Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
RISE TO MOVE TO THE LEGISLATION.
REALLY TO SPEAK OUT FOR
TAXPAYERS AND AGAINST CONTINUING
TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIES TO
MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR BIG OIL
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BIG
FIVE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY
OTHER ENTITY, JUST THE BIG FIVE.
A VOTE ON MY BILL PRESENTS A
POSITIVE VOTE ON MY -- A
POSITIVE VOTE ON MY BILL
PRESENTS A SIMPLE CHOICE FOR
EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER:
ARE YOU ON THE SIDE OF
WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES OR ARE
YOU ON THE SIDE OF BIG OIL?
THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS TO CUT
THE DEFICIT.
MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES,
PARTICULARLY IN THE OTHER BODY,
THEY WANT TO END MEDICARE AND
CUT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS.
WHAT I AND MY COSPONSORS WANT TO
DO IS END WASTEFUL OIL TAX
BREAKS FOR A WEALTHY INDUSTRY
THAT DOES NOT NEED THEM.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, CLEARLY WE
ALL NEED TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS TO
HELP ADDRESS THE DEFICIT.
COMPANIES.
WE ALL KNOW THAT OIL COMPANIES
ARE AMONG THE LARGEST, MOST
PROFITABLE COMPANIES IN THE
WORLD, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD
TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUE SCALE OF
THEIR WEALTH.
SO THIS CHART IS AN ATTEMPT --
JUST A SIMPLE ATTEMPT -- TO GIVE
SOME PERSPECTIVE.
THE MEDIUM -- MEDIAN INCOME IN
THE UNITED STATES IS ABOUT
EXXONMOBIL, JUST ONE OF THESE
BIG FIVE, IS PROJECTED TO EARN
IN PROFITS -- PROFITS -- $42.6
BILLION THIS YEAR.
$42.6 BILLION.
NOW, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW
THIS DISPARITY SON A CHART, BUT
IF THIS CHART WERE TO SCALE AND
EACH BUNDLE OF MONEY EQUALED
$50,000, THEN WE WOULD NEED MORE
THAN 850,000 STASKS BILLS TO
EQUAL EXXON MOBILE'S PROFITS
OVER THE NEXT YEAR.
850,000 STACKS OF BILLS ON THIS
POSTER WOULD BE ABOUT 170,000
FEET HIGH, OR ABOUT 32.2 MILES
STRAIGHT UP THROUGH THE CEILING
OF THIS CHAMBER AND BEYOND THE
STRATOSPHERE.
NOW, THE PRINTING AND GRAPHICS
DEPARTMENT IS VERY GOOD HERE AT
THE SENATE, BUT 32 MILES OF
POSTAGE WAS -- 32 MILES OF
POSTER OF PROBABLY A BIT MUCH,
SO I DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT.
I APPRECIATE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT I SHOULDN'T
HAVE DONE THAT.
MR. PRESIDENT, MY BILL WOULD
CLOSE SEVERAL LOOPHOLES FOR BIG
OIL, LOOB HOLES THAT GIVEN THE
CURRENT BUDGET CLIMATE WOULD LET
BIG OIL GET AWAY WITHOUT MAKING
ANY IS BEINGIFIES IS SACRIFICES AT THE VERY TIME
THAT WE'RE ASKING MIDDLE-CLASS
FAMILIES, THE DISABLED AND
ELDERLY TO TIGHTEN THEIR BELTS
TO HELP REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
THERE SIMPLY IS NO COMMONSENSE
EXPLANATION FOR BALANCING THE
BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF WORKING
FAMILIES AND LETTING
MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR OIL
COMPANIES KEEP BILLIONS IN
TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
NOW, I KNOW THAT AT THE SAME
TIME THAT THE MEDIAN INCOME IS
$50,000 FOR AMERICANS, HERE'S
WHAT IT IS, IF YOU ARE A C.E.O.
OF ONE OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES.
IN LAST YEAR ALONE, THE C.E.O.
OF EXXONMOBIL GOT PAID $29
MILLION.
THE CONOCOPHILLIPS C.E.O. GOT
PAID LAST YEAR ABOUT $18
MILLION.
CHEVRON, ABOUT $16 MILLION.
MOST AMERICANS WILL NEVER SEE
THAT IN THEIR LIFETIME OF WORK.
AND SO TO HAVE THESE EXECUTIVES
COME LAST WEEK BEFORE THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE AND SAY, AS
SOME OF THEM -- ONE OF THEM, THE
SUGGESTION ABOUT TAKING AWAY
SOME -- NOT ALL, BUT SOME OF
THEIR TAX SUBSIDIES WAS
UN-AMERICAN IS PRETTY
OUTRAGEOUS.
LET ME EXPLAIN TWO PROVISIONS OF
MY PROPOSAL.
THE FIRST PROVISION HAS TO DO
WITH FOREIGN TAX CREDITS.
U.S. TAXPAYERS ARE TAXED ON
THEIR INCOME WORLDWIDE, BUT
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO A DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR TAX CREDIT FOR ANY INCOME
TAXES THAT ARE PAID TO A FOREIGN
THEY GET THAT TAKEN OFF HERE.
MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T
WANT TO TAX THE SAME ACTIVITY
TWICE.
BUT U.S. OIL AND GAS COMPANIES
HAVE PRETTY SMART LAWYERS AND
CLEVER ACCOUNTANTS.
THEY HAVE FIGURED OUT THAT IF
YOU CAN CONVINCE A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, LIKE INDONESIA, TO
CHARGE YOU TAXES INSTEAD OF A
ROYALTY, WHICH IS IN ESSENCE A
FEE THAT YOU PAY FOR THE
PURPOSES OF DRAWING THAT OIL OUT
OF THAT COUNTRY, THAT THEY CAN
GET A BIG BREAK ON THEIR U.S.
TAXES.
BUT WHAT THIS AMOUNTS TO IS THAT
THE UNITED STATES TAXPAYER IS
SUBSIDIZING FOREIGN OIL
THIS BILL WOULD CLOSE THAT
LOOPHOLE AND RETURN $6.5 BILLION
TO THE TREASURY.
ANOTHER ONE:
IN 2004, CONGRESS CREATED THE
DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING TAX
DEDUCTION.
IT WAS DESIGNED TO HELP U.S.
MANUFACTURERS, WHO EXPORT A
PRODUCT TO A FOREIGN MARKET --
SO CARS, YOU KNOW, IPHONES,
IPADS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT --
WELL, FEW WOULD REALLY SEE THE
EXTRACTION OF OIL FROM THE
GROUND AS MANUFACTURING.
BUT AGAIN BIG OIL'S LOBBYISTS
EARN THEIR MONEY.
THEY SAW AN OPPORTUNITY.
SOME MADE PHONE CALLS AND LO AND
BEHOLD, ACCORDING TO THE TAX
CODE, OIL COMPANIES ARE IN THE
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS.
THIS LEGISLATION CLOSES THAT
LOOPHOLE AND SAVES TAXPAYERS
ALMOST $13 BILLION.
THAT WOULD BE $13 BILLION MORE
TOWARDS DEFICIT REDUCTION.
NOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND THIS BILL.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT BIG OIL
MAKES ENORMOUS PROFITS.
THERE'S NOTHING WITH MAKING
PROFITS, BY THE WAY.
BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE OUR
TAX DOLLARS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO
MAKE THOSE PROFITS.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT BIG OIL
DOES NOT NEED TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES
SUBSIDIES, AND THEY UNDERSTAND
THAT IF BIG OIL WANTS TO LOWER
GASOLINE PRICES, THEY COULD PUT
A LOT LESS MONEY IN STOCK
BUYBACKS AND A LOT MORE IN
LOWERING PRICES OR PRODUCING
MORE OIL.
