A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum age for children eligible for medical care under the CHAMPVA program, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise to follow on the majority leader's bringing this legislation to the floor, which I am privileged to sponsor with a whole host of my colleagues, and really to speak out for taxpayers and against continuing to provide subsidies to multibillion-dollar big oil companies. We are talking about the big five. We are not talking about any other entity, just the big five.

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, 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.

Clearly, we all need to tighten our belts to help address the deficit--all of us--even the oil companies. We all know oil companies are among the largest, most profitable companies in the world, but sometimes it is hard to understand the true scale of their wealth. So this chart is a simple attempt to give some perspective.

The median income in the United States is about $50,000. ExxonMobil, just one of these big five, is projected to earn in profits $42.6 billion this year--$42.6 billion. Now, it is impossible to show this disparity on 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 stacks of bills to equal ExxonMobil's profits over the next year. So 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 at the Senate, but 32 miles of posters was probably a bit much. So I decided not to do that. I appreciate the Parliamentarian acknowledging that I shouldn't have done that.

My bill would close several loopholes for Big Oil--loopholes that, given the current budget climate, would let Big Oil get away without making any sacrifices at the very time we are asking middle-class families, the disabled, and the elderly to tighten their belts and 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.

At the same time the median income is $50,000 for Americans, here is what it is if you are a CEO of one of the big oil companies. In the last year alone, the CEO of ExxonMobil got paid $29 million. The ConocoPhillips CEO last year was paid about $18 million and Chevron about $16 million. Most Americans will never see that in their lifetime of work. So to have these executives come last week before the Finance Committee and say, as one of the companies put out, the suggestion about taking away some--not all, some--of their tax subsidies was un- American is pretty outrageous.

Let me explain the 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 are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for any income taxes that are paid to a foreign government. They get that taken off. It makes sense because we 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 if they can convince a foreign government, such as Indonesia, to charge them taxes instead of a royalty, which is, in essence, a fee they pay for the purpose of drawing that oil out of that country, they can get a big break on their U.S. taxes. But what this amounts to is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing foreign oil production. 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 that export a product to a foreign market; so cars, iPhones, iPads, all of that. Well, few would see the extraction of oil from the ground as manufacturing, but, again, Big Oil's lobbyists earned 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 toward deficit reduction.

Now, the American people understand this bill. They understand Big Oil makes enormous profits. There is nothing wrong with making profits, by the way, but they don't need to have our tax dollars in order for them to make those profits. The American people understand Big Oil does not need taxpayer subsidies, and they understand 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.

But in order to combat this straightforward, commonsense bill that even the CATO Institute supports, Big Oil and its supporters have come up with some pretty straining 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 when a company stoops so low as to question the patriotism of those who would suggest that maybe they can do without $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies when they are going to make anywhere between $125 billion in profits--not proceeds, profits--to $140-some-odd billion, to question the patriotism of those who suggest they don't need further taxpayer subsidies is to suggest they don't have very good arguments on their side.

The charge of un-American is outrageous, and I think the 74 percent 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 working class families should know their place and know better than to ask oil companies to do their fair share as well. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in America, said:

There's class warfare all right, but it's my class, the

rich class, that's making the war and we're winning.

This bill says 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.

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 gasoline more expensive. That argument is absolutely false. This bill would save taxpayers $21 billion over 10 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 companies are expected to make this year. So if the big five oil companies could 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 a different way. The Finance Committee recently went through the corporate filings of the big five oil companies and found their costs 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 or that cutting $2 billion per year in 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 it is time for the big five to do what is right for a change and pay their fair share. This should not be hard since in 2005, the CEOs of some of the big five oil companies testified they agreed with former President Bush that they do not need subsidies to drill for oil when it is selling at $55 per barrel. Well, it is selling at nearly $100 per barrel right now, so it is 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.

I hope some of the favorable comments I have been hearing from my Republican colleagues in recent weeks means they are ready to join in this effort and lower the deficit because all of the savings go directly to deficit reduction under the legislation, and do so in an equitable and effective manner.

What is fair is fair, but nothing about continuing these 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 is the height of hypocrisy. It is not fair to working families. It is not a wise use of limited Federal resources. If this body does the right thing today, it is not going to continue. There is 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, and that is the opportunity we have today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, the American people understand this bill. They understand that if working families must sacrifice to help lower the deficit, then so should the most wealthy and powerful industry in the country. If Big Oil wants to lower gasoline prices, they would put a lot less money in their stock buybacks or their multimillion dollar CEO salaries and a lot more in producing oil or they could use some of their enormous profits to lower prices. But I guess in that world greed is good.

While the American people understand this bill--it is clear for them what it does--many on the other side of the aisle simply do not. Because this is such a simple, commonsense idea, they have made up arguments just to get through this debate.

One of my colleagues said it would raise the deficit. Only in Washington--only in Washington--could that comment actually be made when the Joint Tax Committee has clearly made it known this would lower the deficit by $21 billion. It would lower the deficit by $21 billion, not raise it.

Another argument I have heard is that this bill will somehow raise gas prices. That argument is absurd. With the big five oil companies poised to make $144 billion in profits this year alone, it means Big Oil would simply have to settle for $142 billion in profits this year to pay their fair share of dealing with the deficit, and they wouldn't have to raise gas prices 1 cent. That is what the Congressional Research Service independently decided, as well as the Joint Tax Committee.

I have also heard the argument Big Oil actually pays more taxes than other companies. That is not true for multiple reasons. ExxonMobil's effective tax rate is actually lower than the average American family's rate. They pay far higher taxes abroad than they do here, so there is no competitive disadvantage, and we have the lowest royalty rates in the world.

