the way up now. it's more than double what it was in january of 2009, where gasoline was about $1.90 or $1.91 a gallon. and people feel this. i can't think of a meeting i've had in the last two weeks with any group that didn't have some story about how energy and gas costs were impacting them. now why we'd have a bill on the floor that would raise gasoline prices, i have no idea. but that's the bill that's on the floor.

i think the idea is that the majority is wanting to blame somebody else rather than the president's energy policies, and the american people just don't accept that. i asked people in missouri to talk to me about some of the challenges they're having with these skyrocketing fuel prices. remember the president in the fall of 2008 said at the san francisco chronicle, under his energy policies, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket. i guess he's got to feel that his policies are doing exactly what he thought they would do. but here's what they're doing to people all over america. trent drake, who is a farmer in southwest missouri, raises soybeans. he raises corn, wheat and cattle; told me, of course like every farm, he's heavily dependent on fuel, in his case diesel fuel. his fuel bill went up 125% over

last year. that's more than twice the fuel bill that he had last year. roger lang, who owns a company, byron lang company in jackson, missouri, told me the majority of all the profits they're making are now going back in to pay the fuel costs, which of course means they can't look at the profits they made and think what can we do for better benefits or better wages or to hire more employees. th*e got to think how much -- they've got to think how much higher is this gasoline bill going to go? how much higher is my energy bill going to go under the energy policies we're working now? according to roblg skwrer -- roger lang, if something isn't done, he believes this one issue will end his business, a business his family has been operating since 1947 would be ended because we have energy policies that don't make sense. linda yeager, who is the executive director of the older

adults transportation system -- i don't know what it's called everywhere else. we call it the oats system in missouri. this system provides transportation for seniors and people with disabilities and 87 of our 115 counties. for every penny that gas goes up, linda said it costs her program $15,250. for every penny gas goes up in 87 counties all over missouri, right essentially vans and buses that take seniors and handicapped people where they need to go, for every penny gas goes up, it costs $15,250. for every penny, that's a loss of the equivalent of 10,000 one-way trips for one of the people they serve. multiply that $15,250 by the 200 pennies that gasoline has gone up in the last three years, and

suddenly you've got a budget that doesn't do what you'd hope it could do for the people they serve. the ozark food harvest in springfield, missouri, where i live, is a regional food bank that serves a third of the state of missouri, delivers about a million pounds of food a month. bart brown, who runs the ozark food harvest, really can't obviously predict, since none of us can, these gas prices. but they did just have to raise their delivery costs from four cents a pound to six cents a pound. so a 50% increase in the delivery cost of people who the food harvest is trying to help get food to their home. there's probably no group, the charities of america are incredible in their ability to make money last, to stretch a dollar, to do everything they can to make their contributions

have real impact. the food harvest, i've been to a lot of these food banks, and they benefit from getting food from people who are food producers, the processors who have an overrun or they have a damaged box or they have whatever. it's still perfectly good but they're willing to make it available to somebody else because it doesn't quite fit the way they do business. but when you have to increase your delivery costs by 50% just because gas has gone up -- gas has gone up 100%, so you increase your delivery costs by 50%. i guess you're still trying to make the most of the situation you find yourself in. it's not the only part of the cost but it's a big part of the cost. that's got to have big impact on all the people in a third of the counties in missouri that get food from the ozarks food harvest. meanwhile a lot of my colleagues on the other side have already

admitted that this tax hike on american energy producers would do nothing to lower gas prices. this clearly a messaging bill. but why if you were trying to divert attention away from the president's energy policies, you bring this bill to the floor is a surprise to me. in may of 2011, a year ago, the bill's sponsor, senator menendez acknowledged, he said -- quote -- "nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices." why would you be talking about it if you could be spending the same time doing things that would reduce gas prices? the american people believe that government can have impact on gas prices. i believe the government can have impact on gas prices. this bill that we're talking about isn't even designed, according to the sponsor, to reduce gas prices. senator begich said the proposed tax hikes -- quote -- "won't decrease prices at the pump for

our families and small businesses." he may or may not be for the bill, but he certainly has figured out what the bill would do. senator baucus noted that -- quote -- "this is not -- this is not going to change the price at the gasoline pump. that's not the issue." well, what is the issue? maybe we ought to figure out what the issue is. families think it's the issue. families think when they see that sign go up three different times maybe in a week that the price goes up, that there's some issue here that we ought to be dealing with. senator schumer admit that had this bill -- quote -- "was never intended to talk about lowering prices." that probably, mr. president, this bill was never even intended to be on the floor. i assume that the majority brought this bill to the floor thinking that republicans would not want to talk about this topic of whatever tax policies are designed to encourage more

american production. but why wouldn't we want to talk about that? why wouldn't we want to have more american energy of all kinds? senator landrieu told americans that this bill -- quote -- "will not reduce gas prices by one penny." and she is absolutely right. even the majority leader, who brought the bill to the floor, said this bill is not a question of gas prices. so really this bill maybe isn't a question of anything we ought to be talking about. let's talk about what we should be talking about. we ought to be talking about things that increase american energy, the shortest path to more american jobs is more american injuring. the jobs that -- is more american energy. the jobs that produce the energy and jobs that benefit from competitive energy prices. we're not, mr. president, some little european country i. know that the secretary of energy said in the fall of 2008 before the president chose him that our problem was that our gasoline prices weren't as high as the

gasoline prices in europe, where at that moment they were $8 or $10 a gallon. i don't think that's our problem at all. in fact, we're not a european country. we're the united states of america. we're a big country. we have our transportation needs are different, our energy needs are different. we generally don't walk to work or we generally don't only benefit from food products and other products that come from five or ten miles away. that's not who we are. that's not who we're going to be. we need to have energy policies that work for us. now, congressional republicans in the house and the senate have long supported a plan that uses all american energy. in fact, at the state of the union message, one of the few smiles on the republicans' side of the aisle that night were when the president he was for an "all of the above" energy

strategy because that's what we've been for for a long time, and mean it. that can include wind and solar, renewables, biomass, shale gas, shale oil, coal, nuclear. all of the above. it seems to me that the message has not gotten through to the regulators and the legislators that we need to be doing all we can to find more american energy. all of these things, every one that i mentioned: nuclear big and small. natural gas. we now think we have more natural gas than anybody in the worlds. and let's go after it. let's use that resource to the advantage of our economy. and they all have bipartisan support. and i think there's bipartisan support for investing in the future. let's do the things that figure out what comes next in the energy world. but it won't come quickly, and our economy couldn't afford for

it to come quickly. if we decide tomorrow we're not going to drive cars powered by gasoline tomorrow, that would be a huge mistake. it would be an equally huge mistake if we decided ten years from tomorrow none of us will be driving cars powered by gasoline. and we don't even know what the next power source would be. we're going to use these fossil fuels for awhile, and we should use them to our benefit. instead my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about raising taxes on domestic energy and domestic energy manufacturers. tax hikes that absolutely will be passed along to consumers and will discourage -- some of these things in the tax code are to encourage american energy production. there's energy all over the world. why wouldn't we want to encourage the energy production jobs to be here rather than somewhere else? i know the president said we're going to give money to brazil, and we want them to drill in the deep water, and we'll be glad to

buy some of their oil and gas when they produce it. but why would that be our alternative when we could in fact do things that encourage american energy production? or things like if it's not from the united states of america what about our neighbors? the keystone pipeline, 830,000 barrels of oil a day that's going to go somewhere. because they're going to use that resource to their benefit and it's either that pipeline is going to come south to our refineries or go west and sold to asian. why wouldn't we want the 20,000 jobs to build that pipeline, not taxpayer paid jobs but jobs of people who pay taxes, working for companies who pay taxes, would why wouldn't we want those jobs to be right here in the united states rather than in canada, sending that pipeline west to eventually have that same oil sold to asian, is a mystery to me.

if the president really wants to support an all-of-the-above energy strategy, he should stop blocking all this energy. the president should work to enable all sources of energy we have in the united states, starting with our neighbor as well as -- the best place for us to meet our energy needs is right here. the next best place is our best trading partner, our biggest trading partner and our closest neighbor, canada, then even the mexican energy appears to be on a rebound in a positive way that could benefit us. let's be as independent as we can of energy and the energy that most -- that relates most directly to american jobs. the responsible development of more domestic energy will help create jobs, bring down prices at the pump, and position our country to have greater energy security. the shortest path, mr. president, to more american jobs is more american energy.

let's get on that path instead of this path that discourages the very thing that could help us the most. and i yield back. mr. vitter: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i, too, come to

the floor to talk about the most pressing issue facing so many millions of louisiana and american families, and that is the price at the pump. sometimes we seem to get ourselves in a cocoon here in washington, d.c., divorced from the real world. well, we need to reconnect to the real world, and back in louisiana and pennsylvania and every state across the country, middle-class, lower middle-class families are really struggling with this ever-increasing price at the pump. when president obama was sworn into office a little over three years ago, that price was about $1.84 a gallon. today it's over double that, $3.80 and beyond and that's about a big hit to american families. that hits folks where it counts and where it hurts, in the wallet and the pocketbook and the family budget. and all around louisiana families are huddled around the

kitchen table trying to figure out how to make it work, because gasoline, transportation, driving isn't a luxury. sure, you can cut back a little bit, but for the most part it's a real necessity. it's going to work, it's getting the kids to school, it's doing absolute necessities, and this is a big, big hit to middle-class, lower middle-class families' budgets and wallets and boct pocketbooks. so let me suggest the obvious, that we focus on what really matters to american families. we focus on that here in the senate, here in washington, and we do something about that. that's why i favored moving to the menendez bill here on the senate floor. that's why i voted against moving off the bill today, not because i agree with that solution -- it isn't a solution -- but at least we can

talk about the topic, at least we can offer amendments on what is to millions of louisiana and american families the biggest day-to-day challenge they face, and that is that ever-increasing price at the pump. now, the menendez solution, quote-unquote, the democratic plan, will not help bring down the price at the pump. in fact, it will do just the opposite. and i think the american people with good old-fashioned american common sense get it. look, you can love the oil companies, you can hate the oil companies, but the menendez bill -- bill increases taxes on u.s. energy companies and on u.s. energy production. it increases taxes on those folks and on that activity. now, what do you think is going to be the result of that in terms of the price at the pump?

the american people know. the american people get it. it's obvious. it's going to increase the price at the pump. certainly not going to leave it alone or decrease it. why? well, it's economics 101. when you give business a new additional cost, almost all the time that's going to be passed on to the consumer. and the american people get that. they see that, they feel it, they deal with it every day. also when you increase taxes on something, you produce less of it in the market. and in this case, the menendez bill is increasing taxes on energy production, in particular, ironically, u.s. energy production, where i thought we want to increase and maximize that activity. and so when you tax something more, you get less of it. supply goes down. and guess what happens when supply goes down and demand is

the same -- price goes up. and so i not only agree with, i go further than some of the democrats who were quoted by the previous speaker saying this bill isn't about reducing the price at the pump. well, it's not only not about reducing the price at the pump, it will have the impact of increasing the price at the pump. now, conservatives have a different suggestion that will decrease the price at the pump, and that is to use the resources we have in this country, to open up our ability to use those energy resources, to produce more good u.s. american energy for ourselves, to increase supply, and to thereby lower the price at the pump. and we can do that and we should do that. you know, a lot of americans don't realize but the u.s. is actually the most energy-rich

country in the world, bar none. when you look at total energy resources. when you compare countries in terms of their total energy resources, the u.s. is the richest in energy, bar none. and this chart shows that. the u.s. is tops, russia comes second, saudi arabia is third, but look at saudi arabia and all middle eastern countries, way, way below our total u.s. energy resources. we're very rich in terms of energy. this map shows just how rich we are in terms of u.s. resources. we have enormous recoverable natural gas, particularly with new technology and horizontal drilling that's been developed. that's these green circles that represent conservative estimate, 88 years of natural gas, using just that for u.s.

use. we have enormous recoverable oil, again very conservative estimates, but in the gulf where we do produce, also on the east coast and the west coast and alaska, lots of oil. and we have enormous recoverable oil from shale, particularly out west. it's being blocked now, it's off limits, but we have these resources. now, the problem is, i said we're the single most energy-rich country in the world bar none. we are. the problem is we're the only country in the world that puts well over 90% of our resources off limits. we're the only country that does that. east coast production, no, absolutely not. west coast production, no, big red no. anwr, alaska national wildlife refugee where we could access millions of acres of land from a

very select footprint smaller than the area the size of dulles airport here in suburban virginia, no. western shale production, where you saw so much of the resource potential on the previous map, no. even production in the eastern gulf of mexico, no. under federal law because of this administration, because of this senate, we keep saying no, no, no, no, no, no to our u.s. resources. good example of that is president obama's five-year lease plan for offshore production. under federal law, every president has to develop and issue a five-year plan about leasing the outer continental shelf off shore. president obama's five-year plan is half of the previous plan. now, we have very, very little we're able to touch as it is,

and president obama has backed us up from there, has turned us around, moved us in the wrong direction from there. his plan literally half of the previous plan. so we're moving there in absolutely the wrong direction. this map shows that. this map is what was available for potential drilling under the previous plan. we were finally moving forward on the east coast, on the west coast, offshore alaska. we have been in the gulf. but under president obama's very different lease plan, we're back to saying no. no, no, no, no, no, no, no. backing up, moving in the wrong direction. we're moving in the wrong direction in other areas, too, under this administration. in the gulf of mexico near where i live, traditionally the area

where we produce the most u.s. energy, even in the gulf of mexico we're moving in the wrong direction. production is down 17% in 2011. it's projected to go down more in 2012. permitting is down over 40% compared to the pre-b.p. levels of permitting. i know with the b.p. disaster there had to be a quick pause, we had to change some rules but still down over 40%, production down 17% in one of the few areas we allow activity? we can't afford that. we need to produce more good u.s. energy. oil production on federal property, again down on all federal property, it's down 14% in the last couple of years. federal offshore, it's down 17% in the last couple years.

