Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from California was on the Senate floor this morning, Mrs. Boxer, advocating passage of this bill and urging colleagues to vote against the Snowe amendment. I am here to support that position. I would like to respond briefly to Senator Coburn's last couple of statements about where the bureaucracy failed. He didn't have to remind me, of course, the bureaucracy failed to respond to Katrina and Rita, the largest disasters by far in the history of the country. But we have spent 6 years fixing that bureaucracy, not printing bumper stickers for reelection campaigns. You know what. It has worked because our efforts to fix the bureaucracy have helped the people of Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee and Montana and Indiana who are currently experiencing terrible disasters as we speak. The bureaucracy that showed up at the Superdome is a lot better today in many ways--it is better today than the bureaucracy that showed up at the Superdome. That is because we had hundreds of hours of committee meetings, where this hard work is done, to bring significant and important bills and changes that take debate, not on the Senate floor but take debate in the work of the committee. When you are working on major pieces of legislation that have major impacts, that is where it is done. Besides the FREEDOM Act that is on the floor today, there is the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, sponsored by Senator Roberts with 46 cosponsors. I am assuming--I don't have the list, but I am assuming they are Democratic and Republican cosponsors. That is a major regulatory relief bill. There is a bill by Senator Collins called the CURB Act, Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act has two cosponsors. Then there is a smaller bill by Senator Portman that has no cosponsors, but he is the lead sponsor. That looks to me like it is a smaller bill and has limited scope but nonetheless on regulatory reform. There could be 12 other bills filed in the Senate--I don't know--and hundreds of other bills filed in the House. Forget the House bills. When bills like this are filed in the Senate, the usual route and the most effective route is to go through the committee of jurisdiction. You can understand in this topic, which is so broad--regulatory reform--it is regulatory reform in the Department of Commerce and regulatory reform in the Department of EPW, Environmental and Public Works, regulatory reform for the Department of Homeland Security, regulatory reform in the Department of Defense. There are many committees of jurisdiction. What everyone has agreed to is to have the hearing in the Homeland Security Committee, which has broad jurisdiction, and get the work done. Senator Lieberman is not here today because he is on Jewish holiday. He has said time and time again he will have this hearing in the committee and that is the appropriate place so we can come forward with a bill on regulatory relief. There are a couple of reasons why this particular approach is flawed. I would like to read the comments from the administration. I would like to read three specific reasons why this particular FREEDOM Act is not in the proper position it should be. But the way to fix it is not debating on the floor of the Senate on a bill that is not really germane to the bill that we are debating, that we are trying to pass. It is to have this kind of debate in committee so we can work out these details. Senator Snowe has shown herself to be in the past, and still today, willing to work in a very cooperative manner, and the place to do this is in committee. No. 1: The bill as currently drafted would allow judicial review before the completion of rulemaking. That provision in the Freedom Act would undermine regulatory certainty, making it harder for businesses-- not easier, harder-- for businesses to plan for the future and compete in the marketplace. It would also invite excessively costly and unwieldy litigation. We don't want to have more lawsuits. We want to have less lawsuits. That is one of the problems small businesses are facing today--lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. The last thing we want to do is encourage more of them. Many people have reviewed the technical writing of the bill in its current form and believe it will result in more lawsuits, not less. We wish to fix that in committee. The amendment would make it harder, not easier, to see the actual cost of regulation, by expanding the Regulatory Flexibilities Act definition to include indirect effects. I can understand why she wants to do it, but in interpreting the language as the Senator has written it, this legislation would likely undermine any reliable and meaningful economic analysis of regulation, thereby distracting the agencies from focusing on what the actual impacts of the rules would be. Finally, the amendment inappropriately links regulatory decisions to budget cuts. Decisions about regulation should be based on sound economic science and not on the threat of budget cuts. This is a preliminary review of some of the current problems. Senator Snowe is right, I guess. We could stay on the floor for the next 2 or 3 or 4 weeks and the other Senators who are not on the floor could agree to come and debate their bills on the floor, which is highly unusual. But why not just go to the Homeland Security Committee, have all of the sponsors of these major pieces of legislation present their bills and have that committee work through these technical difficulties? Because it is an important issue. Many of us support regulatory reform. We know there are some burdens, particularly on small business. We want to get it fixed, so let's fix it instead of continuing to rail on this subject on every bill that comes before the Senate, whether or not it has anything to do with regulatory reform. One thing I wish to point out to the Senator, and I point this out with the greatest respect, about 6 months ago or longer now, we were both on the floor trying to pass the small business jobs act, a very significant bill that would actually help to bolster this economy and help provide literally billions of dollars of loans to small businesses that couldn't get them anywhere. Their credit card companies had raised the rates so high or their banks had shut down their lines of credit. Senator Snowe and I worked together to bring a bill to the floor--and we did, and passed it, unfortunately, without the support of the other side of the aisle. But in that debate, the Senator from Maine said-- because I included in that bill, with a 60-vote margin--I got Senator Voinovich and Senator LeMieux to vote for the small business lending fund, which was a little unusual. She said: . . . not included in the overall. First and foremost, it has not had a single hearing with respect to this issue, and in my view, it certainly does resurrect the controversial TARP program . . . and because it hasn't had a hearing, this should not pass. Yet, within a year, she is back arguing against that argument--that her bill, which hasn't had any hearing in the committee--should pass. So there is some inconsistency here. I say this with the greatest respect to the Senator from Maine. But if we want to be serious about regulatory reform, we have to have this debate in the committee of jurisdiction, which is right now Homeland Security, and then have the other chairmen of the committees try to cooperate with that committee and bring something to the floor. We will be happy, many of us, to vote for it. But doing this in this way is not helpful. It is not going to fix the problem. It is only going to make the burden on small business worse. We have to move past it. I wish to refer my colleagues to the floor remarks Senator Snowe made on July 22, 2010. Can these be fixed? Yes. But this is not the place, on the Senate floor, when there are many other bills as well. Senator Snowe could remain the main sponsor because she has put in the most work. She has been a tireless advocate. She should get tremendous praise for bringing forth this issue and keeping the fires burning and pushing the Senate to this end, and that would be terrific. Many of us would join that effort. But this is not the bill to do it on. This is not the place to do it. I would suggest that, again, taking this to the committee of jurisdiction, working it out, bringing the administration forward so we can actually make some real progress on curbing regulatory overreach by the Federal Government would be welcomed by all. I see the Senator from Vermont is here on the floor. I am assuming he wants to talk. How much time do we have remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a very special flight that just took place. The Louisiana HonorAir flight that came into Washington on Saturday, May 28, included a group of 77 World War II veterans from Louisiana. These veterans visited the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable military members. Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, sponsored this latest trip--its 22nd flight--to the Nation's Capital. The organization honors surviving Louisiana World War II veterans by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. On this trip, the veterans visited the World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iwo Jima memorials. They traveled to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs, but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts. In Louisiana, there are roughly 21,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. The oldest in this HonorAir group was born in 1915 and 7 veterans on this HonorAir flight were women. These veterans served in various branches of the military--20 Army, 26 Navy, 12 Army Air Corps, 11 Marines, 1 Coast Guard, and 7 in women's services. Our heroes served across the globe, participating in major invasions such as those at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal, Leyte, the Philippines, and southern France. One was a prisoner of war who also received the Army of Occupation medal, while others fought in the historic Battle of the Bulge or at Pearl Harbor during the infamous attack in 1941. Many of these veterans have been decorated with honors such as the Purple Heart or the Bronze Star Medal. These men and women, who have given so much for our country, truly represent our greatest generation. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 77 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, that we welcomed to Washington on May 28 and Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill will prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption, a practice that the majority of Americans oppose and of which many are unaware. The last American horse slaughterhouses were closed in 2007, and there is virtually no demand for horse meat for human consumption in the United States. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of American horses are still being inhumanely transported to foreign processing plants, where they are brutally slaughtered. Horses are domestic animals that have served men and women as loyal, hard working companions for thousands of years; and today, they are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport. Horses differ from other livestock animals in that we do not raise them for the purpose of slaughter. We raise and train them to trust us, perform for us, and allow us on their backs. As such, they are entitled to a sense of human compassion, of which the practice of horse slaughter is void. Throughout the development of this country, human consumption of horse meat has not been a widely accepted activity. This is undoubtedly due to the unique relationship enjoyed between mankind and horses for thousands of years. Horses were there in our work, on our farms, for transportation and communication in the taming of a vast American Frontier, and on every battlefield prior to World War II. They have proven their loyalty and nobility, and without them, the development of our country might not have been possible and at the least, would have been significantly more difficult. In modern time, horses provide joy and entertainment. Through racing, jumping, recreation, and even therapy to the disabled, horses touch the lives of many Americans. Clearly, they hold a special place in our culture, and it is for these reasons, that so many people are strongly opposed to horse slaughter in America. Unfortunately, horse owners do have to face the realities of infirmity, age, or other reasons that may necessitate putting down their animal. However, this calls for humane euthanasia, and slaughter is simply not an appropriate alternative. The average cost for humane euthanasia and disposal is about the same as the cost of one month's care, so it is not unreasonable to expect horse owners to accept responsibility and incur this minor expense. Additionally, because we do not raise horses with the intent to slaughter for human consumption, they are frequently treated with drugs not approved for use in animals raised for human consumption. These drugs can be toxic when ingested by humans. We have no system in the United States to track which medications a horse has received throughout its lifetime, and as such, American horse meat poses a food safety and export risk. It is for all of these reasons that I am committed to ensuring that this bill is brought to the attention of all of our colleagues here in the Senate. I look forward to working with the senior Senator from South Carolina and others to address this important issue and pass a commonsense bill that reflects the desires of many of our constituents, who support the humane treatment of our horses and the prohibition of their slaughter for humane consumption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes from the time reserved on the majority side on this issue.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a very important issue we are debating today, and there are very different views about how we should proceed. I rise to object to the Menendez bill that is on the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote no, and I wish to give at least five reasons why. I don't think this bill is the right approach. It will not solve the problem of high prices at the pump. I think, in many ways, it is actually a waste of time to be taking a whole day on an issue that is not going to result in lower prices at the gas pump or in more domestic supply, which are two things we need to attempt to do sometime in the next short period. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from New Jersey--as I do my colleague from California, who spoke in favor of this direction-- but I want to give a couple of thoughts about why I will be voting no and why I am urging my colleagues to do the same. According to economic analysis, the bill Senator Menendez presents to us today to remove tax credits and subsidies from the five major oil companies will do nothing to lower prices at the pump. So as everyone goes to fill up their cars, their trucks, or their minivans today, even if this bill passed--which it will not, because it will not get near the 60 votes needed to move it forward--it will not lower prices at the pump by 1 penny. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document I am going to refer to, which is information from an independent economic analysis.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it might make us feel better to beat up on Big Oil, it might present a scapegoat in some quarters, but it will not lower prices at the pump, and that is what we need to talk about. The economic recovery we are in--slow and spotty in places, but underway--can be stalled out by prices as high as $4.37 a gallon--a price I saw at a station right here in the Washington, DC area. That is frightening to consumers, to families, to small businesses, and to large industry that are seeing their cost of business go up because of these prices. We should be working on real solutions, and this is not one of them. According to the Joint Economic Committee report on this bill, published last week, repealing these tax incentives ``would have little or no impact on consumer energy prices in the immediate future. The impact in the long term will also be negligible.'' So why are we doing it? Why would we want to harm five large oil and gas companies that work internationally, that employ 9.2 million people in the United States directly--good, hard-working Americans working in and for these companies? Why are we doing this? That is a good question. No. 2. The industry pays its taxes and then some. I think there is some real misunderstanding that these large oil and gas companies pay either little or no taxes. Maybe people have been told, and believe, that they have so many tax subsidies they do not pay taxes. I want to put that issue to rest. First of all, three companies, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and ExxonMobil--I am sorry I don't have this chart blown up. I would like to, and I don't know if the camera can pick up this small 8- x-11 sheet here--you will see by the red lines here, these three companies have paid approximately 49 percent, 43 percent and 42 percent. This is their tax rate. I think that is pretty high. They are making billions of dollars, that is true, because prices are high and there is an increase in demand. That is the American way. That is the profit incentive. I know people are angry they are making these profits, but they are paying significant amounts in taxes. In fact, these companies pay more than $86 million to the Federal Government in income tax and production fees every day. That is $86 million today, $86 million tomorrow, and the next day and every day. So the thought that they are not paying their taxes, that they are hiding behind some extraordinary loopholes in the Tax Code doesn't measure up. People might say: Well, Senator, what are those blue lines on your sheet? I will tell you what those blue lines are. This is Walmart. Walmart is a big company. They make a lot of money and they are in all of our States. Their tax rate is 33 percent. One of the most successful investment companies--Berkshire Hathaway-- makes tons of money, has profits for shareholders, has made thousands of millionaires--and congratulations to them, people who have invested in Berkshire Hathaway. They have made millions of