We have rarely seen in this body a more stark contrast and a more obvious choice. American families are sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how to make ends meet within the constraints of their own family budgets. We are simply asking Big Oil--making $144 billion--to do their fair share. That is what this vote is all about.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Menendez proposal which would raise taxes on a handful of our Nation's energy producers. This bill makes the assumption that raising taxes on the five

major oil companies will somehow reduce the deficit and lower the price at the pump. This is misguided and it will also have the opposite effect. Raising taxes on our domestic oil industry will drive up gasoline prices and who in America driving a truck or a car doesn't realize that gasoline prices are already very high? Second, it will threaten the jobs, 9 million jobs dependent on drilling, exploration, and operating in America. If we drive these companies overseas, it will increase foreign imports and it will stop jobs being created in America.

Those who threaten to repeal these deductions fail to recognize the tremendous costs and risks that go into exploring for the energy needed to drive our country forward. Our oil and gas industry is a business or industry that creates jobs like any other business or industry in our country. Why would we single out one sector of our economy and say you can't deduct your expenses? Every other business in America can deduct expenses. Other manufacturing businesses in America can get the tax credits for manufacturing jobs because we want to keep jobs in America and it offsets the very high corporate tax rate that we have in our country, that the President has recognized as being too high. Because we want to keep manufacturing jobs, there is a credit for manufacturing. But we are going to take that away if the Menendez bill passes, and send those jobs overseas.

We are making it so hard to create our own natural resources from our own people working in this country, instead sending jobs overseas. At a time when we ought to be helping to create jobs, when we ought to give every possible fair break to companies that will hire in America, now we are going to take one sector of our industry and tax it differently from every other sector.

Since business started in our country we have had tax deductions for expenses. Yet here we are trying to say we are going to take one sector of our industry--maybe they are doing too well right now--and we are going to tax them more. Look out, other industries that happen to be successful right now; whether you are making Kleenex or computers, you are going to be taxed if you earn too much. Is that what America wants to change to, as our business policy, which has a foundation of fairness and equity?

We have a corporate tax rate that is so high it encourages businesses to go overseas. Now we are going to single out one industry that wants to do work in America, that wants to bring our natural resources out of the ground and bring down the price at the pump. But, no, we are going to add taxes so we will not see any lowering of gasoline prices at the pump. Instead, we are going to increase it. If we increase the cost of doing business and we force these companies to go overseas to get fair and stable regulatory environment, then we are going to pay more at the pump. There is no doubt about it.

Senator Landrieu and I introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year called S. 516, the Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act of 2011, known as LEASE. It restores time lost as a result of the offshore moratoria by extending the impacted leases by 1 year. It is fair and it is simple.

Over the weekend, the President stated he would be extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico that were affected by the moratorium, but he was not clear about which ones. He didn't say I will extend every lease that went through the processes to get the environmental and the safety restrictions in place.

They got the lease. Then they had a moratorium. So they are paying people, they are continuing to have all of the expenses of the lease but they do not get to do the exploration. We are saying whether you were in the exploration phase or in the drilling phase it doesn't matter. If you are impacted by a moratorium on a lease that you are still paying for and you are still paying people to try to keep people on the payroll, your lease will be extended for 1 year. That is all the bill Senator Landrieu and I submitted will do.

The Secretary of the Interior, at a hearing this morning in the Senate, said they were looking into extending Gulf of Mexico ``wells'' directly impacted by the moratorium--meaning only those leaseholders who have already performed all seismic tests and were conducting exploration drilling. This will only cover 33 leases out of thousands that are still affected by the moratorium, because they are in the exploratory phase, not the exploratory drilling phase.

This year alone, over 350 leases are due to expire. Many of them have not had the opportunity to be developed because of the moratorium. The development of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico is an extremely expensive and technical process. It takes about 3 years of tests, surveys, and appraisals before even drilling for the exploration well. Regardless of which stage all of the exploration leaseholders are in, the administration ordered all leaseholders to halt exploration activities when its moratorium was enacted. Every one of those leases is still being paid for but they are not able to be explored. We need to restore at least 1 year of the moratorium so they get fairness for the money they have spent and also for the people they have kept hired, not sending them away--which has been a hardship on many companies, including some having to go bankrupt because they could not afford to be idle while they also were meeting a payroll.

The exploration and development of oil and gas must follow a meticulous process, and any delay such as a moratorium can derail an exploration plan causing companies to have to give up on their leases. The length of deepwater offshore leases is usually about 10 years because that is what it takes to get all the way through the exploration and the exploration drilling phase to determine if it is worth actually drilling. Many times when you drill, you get a dry well.

Our commonsense legislation has bipartisan support. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget stated, ``The administration fully supports suspensions for Gulf of Mexico leaseholders directly impacted by the drilling moratorium,'' but the administration fails to recognize that all leaseholders in the Gulf of Mexico were ``directly impacted by the drilling moratorium.''

James Noe, the executive director of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, wrote me to express his support for the LEASE Act. In the letter, he said:

Without the LEASE Act, vast quantities of proven, present

and producible oil and gas in these expiring leases will be

trapped.

Leaving the resources trapped will hurt our domestic production and delay when these resources can come online.

I received another letter from Stephen Heitzman, the president and CEO of Phoenix Exploration, a small Houston-based exploration company. Mr. Heitzman wrote that the LEASE Act is vital to Phoenix Exploration and other small offshore companies because they have been prevented by the administration from drilling in the moratorium and have not been able to even evaluate many of their Gulf of Mexico leases which have been fully paid for through the competitive bidding process. He goes on to say the time lost from the moratorium makes it very difficult for shallow water independent operators to put together the partnerships and attract sufficient capital resources needed to develop leases.

The LEASE Act is needed to give offshore energy producers the certainty they need to obtain proper financing to produce domestic oil and gas.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters I have read excerpts from be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me close by saying I hope we will not do something so wrongheaded and counterintuitive as to take one section of an industry and say you are bigger than all the others, so we are going to tax you differently. We are not going to give you the manufacturing tax credits we give to every other manufacturer in the world, including the big ones that manufacture in the United States, and we are also going to tax you differently from the smaller oil and gas companies because you are big and they are small. Is that America? Is that the country that wrote a Constitution that said we would guarantee due process of law, that we wouldn't single out one company that is bigger than the others and tax it differently? That is not what our country was founded on.