we need to do better. and, of course, perhaps the clearest example of this approach to energy by president obama is his recent veto of the keystone pipeline, a true shovel-ready project, truly ready to go. it's not u.s. energy but it's the next best thing, from our biggest trading partner, a very good friend and reliable trading partner in canada. and the president vetoed it. and with 20,000 jobs that would have created, no. 700,000 barrels a day of oil from canada, no. $7 billion of economic investment, when we're trying to come out of this horribly weak economy, no. help to lower the price at the pump, no. again, no, no, no, no. well, we can do better. we can do better as a country.

we certainly can do better in washington and say yes, we can do better by accessing more domestic energy resources. again, we're the most energy-rich country in the world, bar none, but we're the only country that puts over 90% of that off limits. we need to change that. and we can create more great u.s. jobs. let's say yes to that. and, by the way, those are jobs which by definition can't be outsourced to china or india or anywhere else. if you're creating energy in the united states, that job has to stay in the united states. we can build greater energy independence. let's say yes to that. we can dramatically increase revenue to the federal government, and thereby reduce deficit and debt. after the federal income tax, the second biggest source of revenue to the federal

government is revenue on domestic energy production. those royalties. second only to the federal income tax. so let's say yes to that new revenue, deficit and deficit reduction, and we can help lower the price at the pump because supply does matter. increasing supply does matter. it will lower price. so again, i disagree with the menendez approach. the menendez approach will increase the price at the pump, increasing taxes on an industry is going to be passed on to the consumers. taxing something more produces less of it, and less oil means the price goes up. but we can have an american solution to this. we can open up access to our own resources, and thereby gain control of our own future. we don't have to beg saudi arabian princes.

we can regain control of our own destiny and our own future. let's do it. the american people want us to do it. common sense dictates that we do it. let's move forward together and do it for the good of our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor this evening to join my colleagues who were here earlier to talk about the bipartisan senate-passed transportation bill. i want to give credit to senator barbara boxer, chair of the environment and public works committee and senator inhofe from oklahoma who is the ranking member for all of their good work on this legislation. they joined three other committees which also passed their portions of the bill with strong bipartisan support. you know, mr. president, i think that we could all agree that transportation is one of this

federal government's core responsibilities, and it has been far too long since congress updated and reformed federal transportation programs. every committee that worked on the senate's long-term transportation bill passed it with a strong bipartisan vote, and when the bill came to the floor, 74 senators from both parties voted in favor of the transportation bill. now i urge the house of representatives to follow our lead in the senate and to act on a long-term bipartisan transportation bill. i think they ought to take up the senate bill. the senate's transportation bill is about strong bridges, good jobs and dependable roads that businesses count on to move goods and reach customers. the senate's bill reauthorizes transportation programs for two years, it maintains current

funding levels and it does not increase gas taxes. let me repeat that. it does not increase gas taxes, and it's fully funded. cutting funding for transportation right now would be a very dangerous choice. we're seeing emerging economies like china and india who are spending roughly 9% of their gross domestic product annually on roads, bridges, public transportation infrastructure. at the same time, here in the united states, we're spending about 2%. that's half of what we were spending in the 1960's, and at this rate, we're not going to be able to stay competitive with the rest of the world. so that's a macro reason why we need to pass the transportation bill. the bill is fully paid for, it doesn't increase the deficit, and most of the funding comes as usual from the gas tax.

to make up the gap in funding, we came up with bipartisan ways, including stiffer penalties on tax delinquents and shifting unused funds that are designated to clean up underground storage tanks. the senate's transportation bill is about making our investments more efficient so we spend less on overhead and more on roads and bridges, and i think several people have talked about the fact that this is a really good time for states to be able to borrow. there are low interest rates, and we can get a lot for our money. that's what i heard in new hampshire when i talked to our transportation officials, that interest rates are very low right now. this bipartisan bill streamlines the number of federal transportation programs from over 90 to just 30, and for the first time it requires states to collect data so we can measure what kind of bang we're getting for our buck. so not only is it a reform bill

that's more efficient but it's more accountable. i think that's why groups from the afl-cio to the u.s. chamber of commerce support this bill. they have come together to support a bill that's truly bipartisan and that would support nearly two million jobs nationwide and in my home state of new hampshire about 6,600. now, there have been a lot of reports about the difficulties facing the house in finding an agreement on a transportation bill. i think the senate has provided a very good model that maintains current funding levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes. what we need now is for the house to join the senate and produce a reasonable bipartisan long-term transportation bill that can give local governments and businesses some certainty before the height of the construction season.

state and local transportation projects are budgeted and planned based on the idea that the federal government will provide a consistent level of long-term funding. when you're planning a multimillion-dollar project that employs hundreds of people, it's critical to know what your budget is going to be more than just a couple of months in advance. we wouldn't run a business that way, and we shouldn't expect the government to run that way. if the house doesn't pass a bipartisan long-term transportation bill, states and towns won't have the certainty they need from us here in washington to plan their projects and to improve their systems. according to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. this is no time to stall programs that encourage economic growth and create the climate that our businesses need to succeed. in new hampshire, we're seeing

firsthand the real-world consequences of uncertainty in federal transportation funding. our interstate 93 corridor runs from the capitol in concord down to the massachusetts border. it really runs pretty much the length of the state. and right now, we have a project under way that would spur economic development in the southern half of that highway. it's been under way for several years, but the pace of the project has really lagged because there has been no certainty around our highway bill. it's been impossible for businesses and developers along the i-93 corridor to predict the future of the project, and at a time when the number of people working in the construction industry in new hampshire is the lowest that it's been in a decade, it's really unacceptable that we can't provide some certainty for this project. we know that highway projects like interstate 93 produce good jobs. new hampshire's department of

transportation has said that just one section of intersecretary of state 93 between exits 2 and 3 close to the massachusetts border created 369 construction jobs. all around the country, there are projects just like interstate 93 that are stalled while we wait for the house to pass a bipartisan long-term transportation bill. we need to come together. we need to make the federal investments that are necessary to get these projects moving and to get people back to work. investing in transportation creates jobs and it creates the conditions that our companies need to succeed. it is, as the u.s. chamber of commerce says, a core function of government and it should not be an issue for politics or for partisanship. i urge the house to take up the senate bill. congress needs to work together to pass a transportation reauthorization bill before the

march 31 deadline. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about a new federal regulation that many here may or may not be aware of. according to the department of justice, every swimming pool of public accommodation, meaning any pool at a hotel, motel, lodging establishment, recreation center, ymca, apartment complex, condominium complex, school or community pool is to install a large, expensive, permanent pool lift for the disabled or else face steep fines from the department of justice and the threat of lawsuits. we must make sure that we have accommodations for the disabled

in every public place, and this is happening around the country, but to do this with very little thought of the implications and the cost and the actual service to the disabled is a huge problem. as we have seen time and time again, one-size-fits-all mandates from washington don't work. we want public schools -- or public pools to have the flexibility to work with people with disabilities to ensure success. on january 31 of this year, 2012, the u.s. department of justice's civil rights division published revised requirements for swimming pools and their means of entry and exit, so this was two months ago. the d.o.j. has now put forward new requirements for all facilities of public accommodation that go beyond those contained in the final rule issued in 2010 giving totals and other residential

communities insufficient time to comply with this burdensome new rule. but we need to think about it for a minute because their lack of planning here is pretty evident by the fact that they are suggesting that this already be in place in less than two months when the equipment is not even available in the country to do it. and so it's clear that they have not thought through how to best serve the disabled, how to make sure that these services are available and to do it in a way that does not put an undue burden on businesses that want to provide the service. senator graham and i have a bill that nullifies the requirement and stops the attorney general from enforcing this requirement or any guidance associated with it. it also prevents against any third party using this rule or guidance in any manner. to be clear, our bill will allow public pools to work directly with people with disabilities to meet their specific needs.

hotels, motels and other public pools already have financial incentives to meet the needs of people with disabilities that use their facilities, and they have been working diligently to do that. our bill simply says the d.o.j. shouldn't impose a national mandate for a one-size-fits-all solution that may not be appropriate for every facility. this new burdensome rule seriously changes the obligations of public facilities around the country. there are an estimated 309 public spas and pools in the united states -- excuse me, 309,000 public spas and pools in the united states. the number of businesses in not just the large hotels and resorts that will have to comply is staggering. the rule requires a permanent pool lift be installed for every pool or spa, so if a hotel or resort or community association

has more than one pool, they will have to get multiple lifts. instead of what's being done now is using a portable lift that can be moved around to facilities as needed. a pool lift can run from $4,000 to $10,000, and the installation could run $5,000 to $10,000, depending on how much work needs to be done, so we're talking about billions of dollars spent on something that could -- could perhaps help the disabled but also become an obstacle and a danger to others using the pool if this is not thought out and done in a careful manner. the last thing we need to do right now is to add burdensome rules and requirements on businesses across the country. hotel owners do want to work in good faith to make sure pools are accessible to everyone, but we have to make sure that here at the federal level, we're not killing off more businesses by imposing mandates. mandates like these are

burdensome on the businesses, and we all know that these costs will just be passed on to the consumers, including the disabled, in the form of higher hotel costs for rooms and services. the department of justice has left many questions from the hotel industry and others unanswered on issues just as compliance ability, time frame and economic costs as well as rising insurance premiums. it is clear that the deadline for compliance should be extended to allow hotels and other places of public accommodation flexibility in providing access to guests with these disabilities. we should start over. they have given a 60-day relief period, but that is not enough time for this to be planned or for the equipment to be manufactured. the companies cannot comply in this period of time. we need a guarantee that services are available to the disabled, but the quickest way to do the wrong thing is the way the justice department is doing

it now. so instead of us letting this go into effect, let large fines be put on businesses all around the country, even community pools and ymca, let's set this judgment aside by unanimous consent today. let's set it aside, and if we want to debate and work with the department of justice to come up with a rule that works for the disabled and works for america, we can do that. but i have got a unanimous consent request here that i'd like read. "i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 336, senate bill 2191, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record." the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i

object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, as one of the senators who wrote the americans with disabilities act and whose name appears as the lead sponsor of that bill -- it was passed 22 years ago -- i oppose senator demint's effort to bypass the regular order and to amend the a. dd.a. to remove the ability of the justice to regulate swimming pools. things come up like this but i believe the a. dd.a. has withstd the test of time. not just for the disabled but for everyone. everyone utilizes universal design now. the fact that things are easily accessible for everyone. when we initially started putting in ramps, we thought

oval people using wheelchairs would use those ramps. i ask anyone here, anyone that is gotten -- watched who uses those camps, it's not just people with wheelchairs who use it. elderly use it, mothers with baby carriages use those ramps. you'd be amazed how many people find out those ramps are a lot easier than climbing up and down stairs. that's just one example. but i just want to be clear about what's at stake here remai.the americans are disabils act is a civil rights law that guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities. senator demint's legislation attempts to interfere with the justice's ability to enforce the law, civil rights statute. again it would be a dangerous precedent for the senate to set, that's why i object to his bill. let me get to the point here on the swimming pools. in september of 2010, the

justice department published final regulations implementing title 2 and title 3 of the a.d.a. these new religions addressed the number of issues that have arisen over the past 20 years, one of those being access to swimming pools and other recreational facilities. the requirement that has prompted senator demint's bill has to do with swimming pool accessibility. under the new religions, newly constructed or altered pools covered by the a.d.a. are required to provide at least one accessible means of entry into the water for people with disabilities, which must either be a sloped entry into the water or a pool that is capable of being independently operated by a person with a disability. pools larger than 300 feet in length, which is a big pool, olympic size size; are required to

provide a second means of being a he isability. these were promulgate fundamental september of 2010 so it's been almost a year and a half. now, these requirements apply in the case of a newly constructed pool or one that has been significantly altered as part of a renovation. that's again new pools or pools undergoing significant renovation. in addition, since the a.d.a. requires that public accommodations remove architectural barriers where it is readily achievable to do so, some existing public accommodations may be required to also increase access to pools for people with disabilities under title 3's readily achievable standard. let me repeat, "readily achievable standard." the ready lid achievable standard is not one-size-fits-all. i heard my friend from south

carolina saying this is a one-size-fits-all. that is not so. it is a very flexible standard. for example, if the equipment -- if the equipment is not available -- i heard senator demint say this equipment may not even be available -- if it is not available, by definition it is not readily achievable and therefore not required by the a.d.a. if it's not readily -- if it's not available, by definition it's not readily achievable. so it is not a one-size-fits-all. it is very flexible. it means -- quote -- "without much difficulty or expense" -- end quote. that's the law. so what constitutes readily achievable in a particular case is an individualized arnl analys based on a number of factors such as what the cost would be, the resources of the entity involved, and what a business can afford to do. so readily achievable, say, for a fairmont hotel would be a lot