dollars. Warren Buffet is one of the most respected investors. I personally have a great deal of respect for him. But you know what their tax rate is? Thirty-one percent. What is Intel? Intel is one of the largest companies in the world--27 percent. Phillip Morris, a tobacco company, 27 percent; IBM, 27 percent; all the way down to telecommunications companies--Verizon and Coca Cola, 21 percent; all the way down to GE, one of the largest companies in the world. You know what they paid last year? Nine percent. In fact, people were shocked--myself being one of them--that GE paid zero taxes to the Federal Government last year when these five big companies are paying $86 million a day. GE paid nothing any day--all year--zero. Yet these five oil companies are paying $86 million a day and we have to have this discussion? Should some of these subsidies be looked at? Absolutely. When should they be looked at? In the Finance Committee, when we look at all the subsidies in the Tax Code for these other industries--both oil and gas and non-oil and gas, resource based and not, both retail, telecommunications and software companies, such as Intel, Microsoft, et cetera. I will be the first to stand and say that many of these subsidies--or some of them--need to be eliminated, particularly when the taxpayers are looking to close the deficit and reduce our debt. Most certainly we need revenues. Should this be on the table when that serious, thoughtful, deliberate debate happens? Yes. But today, this is entertainment. And it is not funny and it is not laughable. It is very serious. I am going to submit this for the Record. These are all the large companies--these five large oil companies that everybody enjoys beating up on. I understand they are making a lot of money today, but that is no reason to go after them, singling them out, particularly because of the 9.2 million Americans who are working in and around and for them, and the thousands of independent companies and suppliers that work in partnership with them. Let me give my third reason for opposing this bill. This approach undermines domestic production. According to the EIA study, published in 2008, the oil and gas industry received about 13 percent of the U.S. subsidies. If you listen to the debate on this side of the aisle, you would think that they get all the energy subsidies and that they don't need them because prices are high and they can make a lot of money drilling. The facts are that of all the U.S. energy subsidies, the oil and gas companies--the big ones--get only 13 percent, but they provide over 60 percent of the energy. So for the 13 percent of subsidies, they produce 60 percent of the energy. Unfortunately, while the United States was at an all-time high of oil production, the EIA, which is the Energy Information Administration, now estimates U.S. Gulf of Mexico production will decline to 1.14 million barrels a day by the year 2012. The last time the Gulf of Mexico produced less than 1.2 million barrels of oil was in 1997--more than 10 years ago. Everybody--including the President and the Secretary of the Interior, who was before our committee today--is touting that oil production is at an all-time high. They are correct, but that is only half the truth. If you flip the page, or look to the next chapter, what you will see is that production is declining precipitously for two reasons. We have almost shut down drilling in the gulf. There has been virtually no new exploration and production because of bureaucracy and delay. And attacks like this don't help. We need to be increasing production, not decreasing it. The truth is we are at an all-time high, but we won't be for long. We are going in the wrong direction. That is why I want to commend the President for saying he wants to step up domestic production. We couldn't step lively enough for me. So I am hoping that is what we can do and move on. I see my colleague on the floor, so I will try to finish in 2 minutes. The fourth reason for opposing this bill is that it does hurt independent producers. I am happy to see this main attack is not directed at independents. That would be a terrible thing, because it is pretty bad for the big companies, but it would be devastating if it were aimed at independents. It does affect independent producers, because many of the independent producers, several of which I represent--some are in West Virginia, some are in Texas, some in Oklahoma, some of them are in Pennsylvania, and some in New York--so I am not the only Senator here who represents a lot of independents in oil and gas, and ``wildcatters'' have a very proud tradition where we come from--have partnerships with the big oil and gas companies. The money and the resources they have go into supporting those partnerships with those independents. So indirectly this does affect independent producers. Finally, this bill gets our energy and job priorities backwards. One of the provisions in the bill, which I wish to speak to, says the economy of the United States suffers huge net losses in jobs and productivity from growing annual trade deficits in energy due mainly to the $250 billion or more we pay for foreign oil. I understand that we have a trade deficit for foreign oil. So why are we doing something to diminish domestic production right here at home? That is what this bill does. These are five reasons I am going to vote against the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. This industry contributes a lot to our economy. If this country would make it a priority to increase domestic production and to reduce our foreign consumption, we would reduce that annual trade deficit and do right by our people. There are many other things I would like to say, but we are restricted on time. I will submit the rest for the Record. I can only say we need to produce more at home, produce it safely, and produce it equitably. Finally, when we want to review tax subsidies across the board for all big companies I will be at the table. Until then, I am going to sit at this seat and vote no.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, six Louisiana law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty this past year and will be recognized in Washington as part of the 49th annual commemoration of National Police Week. These brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their communities and are being honored for their courageous spirit and their unwavering commitment to serve and protect the citizens of Louisiana. I want to welcome their families and colleagues to our Nation's Capital. Established in 1962, National Police Week provides an opportunity for us to reflect on our law enforcement officers' contributions to building safe and productive communities across the country. The events this week are a collaborative effort to honor the service and sacrifice of America's law enforcement community including the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, NLEOMF, the Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary, FOA, and the Concerns of Police Survivors, COPS. Thousands of law enforcement officers, supporters, and surviving family members of fallen officers will gather in Washington, DC, to honor the memory of their colleagues and loved ones at various events including, the Peace Officers Memorial Day Service at the U.S. Capitol and the National Police Survivors' Conference. In addition, the names of our six Louisiana heroes will be engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and formally dedicated during the 23d Annual Candlelight Vigil. They will join a total of 158 U.S. law enforcement officers from around the country who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty last year. The following brave officers gave their lives to protect our Louisiana communities: Sergeant Thomas M. Alexander, Rayville Police Department; Captain Timothy J. Bergeron, Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office; Officer Alfred L. Celestain, Sr., New Orleans Police Department; Trooper Duane A. Dalton, Louisiana State Police; Sergeant Timothy C. Prunty, Shreveport Police Department; and Corporal Clovis W. Searcy, Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office. In addition to honoring the fallen officers at National Police Week, law enforcement from around the country will gather this week to honor the heroes who continue to keep our communities safe. I am pleased to recognize one of Louisiana's own, Trooper Thomas Wild of the New Orleans Police Department, who will be honored at this year's National Association of Police Organizations', NAPO, 18th Annual TOP COPS Award Ceremony. TOP COPS recognizes officers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty from the previous year. Trooper Wild, this year's recipient of the Life Saving Award from the State police for going beyond the call of duty, will be recognized for his heroic actions and outstanding display of bravery last year when he saved the life of two victims from an overturned vehicle. Trooper Thomas Wild was assigned to the scene of an accident in which a van flipped multiple times and ultimately landed upside-down in a sugarcane field. Trooper Wild helped transport the unconscious driver to the hospital and checked for additional victims at the accident sight. This was all protocol that any officer would have done but in an extraordinary gesture Trooper Wild which beyond the call of duty by giving his personal cell phone number to the victim's father. Seven hours later Trooper Wild received a call from the victim's family. There may have been someone else in the vehicle. Although Trooper Wild was off duty, he quickly returned to the crash site searching the nearby field and called out for the missing passenger. Finally, Trooper Wild heard a faint response of someone crying out for help. A few minutes later, he found 22-year-old Benjamin Kilvurn bleeding, dehydrated, and unconscious. Wild called an ambulance and the young man was rushed to the hospital. Clearly going beyond the call of duty, Trooper Wild quickly responded to the concerns of a victim's family and saved the lives of not one but two men. His selfless actions represent the dedication and commitment that our law enforcement officers have for our community. I thank Trooper Wild for his dedication and congratulate him for being Louisiana's TOP COP.