We should have a fair process. We should have fair taxation. We should be encouraging manufacturing in our country because these companies have a trust with their shareholders. We expect them to do well for their shareholders, and they have millions of shareholders who depend on them to do the right thing with their business and with the investment these shareholders have made. I might add that many pensions are dependent on these kinds of stocks, and it is expected the CEOs will run the companies in a way that will keep our economy going, keep jobs in America, and keep their stockholders in a position where retirees can live on the income. We are singling out an industry and saying: No, you are too big, so you are going to be taxed differently from other industries, and you don't get the manufacturing incentives that even other big manufacturers get. Why wouldn't they move overseas to create jobs overseas where they have a stable regulatory environment, a lower tax base, a lower tax rate, and where they can bring up oil from the ground and import it right back into America, even though it will be at a higher price because we are going to have to pay for the people to go overseas and haul the oil back.

Does that make sense? It doesn't make good business sense, and it certainly doesn't make good economic sense. It is not good for our country, and it is certainly not good for the job market we are trying to build.

I hope we will not make the mistake of going forward on the Menendez bill. I hope we will realize we are a country that has vast natural resources and we should be using those resources so our businesses can thrive, so prices stay low, so people will not be strained to put gasoline in their trucks to go to work or to do their farming or ranching to contribute back to the economy. I hope we will defeat the Menendez bill, and I hope we will adopt a policy that will come through the McConnell bill tomorrow which will increase exploration, increase production, and lower the price of gasoline through our own natural resources, not by importing our own--the jobs that ought to be in America, exporting the jobs and importing the product. That doesn't make sense. Let's keep the jobs in America and let's keep our natural resources working for us. That would be the prudent thing to do and that will be the McConnell bill.

I hope we can defeat the Menendez bill, and maybe we can come together in the Senate and give the President a bill that will ask that we have more production and give the level playing field to all the companies that would hire more people and create jobs in America. They will do it if there is a level and fair and stable regulatory and tax environment in America.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

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

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.

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.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, what is the order?

Is there a specific time limit on each individual Senator?

I ask for such time as I may consume, probably less than 15 minutes.

I want to say that the Senator from Alaska does an excellent job of representing the oil companies. She puts forward the oil companies' arguments magnificently. She is very good at it. She was an economics major, and so was I. 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 is particularly wrong.

ExxonMobil, No. 2 on the Fortune 500--excuse me if I do not cry for Exxon. Forgive me if I shed no tears for Chevron--they are No. 3--and forgive me, ConocoPhillips. You are No. 4, but you are working on it. I tell you whom 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 companies that have been getting it for 100 years? Count them--100 years. And they are so huge. They are multinational. They are multibillion. I will get into what their people earn, what their CEOs earn in a minute.

So I learned that corporate welfare is bad. It distorts the market. And to compare the tax deductions Big Oil has with the home mortgage deduction gets right under my skin because the people who benefit from the home mortgage deduction are primarily the middle class of this country. So do not come here and compare home mortgage deductions with corporate welfare for the biggest companies in our country.

When are the defenders of Big Oil going to decide how much corporate welfare is enough? When are the defenders of Big Oil going to answer this question: How high does the deficit have to go before you are willing to step up to the plate and end corporate welfare for the biggest corporations that are cleaning our clocks all the way to the bank? I would hope the time is now.

I am going to try to lay out in 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, $10.7 billion; as a percentage increase from last year, 69 percent. I am supposed to cry for them. I don't think so. BP, with all of their troubles, corporate profit, $7.1 billion--this is just in the first quarter--up 17 percent; Shell, up 30 percent; ConocoPhillips, up 44 percent; and Chevron, up 74 percent. Yet Big Oil has the defenders on this floor saying: Wah wah. We cannot allow them to pay their fair share.

Well, I tell you, we have a deficit problem. If we cannot ask the wealthy few in this country to do their share, I do not know where we are headed.

Let's cry for Big Oil--or let's not. Mr. President, $14.5 million is the average compensation for the big five oil company CEOs. That is 307 times the average salary of a firefighter, it is 273 times the average salary of a teacher, it is 263 times the average salary of a police officer, and it is 218 times the average salary of a nurse. So we actually have people in this Senate coming here not only to defend these corporations but the CEOs who are crying to us that their companies cannot pay a few dollars more to help us solve our deficit problem.

Do you know what? We could lose this vote. They are filibustering it. We need 60. Let the American people see who is on their side.

Well, who is on the side of these corporations? The effective tax rate for Exxon is 18 percent on their $7.7 billion in income. A family of two teachers has an effective tax rate of 19 percent. Can you believe this? We have 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 percent on their billions; a family of a truckdriver and a dental hygienist, 19 percent. So the effective tax rate of these humongous, multibillion-dollar, multinational corporations is less than our middle-class families, and people are coming here to cry tears for these oil

companies, and the companies were whining in front of that committee. I mean, they may be very nice people, but they are out of touch. I agree with that. I think it was Senator Rockefeller who made that statement.

What we could do with the $21 billion over the next 10 years. We can continue these handouts, this corporate welfare to Big Oil, or we could fund the entire COPS Program for all of those 10 years and we could also provide afterschool care for 2 million kids. So I am asking people, would you rather have a cop on the beat at home and know our police are out there and they are protecting our families, would you rather make sure 2 million kids are kept off the street and have quality afterschool programs, or would you rather continue corporate welfare for these five corporations in the Fortune 500--three of the American companies are in the Fortune 500.