different than readily achievable for a mom and pop motel that has a small swimming pool, much different, much different. it's what the business can afford to do. now, i know the american hotel and lodging association has been upset about the application of this readily achievable standard and what their members may be required to do, but, again be, keep in mind, the pool requirements from september of 2010 were required to go into effect by march 15 of this year, a year and a half later. but there were some misunderstanding so the department of justice has stan extended the deadline to may 21. i understand there's also -- the justice department has issued a notice of proposed rule making asking for comefntses about extending the deadline an additional four months until september 17 of this year. and the deadline for those

written comments is april 4. again, the process is working, just as it has, worked for the last 22 years. when we were working on the a.d.a. back in the 1980's, we heard from a umin of industries -- from a number of industries that required accessibility for entities like restaurants, retail stores, theaters. it was going to create serious problems for small business. i remember having unanimousious hearings in my committee, my subcommittee about that. so in an effort to address this concern and to help small businesses comply with the a.d.a., we created a disabled access tax credit. we heard senator demint talk about the costs. we instituted a tax credit in the i.r.s. code. here's what it does, two things. for businesses with 30 or fewer full-time employees or with total revenues of $1 million or

less per year, they get a tax credit, a tax credit. it can be used for adaptations to existing facilities. the amount of credit is 50% of eligible access expenditures. so if something costs $10,000 -- let's say -- i don't know what a lift might cost; i think the figures my friend us used were a little high. but let's say it costs $10,000. well, you get a tax credit for -- up to $5,000 for that. you get a 50% tax credit for that. in addition, in addition to that, section 190 of the i.r.s. code provides a tax deduction for businesses of all sizes, for costs incurred in removing barriers to meet the requirements of the a.d.a., the maximum deduction being $15,000 per year that they can deduct. so these two tax incentives

should certainly help the hotel industry offset any expenses associated with installing access to swimming pools. again, i just want to say, the rule -- the rule does not require a permanent pool lift. my friend from south carolina said it required it. that's not so. it is a flexible astandard under readily achievable. if it is not readily achievable, it is not required. so if you had a mom and pop motel with a very small swimming pool, if a permanent lift is not ready lid achievable, under the outlines i've just stated, then it's not required. then it's not required. so again, mr. president, we've had 22 years, a lot of court cases. some went to the supreme court. then in 2008, this border, in

unanimous -- unanimously without one senio dissenting vote, thisy and the house passed the a.d.a. amendments to overcome three rulings by the supreme court. we passed it, as i said, unanimously. president bush -- the second president bush signed it into law enforcement and again we've moved the ball forward in making this country more accessible for every -- everyone, including people with disabilities. so i say, it's stood the at the time of tievment there' time. there's no reason to curtail the department of justice enforceability. there's no reason to bypass the regular process and to do what senator demint is trying to address. as i said, let's remember how popular the accessibility imriewft improvements that the a.d.a. required turned out to

be. the curb cuts, captioning on television screens, all of the things that seem to be commonplace today that we take for granted. so i'm confident that the improvements in swimming pool access that these new regulations will require will turn out to be popular. actually, they may turn out to be very popular with hotel guests that don't have disabilities. but think about it in terms of families who are traveling, maybe an adult, maybe even a a child with a disablght. they want to use the hotel pool. yet there's not a lift, or there's not a ramp. and so one american from that family is barred from using those facilities. as i said, keep in mind it's readily achievable. if it's not readily achieve baling, the -- if it's not ready achievable, they don't have to do it. that's why i objected to senator demint's request to bypass the regular process.

mr. president, i hope that the justice department will contin continue. i don't have a view one way or the other on the extension to september. if the justice department feels that's okay and there are mostly comments that have come in that ask for that extension, i see nothing wrong with extending it another five or six months. but at some point the law must take hold and we have to meet our obligations to remove the barriers to accessibility in our country. we've come a long way since the a.d.a. let's continue the proficiency the wonderful progress that we've made in the last 22 years. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, my colleagues, senator boozman, senator coons, are on the floor to speak to an issue relative to africa. it is my understanding that the majority leader is coming to the

floor to make a unanimous consent request, and with the te understanding that to my colleagues that it will interrupt our presentation. if it meets with the approval of my clerks since i was the last to arrive, i want to defer to senator coons and senator boozman to start the conversation. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with senators durbin and senator boozman for up to 30 minutes. we will suspend when leader reid arrives. i wanted to briefly, if i could -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. coons cinecoons cinesmr. coons:y talk about the africa act of 2012. the core question is, what is it about the rapid growth in africa

and the economic opportunity in africa that should concern americans, that should concern our constituents at home and should occupy our time aand attention? while back on november 1 of last year the african affairs subcommittee dell d into this. we looked hard at the ongoing developments in africa. as this first chart suggests, there's been a dramatic change in the amount of exports from china to africa relative to the exports from the united states to africa. chinese exports to africa have outgrown u.s. exports to africa by a more than 3-to-1 ratio. why does 245 matter? why does it matter if american companies are losing out? frankly, africa is a continent of unor must opportunity. out of the ten fastest-growing economies in the last decade, six were in sub-saharan africa.

part of why i lay this groundwork to start this colloquy is to help folks who are watching at them to help our colleagues understand why senator durbin has taken the lead in making sure that we focus america's efforts on strengthening our exports to africa, a continent of enormous opportunity. senator durbin? mr. durbin: the commerce department estimates that we can create jobs here in america, capitalizing on the opportunities in africa. and that's a good starting point in the midst of recession, to know that in delaware and arkansas and pennsylvania and illinois there are jobs to be created, good-paying jobs right here at home, taking advantage of these export markets. the chart that senator coons has brought to the floor at this point indicates the dramatic growth here that is occurring right now in africa. and i think it would surprise a lot of people, as he said, who believe that this is still a

continent which is struggling with age-old problems. in the past ten years, six of the world's ten-fastest growing economies were located in subsaharan africa. in the next five years it is expected seven of the world's ten-fastest growing economies will be in sub-saharan africa. the bill we're bringing here is an effort to focus america's export market on the opportunities creating jobs at homes and countries in africa. i met to ethiopia last year and met with the president of ethiopia. i asked them what has been the impact of china on your country. we stayed and spoke for another 30 minutes as he explained to me the dramatic changes taking place in ethiopia because of china. the numbers tell the story. when you look at what china offers today to ethiopia and the

continent of africa, they are offering concessional loans. what it means is if it's a $100 million project that you need to start in africa, the chinese will give you $100 million and say you only have to pay back $70 million. oh, what a great deal that is. a 30% discount. with a few conditions. that you use chinese engineers and chinese construction companies and half the workers will be coming over to your country from china. well, they are building a base of economic support within africa. between 2008 and 2010, china provided more to the developing world than the world bank, loans totaling more than $110 billion. and what we are suggesting is that as this is a growing opportunity for exports, that we need to grow with it. i'd like to yield to my colleague from arkansas who has been kind enough to join us in this effort.

mr. boozman: thank you. i thank the senator from illinois for doing that. it is a real pleasure to be with him and the senator from delaware. i think this is a good example of working together in the sense of trying to -- the name of the game right now is jobs, jobs, skwrorbgs -- jobs and exports means jobs. the other people helpful are our colleagues in the house: congressman chris smith and bobby rush from illinois. these guys have been very helpfulful. don payne i my former ranking member and chairman who recently passed away, i know that he would be very, very pleased with this effort. i've had the opportunity to travel to africa on many occasions, being on the house foreign affairs committee and now being in the senate. and it's interesting, you go to these places, and you mentioned this, senator, you go to these places and all they want to do is talk about trade. they like american products. they want american products. i was part of the first

delegation to visit south sudan. here they are, this small, struggling country and, again, all they wanted to do was talk about trade. coons coons i ask unanimous consent that we -- mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that we suspend our colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. the majority leader. mr. reid: i hope i haven't interrupted anything that can't be restarted in a short time. thank you very much everyone. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1905, the iran threat reduction act, and the senate proceed to its consideration all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment which is at the desk, which is the text of calendar number 3 20rbgs s. 2101, iran sanctions accountability and human rights act ags reported by the banking committee be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no

intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, i'm amazed the majority party objects to an amendment which simply restates the constitution. our founding fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. they were quite concerned that the executive could become like a king. many in this body cannot get boots on the ground fast enough in a variety of places, from syria to libya to iran. we don't just send boots to war. we send our young americans to war. our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate. before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the adviseability of war and over the objectives of the war. james madison wrote that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates.

that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. the constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature. my amendment is one sentence long. it states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in iran or syria. i urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate, without a vote, without careful consideration of the ramifications of a third or even a fourth war in this past decade. i, therefore, respectively object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i really am terribly disappointed. there's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. in fact, it's quite to the contrary. it's prely unfortunate. -- it's really unfortunate. i read the constitution a few times. my friend says he wants to

restate the constitution. that's a strange version he just stated. i don't see that anyplace in the constitution. so i'm deeply disappointed that the senate wasn't able to enact additional critical sanctions against the republic of iran. the sanctions that came out of the banking committee unanimously are a key to our work to stop iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and threatening israel and he jeopardizing the united states national security. it is a bipartisan bill which passed unanimously out of the senate banking committee. it would have had much-needed new sanctions put in place now, right now as we speak. we could pass this legislation this minute if the minority would drop their opposition. we can't afford to lay these sanctions or slow down this process in any way. i'm willing to move this bill without amendments at any time. now, mr. president, i say to my friend, who i respect, i say to my friend, if there are additional things that should be done, i was told this morning

that republicans wanted to offer amendments to this unanimous consent request. i said no because democrats want to also. but we're satisfied with where we are. this is a wonderful piece of legislation done on a bipartisan basis in the banking committee. and if people like my friend, the junior senator from kentucky, wants to do more, as my friends from this side and on the republican side, let's come up with something else. but i just think not to do this is really unfortunate. we are slowing down these sanctions. this is not a declaration of war, even anywhere within the neighborhood of that. we're slowing down these sanctions, and that is the way to avoid war. i'm willing to move this bill without amendments at any time. i repeat. i'm hopeful my republican colleagues will see the light and realize how important it is to advance this measure and prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask consent that we can resume the colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i would at this point yield to the senator from arkansas if he'd like to conclude his remarks. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. i thank the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: the senator needs his microphone. mr. boozman: okay, we're in business now. thank you, mr. president. again, i thank the senator from illinois. again, was just really making the point that as you go to these african countries, they want american products, whether it's the newest country, i guess, in africa -- south sudan -- or the older countries. and we need to have the ability to supply them. both of you have mentioned china. china is certainly lurking out there. again, it's not only china. it's india. it's a number of other countries. you might want to comment on

that, senator coons. mr. coons: there is a reeled challenge for the united states in the field of opportunity in africa. we face competition from china, russia and other emerging rapidly growing countries. there is also a value challenge. in countries i visited and i know your service in the house and here in the senate have visited more countries in the continent than i have, but i'm struck, i'm concerned that china's agenda in africa is sometimes different from ours. it's not a values agenda. they're not there to promote democracy, tolerance, transparency, protection of intellectual property from piracy and counterfeiting. there's lots of different things we advance in partnership with trade opportunities that aren't part of their issues. i'm impressed that senator durbin pulled together an all of government strategy for dealing with this opportunity, and i'd be interested, senator durbin, in hearing more about how the

mechanics of how this bill will work to deploy all the different resources of the u.s. government. mr. durbin: this possesses a strategy of the agents of our government in helping u.s. businesses export to africa. currently u.s. export financing regime is a patchwork of overlapping, loosely coordinated and maybe in some cases wasteful efforts that are difficult for u.s. businesses to navigate. too often unresponsive to the real needs of real business. this bill creates a special africa export strategy coordinator to ensure this is no longer the case. the they'll work with the existing export aepblg seus and make sure -- agencies and make sure they are on the same bill. the bill establishes a minimum number of commerce foreign service officers to be stationed in africa. these are the men and women contacted by american businesses wanting to do business. they can navigate them through local government requirements as well as some of the other cultural challenges that they might face.