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for asking me to join him in a general presentation and potential colloquy between the two of us about the importance of continuing our support for oil and gas production in the United States by the large international companies that have operated in our country and around the world now for many years, as well as by the hundreds, if not thousands, of independents that operate doing the same. There is going to be a bill that will be debated in the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow. It is S. 940, sponsored by the Senator from New Jersey, our colleague, Senator Menendez. I want to go on record in strongly opposing it, and I will give some reasons why, and I urge my colleagues, when this bill comes up--which I understand it will come directly to the floor of the Senate without being heard, as is tradition, in the committee--to vote it down. I doubt the bill, in its current form--or in any form that it could be modified--can get the 60 votes necessary for passage, but I would like to add my strong voice in urging my colleagues to read this bill, to look at it and understand the inherent unfairness in it, the lack of significant deficit reduction, and the fact that it will not--although it is being touted to do so--reduce gasoline prices by one penny. Mr. President, I want to start with some facts that people might find very interesting, or hard to believe, based on the political rhetoric they have been hearing from the sponsors of this bill and others in the Senate. The story line goes something like this: Big oil makes huge profits at the expense of everyone. They pay virtually nothing in taxes, and we subsidize them. Why are we doing this? Why don't we stop? I think it would be good to get a few things clarified for the record. It may be surprising to American taxpayers to know that of the $16.6 billion spent on U.S. energy subsidies over the course of 1 year, oil and gas subsidies account for less than 13 percent. I want to say that again. Of the $16.6 billion spent on U.S. energy subsidies over the course of 1 year, fuels such as renewables, refined coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, et cetera, account for 85 percent. Oil and gas is less than 15 percent--actually, 13 percent. Now, you would think because of this bill, S. 940, that big oil and gas companies are getting all the subsidies, making all the profits, paying no taxes, and the rest of us are suffering. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me repeat: This bill, S. 940, is going to repeal virtually all subsidies from one industry, and one sector of one industry--oil and gas companies--but they only get 13 percent of all the energy subsidies. Why aren't we talking about the other 85 percent? Some of them--in some people's minds--create some harm to the environment, whether it be dams blocking up rivers so fisheries are extinct or whether it is coal that has its own issues. Of course nuclear doesn't have any problems. We must not be paying attention to what is happening in Japan. Why are we singling out one sector of one part of the energy industry to repeal the subsidies when it will, in fact, have the opposite effect of reducing gasoline prices? Even one of its cosponsors said publicly for us not to be fooled, this will not reduce gasoline prices. Why are we doing it? Will it create jobs? No. It will actually hurt job production in the United States. According to the EIA study--which is the U.S. Government, not a company--published in 2008, the oil and natural gas industry received 13 percent of the subsidies while producing 60 percent of the energy. Let me repeat. This industry got only 13 percent of the subsidies but produced 60 percent of the energy. But the bill, S. 940, is going to be debated in the Finance Committee where the industry leaders are going to be called to talk about this gimmick, 940, but the oil and gas industry, with their independent counterparts, produced 60 percent of the energy. I would like to say where exactly that energy comes from because it really is a bone of contention. The Senator from Alaska will appreciate this. The sponsor of this bill represents a State that is one of the highest deficit energy-producing States in the Nation because some of us do this better than others. Louisiana produces a lot of energy. Alaska produces a lot of energy. Texas produces a lot of energy. Some States like to consume a lot and produce nothing. That would be like some of our States that put some of their land in agriculture so they can produce food--other States saying: We don't want to produce food, but we expect you to provide it to us--provide it to us when we want it, how we want it, and for the price we want it. And I am tired of it, and so are the people I represent. I want to put this deficit chart up here. We have seen a lot of deficit charts about deficits of infrastructure, real deficits of money, debt. Let me talk to you about the deficit and the debt owed by some States in this Union that consume a lot, talk a lot, and produce nothing. California has the greatest deficit. It consumes a tremendous amount of energy, and the imbalance is the highest. It produces the least, consumes the most. To California's benefit, before Senators Feinstein and Boxer run down here to argue this point, I want to concede this one point: California has been on the forefront of energy conservation and efficiency. This chart does not recognize them for that, but I will concede that point, and I am going to have some further data to explain that. California, while it doesn't produce a lot of energy--it consumes a tremendous amount--at least California has been in the forefront of savings and efficiency because there are a lot of States up here that don't produce, don't conserve, are not efficient, and all they want to do is yell about high gas prices. Why don't you do something about it? Florida is a perfect example. Florida has a net deficit in Btu's. I guess it is 3.889 billion. Florida is a great example. I don't think Florida does much in nuclear. I don't think they do much in hydro. They have a lot of Sun; I don't know how much solar they are doing. They will not let anybody produce oil and gas on or off their shores, but they sure fill up a lot of their gas tanks every day. They sure fire up those hotels and those restaurants with that energy. Where do they get their energy from? If it weren't so serious, it would be laughable. They have a gas line that goes from Mobile, AL, to the Florida peninsula. We pump the gas out of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, put it in a pipeline, and ship it under the Gulf of Mexico so they can light up their State. Would they ever think of putting in an oil and gas well or building a nuclear powerplant? If they can't do that, why don't they conserve their energy? New York is another user of energy which produces very little; Ohio, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, and Illinois. Some of these States, such as New Jersey and Michigan--think about what they look like. They have big factories, they have big industries. Michigan is home to the automobile industry, so they use a lot of gas in producing things we all use, so we want to give them credit for that. But still the fact remains that Michigan uses a lot more energy than it produces. Then you get down here to what I call the gold-star States. We get criticized so much, we are treated like we are some sort of pariah sometimes, but I think we do a great job--Kentucky, Alaska, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Alaska is up here somewhere--Alaska is right here. Kentucky, Alaska, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming. We produce enough energy for everybody in our State, what we need, and we export it to everyone else in America who needs it. And what do we get? We get bills like this that go after, directly, the big companies in our State, that work in our State, to somehow put them in a position to make them feel as if they are not really good companies, they are not American companies, they don't pay tax, they get all these subsidies. I am going to read into the record what taxes they pay. It is going to surprise you. Then, on top of that, we get moratoriums, we get permatoriums. We can't even drill for the oil we have. We can't even look for the oil we might have. When I go home, my people ask me--and it is a very hard thing for me to answer, and maybe they ask Senator Begich the same thing--they say: Senator, since we do so much to produce energy for the country, why do we pay $4 a gallon for gasoline and sometimes we pay a little bit more than everybody else? They don't produce anything, Senator. Why do we pay so much? Can the Senator tell me what he answers his people because I don't know what to tell them other than this place is a little screwed up. Until I get an answer for that, and I will ask the Senator--go ahead, what do you tell them?