STRAIGHTFORWARD, COMMONSENSE
BILL THAT EVEN THE CATO
INSTITUTE SUPPORTS, BIG OIL AND
ITS SUPPORTERS HAVE COME UP WITH
SOME PRETTY STRANGE RHETORIC.
THE STRANGEST BY FAR, AS I
ALLUDED TO BEFORE, IS SUGGESTING
THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORT CUTTING
THESE WASTEFUL SUBSIDIES ARE
UN-AMERICAN.
IT SEEMS TO ME BH A COMPANY
STOOPS -- IT SEEMS TO ME WHEN A
COMPANY STOOPS SO LOW AS TO
QUESTION THE PATRIOTISM OF THOSE
THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU KNOW
WHAT, MAYBE YOU CAN DO WITHOUT
$21 BILLION IN TAXPAYER
SUBSIDIES WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO
MAKE ANYWHERE BETWEEN $125
BILLION IN PROFITS -- NOT
PROCEEDS, PROFITS -- TO
$140-SOME-ODD BILLION, TO
QUESTION THE PATRIOT I AM OF
THOSE WHO SUGGEST YOU ZOO NEED A
FURTHER TAXPAYER SUBSIDY IS TO
SUGGEST YOU DON'T HAVE VERY GOOD
ARGUMENTS ON YOUR SIDE.
THE CHARGE OF "UN-AMERICAN" IS
OUTRAGEOUS AND I THINK THE 74%
OF AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT ENDING
OIL SUBSIDIES KNOW THEY ARE MORE
AMERICAN THAN THAT POINT OF
VIEW.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT I KEEP HEARING
IS THAT OIL COMPANIES ARE
ENTITLED TO THESE BREAKS.
THIS ARGUMENT SEEMS TO SUGGEST
THAT THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL
DESERVE WHAT THEY GET AND THAT
WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES SHOULD
KNOW THEIR PLACE AND KNOW BETTER
THAN TO ASK OIL COMPANIES TO DO
THEIR FAIR SHARE AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, WARREN BUFFET, ONE OF
THE RICHEST MEN IN AMERICA, SAID
"THERE'S CLASS WARFARE ALL
RIGHT, BUT IT'S MY CLASS, THE
RICH CLARKS THAT'S MAKE THE WAR
-- THE RICH CLASS, THAT'S MAKING
THE WAR, AND WE'RE WING."
THIS BILL SAYS THAT EVEN THE
MOST RICH AND POWERFUL AMONG US
MUST DO THEIR FAIR SHARE TO HELP
US REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
THEIR HIGH-PRICED LOBBYISTS
CANNOT STOP US FROM DOING WHAT
IS FAIR AND WHAT IS RIGHT.
NOW, SOME IN THE INDUSTRY HAVE
ALSO CLAIMED THAT CUTTING $2
BILLION IN ANNUAL OIL SUBSIDIES
TO THE BIG FIVE OIL COMPANIES
WILL SOMEHOW MAKE OIL AND GAS
MORE EXPENSIVE.
THAT ARGUMENT IS ABSOLUTELY
THIS BILL WOULD SAVE TAXPAYERS
$21 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS,
ROUGHLY A LITTLE OVER $2 BILLION
PER YEAR.
COMPARE $2 BILLION IN TAXPAYER
SUBSIDIES TO THE PROJECTED
ANYWHERE BETWEEN $125 BILLION
AND $144 BILLION IN PROFITS, THE
BIG FIVE OIL CRPS EXPECTED TO
MAKE THIS YEEMPLET SO IF THE BIG
FIVE OIL COMPANIES COULD JUST
LIVE -- JUST LIVE -- WITH $142
BILLION IN PROFITS IN 2011, THEY
COULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IN
TAXES, HELP LOWER THE DEFICIT,
AND NOT RAISE THE PRICE OF
GASOLINE.
LET'S PUT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECENTLY
WENT TO THE CORPORATE -- WENT
THROUGH THE CORPORATE FILINGS OF
THE BIG FIVE OIL COMPANIES AND
TOWNDZ $FOUND THAT THEIR COST OF
EXTRACTING OIL IS ABOUT $11 PER
BARREL.
WHEN OIL IS TRADING AT NEARLY
$100 PER BARREL, IT IS SIMPLY
ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT THE COSTS
OIL COMPANIES ARE FACING IS WHAT
IS DETERMINING THE PRICE OF OIL,
THAT CUTTING $2 BILLION PER YEAR
OF THE SUBSIDIES WILL SOMEHOW
FORCE OIL COMPANIES TO RAISE
PRICES.
IN ADDITION, THE NONPARTISAN
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
JUST CAME OUT WITH A DEFINITIVE
REPORT ECHOING THE SENTIMENTS OF
COUNTLESS ECONOMISTS AND OTHER
DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS
CONCLUDING THAT MY LEGISLATION
WOULD NOT INCREASE GAS PRICES AT
ALL.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S TIME FOR
THE BIG FIVE TO DO THE RIGHT
THING FOR A CHANGE AND PAY THEIR
FAIR SHARE.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE HARD SINCE IN
2005 THE C.E.O.'S OF SOME OF THE
BIG FIVE OIL COMPANIES TESTIFIED
THAT THEY AGREED WITH FORMER
PRESIDENT BUSH, THAT THEY DO NOT
NEED SUBSIDIES TO DRILL FOR OIL
WHEN IT'S SELLING AT $55 PER
BARREL.
WELL, IT'S SELLING AT NEARLY
$100 PER BARREL RIGHT NOW, STHOA
SO IT'S QUITE STRANGE THAT
ANYONE THINKS THEY NEED
GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS TO DRILL
WHEN THE MARKETPLACE IS DRIVING
THEM THAT WAY.
WE SIMPLY CANNOT EXPECT THE
AVERAGE WORKING FAMILY TO
SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF LOWERING
THE DEFICIT ALONE, AND I HOPE
SOME OF THE FAVORABLE COMMENTS
I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN RECENT
WEEKS MEANS THEY'RE READY TO
JOIN IN THIS EFFORT AND LOWER
THE DEFICIT BECAUSE ALL OF THE
SAVINGS GOES DIRECTLY TO DEFICIT
REDUCTION UNDER THE LEGISLATION
AND DO SO IN AN EQUITABLE AND
EFFECTIVE MANNER.
WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIMPLET NOTHING
ABOUT CONTINUING THE SUBSIDIES
IS FAIR.
THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE WOULD
END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT IN
THE NAME OF DEFICIT REDUCTION.
WHILE CONTINUING TO PUMP
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CORPORATE
WELFARE INTO A $100 BILLION
PROFIT INDUSTRY.
THAT'S THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY.
IT'S NOT WEAR TO WORKING
IT IS NOT A WISE USE OF LIMITED
FEDERAL RESOURCES.
AND IF THIS BODY DOES THE RIGHT
THING TODAY, IT IS NOT GOING TO
CONTINUE.
THERE'S NOTHING FAIR ABOUT THE
SUGGESTION OF ENDING MEDICARE IN
FAVOR OF BIG OIL SUBSIDIES.
BIG OIL HAS TO DO THE RIGHT
THING BY AMERICA.
THEY CAN BE PART AND SHOULD BE
PART OF THE SOLUTION TO OUR
DEFICIT CHALLENGE.
THAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE
HAVE TODAY.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT?
SENATOR FROM EAFNLGT.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK CONSENT
THAT I BE RECOGNIZED FOR UP TO
15 MINUTES AND THAT THE
FOLLOWING LIST OF REPUBLICAN
SPEAKERS BE RECOGNIZED FOR UP 10
MINUTES EERCHTION NOT
NECESSARILY IN THIS ORDER, BUT
THE SENATORS TO BE RECOGNIZED
WOULD BE McCAIN, CHAMBLISS,
CORNYN, BARRASSO, PAUL, HATCH,
HUTCHISON, AND VITTER.