the bill formalizes and standardizes the training received by economic and commercial officers. it also incrementally increases the amount of money that ex-im can loan over the next ten years and creates a standard of accountability for those loans. remember, this is only an increase in the lending limit. and these loans actually make money for the u.s. treasury. lastly, the legislation gives the export-import bank a greater incentive to aggressively encounter incentive loans, below market loans like the one i mentioned in the case of ethiopia and china that countries like china often use to undercut our bidding in the process. it was interesting, i might say to the senator from delaware, after the president of ethiopia explained to me how the chinese were offering these concessional loans, he then said we turned around with a telecommunications contract and the chinese won that too. he said they're winning everything. that's not good news for us. we have the capacity to produce goods and provide services

competitive with any nation in the world. once they have basically become a part of the local economy and once they are part of the local culture, it's difficult for our companies to compete. that, i think, is the real challenge that we face. so that's what this bill basically does. and i think it not only creates an opportunity to create jobs here, but as has been mentioned by senator boozman and senator coons, these are developing nations reaching a level of economic maturity. we want to be not only good trading partners but partners with them in the few, developing -- in the future developing not only good markets but good values consistent with the democracy for the people who live in these countries. i'd like to yield at this point to senator boozman. buse buse i agree with the senator from -- pwoes pwoes i trade with the senator from --

mr. bozeman:africa is developing a healthy middle class. this is something new they haven't seen before. again, they're hungry for american products. i appreciate the way that the legislation was crafted in the sense it's revenue-neutral. there's no cost to the taxpayer. what we're trying to do is get a plan together to make is such, particularly our small businesses, so that they can compete with this huge continent that has so much, so much going for it and, again, could be such a great help to a state like mine. we're talking about in arkansas we already export $5.6 billion in merchandise. i think one of the ways that we are going to climb out of the economic doldrums that we're in and create jobs is going to be through exports. and certainly this gives us an opportunity. senator coons, we're almost -- you could almost say using the statistics from the senator from illinois, he talked about seven

of the ten top emerging economies coming out of africa, we're almost doing a disservice to our small businesses by not going forward with this legislation. mr. coons: that's right, you've been an active participant helping to pull together on this bill what has been a bipartisan consensus in this body and in the house on the importance of improving the access to the export opportunities of africa for businesses large and small in the united states. both of our states are well known for poultry exports. all three states have manufacturing exports across all sectors of our economy. we can't help but do better if we increase our exports to africa. 50 years ago, roughly 70% of all u.s. funds that flowed towards africa were development or relief assistance from sumplets government sources. today that's inverted. more than 80% of u.s. dollars that flow to africa are by the private sector. senator durbin, you've created

a wise bill that uses that leverage that makes as senator boozman says the rapidly growing markets of africa accessible to our home state businesses large and small but also makes a more efficient, more focused use of the dramatic resources of our federal government and makes it more accessible. what's next and where do we go from here? mr. durbin: i tell the senator from delaware and arkansas if you ask the average american to give the image of africa, it will be an old image. the image of africa is changing dramatically. in the year 2000, 7% of the population of africa had access to the internet. 7%. 2009, the number was up to 27%. almost a fourfold increase in access to the internet. there's also a revolution when it comes to mobile telephones. in 1998, there were fewer than four million phones on the entire continent.

today, there are 500 million. from four million to 500 million phones. and most people would assume, have this image of the dusty little village in africa where people live under pretty primitive circumstances. and that's true in many parts of africa. but 78% of africa's rural population has access to clean water. 78%. clean water, access to information, and the global market are the pillars of building a middle class. in africa this means a middle class hungry for goods and services. and the united states can use that to our advantage. now, i'm open-minded about this. i want us to be able to import from africa as well. because that is the nature of a good trading relationship. it can't be all one sided. of course our first priority is american jobs in arkansas, delaware, illinois and colorado. but let's understand as the middle class are grows, their

productivity will grow, too, and what they can provide us can make a big difference. the world bank said recently africa could be on the brink of an economic takeoff much like china was 30 years ago adrian india 20 years ago. so this bill promoting our trade into africa couldn't come at a better moment. senator boozman, i'd like to yield to you at this point. mr. boozman: i agree with the gentleman from illinois and the senator from delaware. the bottom line is there is just a tremendous opportunity for our country. i think that our country as we -- as we do start the trade process, trading ideas, you know, along with goods that, again, we're givers. we can be very, very proud of the work that we've done in africa. nobody's done more as far as what we're talking about food. i was one of the cochairs of the caucus, we can be very, very proud of the work that the congress has done in the last several years and these are

things that the western world can get together and eliminate. but along with that, you know, as the potential increases, as the continue intent has settled down, as they're developing a middle class, 60% of the businesses that do exports are small businesses. and certainly we need to get in there and with this bill challenging us to increase by 200% with this bill it gives us the incentive, it gives us a temp plat for how we do that and so we can stop this erosion by the chinese where they're outdoing us by about three to one right now. the gentleman from delaware. mr. coons: senator boozman, you're absolutely right. the significant investments made by the last administration and the current administration by congress' controlled by both parties in relief of the very broad health challenges throughout sub-saharan africa has produced dramatic results, both positive results in terms of relieving human misery but

also with the view most africans have of the united states. this is the continent where we are most positively viewed and we need to take that platform and use the tools senator durbin is trying to craft through this legislation we support to make sure businesses large and small all across the united states see this continent clearly as a continent of opportunity, as a continent where we have strong potential partners, and get us back in the race. because frankly right now we have a moment, a wake-up call. when those of us who have been to africa repeatedly perceive that we are allowing other countries to rapidly move past us. we can with senator durbin's leadership with this bill retake that opportunity, refocus our resources, and make this the decade when the united states and africa working in partnership build and sustain very tre growth in exports, imports and trade. senator durbin? mr. durbin: mr. durbin: thank yu senator coons. i'm going to wrap

mr. durbin: i hope the u.s. commerce secretary will travel to africa. that hasn't happened in years and i would encourage our secretary to discover the opportunities on this continent for the economy here in the united states. it's hard to imagine the department of commerce is actually cutting its africa staff at this point and the ex-im bank doesn't have an african staff at this-minute. this can change. the tremendous growth of the african economy and its middle class make lack of engagement inexcusable. this bill is a step in the right direction, it's common sense and doesn't add to the deficit. it thinks about ways to use current resources more effectively. it moves us in that direction with low-cost steps that will actually earn the u.s. money while creating u.s. jobs. i'll allow my colleagues to close if they have any closing marks. mr. boozman: we appreciate your leadership. perhaps we could the three of us

get some others to write a no note to the secretary of commerce and ask him to make a much-needed trip to africa and really look at this bill and then not only do this but other ways that we can use as a strategy to implement so we can get our small businesses trading more with the continent. again, keeping up with the likes of china, india, all of the places that we mentioned. and i think that once it you all over we'll be very proud of our efforts just like i'm very proud as you all have mentioned of the efforts we made in feeding the hungry, helping with those with h.i.v., those with malaria and things like that. it is interesting that it is the place in the world where we have the highest, you know, acceptability. people are very pleased with the american -- what the americans have done there. and the state department has

done a great job, we're teaching people how to fish rather than just feeding them, and that's been very, very successful. so i just appreciate your all's efforts and hopefully we can get our colleagues together and get this thing passed. mr. coons: thank you senator boozman and senator durbin for the opportunity to join you in this colloquy. senator boozman, this is not is an example when america leads with its values america will find success for our workers, our families, our communities at home, in terms of increased export opportunities but also higher regard for our values throughout the world. when we are willing to take on the challenge of combating terrible diseases like h.i.v. aids, be the, and -- tuberculosis and malaria in partnership with research opportunities, with african universities and doctors and health care professionals we can achieve remarkable results. when did he wee do as senator durbin's leadership points us with this bill, when we pull together all of our government,

opic, exactly ex-im, the sky's the limit in the terms of the difference we can make for the people of africa and the people of the united states. the senator durbin thank you for your leadership on this bill and i've enjoyed this colloquy with you today. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent this colloquy be grot broth to an an end and i be recognized individually in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you very much, mr. president. i held a hearing last week in the judiciary committee on the question of an issue that most americans are aware of but not aware of the severity of the challenge that we face. the issue relates to student loan debt. last month the national association of bankruptcy attorneys issued an eye-opening report entitled "the student loan debt bomb." the report pointed out that

american student borrowing exceeded $100 billion in 2010 and the total outstanding student loans exceeded $1 trillion last year. there is now more student loan debt in this country than credit card debt. of course, when used prudently students can be valuable. i'm living proof. i borrowed money to go to college and law school. i paid it back and felt it was money well invested. i stand here today because of it. a lot of students have gone through the same experience. unfortunately, too many students today are being steered into loans that they'll never, ever be able to repay. according to an analysis by the federal reserve bank of new york, 37 million americans hold outstanding student loan debt with an average balance of $23,300. however, only 39% of those student loan borrowers were actually paying down on the balance. more than half of the student loan borrowers in the united

states are unable to pay on their loan. the new york fed study found that 14% of student loan borrowers, that's 5.4 million americans, were delinquent, while the remaining 47% of borrowers were in forbearance, which means a delay in payment as the actual cost of the loan increases, or they were still in school and adding to their debt. last month's standard & poor's issued a report saying student loan debt has bloomed and may turn into a bubble. moody's stayed the long-term outlook remains worrisome. the overall growth is troubling. the most pressing and worrisome part of it are private student loans. what are these loans? these are loans given to individual students not by the federal government or through a federal agency but rather through a private entity. according to project on student debt, the most recent data

shows that 33% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated with private loans, one out of three, at an average amount of $12,550. the difference is significant. private loans to students in school are far riskier to pay. federal student loans through the government have fixed affordable interest rates, 3.4%. they also have a variety of consumer protections such as forbearance in times of economic hardship and they offer manageable repayment options such as income-based repayment plans. private student loans, on the other hand, often have high variable interest rates, 3.4% for a government lien, 18% for the student loans from a private source. we found that in our committee. that dramatic interest rate increase means many students unless they land a great job and can pay back quickly will find the principal not being reduced

and the interest building up over the years. once a student takes out a private loan, that student is at the mercy of the lender. every week in my office i've invited students from across the united states to share their stories about private loans and what happened to them. i want to tell you one of those stories this evening. this young lady came to testify before my committee. her name is danielle jokola. danielle is a constituent of mine, lives in illinois, and she appeared when we had a hearing on the looming student debt crisis. the odds were against her. her parents were high school dropouts but because of the personal value education has for her, danielle was determined to go to college. not unlike a lot of young people these days, her family couldn't help her. she had to do it on her own. in the year 2004, she moved from minnesota to chicago to attend the harrington college of

design, a for-profit institution owned by career education corporation. before i go any further, let me tell you the story of career education corporation. november 1 of last year, the c.e.o. of career education corporation resigned after it was disclosed that this for-profit school had filed fraudulent information with the u.s. department of education about the number of students who were getting jobs after they graduated. it was such an embarrassment to the corporation that he was forced to resign. the parting gift for this embarrassing situation was a $4 million parachute to the c.e.o. as he left the career education corporation. he failed in his job and got rewarded for it. now let's go back to danielle's story. she didn't fail. she kept going to school. she fully trusted the staff at harrington to help her with

financial aid. they helped her fill out all the financial aid paperwork for her loans and made phone calls on her behalf. there was no discussion about interest rates and what the actual debt load would be by the time she finished. school employees never talked about monthly payments once she graduated, nor did they tell her about the kind of salary she could expect to earn on graduation or the percentage of graduates coming out of the harrington school of design that actually found a job. in 2007, danielle graduated with a bachelor of fine arts in interior design. you can imagine how proud she was, coming from a family where no one had finished high school. after graduation, she started to pay back the following amounts that she had to borrow to graduate -- $37,625 in federal loans and $40,925 in private loans. danielle owed $79,000 when she

got her bachelor's degree in interior design. today, five years after graduation, she still hasn't found a job in that field, and she now doesn't owe $79,000. she owes more than $98,000. those loans just continue to grow. she makes one combined payment each month of approximately $830. nearly 28% of her current income goes to student loan debt. 25 years from now, 25 years in the future, if the interest rates hold where they are, she will have paid nearly $56,000 for her federal loan, which started off at $37,000, and nearly $155,000 for the $41,000 private loan. approximately $211,000 she would have paid 25 years from now on her $79,000 debt.

that's a staggering 264%. mr. president, do you believe any college student could even understand when they are signing these loan forms what they're getting into? they assume that if the federal government loans money to the school, it must be a good school. not true. many of these schools like career education corporation basically accredit themselves. they have what they call national accreditation. i met with the national accrediting agency. it represents a lot of schools, some of which you are very familiar with in your state. it turns out that the for-profit schools have created their own accrediting operation. they look to one another to decide whether they are competent to hold themselves out as schools offering higher education, and the department of education accepts it. so what's a student to think? i'm going to an accredited school, nationally accredited

school. the federal government is offering loans, maybe even pell grants. the student would assume this must be a good school. secondly, of course, the situation with the cost of these for-profit schools is dramatically higher than public education, even private not-for-profit schools. the amount of indebtedness of the students dramatically higher. and more and more of these for-profit private schools are dragging the kids, the young students into debt with private loans with absolutely explosive terms to them. there is one thing i haven't mentioned which bears saying -- under the current law, no student loan is dischargeable in bankruptcy, not ever, except under the most severe and extreme circumstances. hardly ever happens. it means that the loan papers you sign at the age of 21 are going to be with you for a lifetime. and if you aren't one of the lucky ones, landing a good job, making enough money, you will watch what happens as that

student debt increases. danielle's debt went up from $79,000 in five years to over $98,000, and it continues to grow. i asked her about her lifestyle. 32 years old, married. she is trying to do the best she can. she can't go back to school. impossible. she can't borrow money to do that. she is looking for a job and trying her best, and she said it looks like i'm going to lose my home over this. just a little house. my husband and i were working on paying for it. we just can't do it anymore. age 32, virtually in debtor's prison to these private loans and federal loans for what? for making the mistake of going to college? i don't happen to think that's a mistake. for most of us, it was a ticket to a future. she thought it was a ticket to a future for her. it turned out to be a ticket to a life of debt. what are we going to do about this? are we just going to shrug our