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I say to the Senator, because he raises an excellent point, President Obama is not the first President to go overseas and ask them to produce more oil to send it to us. This goes on--President Clinton did it. President Bush did it. We beg Saudi Arabia to produce more energy. We ask OPEC to please don't tighten it so much so our prices--why don't you go to the local OPEC or the local producers, which are Kentucky, Alaska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Wyoming? Why don't you help us produce more, because we can do it. But we get shut down by bureaucracy, moratoriums, permatoriums, rules, regulations, EPA, refuges. We can't even get free to produce the energy that we can produce for this country. Then you have all these middle States that do a fairly good job on balance. But I tell you, if we passed a law here that said every State in America had to produce the energy it needed, we would have an energy policy all right, Senator Begich knows. I don't know what it would be, but it would be an interesting rule, you know, just like in the old days--if you wanted food, you produced it. It would be a great law. Every State in America, all 50, if you consume energy, you need to produce something. You could produce it by wind; you could produce it by hydro; you could produce it by nuclear; you could stop driving your automobiles and have everybody walk; you could give everybody a bicycle. We don't care. Just eliminate the energy deficit. That would be a very interesting discussion to have, and I might even file a bill like that because this one is so ridiculous, people might actually read the one I would file. Let me give a couple of other stats, and then I know I am exceeding my time. I want to ask for 2 more minutes. I want to put to rest this issue that the big oil companies don't pay any taxes. This is from Forbes magazine, so take it as it is. It is slanted toward industry, I give you that. It is not left of center, it is right of center, sometimes very right, but I think you can check these figures with anybody else. I am assuming they are accurate. This is for the top 20 most profitable U.S. corporations in 2010. ExxonMobil's net income was $30 billion. Their tax rate was not 10 percent, not 15 percent, not 25 percent, not 35 percent--a 45-percent tax rate. Their estimated worldwide tax bill was $90 billion. Of $10 billion in total taxes paid in the United States, $3 billion was income tax. Let's go on. ConocoPhillips' tax rate was 42 percent; pre-income tax, $19.8 billion; net, $11.4; tax rate, 42. Chevron was 40 percent. So let's review: Exxon, 45 percent; Conoco, 42; and Chevron, 40. Do you want to know what Google was? Google is a pretty big company. They don't produce oil and gas. They have another line of business. Their tax rate was only 21 percent. Let's take Hewlett-Packard--not in my State, in other parts of the country. Their headquarters is not in the South. Their tax rate was 20 percent. Apple Computer's tax rate was 24 percent. People will say: It is not just the rate; it is what you paid. But I think if you look--Coca-Cola, very big company, their tax rate was down to 16.7 percent. Does this make sense? No. So that is why we need tax reform, significant transformational tax reform, so all big companies pay similar in taxes and we eliminate some of these loopholes that don't make sense. I could be for that. I could be for that when we are talking about Google, Apple, GM, GE, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. But if you are going to ask me to stand here and pick on one industry that pays billions of dollars in taxes, that only gets 13 percent of the energy subsidies, that hires--350,000 people in my State are hired by oil and gas companies or their contractors or affiliates, large and small, not just the large. And when I see what our people produce and these States produce nothing, or virtually nothing, and you ask me can I vote for a bill like this? No. Not only can I not vote for it, it is laughable. I hope the Senator from Alaska and I--I know we are going to be the skunks at the garden party because, as Democrats, to be against this bill, it is going to be because we just have to coddle this industry. I don't coddle this industry. I am holding BP's feet to the fire. I want Exxon to pay the tax they owe. I want Chevron to pay the tax they owe. I want this President and this administration to stop the moratorium and the permatorium in the gulf. I want to get our people back to work. I would much love to reduce gasoline prices, and one way we could do it is if cars did not have to be so dependent on gasoline. Why don't we give a significant subsidy to produce different kinds of automobiles? I would vote for that. I have voted for that. If you had a car right now running on natural gas, you would be paying the equivalent of $2 a gallon for gasoline at the pump. That is much better, I say to the Senator, than $10. Why don't we take some money and invest in natural gas vehicles or more incentive for electric vehicles? If people are really serious about breaking the back of OPEC, then start building the kinds of automobiles and infrastructure in this country necessary to do it and stop introducing gimmicks such as this that might get you a few political points in the short run, but it is not leading us in the right direction. Having beat up on the Democrats, let me say something about the Republican side. All they want to talk about is drill, drill, drill. We cannot drill our way out of the situation we are in. Do I want to drill more? Yes. Do I think there is more than 2 percent of the world's oil and gas in America? Yes. But you know what? You have to look for it in order to find it. We are under certain provisions--the Senator knows in Alaska, we cannot even go look for the oil and gas we might have. The Senator might want to talk about that, and I am going to close in a minute.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I wish to ask the Senator a final point. We are going to hear tomorrow speeches given about America is at the highest production levels ever. That may be true. But it is true for a very short period of time--maybe the next month or two--because as you can see, there is going to be a precipitous fall. Why? Because of the Deepwater Horizon, the shutdown in the Gulf of Mexico. Even though people say we are at the highest production levels we ever have been, it is going to be temporary. Then the production levels are going to decline down to the lowest level since 1997. I want people to understand, we are not on a path to produce more in America. We are on a path to produce less. And taking all subsidies away from the five major international oil companies is not going to change this line. It is going to make it continue to go down. It is not going to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, not by one penny. It is not going to get us on the path to a strong, sound energy policy. I will say in conclusion, should some of these subsidies and tax credits be looked at? Yes, in a comprehensive format. And I will say, I will be open to the ones that are the least effective, the least necessary, and are fairly applied across companies such as Google, AT&T, GE, and other companies. I will be happy to do my part. People in Louisiana will do our part. But we are not, along with Texas and Oklahoma and Alaska, going to take it all on our shoulders. We have had enough. We have had high water. We have had high wind. We now have a high river. We have a moratorium. We have a permitatorium, and now we have no more subsidies. At least they left the independents out. I want to thank them for not putting independent oil and gas companies in this bill. But still, the big five pay a significant amount of tax. They take a smaller percentage of the overall subsidy. I think we need to do this in a fairer way. I am yielding my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to make a few brief remarks about the fact that this week we are celebrating National Charter Schools Week in America and in the Senate. I am pleased to join my colleague, Lamar Alexander, in cosponsoring this resolution, which I hope will be hotlined tonight, and that means passed unanimously without the need to bring it to the floor for debate because there are so many Members