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I HAVE ALSO COME TO THE FLOOR
TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL TO RAISE TAXES ON THE
FIVE LARGEST DOMESTIC ENERGY
PRODUCERS, AND I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE REMEMBER THAT
WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT FIVE
ENERGY PRODUCERS, FIVE OIL
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A TAX
PROPOSAL THAT IS BROAD AND WIDE
AND ENCOMPASSING.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROPOSAL
TO RAISE TAXES ON THE FIVE
LARGEST DOMESTIC ENERGY
PRODUCERS.
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I HAVE
SOME HESITATION ABOUT EVEN
ENGAGING IN THIS FLOOR DEBATE AT
ALL BECAUSE I THINK WE RECOGNIZE
THAT THE WORDS IN THE STATEMENTS
THAT WE'RE DELIVERING HERE ARE
THEY'RE JUST TALK.
THEY'RE JUST WORDS.
THIS PROPOSAL IS DESIGNED TO
FAIL, BUT IN FAILING IT IS
DESIGNED TO SCORE SOME POLITICAL
POINTS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S
WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
BUT AS A SENATOR WHO REPRESENTS
A STATE LIKE ALASKA, AN OIL AND
GAS-PRODUCING STATE, A STATE
THAT WOULD CLEARLY BE HURT BY
THIS PROPOSAL, I AM OBLIGED,
OBLIGATED TO OUTLINE WHY I FEEL
THIS IS SO DEEPLY FLAWED.
SO I WANT TO START BY REALLY
STATING THE OBVIOUS HERE.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT REDUCE
ENERGY PRICES.
BUT IF ANYTHING, IT WILL
INCREASE OUR ENERGY PRICES.
IT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE
OUR DEFICIT OR OUR DEBT.
BUT IF ANYTHING, IT WILL ADD TO
THOSE BURDENS BY SHUTTING OFF
PRODUCTION AND FORCING THE
REVENUES.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
PUT THIS IN CONTEXT, BECAUSE
PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY, AS
THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE PRICE AT
THE PUMP GO UP DAY AFTER DAY,
THEY'RE SAYING WHAT ARE YOU
PRICES?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO DEAL WITH
THE HIGHER PRICE OF GASOLINE IN
THIS COUNTRY?
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE IN
FRONT OF US DOES NOTHING TO
REDUCE OUR ENERGY PRICES.
THAT.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE HAS INDICATED THAT.
WE'VE HEARD SEVERAL MEMBERS ON
BOTH REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE
AISLE, DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE
AISLE SAY THIS IS NOT GOING TO
REDUCE OUR PRICES.
SO WHAT EXACTLY IS IT THAT WE
ARE SEEKING TO DO WITH THIS
OTHER THAN SEND A MESSAGE?
THIS PROPOSAL, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE, WILL
HURT POOR AND WORKING FAMILIES
ACROSS OUR COUNTRY.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PRICE OF
GAS IS IN OUR RESPECTIVE STATES.
I WILL REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT
AS MUCH AS ALASKA BENEFITS FROM
HIGH PRICES OF OIL AS WE ARE A
PRODUCER, IT IS A FACT THAT IT
KILLS US IN OUR LOCAL -- IN OUR
LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN, OUR
ECONOMIES BECAUSE WE ARE THE
STATE WITH THE HIGHEST GAS
PRICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY RIGHT
THERE WAS AN -- THERE WAS A
STORY, NEWS STORY LAST WEEK BACK
HOME IN CONSABU, THEY'RE PAYING
$7.58, $8.95 IN ANDLER.
I WAS IN FOR THE YUKON A COUPLE
WEEKS AGO.
THEY ARE A $5, $6, $7 GAS
THE SPRING BARGE WHICH WILL BE
COMING IN FOUR, FIVE WEEKS NOW
WILL BE DELIVERING FUEL AT
PRICES THAT WERE SET SOME WEEKS
AGO, AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
ALERTED THAT ON THE DAY THAT THE
BARGE DELIVERS THE FUEL, THE
PRICE WILL GO UP AT THE PUMP ONE
ADDITIONAL DOLLAR.
WE'RE NOT TALKING CENTS HERE.
WE'RE TALKING AN ADDITIONAL
YUKON.
WE KNOW VERY WELL WHAT HIGH
OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE ASKING US
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO LOWER THOSE
PRICES, TO DEVELOP A COHERENT
ENERGY POLICY THAT STARTS TO
WORK NOW AND THEN YIELDS
PROGRESS OVER TIME.
OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE NOT ASKING
US TO MAKE THIS PROBLEM WORSE,
AND YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT
THESE PROPOSED TAX INCREASES
WILL DO.
NOW, I HEARD MY COLLEAGUE HERE
SAY THAT, NO, THIS IS NOT
DESIGNED TO INCREASE THE PRICES
THAT ARE OUT THERE.
IT MIGHT NOT BE DESIGNED TO DO
THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE CAN
EXPECT IF IN FACT THESE TAX
INCREASES DO GO INTO PLAY.
IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS SINCE I
GOT MY DEGREE IN ECONOMICS, BUT
EVEN THOUGH IT WAS MORE THAN A
FEW YEARS AGO, I DO REMEMBER
SOME OF THESE VERY EARLY
ENTRY-LEVEL CLASSES THAT I TOOK.
AND I REMEMBER LEARNING THAT
RAISING TAXES ON SOMETHING IS
GOING TO TEND TO MAKE IT MORE
EXPENSIVE.
AND I REMEMBER LEARNING THAT
WHEN YOU TAX SOMETHING, YOU TEND
TO WIND UP WITH LESS OF IT.
THAT'S JUST BASIC ECONOMICS.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S AT
LEAST SOME UNDERSTANDING OF
THESE CONCEPTS AROUND HERE,
BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYONE THAT
IS PROPOSING TO RAISE TAXES ON
SOLAR PANELS OR RAISE TAXES ON
WIND TURBINES TO BRING DOWN
THE REALITY, MR. PRESIDENT, IS
THAT THIS PROPOSAL -- AND I
BELIEVE THE POINT IS CONCEDED
EVEN BY SUPPORTERS -- THIS
PROPOSAL WILL NOT CAUSE GASOLINE
PRICES TO DROP.
INSTEAD IT COULD VERY WELL CAUSE
THEM TO RISE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE MEMO FROM
THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE SUGGESTS THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PRICES
WILL BE SEEN IN THE SHORT RUN.
BUT THAT IS THE KEY PHRASE HERE:
IN THE SHORT RUN.
BECAUSE WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING
IS LOOKING AT THE LONGER TERM
THAN NEXT WEEK OR NEXT MONTH.
WHENEVER CORPORATIONS FACE
INCREASED COSTS, THEY'VE GOT A
RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR
INVESTORS TO RECOVER THOSE COSTS
WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
AND USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY
PASS THEM ON TO THE CONSUMERS.
AND TO THE EXTENT THE COSTS OF
THIS PROPOSAL CANNOT BE PASSED
ON, THESE COMPANIES WILL SIMPLY
HAVE LESS TO INVEST IN NEW
PROJECTS.
NOW, THAT'S KIND OF TALKING
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS OR WHAT
GAS.
BUT THIS PROPOSAL IS ALSO NOT
ABOUT REDUCING THE DEBT EITHER,
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
PUT THAT IN CONTEXT HERE.
BUCKET.
KRORGT THE C.B.O. -- ACCORDING
TO C.B.O., THE PRESIDENT'S
FISCAL BUDGET IN 2012 THROUGH
2021 WOULD RESULT IN $9 TRILLION
IN NEW DEBT.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD RAISE $21
BILLION OR ABOUT .2% OF THAT
DEBT.
WE'D STILL NEED SOMETHING LIKE
450 TIMES MORE REVENUE JUST TO
BREAK EVEN, NEVER MIND THE $14
TRILLION DEBT WE'VE ALREADY
INCURRED.