shoulders and say, you know, these students, they ought to think twice about signing up, or their parents who cosign, they should have asked harder questions. are we going to be more honest about this? the current situation has to be examined in honest terms. how many private loans are now not dischargeable in bankruptcy? what other private loans would be not dischargeable in bankruptcy? the answer is none. none. the only things nondischargable in bankruptcy are federal student loans, taxes that you owe the government, child support and alimony. and now these private loans from school have been added a few years ago. we gave them the sweetest deal of any creditor in america. no other private creditor gets that protection in bankruptcy other than those issuing private student loans, mainly for-profit schools. and you say to yourself, congress, why did you do that? why did you offer that kind of a

benefit to one tiny sector of the economy? and the answer is there wasn't a lot of debate about it, there wasn't a lot of talk about it. it was in the bankruptcy reform bill, which i voted against, and it was stuck in there, a provision was stuck in there that gave them the sweetheart arrangement, the sweetheart deal. well, it may have been a sweet deal for the schools and the private lenders. it sure isn't for danielle. i don't know what to tell this young woman. there is no place for her to turn. at age 32, that's her plight in life now? and it's happening more and more. what i read to you earlier about this looming student debt crisis and the fact that we could be dealing with a bubble is something we ought to take seriously. it's a serious problem. the volume of private student loans is down from its peak in 2007. once accounted for 26% of all student loans. but we know the private lending is still being aggressively promoted by the for-profit college industry. mr. president, i always put these numbers on the record so

people can put it into perspective. 10% of the post-secondary students in america attend for-profit colleges, 10%. the for-profit colleges receive 25% of all federal aid to education. 10% of the students, 25% of the federal aid to education. we had to put a statutory limit on the federal subsidy of these schools at 90%. they can receive no more than 90% of their money at a for-profit school in money directly from the federal government, loans, pell grants. then we waived it for the g.i. bill so it can go up to 95%. these are the closest things to government agencies with multimillion-dollar parachutes for their c.e.o.'s that i've ever seen, and yet, we turn our back and say that's the way it works. the project on student debt reports that 42% of for-profit

college students have private loans in 2008, up from 12%. for-profit college students also graduate with more debt than their peers. and the last statistic, 10% of the students, 25% of the federal aid to education, 47% of the student loan defaults through for-profit schools. the answer's obvious -- they string these kids out, bury them in debt, they end up graduating, and they can't find a job to pay off their debt, and we sit here and say gosh, i wish there was something we could do about it. there are a lot of things we can do about it. we need to take action. i have introduced legislation, the fairness for struggling students act. it restores the pre-2005 bankruptcy treatment for private student loans. if those for-profit schools and those creditors making private student loans knew they were dischargeable in bankruptcy, would they ask harder questions about the payback? would they be more concerned about whether the students

actually would end up with a job? you bet they would. there is no reason why private student loans should get treated any differently than any other private debt in bankruptcy, and it's especially egregious that these private loans are nondischargable where a student was steered into a loan while the student still had eligibility for the much lower costing federal student loan. think about that. here's a student that's eligible for 3.4% federal student loan being lured into a private loan at 18%. as long as they have eligibility for the federal student loan, the private loan should not be made, certainly is shouldn't be dischargeable in bankruptcy. i'm encouraging my colleagues to take a hard look at this issue. i bet you a nickel that if you went to a town meeting in any town in america, in illinois or any other state, and asked folks there anybody have any concerns about student loans, watch the hands go up. people are worried about it. the last example i'm going to use is one of the people who

works in my federal office building, a wonderful young -- a wonderful lady who cleans up the building. we have gotten to know her. she speaks english. she is an immigrant to this country. limited command of english but a hard, hard-working person. her daughter graduated from high school with a g.e.d. and she ended up so elated that her daughter finally made it through high school. she came in and said i have great news, my daughter was accepted at college. it turns out she was accepted at westwood college. westwood college accepted her and offered her a degree in law enforcement. well, i asked -- we asked her mother what's it going to cost? well, it's the $5,500 pell grant plus $17,000 more for one year. this college, unfortunately, has become notorious. it's under investigation by the illinois attorney general for these very loans. students who watch all these crime programs on tv can't wait

to become part of law enforcement. here's the bad news. westwood college's law enforcement degree is not accepted by any law enforcement agency in illinois. it is not a legitimate college degree. well, we called westwood because we had been through this with them before many times, and said if you don't tear up those papers right now and allow her mom and her to walk away from this, there will be a press conference out in front of your building tomorrow morning. they tore up the paper. but sadly, many college students who went to westwood didn't have that good result. the worst one i know of is a young lady living in the basement of her parents' home now, a graduate of westwood with a worthless law enforcement degree, $90,000 of debt. nowhere to turn. she is in her late 20's and nowhere to turn. that is the reality of what's happening out there in the real world. we have a responsibility here, a responsibility to these students, these leaders of tomorrow, a responsibility when it comes to the reputation of

education in our country to step in and police the for-profit schools that are not doing a good job, that are taking advantage of students and leaving them deeply in debt with worthless diplomas. it's not an issue that people jump up and say let's get down on the floor and join durbin on this one. it's just not that interesting to a lot of folks yet. i'm afraid it will be if this looming student debt crisis grows, there will be more and more tragic stories like the one that i put in the record today about daniel jokola. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to speak on the issue that is before us today on the floor of the united states senate, and that is the issue of high gas prices. i was home in wyoming, filled up again this weekend as i do most weekends, and today the average price of gasoline, regular unleaded gasoline nationwide, nationwide, $3.91 a gallon.

that's about 24 cents more than it was a month ago. people in wyoming see the prices go up week after week. high gasoline prices are causing hardships, hardships for american families and american businesses. when families pay more at the pump, they can't spend money on other goods and services. for families dealing with kids and a mortgage and bills, they know the specific impact as they fill their car or truck and see that price rise to the point where it's almost if not more than $100 to fill the tank. also when companies pay more for gasoline, they have less money to expand their businesses, and that hurts job creation in this country. wyoming families and wyoming businesses know this all too well because in wyoming we drive longer distances than most americans. the president also knows this, and that's why he continues to give speeches on energy. it's clear that the president is defensive on this issue. i have heard the speeches and i say pay less attention to what he says, pay attention to what

he does. the average price of gasoline, regular unleaded gasoline, over 100% higher than it was when president obama took office. i will say that again. the price of gasoline is over 100% higher than it was when president obama took office. it is clear the president's policies are contributeing to higher gas prices, but instead of changing course, president obama, democrats in congress, are doubling down on bad policies and desperate schemes. here's an example. one senate democrat, someone across the aisle from me, has said that let's let and ask saudi arabia to produce more oil. exactly what he said. he said the solution is to have the secretary of state ask saudi arabia to produce more oil. and now president obama and senate democrats want to raise taxes on american oil production, so we're going to ask saudi arabia to produce more and yet raise taxes on those who

are producing america -- american oil. so the president and democrats want more oil from saudi arabia, and they also want to make it more expensive to produce american energy. the legislation on the floor to me doesn't make sense, and the american people recognize that it doesn't make sense. americans know that if you want less of something, you tax it more. they also know, if you want to increase this cost of something, you tax it more. raising taxes increases the cost for consumers, and that is the effect of what president obama and senate democrats are doing with this legislation. they are proposing increasing gas prices by increasing taxes. even the author of this legislation has said -- quote -- "nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices." so then why would president

obama want to increase gas prices seven months before a presidential election? well, it appears to me that it's because his political base fiercely opposes fossil fuels. that shouldn't surprise anyone. we have seen this before. and of course i'm referring to the president's rejection recently of the keystone x.l. pipeline bringing energy from canada into the united states. this keystone x.l. pipeline would have created thousands of good-paying jobs for americans. the president said "no." the keystone x.l. pipeline would have facilitated oil production in montana and north dakota. the president said "no." the keystone x.l. pipeline would have increased supplies of oil from canada. the president said "no." to the point that the prime minister of canada actually went to china to ask if they would buy the energy from canada if the united states isn't

interested. but why would the president reject it? well, because his political base has fiercely opposed the pipeline. now the president wants to have it both ways. he would like to please his political base as well as the american public. that's why the administration wants to go hat in hand and ask saudi arabia to produce more oil. it's also why the president is considering plans to tap the strategic petroleum reserve. now, this would be the second time that president obama tapped the strategic petroleum reserve. last june, you'll recall, the president released 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve. prior to that, it had only been tapped twice for emergencies since 1975. so between 1975 and june of 2011, the strategic petroleum reserve has only been tapped twice for emergencies. tapped in 1991 on the outbreak of the persian gulf war, and it was tapped following hurricane

katrina. in both instances those were real disruptions of the supply of oil to the united states. but when president obama tapped the strategic petroleum reserve last year, there was no substantial prospect of a supply disruption. his decision at the time was based on politics, as would be his decision to tap it now. that's why jay leno recently called the strategic petroleum reserve president obama's strategic reelection reserve. well, my republican colleagues and i think there are other ways to address high gas prices. the other is that when they ta tapped the strategic reserve last year and took out the 30 million barrels, they didn't actually refill it. so the strategic petroleum reserve is not filled up right now. it is lower. just to fill it back to where it should be, its baseline level, would cost actually almost $1

billion more than they got when they sold the oil last year. i believe there are things that we should be doing and can do that will enhance, not jeep dirks our nation -- not jeopardize, our nation's security and specifically our nation's energy security. we understand that the strategic petroleum reserve is for emergencies, not political disasters. and we understand that if you want more of something or if you want to lower the cost of something, you don't raise taxes on it. what you do is you make it easier to produce the product. that's why my republican colleagues and i support making it easier to produce american energy. and it is why we are asking the president to make it easier to produce american energy. not harder, not more expensive, but easier. a few weeks ago we learned that the oil and gas production on federal lands and waters is down. specifically, we learned that there was a 14% decrease in oil

production on federal public lands and waters from 2010 to 2011. and an 11% decrease in gas production from 2010 to 2011. again, the president has made it easier -- the president has not made it easier, but he must make it easier to produce american energy. the president can begin by increasing the number of permits issued for exploration in the gulf of mexico. and it is understanding that there are only 25 deepwater rigs active in the gulf right now. i understand that 34 deepwater rigs were active in the gulf at this time in 2010, the administration needs to approve more permits and do it immediately. the president should also increase access to other offshore amplest he should provide access to offshore areas in the atlantic and pacific oceans. the president proposed an offshore oil and gas leasing leg

plan that amazingly excluded the atlantic and pacific oceans. he excluded areas off the coast of virginia, even though both the senators -- both members of this body -- were democrats as well as the governor of virginia, who is a republican -- all of them support such exploration. the president should also increase access to onshore areas. the president should open up areas of alaska. we should support proposals to open up anwr. both senators, a democrat and a republican, and the governor of alaska strongly support opening up anwr for energy exploration. the president should, too. the president should also take steps to facilitate onshore production in the west. specifically, the president should scrap new regulations requiring master leasing and development plans. these regulations were put into place over two years ago by the secretary of interior. it's unclear to me why the secretary issued these

regulations. they add more red tape, they cause more bureaucratic delay, and they slow down american energy production. now, of course, there are other regulations that are driving up the cost of american energy. specifically, the e.p.a.'s forthcoming tier 3 regulations. that will affect america's refineries. a recent study shows that this rule could increase the cost of manufacturing gasoline by 6 cents to 9 cents a gallon. this rule could also raise annual compliance costs to refineries by billions of dollars, and it will almost certainly increase the pain at the pump that's being felt by american families. to me, this is unacceptable. the president should, at the very least, delay the issuance of this rule. in addition to providing more access to federal lands and waters and eliminating burdensome regulations, the president should address delivery bottlenext. he should address all the

bottlenecks that the keystone x.l. pipeline would relieve. here of course i'm referring to the 100,000 barrels of oil each day that the keystone would ship each day from montana and north dakota. that's right, homegrown american energy from montana and north dakota. right now there is isn't sufficient pipeline capacity out of north dakota and montana. you know how they're getting the oil out of there? they're shipping it on trucks and trains. that's more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. the keystone x.l. pipeline would reduce the cost of shipping american oil. in addition, the pipeline would ship about 700,000 barrels of oil a day from canada. the canadian oil would replace oil imports from opec and, thus, increase our nation's energy security. approving the keystone x.l. pipeline is an easy decision and the president should make that decision immediately. again, the president must

abandon his support for policies such as this legislation that's ahead of us today, which will only increase the pain at the pump. and we must abandon plans which will put our nation's security further at risk. instead, the president must make it easier to produce american energy. he should increase access to federal public lands and waters, eliminate costly regulations, and approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. it is my hope the president will take all of these steps and do so immediately, so the american public does not continue to suffer the significant pain at the pump it continue that contio affect our country every day. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. nor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from louisiana. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: mr. president, just as i expected we'd be in

this back-and-forth show-and-tell on oil and gas issues and i stead of really spending the time and working on a real energy plan, one that is important for not only my state, my colleague's state, bur for the -- but for the whole nation. so we're back-and-forth and it's politics as usual. we just heard a nice presentation by my colleague from wyoming about how it is all the president's fault. the pricings are going up and all -- the prices are going up and all these other issues. let me say this. i know my friend from louisiana knows this. in alaska there's a clear indication what we feel when it comes to energy prices. we have communities that pay $9, $10 a gallon for heating fuel. we need when costs go up what happens -- we understand when costs go up what happens to our rural communities. we also are a producer of oil gas and we understand the potential and the job

opportunities. but, you know, this last week when we started to move on this bill, i know my colleague and i were one of -- or two of four people that said, no, we're not moving on this bill because i expected exactly what's going on now. we're just doing a little show-and-tell, having a little argument back and forth and in another 24 hours or 30 hours we will be off this bill and we will have an energy plan and when i go back home for the break, when i am talking to alaskans, they'll complain about gas prices and heating costs and how much it costs to fill their car or their r.v. if they're trying to go somewhere on the weekend, and we haven't done anything to make a dramatic change. and of course this idea of eliminating these incentives for the toil and gas industry i am -- for the oil and gas century i've opposed for real reasons. if you are going to do a real tax reform, everyone should be part of the equation.