We could also provide 10 years of Federal Emergency Management Administration disaster relief. We are looking across this great Nation of ours, and we are seeing flooding, evacuations, sand-bagging--all of the problems--typhoons, hurricanes, and in California we know about earthquakes. FEMA is running out of money. Would you rather make sure they are ready for the next disaster or would you rather continue corporate welfare for these five corporations? You have to answer that question, America, because it does not look as though we are going to win this one.

These are issues you have to decide when you vote. That is 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 whom to vote for.

What could we do with $21 billion over the next 10 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.

You heard the sort of veiled threats from my colleague from Alaska, an oil State. I fully respect her; I just disagree with her entirely. But she has the absolute right to say what she said and believe what she said. I think it is parroting what the oil companies say. That is fine. That is her option. But the Joint Economic Committee said that repealing the oil subsidies would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the immediate future. So all of those threats that they are going to raise prices--I ask you rhetorically, Mr. President, for all of the years they have been getting all these subsidies, have they ever lowered their prices? No, they have not. The Congressional Research Service said that a small increase in taxes would be unlikely to reduce oil output and hence increase petroleum prices. So the experts are saying that nothing in this bill to make them pay their fair share is going to adversely impact gasoline prices.

The former CEO of Shell Oil said that with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary. He said that in February--their own people. Their own people. Yet, when they come to the committee, they are all whining about it.

Then you hear from those from the oil-producing States: Well, we do not have enough rigs in operation. This administration is not drilling.

Excuse me. There are such things called the facts. Let's look at them in this chart. We see more drilling than ever before. This administration is moving forward. The oil companies have over 50 million acres of leased land and offshore that they can drill on today, and all they want is more, more, more. They want to come to California, drill off our pristine coast, and threaten tens of thousands of jobs we have in our fishing industry, our tourism industry. They do not have to do that. They are sitting on these leases. They are drilling many more.

So let's just have the facts be part of the debate. That is what I am trying to do today with these charts, is to lay out the facts.

Now, how do we reduce gas prices? I had a press conference actually in an independent gas station last month. The independent gas station owner was wonderful. He said: I agree with you, Senator.

There I was, coming out with this plan. Here is 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 alternative clean fuels and batteries that can run our vehicles so we do not have to have these automobiles that are gas guzzlers.

Crack down on fraud and speculation. A lot of this increase is due to that.

Use it or lose it, say to the oil companies. You own all of these leases; drill on those leases.

Release oil from the SPR. 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, prices went down 30 percent.

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. We need it here.

So that is a plan we can take. But let me 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 is crucial.

All the talk about competition--we want competition. You do not have competition. When you are looking at these huge companies--and my colleague from Alaska talked 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 is one set of circumstances, but when you give these tax subsidies to Big Oil, you distort the price of the commodity. You distort the price of the commodity and you bring it down. Therefore, it is anticompetitive with other sources of energy.

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. 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. Let's not come down to the floor and compare these corporate giveaways to the mortgage deduction our middle class so needs.

I thank you very much for this opportunity. I hope we will have the courage to vote to end this corporate welfare.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the time not used be charged equally to both sides.

Madam President, to me, this argument is, in fact, all about fairness. It has nothing to do with class warfare. It has nothing to do with gotcha but has to do with abrogation of social responsibility on the basis of levels.

Every once in a while we have an exchange in the Senate or in a Senate committee that is revealing and stunning all at once. Recently, I had one of those moments when I had the opportunity to ask a question to--guess what--five executives from the largest oil and gas companies in the country.

I was not linking price of gas--but in the people's minds it is--with the gas prices up beyond $4 a gallon, with many people spending close to $100 a week to gas up their cars. I was cautiously optimistic that we would have in this Senate Finance Committee hearing a real dialog on the idea that everybody has shared responsibility and that you share your responsibility--in this case, the need to balance the budget or come closer to it and then share prosperity. But we have to share responsibility first because that is what leads to the discipline that allows prosperity generally in this country to get ahead.

I thought the oil executives might at least reveal a bit of unease, a bit of discomfort on their part about how gas prices are standing like a dead weight on our economy, about the fact they make so incredibly much, inexplicably, unexplainably so much money and loving that, especially when they together earned just about $35.8 billion in profits in the first 3 months of this year.

How wrong I was. They were eager only to defend the way Big Oil does business, defend the enormous salaries, defend the business model that puts control of gas supply in the hands of a few. One would not even answer when asked about his company's claim that trying to reduce taxpayer subsidies--which is what we want to do--given to this industry would be un-American. He said that a number of times in that exchange. It was not very fruitful, but it was insightful.

As I said then, put simply, these men are all completely out of touch--deeply, profoundly out of touch--with what the rest of the country is going through. Again, that is what it is about, fairness. Do you know what other people are suffering? Their situation is this: very profitable. Other people are on very hard times. Is there not some way they could give up their tax subsidies--in this case $2 billion a year--instead of making a $125-billion-a-year profit--not just more money but actually a profit; $125 billion would go down to $123 billion. They would not hear of it. They are so caught up in

their profits that they have lost sight of what is happening in mainstream New Hampshire and mainstream West Virginia, across our economy, and our schools on Main Street and around the kitchen table.

Gentlemen--the five--here is some of what you need to know. For starters, Congress is in the midst of a full-throated debate about how to reduce our growing deficit without breaking the backs further of working families or leaving our seniors out in the cold literally or reducing our support for the veterans who serve our country and children who just happen to be our future. We are debating proposals to cut back Social Security and the promise that we made to generations who have worked and want to live their final years with dignity. We are debating legislation that forces Medicare to be privatized, how it will cost senior citizens about $6,000 more per year. I hope they know that. Medicare privatized, chopped up, made an optional grant program run by States, drastically scaled back.

The Congress is debating deep cuts to Federal programs ranging from highways and airports to medical research to coal mine safety inspections and money for schools--everything.