WE ALL KNOW WE HIT THAT DEBT
CEILING YESTERDAY, SO IT REALLY
DOES CAUSE YOU TO WONDER IS THIS
THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BALANCING
THE FEDERAL BUDGET.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
PROPOSAL IS NOT ALL THAT IT WILL
TAKE, AND NO ONE IS PROPOSING
THAT IT DO SO.
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
WE BE HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT
THIS WOULD MEAN IN TERMS OF A
REDUCTION TO THE DEFICIT.
AND IF WE'RE BEING HONEST WITH
EACH OTHER, WE'RE GOING TO SEE
THIS PROPOSAL FOR WHAT IT IS.
ESSENTIALLY A "YES" VOTE TONIGHT
TO RAISE TAXES ON OIL AND GAS
COMPANIES IS SIMPLY A VOTE TO
TRY AND TAKE A POUND OF FLESH
FROM THESE FIVE MAJOR COMPANIES
THAT, YES, IN FACT ARE MAKING
MONEY; YES, IN FACT, ARE MAKING
A PROFIT.
A "NO" VOTE ON THIS PROPOSAL
TONIGHT IS A VOTE TO TRY --
TRY -- TO KEEP OUR PRICES UNDER
CONTROL, AND IT'S A VOTE TO HELP
PRESERVE AMERICA'S
COMPETITIVENESS WITHIN THE
GLOBAL ECONOMY.
NOW I ALSO WANT TO TAKE JUST A
MOMENT HERE TO KIND OF SET THE
RECORD STRAIGHT ON SUBSIDIES.
THERE ARE NO PAYMENTS FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE MAJOR
ENERGY PRODUCERS AS SOME HAVE
IMPLIED.
PAST CONGRESSES HAVE DECIDED
THAT THOSE COMPANIES, AND MOST
OTHER COMPANIES IN AMERICA, I
REDUCTIONS.
AND THIS IS A CRITICAL
DISTINCTION HERE BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T DECIDED THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE -- SHOULD
ACTUALLY GIVE MORE TO THESE
COMPANIES.
WHAT WE'VE DECIDED IS THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE
LESS FROM THEM.
NOW, IF THAT'S THE SAME AS A
SUBSIDY, THEN NEW HOMEOWNERS ARE
DIRECT RECIPIENTS OF SUBSIDIES
BECAUSE WE DEDUCT MORTGAGE
INTEREST PAYMENTS.
AND THAT MEANS THAT ALMOST EVERY
COMPANY IN OUR COUNTRY, WHETHER
IT'S A HOLLYWOOD STUDIO, "THE
NEW YORK TIMES," OR WHOEVER IT
IS, THAT ALMOST EVERY COMPANY
THEN IS SOMEHOW OR OTHER
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LEVELING
THE PLAYING FIELD BY ELIMINATING
ALL OF THE INCENTIVES WITHIN OUR
TAX CODE, ESPECIALLY IN THE
CONTEXT OF BROADER REFORM THAT
MAKES OUR TAX CODE SIMPLER AND
MORE FAIR, I WELCOME THAT
DISCUSSION AND I THINK MANY IN
THIS CHAMBER TKOFPLT IT WOULD BE
A -- CHAMBER DO.
IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT
CONVERSATION IF WE WERE
CONSIDERING A REDUCTION IN THE
CORPORATE TAX RATE.
INSTEAD, WE'RE HERE DEBATING
WHETHER OR NOT TO GIVE DIFFERENT
TAX TREATMENT TO ESSENTIALLY
PUNISH A HANDFUL OF COMPANIES IN
JUST ONE SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY.
AND REALLY THERE'S NO POLICY
JUSTIFICATION FOR IT OTHER THAN
THAT THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
THEY'RE MAKING MONEY.
THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
SO I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES: IS
THIS THE KIND OF BUSINESS
UNITED STATES?
AND I REALLY HAVE TO WONDER
THEN, IF THE ANSWER TO THAT IS
BE?
IF MAKING LARGE PROFITS SIGNALS
TO CONGRESS THAT YOU SHOULD BE
TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE.
IN REALITY, DOMESTIC ENERGY
PRODUCERS ARE ALREADY AMONG THE
MOST HEAVILY TAX COMPANIES HERE
IN THIS COUNTRY, WHILE THE
EFFECTIVE TAX RATES FOR ALL
CORPORATIONS AVERAGE 26.5% LAST
KWRAOERBGS THE OIL AND GAS --
YEAR, THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY'S
TAX RATE WAS AT A MUCH HIGHER
INSTEAD OF BEING SUBSIDIZED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE
INDUSTRY IS ACTUALLY A VERY
LARGE TAXPAYER.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAXES
GASOLINE AT A RATE OF 18.4 CENTS
A GALLON.
IT ALSO RECEIVES BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS EACH YEAR IN NONTAX
REVENUES FROM THE INDUSTRY.
GOVERNMENT FOR THE RIGHTS OF
EACH OF THEIR LEASES.
THEY'VE GOT TO PAY THE ANNUAL
RENTS TO HANG ON TO THOSE
LEASES.
THEY PAY THE ROYALTIES ON ANY
PRODUCTION THAT ULTIMATELY
RESULTS FROM THEM.
SO, IN TERMS OF WHAT IS PAID
OUT, ACCORDING TO ONE ESTIMATE,
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY'S TOTAL
AMOUNTED TO $86 MILLION PER
DAY -- PER DAY -- IN 2010.
NOW, I WOULD ALSO REMIND MY
COLLEAGUES THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS ESTABLISHED A GOAL OF
CUTTING OIL IMPORTS BY 3 MILLION
BARRELS A DAY BY 2025.
IF WE INTEND TO ACHIEVE THAT
GOAL -- WHICH IS A GOOD GOAL --
RAISING TAXES ON DOMESTIC OIL
PRODUCTION JUST DEFIES THE LOGIC
HERE.
TO REDUCE IMPORTS, WE WILL NEED
TO INCREASE OUR DOMESTIC
AND THAT WON'T HAPPEN IF WE
IMPOSE A HOSTILE TAX ENVIRONMENT
FOR THE COMPANIES THAT OPERATE
HERE, COMPANIES THAT ARE ALREADY
CHALLENGED TO PRODUCE THE OIL
AND GAS RESOURCES THAT WE KNOW
WE HAVE BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN
ALLOWED TO EXPLORE.
BEFORE I CONCLUDE,
MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO MENTION
AN ARTICLE THAT RECENTLY
APPEARED IN "THE FINANCIAL
TIMES."
IT NOTED THAT IN 2011 -- THIS
YEAR -- OPEC NATIONS STAND TO
TAKE IN MORE THAN $1 TRILLION
FROM EXPORTING OIL.
OUR NATION -- THE UNITED
STATES -- WILL PROVIDE A PRETTY
GOOD SHARE OF THAT MONEY, LIKELY
TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
AND WHAT DO WE HEAR ABOUT IT?
NOTHING FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
PROPOSING THESE TAX INCREASES.
NOTHING ABOUT THE TREMENDOUS
SUMS OF MONEY THAT WE SEND
OVERSEAS EACH YEAR FOR FOREIGN
OIL.
JUST THE FAR SMALLER SUMS THAT
COULD BE COLLECTED FROM DOMESTIC
COMPANIES THROUGH HIGHER TAXES.
THAT'S MISSING THE FOREST HERE,
MR. PRESIDENT, TO CUT DOWN THE
ONE TREE THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE
GROWING IN OUR LINE OF SIGHT.
SO HERE WE ARE, INSTEAD OF DOING
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO HALT
THE HEMORRHAGE OF AMERICAN
DOLLARS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES,
THE SENATE IS NOW FOCUSED ON AN
EFFORT TO RAISE TAXES ON FIVE
COMPANIES WHO ACTUALLY OPERATE
HERE.