i know i've heard this from the industry that they're willing to be part of the bigger picture but don't single them out because poll numbers say they're a demofn some sort or -- a demon of some sort or people don't like them. let's talk about real tax reform. the other debate is the if we want an energy plan, then let's really do one. let's stop putting pieces that one side puts down because it sounds good for their brochure. let's focus on something that will make a huge doirches this economy. as i mentioned in alaska, fuel is expensive in our rural communities for heating and communities of fairbanks or a very urban area can pay upwards of $1,000 o or more for heating costs. their ability to survive is very difficult. as we work on these energy projects and what's important, let me put another thing in perspective. people think, in alaska all we

care about is oil and gas. well, we do. but we also care about renewable energy. i've been on the floor talking about that. my colleague has been on the floor talking about renewable, alternative energy. it is all part of the equation, how to ensure that we develop a plan, we diversify our energy resources, and then we deliver it for the betterment of this country economically for us to survive. in alaska, for example, as we work on oil and gas development, we're also moving forward on renewable energy. our state has now 25%, just about 25 ii% of our energy production is renewable energy with a goal to be at 50% by 2025. we have a plan. because we understand the value of it. i want to show you a chart and then i know my colleague has some comments and we'll probably go back and forth here. but i want to show you this one chart. this is -- when i came into office and my colleague over here talked about anwr, i support anwr. i am aggressive about it, beyond

belief. my colleague has been -- before i got here, she was pounding away on this issue also and it's important. but we have four regions up in alaska that are of high value. when we talk about oil and gas in alaska, at least from our office, we talk about everything that's possible. we talk about anwr, we talk about the national petroleum reserve, which -- let me make that point, the national petroleum reserve. it is designed for petroleum production. and chukchi and the beaufort sea. these four regions have huge value to the oil production of this country and when we talk about this, where are we that i had? what can it do? what can it replace? it can replace countries like libya and nigeria and saudi arabia, where we get oil from. we can actually produce it here. and the good news is, we're on the path to do that. has it been long and tedious? yes, it has.

but are we moving in the right direction? yes. we have seen for the first time in 30 years opportunity to develop in the arctic that we have not seen before. we're seeing for the first time this summer shell is moving their ships up in the chukchi sea because the potential between chukchi and beaufort alone is 24 billion barrels. we deal with these numbers. billions. whñ billions. when you look at this, plus the side product -- gas. we love gas because it's clean burning, 77 trillion cubic feet. beaufort 8.2 -- this is what we know best today on our estimates, which they're doing exploration now so we're going to find out more opportunities. 28 trillion cubic. national petroleum reserve, 1 billion, what we know. they're in production this year. conocophillips will be

developing in there what they call cd-5. anwr, 10.4 billion barrels. still an important piece where a small, little component of this would be developed, 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. that would be the footprint we would utilize. the point i'm trying to make is if we want to get on to a real energy plan, then let's do that. i know folks on our side did their vote. it shocked me actually that they voted to move forward. they haven't done that ever since i've been here on that bill. it's because they want to do show and tell for a week, get some press, beat up the president because of presidential politics. i have my differences with the president. we fought him a lot on these issues. what i'm interested in, what i came here for, and i know you came years ago for for and that is let's do a energy plan that allows us to be more

self-sufficient on our energy resources and let's have a real debate that will make a difference to the consumer. when i go home and my colleague goes home and someone says thank you because you've set in motion a trend that will lower or stabilize gas prices for our homes, for our cars, for our businesses, for transportation in general. that's what we should be doing. but instead we're going to burn up a few days here and make a lot of speeches and then we'll move on. i will tell you, and i think my colleague will agree with me on this, that the two of us aren't going to stop. we're going to talk about an energy plan because that's what we need in this country if we want to grow in this economy, if we want to make ourselves more self-sufficient and more secure nationally. what's happened in the middle east? the price goes up. not anything we're doing. and we have some good news. i mean, even though it's predominantly private land that's been the growth factor of oil and gas, we are seeing more domestic production the first time in ten years.

i don't know -- the senator from louisiana, i think that's a good thing, i think, right? ms. landrieu: it is a good thing. the senator from alaska; as usual, on this subject right on and in the mainstream of what most americans, i believe, mr. president, are speak about. i wanted to ask the senator from alaska following his comments, i mean, why do you think the -- our friends on the republican side want to spend this week beating up on the president as opposed to actually doing something that might help energy policy advance in the country. i don't know if they just don't realize that people are very frightened and anxious and upset about these prices? what do you think is driving this sort of theater on the floor? mr. begich: i think it's -- you said it in the question in a way. it's a lot of presidential politics. and i think what i hear when i go home, and you probably hear it too, that people are frustrated with that activity.

think about this. just a couple of weeks ago we passed a bipartisan transportation bill. unbelievable. people said we can't do things together. 74 votes, moved a bill with very diverse views, as we all know, but we worked it out. we spent five weeks doing it. five weeks. after all the committees months and months of work. and what do we end up with? a great prescription drug produ. a great product that went toefrt house, sitting -- went over to the house, sitting there languishing. if we don't come up with a good energy plan, here's what happens, asphalt, a petroleum product which builds those roads, only goes up. that means the amount of roads we want to build become less. it's not complicated here. why we're not doing this -- i think some of their own members were surprised they had to be told by their leadership to change their vote and do a

certain type of vote. and now we're in this no-end product, in other words, we're not going to end up with anything. and i don't get it when i know they will go home just like you and i and they will hear the same thing: jobs, gas prices, and construction, housing market, what's happening. these are things we hear about. i'm surprised. ms. landrieu: i'm surprised myself. to the senator from alaska, i hope when we do get back, or go home that the constituents from all of our states will say, you know, stop the bumper sticker politics on the floor of the senate and get down to passing an energy bill. and i think, mr. president, we most certainly, if we stop electioneering and start legislating, we could actually do that. the senator from alaska and i -- and i have been here a few years longer than the senator, but he has been a most welcome addition, may i say, to this issue because he's knowledgeable. he comes from a state that is

larger than almost half of the lower 48. his state is rich in resources. i had the great pleasure to go to alaska and am looking forward to traveling there again this summer and actually going to the north slope because we build in louisiana, mr. president, many of the ships that actually operate in the -- in alaska for their exploration activities. mr. begich: if i could make a comment that you just chrisened one of our new ships coming up. ice breaker capacity to work for shell to do what? go right here. ms. landrieu: that ship was christened this weekend in louisiana. the relationship goes back a long way. i'm happy to have the senator here advocating for a smart energy policy. this debate that people are having -- i don't feel i'm included in that because we're having our own policy about, i think, serious issues. this so-called debate that

everybody else is having is going to result in nothing. just a lot of sound bites. there will be no energy policy that comes out of this. the fact of the matter is, mr. president, and everyone knows this that follows, both parties are guilty for not having the right kind of energy policy. democrats and republicans alike. democrats, from my perspective, don't appreciate the way they should the need for more domestic drilling. and so they resist sometimes the need for more domestic drilling. i think senator begich and i have pointed out there are some places where there are people -- governors and senators, democratic senators -- that are open to drilling. we could go to those places and do a better job of developing onshore and offshore. but republicans are not good at all when it comes to conservation. and they resist helping the auto industry, for instance, to retool itself, which we know has had an absolute direct bottom

line on less petroleum products being used for gasoline. many of the new automobiles coming out of domestic manufacturers is because of what democrats and president obama led this effort, which he never gets enough credit for on the other side, to retool detroit so that just this week in the newspaper, i believe it was "the washington post" -- i wanted to ask the senator from alaska if he saw this article, the most amazing thing has happened over the last, you know, ten years is that our imports of foreign oil have decreased for two reasons. one, we are producing more oil and gas at home, although there have been some setbacks with this administration, which we're not happy about. the two of us. but also because of the conservation that we have done in this country. mass transit is a part of that, which many republicans reject. conservation initiatives is a

major part of that, which republicans reject. helping the domestic auto industry, which they, even mitt romney, their leader on the republican side, said that was a mistake to help detroit, ohio, et cetera. detroit, michigan and places in ohio. so, i'm coming to the floor to say, you know, this blame game is not going to work, because both parties are really, i think, almost equally at fault. senator begich and i would like to believe that we kind of represent a little bit of the democratic side, a little bit of the republican side coming from states, both of us being democrats, but from states that know something about drilling. and i want to put up my map of louisiana so that people believe when i say that we know something about drilling. this is what my state looks like. some people might not like this picture. this is the oil and gas infrastructure in louisiana. to somebody that's a purist and

doesn't like pipelines and doesn't like oil wells and doesn't like leases, they may recoil at this. but people in louisiana like this because this is about money. tanned's about domestic -- and it's about domestic energy, self sufficiently is i and independence -- self-sufficiency and independence. these are pipelines. we've been drilling onshore and offshore for the last 50 years and until the macondo well blew up in spectacular fashion and killed 11 people which is very unfortunate and the fault of b.p. and contractors that weren't doing their jobs correctly, it's been mostly successful, mr. president. we've drilled 40,000 wells. 40,000. so when the senator from alaska says we know something about oil and gas drilling, trust me, it would be like asking the senators from michigan do you know something about building cars. we know about this. we've been fracking. we've been using horizontal

drilling, and we know there is a lot of oil and gas still to be found. and the senator talked about some of his reserves. senator, i know that you're aware that louisiana just off the coast louisiana produces just about as much oil as we import from saudi arabia every year. i don't know if you knew that. and how are your reserves looking in alaska? mr. begich: sph-fbgt, this line, what is this line here? this is the pipeline that brings resources here down through valdez and ships it throughout the countries in the world. it's about 10% of the oil for our country comes from prudhoe bay up here. what's amazing about this development, as it moves forward, it will obviously provide even more. and also, like you said, your map there, it's about jobs. when you think about this development, this could be upwards to 54-plus thousand jobs estimated by an independent research firm.

plus these jobs pay very well. on average $117,000 a kwraoefrplt i don't know about you -- a year. i don't know about you, i think that's a good-paying job. ms. landrieu: that's a very good point. i try to remind everyone here this oil and gas industry that exists in louisiana does not just support the people in our state, mr. president. think about about it, there are only 500,000 people in alaska. people fly in and fly out. they'll work for two weeks or a month and fly back. we have people working on our rigs that are from maine or from colorado or from new mexico or from new york. now, most of the people that work on offshore are from the gulf coast states, i might admit. you can tell this when you drive through the parking lots and see the license plates, which are easy to spot. but i can tell you that there are people from all over the country that work in this

industry. and if i showed you a supplier line, you would see supplies coming from all over the united states to fund the operations. like, for instance, the boat that is going to be operating in alaska was built by people from louisiana. and some of those boats are built in mississippi. and some of that may even come from the east coast. i don't know if the senator is familiar with this. mr. begich: some of those ships will be refurbished and some of the work that is being done is out of the port of seattle, tacoma, and that region. think about this, the oil and gas industry in 2011 produced 9% of the new jobs in this country. let me repeat that. 9% of all the new jobs in this country came from the oil and gas industry. it's the fastest-growing industry in producing jobs. ms. landrieu: and it also is producing, mr. president, it's also producing great wealth, and i don't think people understand.