Quite simply, we are talking about making drastic cuts to programs that touch the lives of virtually every single person in the country, except for them. These slick executives seem blind to the real-world consequences of having made almost $1 trillion in profits during the past decade--profits--while collecting $4 billion a year in subsidies, courtesy of the very same U.S. taxpayers about whom I have just been talking, the same taxpayers who are also forced to pay at the pump and whose lives are being changed dramatically because of their position.

Why focus on them? Because they are a symbol. They are the top of the heap. They always prevail. They always win. They always have the lobbyists, the campaign contributions. They always can get what they want. Everybody always caves to them because they are so big, as they fly around in their shiny jets. I do not think it is going to be that way this time.

The same oil executives who blanch if anyone questions their mega salaries--speaking of salaries, it might be interesting to know that the CEO of ExxonMobile is paid $29 million a year. I am just trying to think of the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire. I wonder how many people make $29 million a year just in salaries. I do not know if that includes stock options.

During my conversations with these executives last week, we talked a little bit about how the effective tax rate on their profits is significantly lower than what average workers make in my home State of West Virginia and in the Presiding Officer's home State.

Exxon paid a 17-percent effective tax rate over the past 3 years--17 percent--while the average individual in my State and the Presiding Officer's State paid an effective rate of 20 percent. Is that class warfare? Is that gotcha? Or is that about fairness, about people doing something to help their country when their country is almost on its knees?

The effective rate, to explain, is the amount of tax one is actually paying on income earned when factoring in deductions and credits.

It is a vast understatement to say West Virginians, like many others all across the Nation, are not having an easy time of it during this period of record oil company profits. And they--those five--understand perfectly well that there is no longer any justification for maintaining generous subsidies for this highly profitable industry. The public appears to feel that way. The poll numbers are just stunning--70 to 30 that it is not right, that we should take away the subsidies. It varies according to the poll, but it is always high up, including two- to-one Republicans across the country who believe they should not be able to have those tax subsidies that we are so easily giving them.

They know that without a willingness to stare down sacred cows like corporate subsidies--not just with them but with others--we won't ever be able to make progress in eliminating the massive Federal deficit which is staring us in the face. Why wouldn't they care about that? It is so easy for them. It is called sharing, being fair. But no, it doesn't work that way.

The average West Virginian, again, makes $32,000 a year. They can't afford another 10 years of handouts to Big Oil. The current high gas prices are like a dark cloud. The working class in rural States like mine commute 25 miles or more each way every day, and high gas prices cut heavily into their weekly paycheck. Of course they do. Things are much worse in the summer, of course, when people travel, if they can any longer afford to. I hear often from constituents who are experiencing sticker shock at the pump. Police departments, schools, hospitals, and community organizations also feel the pinch of rising fuel costs and the pinch of everything else that isn't coming through. Philanthropy is down in this depressed economy. It is bad. Even the smallest increase can have a serious impact on family budgets and a business's bottom line.

I do not mean to suggest that the oil industry profits and subsidies are the sole culprit for rising gas prices because listening to those who are industry experts and economists, too, has convinced me that the big factor in the rising cost of energy is the role of speculators. I won't get into that too much now, but I will say that these speculative investors make a quick profit in betting on what the cost of a barrel of oil might be next Friday. If they turn out to be right, they get a whole lot of money. I mean, it is stupid. It is Wall Street at its dumbest, and they have shown us several ways to be that way. They take no risk themselves.

I am not alone in thinking these speculators are driving up oil prices and creating more price volatility. I have joined with other Senate colleagues in asking the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to look closely at the role of speculators in the oil futures market and in pressing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to get moving on a power they already have, which is to set margins on what speculators can make--to crack down, rein this in. I have also written to the Federal Trade Commission--to investigate any potential fraud or market manipulation in the oil markets.

I also believe what is needed in the big oil industry is a sense of fairness. It is not too much to ask when it comes to paying taxes, when it comes to paying the price for gas. To me, fairness has always meant shared sacrifice in tough times and shared success in good times--a sense of giving something for the larger good. I am not suggesting that they stop being competitive or aggressively profitable, but at least show for a minute they see where we are today. If they had expressed concern about average people and then refused to take any decrease in their tax subsidies--paid for by these people I am talking about--that wouldn't have given me much comfort, but at least it would have been just a bit of a bend. We got none of that. What we got was, we like our business model, we are staying with it, don't punish us for being profitable. We do business the way we do business. We have been doing it for 130 years, and that is that.

So what is needed here is a reminder that a lifetime of always beating their adversaries and never losing or giving anything of themselves to the greater good does not, in fact, lead to a prosperous or morally just society. That is not too much to ask, especially of Big Oil, and I am not going to stop just because they do not get it yet.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the legislation that is going to be voted on in a few hours. I have listened to the last couple of speakers, and while I certainly respect Senator Coburn's commitment to fiscal responsibility--and he and I have worked together on a number of projects in that regard and have the same view of many of the spending habits around here--I have to say, I am a little confused by the opposition to this legislation by my friends across the aisle.

We have two ways to spend money around here: one, through the appropriations process; the other is what I call tax goodies. These goodies are called tax expenditures. What these do is they basically say to whatever group has successfully lobbied for them: You are not going to have to pay all your taxes. So there are two ways we deny the Treasury money. One is by spending money. The other is by telling people: You do not have to pay the money the Tax Code says you owe. And we put into the Tax Code special deals.

Many of those special deals are done because the case is made that they spur economic development or they spur some kind of activity in our country that we think is desirable. A good example is the interest deduction on people's homes. The notion is that we want to encourage people to buy homes, so we allow them to deduct the interest they pay on those home loans against their income tax.

Charitable deductions are another good example. We want people to give to charities, so we say: Do you know what. You do not have to pay as much in taxes if you give to charity.

The realty sector is full of tax goodies for the development of real estate and the creation of jobs that go with the development of real estate.