of the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, who recognize the value of high-quality charter schools and the difference they are making in the advancement of education reform and the extraordinary achievements being reached by students and teachers in communities because of them. I wish to make a brief statement on the Senate floor and then share some interesting and exciting statistics from my own experience in the city of New Orleans, which is the city that has the highest percentage of children in charter schools in America today. As a parent of two precious and delightful children, I know firsthand the value of a quality education to secure their futures. Many American families are fortunate to live in places where public schools provide engaging and effective instruction and a culture of achievement that inspires students to aim high and thrive. Other families have the financial means to provide their children with a top-notch private school education. The Presiding Officer knows, whether it is in Missouri or Louisiana or Texas or right here in DC, that education can be quite expensive in our top private elementary and secondary schools in our country. Sometimes tuition can reach up to $25,000 a year and beyond. As hard as that might be for some to believe, that is true. Unfortunately, too many Americans are left without either option for their children, and their children are falling through the cracks. This cannot continue if America is going to maintain a leadership role and produce young adults who have the knowledge and skills to compete and win in this new worldwide marketplace. Fortunately, in a growing number of communities, including several in Louisiana and particularly in New Orleans, there is another exciting option for parents and students: high quality public charter schools. This week, as I said, we celebrate the 12th annual National Charter School Week. It is a good time to take stock of how successful many charter schools have been and what we can do to replicate them across the country and, more importantly, what we can do to improve them; what we can do to eliminate poor charter schools and strengthen the great ones and make the good ones even better. Charter schools are public schools that receive public funding and serve the same neighborhood students as traditional public schools. Currently, it may surprise people to know there are over 5,000 charter schools in our country serving more than 1.6 million children. These schools are required to meet the academic student achievement accountability requirements under all of our laws and in the same manner as traditional public schools. However, they differ from traditional public schools in several important ways. Charter schools operate free from many of the district rules and regulations so they have more freedom to innovate, to experiment, to explore, to think outside of the box, to try new approaches. Charter schools have autonomy in areas such as the length of the school day and year, as well as principal and teacher recruitment, selection, and development. With this freedom, however, comes greater accountability for improved student achievement. Unlike public schools in many places, charter schools that aren't successful can actually lose their charter, be forced to close, or be forced to transition to a new model. There are countless examples of high-performing charter schools that are producing impressive results, and they continue to show that our students, including--and most importantly--our low-income and minority students and disadvantaged students can and are rising to great academic heights. In my home State of Louisiana, there are 90 public charter schools, including 61 in the city of New Orleans, representing almost 72 percent of our city's student population--a higher proportion than any other school system in the United States. The city's Sci Academy is one remarkable example of a successful charter school, and I had the great pleasure to skype with some of their students earlier this morning. Sci Academy opened in 2008 with 90 ninth graders entering a rigorous and inspiring environment. More than half of the ninth graders who entered Sci Academy's inaugural class had failed State promotional performance tests, and more than 70 percent read well below the ninth grade level. Many of these students had missed a full year of school because of Hurricane Katrina and were significantly behind other students of their age. Incredibly, that same freshman class later scored 76 percent on our State's test, making it the third most successful high school in New Orleans. The other high schools that beat it out actually had selective enrollment. What is extraordinary about Sci Academy is that it is open enrollment, focusing on the quality of teachers and the quality of teaching. It is remarkable. Right here in the District of Columbia--and I am proud to have had a hand in the development of this in the District of Columbia as a former chair of a subcommittee and a partner with Eleanor Holmes Norton and others who have worked so hard with the District on its reform efforts--charter schools are an integral part of improving educational outcomes in this city, our Nation's Capital. Starting with two small campuses in 1996, DC public charter schools now educate almost 40 percent of the school-aged children in the District, and they are serving the highest percentage of low-income and minority students in the city's most economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. DC's public charter schools outperform the city's traditional public schools from the fifth grade up, and they graduate 84 percent of their students--higher than both the city and the national average. Where quality charter schools exist, parents have real choices, exciting choices, and they are overwhelmingly choosing public charter schools. Many of these schools have long waiting lists. In fact, more than 50 percent of charter schools report having waiting lists, and the total number of students on these waiting lists is enough to fill more than 1,100 average-sized charter schools--quite a number on these waiting lists. Over the past 17 years, Congress has provided $1.6 billion in funding to the promising charter school movement throughout the country through grants for planning, program design, initial implementation, replication, expansion, dissemination, evaluation, and for improving facilities. Our efforts at the national level are beginning to show real results. Maintaining and increasing where possible funding for charter schools is a winning proposition for parents, for students, for their teachers, for our community, and, may I say, for our Nation, for our workforce of the future, and for our economic security. Make no mistake. America will only go as far as our collective talent and ability will take her. Our future will continue to be shaped by how well we prepare today's students for tomorrow's challenges. Parents who are doing everything they can to give their children an opportunity for success deserve not only a quality choice but a solution to the challenges of our educational system. Successful charter schools provide that choice, and in many areas they provide the solution. Now it is time to make them a central component of our educational strategy all over the country. Senator Lamar Alexander and I are pleased to chair the charter caucus in the Senate, to join with President Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan in a focus on quality education for all children in America. President Obama and Secretary Duncan often say charter schools are one tool, not the only tool, to get us from failing and mediocre public schools to great and exciting public schools in our country that are making a real difference. I wish to share some extraordinary results that were given to me just this week as I hosted a roundtable with staffers and Senators about the accomplishments of charter schools. This comes from a wonderful group in New Orleans, New Schools for New Orleans, that is one of the leaders in the charter school movement nationally. They are helping the city of New Orleans and many of our organizations, in partnership with all sorts of funders and philanthropies, and the city of New Orleans, the mayor, and the city council, and others who are so supportive of what is going on. Our universities, I might say, including the University of New Orleans, Tulane University, Dillard, and Xavier have also been on the forefront of this movement as well. Let me share these results because they are quite extraordinary. This chart shows that in 2005, 62 percent of students in the city of New Orleans--not 15 percent, not 20 percent, but 62 percent--were academically unacceptable. Based on standards set by our State and by the Federal Government, in 2005 basically 62 percent of all the students in New Orleans were failing. They were not up to just basic educational levels in reading and math. We had a terrible event happen, as many people will remember. In 2005 we had Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the crashing of our levee system, the failing of our levee system, and 100 of our 146 public schools were virtually destroyed