THE DAY AFTER WE HIT THE DEBT
CEILING, WE'RE DEBATING A
MEASURE THAT WOULD HARDLY MAKE A
DENT IN OUR DEBT.
WE'RE ON PACE TO SPEND TRILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OUTSIDE OF OUR
ECONOMY IN THE YEARS AHEAD.
AND WE'RE ON PACE TO INCUR
TRILLIONS IN FEDERAL DEBT.
ABOUT SO LONG AS A FEW COMPANIES
PAY HIGHER TAXES, SOMEHOW OR
OTHER IT MAKES US ALL FEEL
NO WONDER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
HAVE LOST SO MUCH FAITH IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS HERE.
NO WONDER SO MUCH BLAME FOR HIGH
ENERGY PRICES IS PLACED ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US TODAY IS
NOT AN ANSWER FOR HIGH GAS
PRICES OR THE FEDERAL DEBT.
IT IS MORE LIKELY TO RAISE OUR
ENERGY PRICES, REDUCE OUR
NATION'S OIL PRODUCTION, AND
DEEPEN OUR ANNUAL DEFICITS.
I HAD HOPED THAT WE WOULD HAVE A
GOOD, A SUBSTANTIVE, A REASONED
DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW
WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE ALL OF
THESE PROBLEMS, BUT INSTEAD
WE'RE LEFT TO DEBATE A MEASURE
THAT IS ALL BUT CERTAIN TO FAIL.
I THINK THAT THE SENATE CAN DO
BETTER THAN THAT.
WE WILL HAVE DEBATE TOMORROW
ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN
ALTERNATIVE, A BILL THAT WHILE
IT'S NOT PERFECT, WILL INCREASE
PRODUCTION, GENERATE REVENUES
FOR THE GOVERNMENT, CREATE NEW
JOBS, IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF OUR
OFFSHORE OPERATIONS.
IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR GOOD
POLICY, MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK
THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO START.
WE'VE GOT A LONG WAYS TO GO, BUT
WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY, I
THINK, IS UNFORTUNATE.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
MUCH, MR. PRESIDENT.
WHAT IS THE ORDER?
WHAT IS THE ORDER?
THERE
ARE 4 HOURS OF DEBATE EQUALLY
DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION OF
S. 940.
IS THERE A
SPECIFIC TIME LIMIT?
ON EACH INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.
THE
REMAINING.
I WOULD ASK FOR AS
MUCH TIME AS I MIGHT CONSUME;
PROBABLY LESS THAN 15 MINUTES.
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO SAY THE
SENATOR FROM ALASKA DOES AN
EXCELLENT JOB OF REPRESENTING
THE OIL COMPANIES.
SHE PUTS FORWARD THE OIL
MAGNIFICENTLY.
SHE'S REAL GOOD AT IT.
SHE WAS AN ECONOMICS MAJOR, AND
SO WAS I.
AND SHE SAID WHAT SHE LEARNED IN
HER TIME, AND LET ME TELL YOU
WHAT I LEARNED.
I LEARNED THAT CORPORATE WELFARE
IS WRONG, THAT CORPORATE WELFARE
TO COMPANIES THAT ARE ON THE
FORTUNE 500 LIST PARTICULARLY
WRONG.
FORTUNE 500.
EXCUSE ME IF I DON'T CRY FOR
EXXON.
FORGIVE ME IF I SHED NO TEARS
FOR CHEVRON.
THEY'RE NUMBER THREE.
AND FORGIVE ME, CONOCOPHILLIPS,
YOU'RE NUMBER FIVE, BUT YOU'RE
WORKING ON IT.
I'LL TELL YOU WHO I SHED TEARS
FOR -- MY PEOPLE AT HOME WHO ARE
HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS PRICES
AND WHO ALSO HAVE TO FACE A
FEDERAL DEFICIT AND ARE LOOKING
TO US FOR LEADERSHIP HERE.
AND LEADERSHIP REQUIRES US TO
SAY, HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO
GIVE CORPORATE WELFARE TO OIL
FOR 40 YEARS?
COUNT THEM, 40 YEARS.
AND THEY'RE SO HUGE, THEY'RE
MULTINATIONAL, THEY'RE
MULTI BILLION, AND I'LL GET INTO
WHAT THEIR PEOPLE EARN, WHAT
THEIR C.E.O.'S EARN IN A MINUTE.
SO I LEARNED THAT CORPORATE
WELFARE IS BAD, IT DISTORTS THE
AND TO COMPARE THE TAX
DEDUCTIONS BIG OIL HAS WITH HOME
MORTGAGE DEDUCTION GETS RIGHT
UNDER MY SKIN.
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT
FROM THE HOME MORTGAGE DEDUCTION
DEDUCTION, PRIMARILY THE MIDDLE
SO DON'T COME HERE AND COMPARE
HOME MORTGAGE DEDUCTION WITH
CORPORATE WELFARE FOR THE
BIGGEST COMPANIES IN OUR
COUNTRY.
SO WHEN ARE THE DEFENDERS OF BIG
OIL GOING TO DECIDE HOW MUCH
CORPORATE WELFARE IS ENOUGH?
AND WHEN ARE THE DEFENDERS OF
BIG OIL GOING TO ANSWER THIS
HOW HOW DOES THE
DEFICIT HAVE TO GO BEFORE YOU'RE
WILLING TO STEP UP TO THE PLACE
AND END CORPORATE WELFARE FOR
THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS THAT
ARE CLEANING OUR CLOCKS ALL THE
WAY TO THE BANK?
I -- I WOULD HOPE THE TIME IS
NOW, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO LAY
OUT A SERIES OF CHARTS WHY I
BELIEVE THAT.
SO LET'S GO WITH THE FIRST ONE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE SEE THE FIRST
QUARTER PROFITS, EXXONMOBIL,
A PERCENT INCREASE FROM LAST
YEAR,69%, MR. PRESIDENT.
THEM?
I DON'T THINK SO.
B.P., WITH ALL THEIR TROUBLES,
CORPORATE PROFITS, $7.1 BILLION.
THIS IS JUST IN THE FIRST
QUARTER, MR. PRESIDENT, UP 17%.
SHELL, UP 30%.
CONOCOPHILLIPS UP 44%.
CHEVRON UP 74%.
AND YET BIG OIL HAS THE
WAH-WAH.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THEM TO PAY
THEIR FAIR SHARE.
WELL, I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU,
WE'VE GOT A DEFICIT PROBLEM, AND
IF WE CAN'T ASK THE WEALTHY FEW
IN THIS COUNTRY TO DO THEIR
SHARE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE
LET'S DO THE NEXT CHART.
LET'S CRY FOR BIG
OIL, OR LET'S NOT.
COMPENSATION FOR THE BIG FIVE
OIL COMPANY C.E.O.'S.
THAT'S 307 TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY OF A FIREFIGHTER.
IT'S 273 TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY OF A TEACHER.
IT'S 263 TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER.
AND IT'S 218 TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY OF A NURSE.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE PEOPLE IN
THIS UNITED STATES SENATE COMING
HERE NOT ONLY TO DEFEND THESE
CORPORATIONS BUT THE C.E.O.'S
WHO ARE CRYING TO US THAT THEIR
COMPANIES CAN'T PAY A FEW
DOLLARS MORE TO HELP US SOLVE
OUR DEFICIT PROBLEM.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE COULD LOSE THIS VOTE.
THEY'RE FILIBUSTERING IT.
WE NEED 60.
LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE
WHO'S ON THEIR SIDE OR WHO'S ON
THE SIDE OF THESE CORPORATIONS.
THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE FOR
EXXON, 18% ON THEIR $7.7 BILLION
IN INCOME.