One of the big tax expenditures we have in our Tax Code is goodies for Big Oil. That is what this is about. Can we get to where we need to be on our structural debt and our annual deficit without touching the Tax Code? No way. Are we going to have to look at revenues for multimillionaires? I think we are. Are we, obviously, going to have to look at spending? Of course we are. And aren't we going to have to look at the tax goodies? Well, I would surely hope so, because, frankly, as some of my colleagues across the aisle have said--and I thought they agreed with us--cleaning out some of those goodies could potentially lower taxes for everyone.

So where do we start with the goodies that are in the Tax Code? Might we not start with the most profitable companies in the history of the planet? Do they need this extra money we give them by telling them they do not have to pay the taxes other companies have to pay? How many quarters will we have where we read the headlines: ``Record-Breaking Profits for Big Oil''? How many times are we going to read that before we are willing to take the baby step--just the baby step--of saying: Maybe these tax goodies for Big Oil are not a good idea in light of our deficit and our debt. Maybe this is a good place to start. They made north of $35 billion in the last 3 months.

I know there are all kinds of things that are being put out there to kind of hide behind as we cast this vote because this is a tough vote for people who vote no. How do you explain to your constituents--who are struggling around their kitchen table to figure out how they can afford to drive their kids to soccer practice--how do you explain to them that we think that instead of $123 billion of profit Big Oil is going to make this year, they need to make $125 billion? That is what this is. Instead of making $125 billion--north of $125 billion--of profit this year, Big Oil is going to have to suffer along with only $123 billion in profit. And that $2 billion we want to take back from them is going to go toward the deficit. How do you explain that to people around their kitchen table?

Oh, this means the cost of fuel is going to go up. Everyone has debunked that. Really? The cost of fuel has gone up just fine and they have all those subsidies. I remember when oil was $55 a barrel and they had all these subsidies. By the way, all these subsidies did not help them go out and do what they needed to do to keep the price of fuel down.

By the way, today a letter was sent to the FTC by myself and other Members of the Senate saying: What about this refinery process? Talk about economic illiteracy. Anybody who believes the oil companies today are making 7 cents of profit on a gallon of gas has no idea what is going on with refineries right now. A year ago at this time, refineries were operating at a capacity of close to 90 percent. Today, they are only operating at 80 percent. Why would that be? Their profit per gallon of gas--just the refineries--has gone from less than 40 cents a gallon to 80 cents a gallon in a matter of a few months: 80 cents a gallon of refinery profit. Some of these refineries are independently owned. But many of them are owned by the big five, the big five big oil.

So why is that capacity down? Is it because they do not have crude to go through the refining process? No. There is plenty of crude. And how about this. We are giving these big oil companies tax goodies, and what are they doing today? They are exporting a record amount of oil and fuel from the United States--exporting. They are sending it to South America and Mexico.

So while my constituents are suffering mightily at the gas pump, week after week, these guys are sending the oil they have produced with our tax goodies to another country, instead of putting that additional supply into our supply chain, which, in turn, reduces the price.

The more supply, the less the price. So, one, they have cut back refining capacity. Two, they are exporting more. And they want to say it is about drilling. Really? We have more rigs drilling right now in this country than we have had in many years. We have production higher at this point--domestic production--than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We just issued 12 new deepwater permits in the last few months. There are all kinds of leases out there that are not being explored. Meanwhile, cha-ching, cha-ching--these big oil companies are continuing to make profits that make your jaw drop.

So, honestly, seriously, you talk about economic illiteracy. I will tell you what economic illiteracy is. It is thinking these companies-- what about the free market I always hear about from the other side of the aisle? What about that free market? Why do they need our tax goodies to help them if this is truly a free market?

Maybe they are right. Maybe we shouldn't pick on Big Oil. But what a great place to start. Frankly, if we can't take these things away from the most profitable companies in the history of the planet, how are we ever going to take them away from the mohair industry or how are we ever going to do what we need to do with the Tax Code in the real estate sector or any of the other goodies we have larded up our Tax Code with to make it so complicated and so long that, frankly, the people who get the most advantages out of it are the families who can afford to hire accountants and tax lawyers. Meanwhile, the real tax rate for most Americans is much higher than the real tax rate for most multinational corporations.

So I think economic illiteracy is to spend a lot of time talking about the debt and deficit and not being willing to take this baby step to take back $2 billion a year that these companies get that they do not need and they are not using to hold down the price of gas.

I mean, when I realized how cynical this whole process has become is when today I got a question from a reporter that said: Well, the oil companies say most of these profits are going to these pension companies. Give me a break. You know, really? Really? These guys want to talk about free market and how this is all about the bottom line, and then they want to try to hide behind the fact that some of the pension funds have stock in their companies, that somehow that justifies them feeding at the public trough? Talk about greed. Talk about greed.

So I think this legislation is a real litmus test because if we can't do this, then I question what we can do to right this ship that is all about the footprint of the Federal Government, how much money we are spending and how many tax expenditures are out there. And anybody who tells you this is about raising their taxes--no, this is about saying to them: You have to pay the taxes the free market says you should pay, not avoid taxes by these extra goodies. This isn't about raising their taxes; this is about saying: You need to pay your taxes the way average citizens do, as it relates to their businesses. You should not get this extra help in the Tax Code that allows you to avoid taxes. It is a tax expenditure. It is real money that will come to our bottom line as it relates to our deficit, and it is important to get it done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, across this country Americans are feeling the pain at the pump. Gas prices are approaching $4 a gallon. Families are going to spend, on average, about $800 more on gas this year than they did last year. Unrest in the Middle East and a weak dollar are driving oil prices even higher. Now more than ever, we must produce more American energy. We need to do this to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Americans are looking to Washington for leadership. All you have to do is pick up today's USA TODAY to know how much--and I know you hear about it, too, when you are home on the weekends--this $4-a-gallon gas is impacting people in our States.