a lot of the land in the west is public land, and so you hear this debate about public land, et cetera. but most of the land in my state is private land. in fact, the federal government owns less than 2.5%. now, we're at polar ends of this debate -- we're at oppose ends because -- we're at opposite ends the federal government owns 90% of alaska. it owns 2.5% of my state. the farther east you go, it's less and less and less. when you have more drilling like in louisiana, it's private landowners that are getting wealthy. in many of these instances like in the haines sreul shale, up along this area in louisiana, northwest louisiana, farmers whose lands were virtually worthless or who were growing crops but not really making it very well, now the gas has been discovered on their land and so they're getting royalty checks for $10,000 a month, $20,000 a

month. that's more money than people have made or ever dreamed about making. i've heard of royalty checks $5,000 a month that people are getting. so they take that $50,000, they aren't even drilling or oil and gas, they just leased their property and they go out and start a business in their hometown or they go out and buy two new automobiles for their family or a new pickup truck for their operations. i know the senator understands the indirect impacts. it's not just the direct jobs for the industry but the wealth that's created for the personal private and the u.s. government collects quite a bit in taxes from this industry as well. mr. begich: if i could add in this chukchi-beaufort, it's estimated that the cumulative state and federal value in the sense of revenue stream is upwards of $100 billion. if you then talked about the payroll over the next 50 years for the same two areas, $150

billion. what happens to that 150 that people get paid? until x.l., they buy a house, maybe put their kids through college, vacationing, improving their lifestyle. they're moving up. and that kind of money is significant. it has a multipresidential library expect -- multiplier effect that is real. anyone making $117,000 they're spending that money in the economy. that's why you see the job growth you see here. so from my -- again, to the principal debate tonight we're having and we're kind of the minority of the minority in a way that, you know, we need to get back to the basic issue of what do we want in this country in a diversified, well-delivered energy plan? and we can get there. for example, we had a bill, the other side threw down the same old talking points a few weeks ago, drill everywhere you can manning an -- imagine and i

think you would say as i would say it is about drilling but responsibly in the right areas that are the right kind. they had bristol bay, the fish basket of this country, 40% of the fish caught, they wanted to drill there. i said i can't vote for that. it's a balanced approach. ms. landrieu: we don't have to drill everywhere. we can drill some places and the resources are so spectacularly promising, mr. president, and i have to get back to this sort of blaming president obama for a minute. i don't know if they remember, my friends on the other side, who the president was when the governor of florida was governor jeb bush. a republican. who opposed drilling off -- in the eastern gulf. and the president at the time, his brother, george bush, honored that no drilling pledge. so i just remind my friends on the other side, their party is not blameless in this debate, and they could do a lot better

for the country if they'd stop trying to throw president obama under the bus every minute, although i don't agree with all of his energy policies, i didn't agree with the moratorium in the gulf, i don't agree with tapping spro, i think they've made some strong points. but this argument should be not about hurting anyone, it should be about helping our country. and we help our country by a balanced approach. just like the senator from alaska said, it's how we came together on the transportation bill. it was balance, it was compromise, it was a little of this and a little of that, and we put a jobs bill together that is really going to help our nation. we could put an energy bill together if we'd have both parties stop beating up one party beats up on the companies, the other party beats up on the president and the poor people are the ones that suffer. i want to show you something about oil and gas taxes. and i know people say, oh, there are those -- there goes

landrieu again, just defending the oil and gas industry. well, frankly, some of them in the industry and the industry itself should be defended because it's an honorable, good industry. it has provided jobs, it provides the oil that we needed to win world war ii. how do you think the allied troops got across europe? they didn't do it on a wish and a prayer. that oil came out of the basin in texas. we have a long, patriotic history of oil and gas drilling and we i guess get our dander up when people want to beat up on the industry. and i just want to bring this sign up because people say, well, the oil industry gets all these subsidies. i want to put two things into the record right now on this which is why i'm against the menendez proposal. says according to the energy information administration, which is our administration, not a spin third party, you know, spinmeister group, it says the study published in 2008, oil and natural gas received only 13% of the

subsidies. but produced 60% of the energy needed to power our country. i want to repeat that again. the oil and gas industry receives only 13% of all the subsidies but we produce 60% of the energy that keeps the lights on in this building and powers everything in the country. we spend about $16.6 billion on u.s. energy subsidies over the course of one year, on everything, renewables, refined coal, nuclear, and others accounted for more than 835% -- 85% of the subsidies. so the oil and gas industry got less than 13% of the subsidies but they continue to be the, you know, boogeyman in all of this. now, in addition to receiving only 13% of the subsidies, my friend from alaska will know this as well, look what tax rate they pay. conoco phillips paid 46%. this was effective tax rates from 2006 to 2010.

chevron paid 43%. they made a lot of money. they absolutely are making a lot of money. these are public companies. their executives are paid well. i think they're probably paid a little more than i would, but that's what they're paid. but these are public companies. so shareholders are making money as well. but they're paying this very high rate in taxes. look down here. wal-mart only paid 33%. philip morris, cigarettes, they only paid 27%. pepsico, very good company, only paid 24%. these are effective tax rates and my favorite, although i like them very much, but g.e. only paid 9% effective tax rate. when the senator says we need tax reform, we most certainly need tax reform and if you came to me and said in a major bill we're going to have an energy bill and we're going to have

some tax reform to balance this out, i would be for that. but in good conscience i can't take away the subsidies from oil and gas only when they only represent 13% of the overall subsidies but produce 60% of the energy, and i most certainly don't want to raise taxes on an industry right now with prices at the pump being high, all you're going to do is drive them up which is the last thing we want to do particularly when this is the truth about the tax rates. so, again, the senator from alaska is absolutely correct. this debate that we are not having but everyone else is having is not getting us very far. mr. begich: if i could add one more bit here before maybe we get to our final here, but let me say this: if these incentives are so bad, then why are we at a ten-year high in production? why do we see in alaska more independents than ever before? or probably in your state. i would venture to guess -- i remember a company, a very

small company. now it's a very big company. and you look at all these different companies, part of these incentives are utilized to take hard to get areas, and make them more profitable so they can produce them. the end result is we now have more gas, for example, than we've had ever and the price has dropped so far, we're excited about it, which has happened if you talk to the petrochemical sphri they love these low prices why, because they're producing more opportunities to produce product we used to produce overseas. there's a ripple effect here. people say they're bad incentives. actually we're producing more, paying one of the highest tax rates, so we're getting money back on our investment and is there high prices? yes, because we don't have a comprehensive energy plan to figure out distribution better, make sure we have a diversified energy portfolio and make sure we deliver it everywhere that we

can. it's not complicated. ms. landrieu: the senator is right about this and i'm glad he mentioned this as well, mr. president. because i happen to represent a state that has a tremendous pet retrochemical industry. -- pet petrochemical industry. the mississippi river is there as well as great finds in the 1950's and 1960's for gas. so when big companies, particularly petrochemicals but big manufacturers look around in the world to where they go, one thing they look at is the tax rate but that's not really the most important. the other is to make sure they can find the skilled labor they need but what they really need are cheap energy costs because you can't produce steel competitively, for instance, if you don't have cheap energy. so a lot of these companies came to louisiana in the 1960's because why, because we had cheap energy. well, that changed and they

all, a lot of them left. also maybe we did other things to drive them offshore but you know what's happening today? because of this $2 gas, they're all coming home. you should see the building that we have going on. that's why the texas unemployment rate is the lowest in the nation. i mean i know the governor would like to take all the credit for this. my governor likes to take all the credit for this, too, outstanding, well known republican governors, but the fact of the matter is they may be pretty good, but it's really the low price of energy that's driving this. and that could happen in colorado, it could happen in illinois, if we just support the oil and gas industry in a balanced way instead of choking it off, not only does that money go to them, it helps undergird this entire industry which employs millions of more people. and it helps us to compete better with china, better with

india, and i know the senator understands that. he doesn't have as much heavy construction or refining i think in alaska because of your -- a little bit of your isolation. but i think you can appreciate what happens in new jersey and louisiana and illinois just for an example. mr. begich: absolutely. i will tell you we've -- we've been exporting lng for 40 years and we've been doing that because of our ability to do so and being able to get to the pacific asian market. we're overall, the state here to all its natural resources, we are a net positive in our export trade. we actually help lower the trade deficit. a variety of reasons, our fish, our minerals, gas, natural resources. so we are a huge contributor to this economy in a lot of ways. so i think -- i'm hopeful. i've been here only three years and, you know, i wake up every day being hopeful that at some point we will debate and have a

real energy plan discussion. because when we do that, the net result is americans win, consumers win, our national security wins. everything wins if we have a good, dependable energy policy that looks not only at today but looks on down the road. and i think the -- my friend from louisiana made a very good point about conservation, about those issues. i mean we -- think about the automobile industry. because we came to their rescue, and we got a lot of criticism, all of us, the president included, got criticized for this, what's the result? those folks paid back their loans, they're more innovative than ever before but they also are producing more fuel-efficient cars which saves fuel and it saves on the long term of our dependency on foreign products. that's a huge win. people say it's not conservation, it's a bailout. it's a combo.

it's multifacet. for whatever reason the other side doesn't see that. they see it as just another government thing. they paid back. i can't remember but a pretty good interest rate we got on that money and they paid it back. now they're more innovative than ever before. one of our automobile industry makers talked about natural gas fueled vehicles that they want to move forward on that area. i don't know if that's successful or not but they are moving forward, why, because the price is lower, we have a lot of it and they're an industry that's stronger than ever before. as we sit here and talk about the importance of energy and how we have to have -- develop our plan and have a diversified plan of action and from all sources and, you know, as you went through that list of the subsidies, we do it in every russian. why? because we're -- arena. why? because we're trying to develop a diversified portfolio, but also it creates other innovation we see.

we know we can't depend on one type of fuel source but all of it's part of the mix. people who say we can't be oil and gas, they're dreaming. they're in another world. have to have a multifaceted approach. then we have to do it and deliver it for the benefit of the american people. and there's a way to do this. and so, again, i struggle tonight because of the vote i took yesterday, one of four that said no, we're not moving forward because i just saw what was going to happen. by this weekend i'll be back home talking to alaskans and hearing their concerns about high energy costs in urban areas in small villages to urban areas, asking the question what are we doing? i wish i could say, here's the answer, tomorrow your price goes down but we don't have that answer. because three years i've been here, you've been here longer, we've had a 2008 with really no substance of beef out there. we've had stuff on the table they know the other side will vote against, the other side

votes against it, instead of having meaningful, real comprehensive energy. we have bills, a little tax increase here and there, but not about what we're going to do. so 20 years from now, all of us, my colleague from louisiana and colorado can look to our kids and grandkids and say we did the right thing because we stronger because we diversified our energy resources. th -- that to me is the fundamental issue that we'll not get to in that debate. we're in our own debate because we're a group of four, two of them out tonight. the rest are in a different debate. ms. landrieu: well, yes, and i want to just re-emphasize, too, the importance of getting back to the basics on energy policy. and i have been privileged to be here long enough where i have actually helped to pass two comprehensive energy bills, and i'd like to believe, because i remain hopeful every morning when i wake up. i'm a person the glass is always

half full, not half empty. i try to remain optimistic, sometimes even with evidence to the contrary, but i continue to remain hopeful that we can continue. that's on the path of more energy independence for our country. that's why that article that was written this week that i'm going to find and put in the record was very telling to me because i have been like the senator from alaska, are we making any progress, are we really, and i believe in things if you can't manage, you can't measure. so what is the measurement? and one of the measurements is are we importing more or less oil from dangerous places in the world? and when i saw that that had dropped by 15%, i was very encouraged, and the article pointed out two reasons. not one. not drill, baby, drill, or conserve, conserve only, but both, because america has been doing a better job, despite the setback with the moratorium,

despite the setback with the deepwater horizon, despite some of the president's slow policies on drilling, and despite the republican resistance to conservation, we have been doing something right, senator, because we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil, which is good. we don't want to be dependent on venezuela, we don't want to be dependent on the middle east. particularly saudi arabia, they have been somewhat of an ally, but they don't share all of our allies. let's be honest. women just got the right to drive this year. no, actually -- to vote this year. i don't think they have the right to drive yet officially. so do we share those values? no. so why don't we kind of get back to the basics here of drilling more at home, promoting and expanding our nuclear industry safety.

i mean drilling where it's safe and not everywhere, like some of the republicans. let's drill everywhere. we don't have to drill everywhere. we just have to be smart and strategic about where we drill, compromise some about the places that are really, really opposed to it. we can drill more, have revenue sharing which makes sense with the coastal states for alaska, for louisiana, for virginia, for mississippi, for alabama, which builds a strong partnership in stakeholders between the local, state and federal. i think we could do more on building efficiency. we can do more on natural gas vehicles so that wouldn't it be wonderful to have the kind of vehicle where your car could run on electricity, it could run on -- i don't know if this is possible yet, but we could experiment on electricity, on natural gas or on petroleum fuels or on diesel or bio, so that if the price of natural gas was low, you would just sort of power yourself on natural gas. if your electric bill is low

because you're on nuclear and nuclear price is low and you're getting your electricity from the nuclear power plant, you just plug in your automobile and you pay very little. why can't we break this dependency by, a, producing more of everything at home, and transforming our auto industry, which is the big pull of fuel. you know, our industry runs on coal or natural gas or some oil, but the real pull on this oil is our automobiles. so if we could get ourselves -- that's why republicans are wrong. they don't want to fund this transformation, but we have to fund the transformation to help america move from an old-fashioned petrochemical cal, just fill up at the pump, you only have one thing to get and it's petroleum, you could fill up with several other things. this isn't pie in the sky. this is happening right now. but with a little bit more

government investment, it could happen more. and wouldn't that be a relief? because the senator from alaska will know this, and don't misquote me here because i could get in trouble so i'm going to be careful, but if we had a system like that and the price of gasoline was $10, no one would care. you know why? because they wouldn't have to use it. think about that. you wouldn't have to buy it. you wouldn't need it for your airplanes. you wouldn't need it for your trucks. you wouldn't need it for your cars because we had created a system of choice. and choice is power for the consumer, really good choice. they could fill up their car with natural gas or they could fill it up with another source. that's where we need to go. and then we'll break it. we'll break the dependency because it could be $10, it could be $100 a gallon. who would care because no one would have to buy it. so that's kind of -- not kind of. that's where we need to go. and we can get there.