and remain unusable. Through the great efforts of local leaders, State leaders, and Federal leaders, and with FEMA's help and some new, out-of-the-box thinking, we were able to pool the money the Federal Government was going to reimburse each individual school and present one check to the city of New Orleans and the school board and the recovery district, and we have been building a new school system ever since. Charter schools are the foundation of that rebuilding. It is quite extraordinary that in only 5 years, when you look at the same population, virtually--there have been some families who have not yet come back, but they are on their way; there have been some families who left and are not coming back--it is a population still of a great number of minority students and disadvantaged and lower middle-class students, as well as middle-class and some wealthy students in our public school system, and we have moved from 62 percent unacceptable to only 17 percent unacceptable in 5 years. I do not know of any other group of schools anywhere in the country that has made such remarkable gains. So when people question, do charter schools work, let me say that the evidence is in. Quality charter schools work. In every place they exist, they outperform even their suburban counterparts and in large measure suburban counterpart public schools that are among some of the best. Many of these charter schools are in rural areas where there is not a lot of opportunity for White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian kids. Some of them are in intercities that do not have the same opportunities. We, again, have taken 62 percent of our population who were underperforming and now it is only 17 percent. As it says on this chart, I have in the Chamber, the New Orleans students' test scores demonstrate the first significant improvement in the city's history--a 30-percent increase--and, finally, closing the achievement gap between New Orleans' schools and State schools by more than 50 percent. A Thomas B. Fordham Institute study ranked 30 major cities on six critical reform categories. New Orleans, I am proud to say, was ranked the No. 1 reform-friendly city in the country, followed by Washington, DC, New York, Denver, and Jacksonville. But the great news is that there are cities and counties and States waking up to the exciting opportunities of education reform. We know that in America today, it should be unacceptable in some of our communities where 50, 60, 70 percent of our children are failing to get out of high school. We should be ashamed that even when some of our children walk across that stage and get that diploma that signifies they have graduated, they are leaving truly, in many places, without the skills to get the job that will give them a living or saving wage because our schools have been handing out diplomas that are not worth the paper on which they are written. That has to come to an end. That is what we are fighting for. That is what charter schools help us to do. Now, is it possible for public schools that are not charters to achieve this success? Yes. And that is also happening. But I found in my own experience, trying to work with a system that was unwilling to make too much change, that charter schools provide the kind of competition and spark and challenge to an otherwise system that is run by a monopoly. This provides a diverse set of providers to education. It encourages new kinds of educators to come in as teachers. It gives the schools the freedom they need to make it work for the students who walk through that front door and want so desperately to walk across that stage with a diploma that means something and a future ahead of them. I am proud to help lead this effort here in the Senate. I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort for the 12th year--a resolution commending high-quality charter schools in America. Let me say in conclusion that we are not resting on our laurels. I have introduced a bill, along with others. Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk have introduced a companion bill, if you will. Both bills are in an effort to take the bar even higher, to say to the country: Let's get rid of our low-performing charter schools. Let's focus on strengthening the authorizers of these charter schools. We do not want authorizers out there who are giving out charters to run schools to people who have no idea what they are doing. We do not want this movement to fail. We want this movement--we know it can be successful. We know it can be a real choice for parents. Think about it. Think about the value of a quality education. If you have to pay for it in the private sector, you are paying $25,000 to $30,000 a year in some of our communities. Maybe you are lucky enough to be in a Catholic school, an Episcopal school, where the tuition is subsidized and you can get the student in and out for $6,000 to $10,000 a year, but for many families with four children or five children, that is out of reach. They cannot possibly afford that. So having quality public schools is essential in every community in our country. I believe that if we can do this in New Orleans, which is one of the poorest cities--not the poorest, but we struggle, as you know, in the city of New Orleans; we have a very broad demographic population--if we can do it here, trust me, it can be done anywhere with political will and with the support of your State and local governments, and, of course, the Federal Government. So I am pleased to cosponsor the ALL-STAR bill, which is a grant program for growth and replication of high-quality charter schools, and to have introduced my own bill, the Charter School Quality Act. I am going to be working very closely with Senator Harkin, who has been open in many ways to these new ideas, and working with him as we authorize the Elementary and Secondary Act, and be reminded of the great success charter schools are having. Ultimately, we would like to have 100 percent of the public schools in the city of New Orleans be charters, with some of the most exciting charter providers, some of the best in the world operating our schools, challenging our kids, giving parents real choices where they want to send their kids based on the personalities of the children and the desires and dreams of that family. That is really what America is all about--competition, choice, and opportunity. We just are not quite doing enough in this regard in our country today. But perhaps the success of this movement can show us a way forward. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I hope we can get that resolution adopted without further delay tonight. Again, I wish to congratulate everyone who has worked so hard on making this National Charter School Week a success here in DC, in our Nation's Capital, and around our country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will be a critical component in our efforts to recover and rebuild Louisiana's vast coastal wetlands. My bill works to address the threatening problem of coastal wetland deterioration in Louisiana caused by non-native, invasive feral swine populations. Few are aware that the marsh and wetlands along Louisiana's coast comprise some 40 percent of the Nation's total salt marshes. Louisiana's coastline is a national treasure. Yet, this national treasure is disappearing at an alarming rate due to a number of natural and man-made factors, including the destruction of wetlands caused by non-native feral pig populations that are literally eating away the coast. Louisiana's coastline is an increasingly fragile and finite source of protection. It protects against storm surges, the varied effects of climate change, and it protects the many communities that thrive on the coastal plains of Louisiana. The survival of the affected acreage is crucial not only to the continued existence of my State and the states directly above mine--which will be affected if Louisiana's wetlands continue to deteriorate--but also to our Nation's energy independence and security. Forty percent of America's refining capacity flows from the Gulf Coast to service the rest of our Nation, and if Louisiana's coastline continues to disappear, our Nation's refiners and energy infrastructure will be jeopardized. As such, the loss of our wetlands threatens not only our teeming wildlife, but also land, lives, energy infrastructure, and navigation. That is why I rise today to introduce the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act of 2011, to address the challenges these species pose to our efforts to reverse coastal wetland deterioration. Every 30 minutes, a portion of Louisiana's coast the size of a football field is converted from healthy marsh into open water. Since 1930, 1.2 million acres have been lost. That is an area roughly the size of Delaware. Scientists predict that Louisiana will lose another 700 square miles of coastal wetlands by 2050. That is an area the size of the greater Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metro areas. Exacerbating this problem is the irresponsible introduction of the feral hog to Louisiana. This invasive species has caused extensive damage to our natural wildlife habitat. In Louisiana, the wild omnivores compete with native wildlife for food resources; prey on young domestic animals and wildlife; and carry diseases that can affect pets, livestock, wildlife and people. Scientists now believe that the feral hogs are not only imposing enormous damage to the marsh, but are also negatively impacting native freshwater mussels and insects by contributing E. coli to water systems. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the wild pig is the most prolific large mammal in North America and given adequate nutrition, its populations in an area can double in just four months. Louisiana's landscape has already been ravaged by the nutria rodent. In 2002, the first program was created to combat the increasing nutria populations. This program, the Coast-wide Nutria Control Program, CNCP, incentivized trappers to catch nutria in return for monetary compensation. This program has proven successful at decreasing nutria populations and significantly reducing their impact to coastal wetlands. However, more effort was needed to further reduce the nutria damage to wetlands, both in Louisiana and in other marshy environments, including Maryland's Chesapeake Bay. The Nutria Eradication and Control Act was enacted in 2003 to provide a critical supplement of funding to strengthen the Coast-wide Nutria Control Program. In July of 2009, I joined my friend and colleague Senator Cardin in introducing the re- authorization of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. These two measures to combat nutria populations have been instrumental in reducing the nutria damage to Louisiana's wetlands. Unfortunately, now Louisiana has another pest eroding its marshes and wetlands. Feral swine are listed by the World Conservation Union, IUCN, as one of the top 100 invasive species worldwide. If action is not taken to control the feral swine population, our biologists fear these animals will undo much of the progress Louisiana has made in controlling the nutria population. It is my hope that with the help of my colleagues, we can pass this bill to help eradicate these pests from our vanishing coastline once and for all. For these reasons, it is imperative that we control the feral swine in Louisiana. As such, the bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allocate funding to create a pilot program modeled off of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. This program will assess the nature and extent of damage to the wetlands in Louisiana and develop methods to eradicate or control the feral swine population, and restore the coastal areas damaged by this invasive species. It is a small program, but the benefits are potentially vast. It is my hope that by creating this program, we can achieve similar success at combating feral hogs as we have had at controlling nutria populations. It is for all of these reasons that this legislation is crucial. I ask that my colleagues support its prompt passage.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will be a critical component in our efforts to recover and rebuild Louisiana's vast coastal wetlands. My bill works to address the threatening problem of coastal wetland deterioration in Louisiana caused by non-native, invasive feral swine populations. Few are aware that the marsh and wetlands along Louisiana's coast comprise some 40 percent of the Nation's total salt marshes. Louisiana's coastline is a national treasure. Yet, this national treasure is disappearing at an alarming rate due to a number of natural and man-made factors, including the destruction of wetlands caused by non-native feral pig populations that are literally eating away the coast. Louisiana's coastline is an increasingly fragile and finite source of protection. It protects against storm surges, the varied effects of climate change, and it protects the many communities that thrive on the coastal plains of Louisiana. The survival of the affected acreage is crucial not only to the continued existence of my State and the states directly above mine--which will be affected if Louisiana's wetlands continue to deteriorate--but also to our Nation's energy independence and security. Forty percent of America's refining capacity flows from the Gulf Coast to service the rest of our Nation, and if Louisiana's coastline continues to disappear, our Nation's refiners and energy infrastructure will be jeopardized. As such, the loss of our wetlands threatens not only our teeming wildlife, but also land, lives, energy infrastructure, and navigation. That is why I rise today to introduce the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act of 2011, to address the challenges these species pose to our efforts to reverse coastal wetland deterioration. Every 30 minutes, a portion of Louisiana's coast the size of a football field is converted from healthy marsh into open water. Since 1930, 1.2 million acres have been lost. That is an area roughly the size of Delaware. Scientists predict that Louisiana will lose another 700 square miles of coastal wetlands by 2050. That is an area the size of the greater Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metro areas. Exacerbating this problem is the irresponsible introduction of the feral hog to Louisiana. This invasive species has caused extensive damage to our natural wildlife habitat. In Louisiana, the wild omnivores compete with native wildlife for food resources; prey on young domestic animals and wildlife; and carry diseases that can affect pets, livestock, wildlife and people. Scientists now believe that the feral hogs are not only imposing enormous damage to the marsh, but are also negatively impacting native freshwater mussels and insects by contributing E. coli to water systems. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the wild pig is the most prolific large mammal in North America and given adequate nutrition, its populations in an area can double in just four months. Louisiana's landscape has already been ravaged by the nutria rodent. In 2002, the first program was created to combat the increasing nutria populations. This program, the Coast-wide Nutria Control Program, CNCP, incentivized trappers to catch nutria in return for monetary compensation. This program has proven successful at decreasing nutria populations and significantly reducing their impact to coastal wetlands. However, more effort was needed to further reduce the nutria damage to wetlands, both in Louisiana and in other marshy environments, including Maryland's Chesapeake Bay. The Nutria Eradication and Control Act was enacted in 2003 to provide a critical supplement of funding to strengthen the Coast-wide Nutria Control Program. In July of 2009, I joined my friend and colleague Senator Cardin in introducing the re- authorization of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. These two measures to combat nutria populations have been instrumental in reducing the nutria damage to Louisiana's wetlands. Unfortunately, now Louisiana has another pest eroding its marshes and wetlands. Feral swine are listed by the World Conservation Union, IUCN, as one of the top 100 invasive species worldwide. If action is not taken to control the feral swine population, our biologists fear these animals will undo much of the progress Louisiana has made in controlling the nutria population. It is my hope that with the help of my colleagues, we can pass this bill to help eradicate these pests from our vanishing coastline once and for all. For these reasons, it is imperative that we control the feral swine in Louisiana. As such, the bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allocate funding to create a pilot program modeled off of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. This program will assess the nature and extent of damage to the wetlands in Louisiana and develop methods to eradicate or control the feral swine population, and restore the coastal areas damaged by this invasive species. It is a small program, but the benefits are potentially vast. It is my hope that by creating this program, we can achieve similar success at combating feral hogs as we have had at controlling nutria populations. It is for all of these reasons that this legislation is crucial. I ask that my colleagues support its prompt passage.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I don't know how to do this, but if we could do 3 minutes each and reserve at least 15 minutes for closure.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have to object to that.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wish to remind the Senators this isn't the only debate on the floor. We are having a cloture vote on SBIR, and we would like some time to close that debate as well. So I am open to work with the other Senators.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I object to any unanimous consent request.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for answering my question. I would like to submit many more things for the Record. But, again, I wish to close, because we are 10 minutes extended from the vote, by asking the Senate to please consider voting for the SBIR Program. If we don't it will expire on May 31 this year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.