Here is one headline. ``Poll: Gas prices hurting many. $4 a gallon requires cutbacks.''

Let me read to you, Madam President:

As gas prices hover near $4 a gallon, nearly seven in 10

Americans say the high cost of fuel is causing financial

hardship for their families, a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll

finds. More than half say they have made major changes to

compensate for the higher prices, ranging from shorter trips

to cutting back on vacation travel.

The article goes on:

For 21%, the impact is so dramatic they say their standard

of living is jeopardized.

So here we have families all across the country, in your State as well as in mine, who are dealing with kids, bills, mortgages, and this sort of increase--$800 out of their ability to pay for other things this year--clearly impacts their quality of life. So Americans want answers and they deserve answers. They are asking: How am I going to pay my gas bill? When we have American energy, energy right here in this country, they are asking: Why are we so dependent on foreign countries for our energy? They want to know where the leadership is in Washington.

This very week, the President has finally said he understands the need to produce more American energy. Well, he has used that same line many times.

The actions of the Democratic Party today on the floor of the Senate do not track with the lines coming out of the White House. The administration wants Americans to believe the administration has seen the light, but Republican Representative Doc Hastings, a Member of the House of Representatives, has already called their bluff. Representative Hastings is the sponsor of legislation that would allow more energy production off the coast of Alaska. He said it is ironic that the White House is now supporting this idea because the White House just recently opposed the idea when he introduced it in the House of Representatives.

The Associated Press was even more direct. They said that all of the administration's ideas had come from three bills that were passed by the Republican-controlled House down the hall, and the Associated Press said the White House had opposed every single one of these bills.

So despite acting against the production of more American energy just a week ago, the President now wants us to believe he supports it just because this week he says so. Well, I hope his change of heart is sincere, but I have my doubts because, unlike energy, talk is cheap.

The administration is trying to use this sudden change of heart as a bargaining chip to pass legislation that was brought up by liberals in the Senate this past week. Unlike increased production, the bill brought to the floor by the Democrats will not help the American people. In fact, the bill is clear evidence that the Democratic Party has no plan to address high gasoline prices. Why do I say that? Well, the solution we hear for high gas prices is a tax increase. Since when did raising taxes lower the price of gasoline? Since when does raising taxes on one thing ever lower the price of that thing? To me, this is just another distraction. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has already told us there are some commonsense facts about energy taxes. They have told us that raising energy taxes will not lower the price at the pump. In fact, the Congressional Research Service says increasing energy taxes will increase the price of gas and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

This administration has consistently pushed policies that actually make the pain at the pump worse. Instead of supporting the all-of-the- above energy production across our country, they have been more focused on excuses about why we shouldn't use more American energy. If you look back over time, there is a clear pattern. In 2008, when he was a candidate for President, then-Senator Obama said high gas prices weren't a problem. He said the only problem is that they went up too fast. Interior Secretary Salazar, when he was a Member of this body, said he would not support more offshore drilling even if gas prices hit $10 a gallon. Even Secretary Steven Chu, who is our Energy Secretary, was quoted that same year as saying: We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe. Gas prices in Europe routinely hit $8 a gallon. With these individuals in charge of our energy policy, it is no wonder prices are way up--up over $1 from where they were a year ago.

This administration's shutting down of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will drive American oil production down by 20 percent in 2012. Even former President Bill Clinton called the continuous shutdown ridiculous.

To make matters worse, President Obama appears to be more enthusiastic about importing oil from other countries than he is in terms of using our own. Brazil has discovered huge reserves of shale oil, and the President recently visited Brazil. He said he wants the United States to be Brazil's best customer for oil.

When it comes to oil consumption generally, the President's story continues to change. A few weeks ago, President Obama tried to make the case that Americans should decrease their consumption of oil. He said we only have about 2 to 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's oil. According to the President's measurements, the United States has about 28 billion barrels of oil, but according to the Congressional Research Service, the United States actually has 163 billion barrels of oil. That is over five times as much as the President says we have, and the United States is currently the third largest oil-producing nation in the world.

President Obama has also said he wants to cut imports of foreign oil by a third. Well, his new proposal is definitely a step in the right direction, so why would he tie it to this bill that makes American production harder and more expensive?

Another of the President's goals is to make alternative energy the cheapest form of energy. He continues to talk about that, and I applaud that goal. But we need to make energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that don't raise the prices for American families. Regrettably, the President's method has been to make everything but alternative energy more expensive, and the bill his party is pushing right now is another step in that direction.

So the evidence is clear: The liberal energy strategy is not creating American jobs. No, it is not creating jobs here in America, it is not reducing the cost of gasoline in America, and it is not strengthening America's national security. Instead, Americans are paying more at the pump, they are living with high unemployment, and they are producing less American energy.

I hope the President will follow up on his promise to help America produce more oil. I also hope he will stop pushing the damaging legislation his party has put forward here this week.

It is time we have a true bipartisan approach on energy. Senator Manchin of West Virginia and I have introduced just such a bill. It is a bipartisan bill called the American Alternative Fuels Act. This bill truly would ease American's pain at the pump. It would repeal barriers to alternative fuels so American energy can thrive. It would promote the production of alternative fuels derived from American sources. This bill acknowledges the truth about our energy crisis. We need more American energy--we need it all.

In addition to the green jobs the President keeps talking about, we need red, white, and blue energy and red, white, and blue energy jobs. We must keep focusing on making our energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that do not increase the costs on American families.

The only way Americans can take the President's call for more energy production seriously is if he and the Democratic leadership abandon their fixation on raising taxes on producing American energy. That is the first step we need to take in helping relieve the pain at the pump.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, and in strong opposition of the Offshore Production and Safety Act.

I support the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act because it would repeal unnecessary subsidies and incentives to oil companies that will cost taxpayers $21 billion over the next 10 years. That $21 billion must be made up through taxes in other areas, such as individual income taxes.