A FAMILY OF TWO TEACHERS HAVE AN
EFFECTIVE TAX RATE OF 19%.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?
AND WE'VE GOT PEOPLE COMING TO
THIS FLOOR CRYING FOR THE OIL
COMPANIES.
WHEN THEY PAY AN EFFECTIVE TAX
RATE LESS THAN A FAMILY OF TWO
TEACHERS.
EXXONMOBIL, 18% ON
THEIR BILLIONS.
A FAMILY OF A TRUCK DRIVER AND A
DENTAL HYGIENIST, 19%.
SO THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE OF
THESE HUMONGOUS
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS IS
LESS THAN OUR MIDDLE-CLASS
FAMILIES.
AND PEOPLE ARE COMING HERE TO
CRY TEARS FOR THESE OIL
COMPANIES.
AND THEY WERE WHINING IN FRONT
OF THAT COMMITTEE.
I MEAN, THEY MAY BE REALLY NICE
PEOPLE BUT THEY'RE OUT OF TOUCH,
I AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT WAS SENATOR
ROCKEFELLER WHO MADE THAT
STATEMENT.
WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THE
$21 BILLION OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS.
WE COULD CONTINUE THESE
HANDOUTS, THIS CORPORATE WELFARE
TO BIG OIL, OR WE COULD FUND THE
ENTIRE "COPS" PROGRAM FOR ALL
THOSE TEN YEARS AND WE COULD
ALSO PROVIDE AFTER-SCHOOL CARE
FOR 2 MILLION KIDS.
SO I'M ASKING PEOPLE, WOULD YOU
RATHER HAVE A COP ON THE BEAT AT
HOME AND KNOW THAT OUR POLICE
ARE OUT THERE AND THEY'RE
PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES, WOULD
YOU RATHER MAKE SURE THAT
2 MILLION KIDS ARE KEPT OFF THE
STREET AND HAVE QUALITY
AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS?
OR WOULD YOU RATHER CONTINUE
CORPORATE WELFARE FOR THESE FIVE
CORPORATIONS IN THE FORTUNE 500?
THREE OF THEM -- OF THE AMERICAN
COMPANIES ARE IN THE FORTUNE
500, IS THAT RIGHT?
YEAH.
NOW, WE COULD ALSO PROVIDE TEN
YEARS OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
DISASTER RELIEF.
AND WE'RE LOOKING ACROSS THIS
GREAT NATION OF OURS AND WE'RE
SEEING FLOODING, EVACUATIONS,
SANDBAGGING, ALL THE PROBLEMS,
TYPHOONS, HURRICANES.
AND WE KNOW IN CALIFORNIA ABOUT
EARTHQUAKES.
MONEY.
WOULD YOU RATHER MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE READY FOR THE NEXT
DISASTER?
OR WOULD YOU RATHER CONTINUE
CORPORATE WELFARE FOR THESE FIVE
CORPORATIONS?
YOU'VE GOT TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION, AMERICA, BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE GOING TO
WIN THIS ONE.
AND THESE ARE ISSUES YOU HAVE TO
DECIDE WHEN YOU VOTE.
THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THIS
COUNTRY.
PEOPLE MAKE A DECISION WHEN THEY
VOTE.
IF THEY AGREE WITH THE SENATOR
FROM ALASKA THAT THESE FIVE BIG
OIL COMPANIES STILL NEED
CORPORATE WELFARE, THEY KNOW WHO
TO VOTE FOR.
WHAT WE COULD DO WITH
$21 BILLION OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS.
WE COULD FUND THE RYAN WHITE
PROGRAM, WHICH HANDLES THE AIDS
EPIDEMIC, AT THE LEVEL THE
PRESIDENT REQUESTED AND GET RID
OF THAT DREADFUL DISEASE.
NOW, YOU HEARD SORT OF VEILED
THREATS FROM MY COLLEAGUE WHO IS
FROM ALASKA, AN OIL STATE, AND I
FULLY RESPECT HER, JUST DISAGREE
WITH HER ENTIRELY, BUT SHE HAS
AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT
SHE SAYS AND BELIEVES WHAT SHE
I THINK IT'S PARROTING WHAT THE
OIL COMPANIES SAY.
THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S HER OPTION.
BUT THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
SAID "REPEALING OIL SUBSIDIES
WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON CONSUMER
ENERGY PRICES IN THE IMMEDIATE
FUTURE."
SO ALL THOSE THREATS ABOUT
THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE PRICES --
I ASK YOU RHETORICALLY,
MR. PRESIDENT, FOR ALL THESE
YEARS THEY'VE BEEN GETTING THESE
THEIR PRICES?
NO.
THEY HAVEN'T.
THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE SAID "A SMALL INCREASE
IN TAXES WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO
REDUCE OIL OUTPUT, AND HENCE
INCREASE PETROLEUM PRICES."
SO THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING
NOTHING IN THIS BILL TO MAKE
THEM PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IS
GOING TO ADVERSELY IMPACT
GASOLINE PRICES.
THE FORMER C.E.O. OF SHELL OIL
SAID, "WITH HIGH OIL PRICES SUCH
SUBSIDIES ARE NOT NECESSARY."
HE SAID THAT IN FEBRUARY.
THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
AND YET WHEN THEY COME TO THE
COMMITTEE, THEY'RE ALL WHINING
ABOUT IT.
NOW, THEN YOU HEAR FROM THOSE
FROM THE OIL PRODUCING STATES,
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RIGS
IN OPERATION.
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT
DRILLING.
EXCUSE ME, THERE IS SUCH A THING
CALLED THE FACTS.
LET'S LOOK AT THEM IN THIS CHART
CHART.
WE SEE MORE DRILLING THAN EVER
BEFORE.
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS MOVING
FORWARD.
THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE OVER
40 -- HOW MANY ACRES?
40 MILLION, IS THAT RIGHT?
50 MILLION ACRES OF LEASES --
LEASED LAND AND OFFSHORE THAT
THEY COULD DRILL ON TODAY.
AND THEY -- ALL THEY WANT IS
MORE AND MORE AND MORE.
THEY WANT TO COME TO CALIFORNIA,
DRILL OFF OUR PRISTINE COAST AND
THREATEN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
JOBS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR FISHING
INDUSTRY, OUR TOURIST INDUSTRY.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
THEY ARE SITTING ON THESE
THEY ARE DRILLING MANY MORE.
SO LET'S JUST HAVE THE FACTS BE
PART OF THE DEBATE AND THAT'S
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO TODAY WITH
THESE CHARTS, TO LAY OUT THE
FACTS.
NOW, HOW DO WE REDUCE GAS PRICES
PRICES?
I HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN --
ACTUALLY IN AN INDEPENDENT GAS
STATION, AND THE INDEPENDENT GAS
STATION OWNER WAS WONDERFUL AND
SAID, I AGREE WITH YOU, SENATOR.
THERE I WAS COMING OUT WITH THIS
PLAN.
HERE'S HOW WE CAN REDUCE GAS
PRICES.
END BIG OIL SUBSIDIES AND TAKE
THAT MONEY, SOME OF IT, REDUCE
THE DEFICIT AND TAKE THE REST
AND INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES SO WE
HAVE ALTERNATIVES, CLEAN FUELS.
BATTERIES THAT CAN RUN OUR
VEHICLES SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
HAVE THESE AUTOMOBILES THAT ARE
GAS GUZZLERS.
CRACK DOWN ON FRAUD AND
SPECULATION.
THAT.
USE IT OR LOSE IT, SAY TO THE
OIL COMPANIES.
YOU OWN ALL THESE LEASES.
DRILL ON THOSE LEASES.
RELEASE OIL FROM THE SPRO.
WE KNOW THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM
RESERVE HAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF OIL.
THIS IS THE TIME TO TAP IT.