we're sort of creeping there. that's what this article also said, inch by inch, we're getting that way, but we could accelerate it, no pun intended, if we get off this ridiculous blame the person in the white house so you can win the next election and then get back to doing nothing. so i'm going to turn this conclusion over to the senator by saying that the debate about elections and bumper stickers -- elections coming up and bumper stickers to put on the cars are going to help. but a real debate, i am ready for it. we have introduced several pieces of legislation. i have been a cosponsor of every major piece of legislation since i have been here on any kind of major energy bill. it has to have a conservation component. it has to have an environmental safety component. it has to have more drilling, revenue sharing, and then i think an expansion of nuclear power would be very important, and then the right subsidy fiction mix for the kinds of energy that we would like -- right subsidy mix for the kinds

of energy that we would like to produce in this nation. it would make our nation much stronger when it comes to, of course, energy, but it would make us so economically powerful, mr. president, and it would make us militarily more powerful because we would negotiate treaties differently if we didn't have to get on our hands and knees and ask people that don't even share our values to pump a little bit more gas for us, we could pump it ourselves. and i yield the floor to the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you very much, my friend from louisiana. i will conclude by saying just a couple of comments. again, i think your point about smart and strategic. that's what we're saying. no one is saying either or, it has to be this or that. it's a combination of things. some will be more expensive today but maybe less later. i mean, think about the technology around the cell phone, the first time they came out which used to be a box about yea big. you plug into your car. then the big receiver would be in your trunk. several thousand dollars to buy

that technology, if you remember that? and people were like no one is ever going to do that. now you can go down to the 7-eleven or in my state it would be the holiday store and buy throwaway phones. it's amazing when you allow some expansion of this knowledge and the technology. oil and gas brings new technology. you mentioned directional drilling as an example. new technology that has been developed in our state and your state. to now create opportunities that shell gas is now doing. all kinds of opportunities. when you think of the security level, i know the president here has been -- the senator from colorado, in the armed services committee with me, we talk about this all the time. how do we get the biggest consumer, the military, to find new alternatives? and they are experimenting. but you know what is amazing? we heard it last week and the week before. our friends on the other side are wondering why the military is looking at alternative fuels. they actually ask what gives you

the authority to do that? well, actually, when it costs you almost $400 a gallon to move diesel fuel to the front lines of afghanistan, i think that's a hell of a good reason. they should be looking at what kinds of alternatives they can do. i have seen what they're doing. they are doing some amazing things with solar panels in small devices, which what's important about the military? that means they can move more rapidly through areas that they do not have to worry about where's the diesel truck for the energy. but for rural alaska, why is that technology important? in our rural villages where it's $10 and $11 a gallon for heating fuel, now there is technology, instead of taking up a whole room, it's portable and they can move it, they can use it. saving consumers. so there is all kinds of things that we should be doing. and i know the other side will say well, those cost too much, these cost too much. always when you're in the r&d stage, things cost a lot.

but when you slowly develop and create the markets, and the military is a huge driver of a market. so i'm excited that they're in these areas, and i oppose the idea that some senators and house members, republicans that are saying they shouldn't be doing anything experimental. absolutely they should. they are a consumer of the product, the largest consumer. let's have them give us some innovation, because people may forget that the same people who are doing the energy development in the early 1960's, they are the ones that started the internet, which we now all benefit from. can you imagine in the 1960's if we had said to the military, we don't want you testing that thing you're calling the internet system, that's all bad, you get out of that business? where would we be today? i would say as the parent of a 9-year-old, i might have a different view on this, too. i mean, i don't want my son on the internet all the time. it has made a difference in our economy and everything else that's going on. so to conclude, i just would say that we have a chance to develop, to diversify and deliver a real energy plan if we focus on it.

that's what we should be doing. so i thank my colleague from louisiana. i thank the senator from colorado who is presiding tonight, the presiding officer, for allowing us to have a little rant here in our own world, but i think the world we talk about is the same world that almost everyone in america is living in. gas prices that are high. anyone who says there is a magic bullet that tomorrow the price will go down, that ain't happening. i know the other side wants to make us believe we do certain things -- i support the keystone pipeline, i know you support it, but that won't lower prices tomorrow. i support for a variety of reasons, long-term plan, jobs, a variety of things. they won't lower prices tomorrow. drilling in chukchi and bustamante, important to me. -- and beaufort, these are the kinds of things we need to be doing. will us investing in conservation to ensure that commercial buildings and houses are more efficient turn a dollar

right away? a little bit, but over the long haul, i'm doing an energy retrofit to my house in anchorage. i'm going to say some money. the money will go into my pocket. actually, it will go in and go out because i have to put money aside for my son's education, but i have more money. so it plays over time. nothing happens overnight. and i -- it drives me crazy when i hear the other side say this is like magic, tomorrow things will change for you. i -- i wish that was the case. we all wish that's the case, but we have to have this plan to get there. so i thank the senator from louisiana for joining me tonight. thank you for standing tall when we took our vote yesterday. i think we made, i hope, our point, and now we need to move forward and hopefully get other people to follow the lead and do a comprehensive plan. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator. mr. president, while i'm on the floor, i'd like to speak for a few more minutes, if i might, on another subject but one that's equally important.

the senator from alaska and i just spent some time talking about a balanced approach to energy production and the fact that it -- if we could get there, we could create jobs. as the senator was saying, no matter what we do, it won't create jobs overnight. he is right again. it will take a long time, but it won't lower the price overnight, it will create jobs, but there is a bill, there is a bill that actually will create millions of jobs overnight. that's pending hanging around this capitol that if we could get passed would mean a great deal immediately tomorrow, literally, the day after the bill is signed by the president, and that, mr. president, is the federal highway and transportation bill, which last week was passed and compromised by one of the most liberal and

progressive members of this body and one of the most conservative members of this body, senator boxer from california, senator inhofe from oklahoma, worked for over a year and a half to put a transportation bill together, two-year transportation bill. many of us would have liked it to be five years or six years, but two years is what they could negotiate, and you know what? it's a lot better than the short-term three months, six months, two months, three months temporary measures that i think we have been under for the last several years. that gives no consistency, none, for our states and our counties and our cities. it puts -- if you talk about uncertainty, the business community, real estate developers, planners, community planners, transit planners, they don't know what it's going to look like six months from now or even next year.

this bill would give at least two years of certainty, and we could come back hopefully and pass a long-term extension five years or six years. but two years, mr. president, is much better than 30 days or 60 days, 90 days, which is what the house is contemplating. i'm proud that the democrats and some republicans are standed up in the house and saying, no short-term extension. we have a bill. we have the senate bill that got over 74 votes of republicans and democrats, compromised, again, between a more progressive and a more conservative member for the benefit of our country. 1.9 million jobs at stake, and for the gulf coast senators, there's an extra bonus. besides funding our rail, our highways, and our transit, the gulf coast senators and house members from the states of texas, louisiana, mississippi,

alabama, and florida got a very significant amendment to fund the restore act, to fund coastal restoration and flood control protection and economic development on the gulf coast directing the fine money that's going to be levied against b.p. sometime in the next few weeks or months. instead of that money coming to the federal treasury to be spent on a variety of different things, it would stay where the injury occurred, along the gulf coast. and 80% of that money would stay on those coastal areas and those coastal states, helping our economies to revive themselves and to save our coastlines. so gulf coast house members -- i'm speaking and hoping that some of them will hear this message. gulf coast house members of either party, democrats or republicans, should stand tall

and say, yes, let's pass the senate transportation bill for the benefits that will come to our state and our nation, creating literally almost overnight 1.million or securing 1 million jobs for the country, helping our recovery, but tucked into the transportation bill is a bill that could bring billions of dollars to the gulf coast to help with coastal reserve store rairk--coastal restoration, beah owerosion. our newspapers -- because i've been getting the newspapers every day since we passed restore. from tampa to mobile, to gulf coast, mississippi, to "the times-picayune" to the "houston chronicle" and as faraway newspapers as "the new york times," have written editorials about bringing economic relief to the gulf coast, and area hard hit by the 5 million barrels of

oil. just this month, when we go into angers it will be april 20. next month it will be a two-year anniversary. so i don't know what the house of representatives is thinking. they've got a real jobs bill over there right now, voted on by republicans and democrats here, not just a few republicans. i think more than half of the republicans in the senate joined with us to pass this bill. in addition it has the restore act in it, which funds the -- as you know, you had a great hand, mr. president, in supporting part of that bill -- or part of that effort, not that bill, but part of that effort to fund the land and water conservation fund, which again will provide money to all the states for park, restoration, and maintenance and for land purchase, with willing sellers. so i am here on the floor to support barbara boxer, to support jim inhofe, to say to the house, take the senate

transportation bill, take it now. it's good for all of your states and for the gulf coast house members particularly. and the restore racquet was very bipartisan and -- and the restore act was very bipartisan and very bicameral. there is a restore act very already similar to ours. let's join together and pass this bill. we have had many, many supporters of this bill. the chamber of commerce said and has put out messages to everyone today -- "the chamber strongly supports this important legislation ... passing surface transportation reauthorization legislation is a specific action congress and the administration can take right now to support job growth and economic productivity without adding to the deficit." and i just want to say one word about this extension. extensions are not benign, as senator boxer told us today.

extensions in some states aren't worth the paper that this extension will be written on because, mr. president, you know that most of these projects are funded by 75% approximately federal money, 25% local. well, in the old days, when states were flush with cash and people were running surpluses, when we messed up in congress -- like we're messing up now - and not giving them a transportation bill on time -- some of our states could just dip into their local money, keep their projects going waiting for us to do our job. mr. president, those days are over. do you know any state in the union running a massive surplus right now? do you know any state, anywhere? i don't. because states have drawn down their reserves. they're running on very tight budgets because they're all coming out of this recession. even our state that has a very low unemployment rate relative to everybody else, that really

never experienced the recession like everyone else did, we still are running pretty sizable deficits at the state level. i can tell you, my state doesn't have any extra cash to front the federal government. so when these projects run out and don't get -- not extended but don't get reauthorized, a lot of these transportation projects will come to a halt. states will stop buying rightaway, they will cancel or put on contract or put on hold what's -- what's under contract, they will put on hold until the money comes forward. so i'm going to be in touch specifically with the state of louisiana on how this is going to work in our state, but we were told today that there are a handful of states that have already started to put out notices to their contractors. there will be more -- no more paychecks associated with this

road project or bridge project or this mass transit project. and let me show you what i do know about our state. these are the grades that we get from the civil engineering association, and i'm not proud of these grades, but the reason i'm not too embarrassed is because just about every state has these same grades, because overall america's infrastructure generally is graded at a "d." now, we're the most advanced country in the world but get a "d" rating whe rating when it cr infrastructure, surface transportation, water infrastructure, dams, levees, et cetera. so our airports in louisiana, a c, our levees, despite the huge advance amounts the federal government has made recently or because of the lower investment over time, we still have a c.

our bridges, we have have more bridge surface than any state in america, we have a d +, our ports, from blackman t to baton rouge, one of the largest port systems in the world, a c- and our roads are d. so this bill that senator boxer has been on the floor all week and i am joining here and helping her to tell the house of representatives, you're playing with fire here. you're playing with dynamite here. we have got get this transportation bill out. i'm sure that other states can benefit from this bill. if que we don't, this will be te ninth short-term extension since 2009. people at home must think we have just lost our minds. the clearest thing to people at home -- they may not understand and sometimes it's hard for us

to understand all the intricacies of every issue. but everyone in america, even our children, understand that to build roads, you need a road crew. to build bridges, you need a bridge crew. to build mass transit, you've got to have people actually building, construction jobs. we need jobs in america right now, yesterday, today, immediately. why is the house of representatives sitting on a bill that is paid for, contrary to some comments from house members -- paid for, that will go for two years -- not as long as i would like; it is not four years, it is not five years, but it's two years, it's longer than the three months, 60 days, 90 days extensions that we've been living under since 2009. it's 2012. let's get a transportation bill. and, again, my final point for the gulf coast, this is critical. we have a major piece of

legislation tucked inside of this bill. if the transportation bill that the senate road passes, the restore act passes with it. land and water conservation with will seller provisions and we invest billions of dollars in the gulf coast. it's a real jobs bill, not a pretend jobs bill. it's a real jobs bill. it means everything to our states, whether you have a republican or democratic governor. they're waiting on us to pass this bill so that they can get their people to work. and i know that mayors that i've spoken to, police in our state, county commissioners are waiting for this money as well so that they can get plans and put people to work. so, mr. president, i most certainly hope that in the next 24 hours before we leave on friday the house of representatives will pass the senate transportation bill, send

it over to us, let's put our people to work. only going to last two years. we can argue about the differences, about how the money should go directly to the states. we could argue about mass transit. we can debate that for the next two years. let's pass the bill, let's get it done. and i yield the floor.

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from lewis is recognized. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that on wednesday, march 28, at 5:00 p.m., the sna proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: calendar number 464 and 497 that there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, upon the use or yielding back of tiernlg the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendar number 4649 and 497 and in that order. the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order and that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 407 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

407, expressing the sense of the senate that executives of the bankrupt firm m.m. global should not be rewarded with bonuses while customer money is still missing. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i understand there are three bills at the desk and i ask for their reading en bloc. the presiding officer: clerk will read the titles of the bill en bloc for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2682, an act to provide end user exem hones for certain provisions of the commodity exchange act and the security exchange act of 1934 and for other percent's purposes. h.r. 2779, an act to exempt

interaffiliate swaps from certain regulatory requirements put in place by the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. h.r. 4014, an act to amend the federal don't posit insurance act with respect to information provided to the bureau of consumer financial protection. ms. landrieu: now scar for a second reading and i object to my own request all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard rkt the bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative day. ms. landrieu: i yield the floor. hold on. i ask unanimous consent the na