These tax incentives for big oil, unfortunately, go toward corporate salaries and profits--they do not lead to lower gas prices for American consumers.

And I oppose the poorly named Offshore Production and Safety Act.

Instead of implementing the recommendations of The National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, this legislation attempts to irresponsibly increase production by shortcircuiting safety and environmental reviews, rigging the courts in favor of the oil companies, and forcing oil leasing in offshore areas without further review.

The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, introduced by Senator Menendez, was written to end unnecessary and expensive tax subsidies. Is does so in the following ways:

It modifies the foreign tax credit that allows major oil companies to deduct royalty payments dollar-for-dollar from their U.S. tax bill.

It limits the ability of oil companies to claim the domestic manufacturing tax deduction. This deduction was created in 2004 to assist exporting manufacturers, not to subsidize oil companies.

It limits the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs.

It limits the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells: Firms will no longer be able to calculate this deduction using the percentage depletion calculation method, under which they often take claims that exceed the capital that was actually invested.

It limits the deduction for tertiary injectants, which are fluids and gases that oil companies pump underground to drive more oil from an existing well, sometimes with negative environmental repercussions.

Finally, the bill includes a provision I introduced in February to repeal Outer Continental Shelf deep water royalty relief provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

These 2005 provisions created a financial incentive for oil companies to drill in the deepest parts of the ocean, where the environmental and technical risks are greatest.

If we learn anything from the BP oilspill, it is that we should not be encouraging oil drilling in ocean waters so deep that it is beyond our technical capacity to address a spill. Yet that is exactly what the law does today.

Last week, at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, CEOs of the big oil companies argued that they deserve to continue receiving these subsidies.

ConocoPhillips's James Mulva went as far as to argue that raising taxes on an industry that can afford to pay those taxes in order to help those who cannot is ``un-American.'' He argued it would lead to a parade of horribles: lost jobs, higher gas prices and less investment.

I could not disagree more strongly. Gas is at $4 a gallon, oil is about $100 a barrel and oil company profits are at near-record levels. Their claims are unfounded and absurd.

Let me start with investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives testified that the companies did not need tax breaks to continue oil exploration efforts. But Congress left them in place. How can a drilling incentive unnecessary at $60 a barrel become essential at $100 per barrel?

Big Oil claims about gas prices are also unfounded. A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline.

A report from the Joint Economic Committee came to the same conclusion, stating:

In reality, most of the so-called incentives have no impact

on near-term production decisions, and thus repealing them

would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the

immediate future. Even in the longer term, the current

proposed changes to these tax provisions would have little

impact on global production and a negligible effect on

consumer energy prices.

The CRS report also addressed another industry claim: that ending tax breaks just for oil companies would be discriminatory.

Most of those tax breaks--such as the deductions for well depletion and intangible drilling costs--are unique to the industry. The only exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage manufacturing companies to build factories here and export their goods.

But as CRS pointed out, there will be no cessation of drilling on American territory as long as the oil and profits exist. Therefore, this is a huge cost to taxpayers with zero effect.

Even the effect on industry profits--the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone--would be trivial, according to CRS.

But this is simple arithmetic. The bill before us would repeal approximately $2 billion in subsidies annually, from five firms that made $35 billion in profit in a single quarter earlier this year. This represents a scant 1 to 2 percent of their annual profit!

Bottom line: these subsidies are unnecessary, and returning $21 billion over 10 years to the Treasury would be a good thing.

I encourage all of my colleagues who share my concern about the deficit to vote yes on this bill.

Unfortunately, the minority leader has not chosen to address the deficit in his legislation.

Instead, he has brought forward the Offshore Production and Safety Act.

This bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It attempts to make ``Drill Baby Drill'' a national policy, without respect for the environment or the livelihoods that depend on a healthy ocean.

Its introduction demonstrates that some in this body believe we can drill our way to energy independence, and the only things standing in the way are pesky environmental and safety regulations.

Unfortunately, the facts don't back that up:

The United States has only 3 percent of global oil reserves, but we use more than 20 percent of supply.

Fifty-one new shallow-water permits have been issued since the administration implemented stronger safety standards to ensure that an oilspill similar to Deepwater Horizon will never happen again.

Thirteen deepwater wells have been permitted since February, when the industry finally demonstrated it was capable of containing an undersea spill.

In 2010, the United States produced more than 2 billion barrels of oil, the highest level of domestic production since 2003.

Oil production has increased every year under President Obama.

Despite these facts, we are being asked to consider a bill that would further reduce safety standards. The Republican bill repeals the 2010 drilling plan that protects southern California's coast from new drilling; establishes a 60-day deadline for the Federal Government to review and grant drilling permits. If that deadline cannot be met, a permit would be automatically issued even if the delay is the fault of the applicant. Authorizes leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts and Alaska, including Bristol Bay, without any further review. And overrides the ordinary rules of venue for court cases, engaging in preemptive ``forum-shopping'' by directing all court cases related to Gulf of Mexico energy production to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit--even though that circuit doesn't include Florida, the State with the longest coast on the Gulf of Mexico, nor Alabama.

Finally, the bill sets up all kinds of special rules, appearing to try to ensure that the oil companies cannot lose in the fifth Circuit, by requiring challenges to be filed in 60 days, adding additional burdens of evidentiary proof, and prohibiting the courts from awarding attorneys' fees or other court costs even to the winning parties.

That pretty much ensures that the fishermen, shrimpers, and small businessmen who depend on the gulf for their livelihoods will be unable to defend their rights in court.

It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened.

Three-fourths of Americans recently polled by the Wall Street Journal supported ending oil subsidies.

Americans recognize that this is a question of fairness.

While the oil companies are making huge profits, people are suffering and deficits are growing. We have an obligation to ask whether these tax giveaways are right, whether they are smart and whether we really need them at all.

The answer is no. I encourage my colleagues to join me in fighting to end them.