THE LAST TIME WE DID IT,
MR. PRESIDENT, PRICES WENT DOWN
30%.
INVEST IN CLEAN ENERGY AND
EFFICIENCY.
REDUCE EXPORTS.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT THE
PRODUCERS RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA
ARE EXPORTING THEIR OIL, SOME OF
THEIR OIL.
KEEP IT HOME.
KEEP IT HOME.
WE NEED IT HERE.
SO THAT'S A PLAN THAT WE CAN
TAKE.
BUT LET ME JUST CONCLUDE MY
REMARKS THIS WAY.
IN THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE
HOME OF THE BRAVE, WE NEED TO
HAVE SOME FAIRNESS IN OUR LIVES.
IT'S CRUCIAL.
AND ALL THE TALK ABOUT
COMPETITION AND WE WANT
COMPETITION.
YOU DON'T HAVE COMPETITION WHEN
YOU ARE LOOKING AT THESE HUGE
COMPANIES.
AND MY COLLEAGUE FROM ALASKA
TALKS ABOUT COMPARING THEM TO
THESE LITTLE BITTY SOLAR
COMPANIES THAT ARE JUST GETTING
STARTED.
WHEN COMPANIES ARE JUST GETTING
STARTED WITH A NEW TECHNOLOGY,
THAT'S ONE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT WHEN YOU GIVE THESE TAX
SUBSIDIES LIKE THIS TO BIG OIL,
YOU DISTORT THE PRICE OF THE
COMMODITY.
YOU DISTORT THE PRICE OF THE
COMMODITY.
AND, THEREFORE, IT'S
ANTICOMPETITIVE WITH OTHER
SOURCES OF ENERGY.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS THE
MOMENT.
WE ARE LOOKING TO CUT THE
DEFICIT.
WE ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO BRING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HOME SO THAT
WE CAN GET OUT OF THE RED.
AND WHAT COULD BE MORE PERFECT
THAN THIS OPPORTUNITY IN THE
NAME OF FAIRNESS, IN THE NAME OF
COMPETITION, IN THE NAME OF
DEFICIT REDUCTION, FRANKLY, IN
THE NAME OF THE CONSUMER?
LET'S HAVE SOME FAIRNESS, AND
LET'S NOT COME DOWN TO THE FLOOR
AND COMPARE THESE CORPORATE
GIVEAWAYS TO THE MORTGAGE
DEDUCTION THAT OUR MIDDLE CLASS
SO NEEDS.
AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY, AND I HOPE
THAT WE WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO
VOTE TO END THIS CORPORATE
WELFARE.
THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
I YIELD THE FLOOR, AND I NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
CALL BE DISPENSED WITH FOR JUST
A MOMENT.
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
AND WE ASK THAT ALL
THE TIME NOT USED BE CHARGED
EQUALLY TO BOTH SIDES.
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I THANK YOU.
AND I NOTE AGAIN THE ABSENCE OF
A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO END THE QUORUM CALL.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT,
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK
FOR UP TO 15 MINUTES.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FAMILIES
ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY CERTAINLY ,
CERTAINLY INCLUDING LIEU LOOSE,
ARE SUFFERING AT THE --
INCLUDING LOUISIANA, ARE
SUFFERING AT THE PUMP AS THE
PRICE GOES UP AND UP AND UP.
IT DOES AS WE'RE JUST GETTING
READY TO ENJOY A LITTLE VACATION
TIME WITH OUR FAMILIES, USE A
LITTLE MORE GASOLINE MAYBE
DRIVING PLACES.
THAT'S ALWAYS TOUGH.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST A TYPICAL
SUMMER EXPERIENCE.
THIS I
THIS IS WORSE THAN EVER, AND I
HAVE THE SINKING FEELING MORE
PERMANENT THAN EVER.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M AFRAID THIS
ISN'T A BLIP.
THIS IS A LONG-TERM TREND AND
IT'S REALLY HITTING AMERICAN
FAMILIES IN THE POCKETBOOK HARD.
IT'S HITTING LOUISIANANS IN THE
POCKETBOOK HARD.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE SEE
HISTORIC TURMOIL IN THE MIDDLE
WE SEE SO MANY SIGNS THAT WE
NEED TO GET HOLD OF OUR ENERGY
PICTURE, SO ENERGY AND THE NEED
FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
INCREASE DOMESTIC ENERGY
PRODUCTION IS ABSOLUTELY
CRUCIAL.
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S WHY IT'S
SO DARNED DISAPPOINTING WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO OR PERHAPS
MORE APPROPRIATELY NOT DO ON
THIS CRUCIAL SUBJECT IN THE
SENATE THIS WEEK.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S DISAPPOINTING
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO END UP
DOING NOTHING.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME VOTES,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DEBATE
THAT ARE MORE OR LESS MESSAGING
VOTES, AND NOTHING IS GOING TO
COME OF IT, AND THAT'S DEEPLY
DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE AMERICA
NEEDS LEADERSHIP IN ACTION, NOT
JUST POSTURING.
BUT SECONDLY, MR. PRESIDENT,
IT'S DISAPPOINTING, IN MY
OPINION, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
TWO PROPOSALS BEFORE US, AND
BECAUSE I'M DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED
IN THEM, I'M GOING TO VOTE
AGAINST BOTH OF THESE PROPOSALS,
THE MENENDEZ BILL AND THE
McCONNELL BILL, ALTHOUGH FOR
VERY DIFFERENT REASONS.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE FIRST VOTE,
OF COURSE, WILL BE LATER TODAY
ON THE MENENDEZ BILL, AND I'M
AFRAID THIS BILL IS JUST PURE
POLITICAL DEMAGOGUERY.
ATTACKING BIG OIL BECAUSE, I
SUPPOSE, THE AUTHOR AND SOME
MEMBERS THINK THAT'S AN EASY
TARGET, AND MEANWHILE DOING
NOTHING, NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE
ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEM,
PROVIDING NO RELIEF TO AMERICANS
WHO ARE PAYING MORE AND MORE AT
THE PUMP.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, THE BILL
PURPORTS TO DO AWAY WITH
TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO BIG OIL --
QUOTE -- UNQUOTE.
LET ME GIVE YOU A FACTUAL
TRANSLATION OF THAT.
THE FACTUAL TRANSLATION IS TO
INCREASE TAXES ON CERTAIN ENERGY
COMPANIES BY DISALLOWING THEM
FROM CLAIMING THE SAME SORT OF
DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS THAT
THOUSANDS OF OTHER AMERICAN
BUSINESSES AND MANUFACTURERS CAN
CLAIM, SOME OF WHICH GO BACK AND
ARE ALMOST AS OLD AS THE INCOME
TAX ITSELF.
THAT'S THE FACTUAL TRANSLATION.
LET ME ALSO GIVE YOU THE
TRANSLATION OF WHAT IT WOULD DO.
ACCORDING TO NONPARTISAN SOURCES
LIKE THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE, IT WOULD DECREASE
GASOLINE SUPPLY AND INCREASE
PRICE AT THE PUMP.
WHAT A GREAT RESULT.
YOU KNOW, AMERICAN FAMILIES ARE
SUFFERING AS IT IS GOING INTO
THE SUMMER WITH HISTORIC HIGH
PRICES, AND SO IT'S BEING
PROPOSED ON THE FLOOR MEASURES
THAT WOULD ACTUALLY DECREASE
SUPPLY AND INCREASE PRICE.
NEED.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I AM
COMPLETELY OPEN TO DOING AWAY
WITH ALL SORTS OF DEDUCTIONS AND
EXEMPTIONS AND THE LIKE IN THE
TAX CODE, BUT WE SHOULD DO THAT
OVERALL ACROSS ALL INDUSTRIES,
ACROSS ALL GROUPS IN AMERICA AS
PART OF FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM.
WE SHOULDN'T JUST DEMAGOGUE THE
ISSUE AND TARGET ONE INDUSTRY
AND A FEW COMPANIES.
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN DEFICIT
COMMISSION SUGGESTED THAT BRAND
OF FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM.
I AGREE WITH THAT GENERAL
UNFORTUNATELY, SO FAR THE
PRESIDENT HASN'T LED ON THAT
PERHAPS BECAUSE IT WOULD MEAN
NOT JUST IMPACTS ON QUOTE,
UNQUOTE, BIG OIL.
IT MAY BE FAVORED COMPANIES OF
HIS LIKE G.E. MIGHT ACTUALLY
HAVE TO PAY SOME TAXES, OR MAYBE
GOLD MINING COMPANIES IN THE
MAJORITY LEADER REID'S STATE OF
NEVADA WOULD ALSO HAVE TO
SACRIFICE VERY, VERY ATTRACTIVE
SPECIAL TAX BENEFITS.
SO LET'S GET SERIOUS ABOUT TWO
SERIOUS ISSUES -- FUNDAMENTAL
TAX REFORM, AND LET'S LOOK AT
THAT AND LEAD ON THAT, AND LET'S
GET SERIOUS ABOUT ENERGY.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I ALSO HAVE
TO SAY I'M DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED
WITH THE McCONNELL BILL.
IT DOES SOME POSITIVE THINGS AT
THE MARGIN IN TERMS OF OPENING
UP ACCESS, BUT MEANWHILE, THE
VERY FIRST SECTION OF THE BILL,
THE VERY FIRST SUBSTANTIVE
SECTION, WHICH IS SECTION 2,
ACTUALLY INCREASES THE
REGULATORY BURDEN IN THE
PERMITTING PROCESS.
NOW, I CAN TELL YOU, LIVING IN
THE GULF, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
SLOG THROUGH THAT OVERLY
BURDENSOME REGULATORY PROCESS TO
LET ENERGY COMPANIES GET PERMITS
TO BEGIN WITH.
THAT PROCESS IS ALREADY TOO
BURDENSOME, TOO CUMBERSOME, TOO
LONG.
IT'S VIRTUALLY SHUT DOWN THE
GULF, PRODUCED LESS ENERGY AND
THROWN A LOT OF LOUISIANANS AND
AMERICANS OUT OF WORK.
WE NEED TO STREAMLINE THAT
PROCESS, WE NEED TO ACCELERATE
THAT PROCESS AND NOT ADD ANY NEW
BURDENS OR ANY NEW HURDLES IN
IT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, SECTION 2 OF
THE McCONNELL BILL DOES
EXACTLY THAT.
IT INCREASES THE BURDENS AND
REQUIREMENTS AND HURDLES OF EVEN
THE NEW OBAMA REGULATIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE SINCE THE
B.P. DISASTER.
SPECIFICALLY, SINCE THE B.P.
DISASTER, THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION HAS REQUIRED
CONTAINMENT PLANS TO BE
PRESENTED AND APPROVED BY THE
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT BEFORE
EXPLORATION PLANS AND DRILLING
PERMITS ARE ISSUED.
THIS BILL WOULD GO FURTHER THAN
THAT AND ADD A NEW LAYER AND A
NEW LEVEL AND A NEW REQUIREMENT
THAT EVEN BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
INTERIOR, THESE CONTAINMENT
THIRD-PARTY REVIEW.
AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A
COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY EXTRA
BURDEN, EXTRA HURDLE, EXTRA
LAYER OF REQUIREMENT.
WE NEED TO MAKE THE PERMITTING
PROCESS SMOOTHER, MORE
STREAMLINED, MORE ACCELERATED,
NOT MOVE IN THE OPPOSITE
SECONDLY, MR. PRESIDENT, WHILE
THE McCONNELL BILL OPENS UP A
LITTLE BIT MORE ACCESS, IT'S
VERY MODEST.
IT DOESN'T TOUCH THE EASTERN
GULF.
IT HARDLY TOUCHES THE ATLANTIC.
IT DOESN'T TOUCH THE PACIFIC
IT DOES NOTHING ON SHORE,
INCLUDING IN OUR WESTERN SHALE
AREAS WHERE THERE ARE ENORMOUS
OIL RESOURCES TRAPPED IN THAT
WESTERN SHALE WHICH WE CAN
ACCESS BECAUSE OF NEW AND SAFE
TECHNOLOGY.
SO I'M ALSO DISAPPOINTED THAT
THE BILL IS SO MODEST IN TERMS
OF THE INCREASED ACCESS.
MR. PRESIDENT, SO AGAIN, TO
SUMMARIZE, THIS WEEK IS PRETTY
DARNED FRUSTRATING FOR ME.
IT'S FRUSTRATING BECAUSE WE'RE
NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE
BUNCH OF SOUND AND FURY IN THE
END SIGNIFYING NOTHING, ALL TOO
COMMON AN EXPERIENCE HERE IN THE
U.S. SENATE.
AND SECONDLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE TWO SPECIFIC PROPOSALS, THEY
ARE DARNED FRUSTRATING.
THE FIRST PURE DEMAGOGUERY, THE
SECOND MOVING IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION IN TERMS OF THE
PERMITTING PROCESS AND NOT BEING
BIG AND BOLD ENOUGH IN TERMS OF
OPENING UP ACCESS.
THE UNITED STATES,
MR. PRESIDENT, IS THE SINGLE
MOST ENERGY RICH COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD, BAR NONE.
ONLY RUSSIA EVEN COMES CLOSE.
NO MARINO COUNTRY -- NO MIDDLE
EASTERN COUNTRY, SAUDI ARABIA,
ANYONE ELSE, COMES CLOSE TO OUR
OVERALL ENERGY RICHNESS, OUR
RESOURCES.
BUT WE'RE THE ONLY COUNTRY IN
THE WORLD, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT
CUTS 95% OF ALL OF THOSE
RESOURCES OFF-LIMITS UNDER LAW,
SAYS NO, YOU CAN'T TOUCH THE
EASTERN GULF, CAN'T TOUCH THE
ATLANTIC, CAN'T TOUCH THE
PACIFIC, CAN'T TOUCH ALASKA
OFFSHORE, CAN'T TOUCH ANWAR.
GOING TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT IN
THE WESTERN SHALE.
OVER AND OVER AND OVER WE MAKE
IT DIFFICULT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO
PRODUCE GOOD, RELIABLE AMERICAN
ENERGY RIGHT HERE AT HOME.
AND MOST RECENTLY, WE HAVE DONE
THAT BY VIRTUALLY SHUTTING DOWN
THE ONLY PRODUCTIVE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES IN TERMS OF
ENERGY, THE WESTERN GULF OF
MEXICO.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO CHANGE,
WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT IN A BIG
NOW, IN CLOSING, MR. PRESIDENT,
LET ME SAY I'M A PROPONENT OF
ALL OF THE ABOVE.
IT'S NOT EITHER/OR.
IT'S NOT JUST OIL AND GAS.
BUT IT'S ALSO NOT JUST NEW,
UNDEVELOPED, ADVANCING FORMS OF
TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY.
WE NEED ALL OF THE ABOVE IN A
BIG WAY.
AND SO LET'S COME TOGETHER
AROUND THAT COMMONSENSE WISDOM
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO FAVOR
ALL OF THE ABOVE AND LET'S START
DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE
BUT THAT SURELY HAS TO INCLUDE
MUCH MORE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF
ENERGY.
OPEN ACCESS TO ALL OF THESE VAST
RESOURCES WE HAVE.
WE CAN DO IT, WE CAN DO IT
SAFELY, WE NEED TO DO IT TO
PROVIDE SOME RELIEF TO AMERICAN
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
WITH THAT, I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE
OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO DISPENSE WITH THE
READING OF THE ROLL.
OBJECTION.
PRESIDENT.