Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first, I rise in support of S. 679, a bipartisan effort that will streamline Presidential appointments and reduce the number of Senate confirmations for certain types of positions, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

First, I want to praise my colleague and friend, Senator Alexander, who has been a leading, if not the leading, force in this effort. We have worked together well in a bipartisan way to try to come up with a proposal that meets the agreement of the Chamber. He has done a great job, and it has been a pleasure, I would say to my friend from Tennessee, to work with him, as it always is.

I also want to thank, of course, Senator Reid, who has encouraged us to get involved in this process and has been right there with us all the way, as well as Republican Leader McConnell, who, again, has from the beginning been on our side and agreed that this is a worthwhile endeavor.

So we formed a bipartisan working group at the behest of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell to try to figure out how to try to reduce the number of Presidential appointments that require Senate confirmation and to create new procedures to improve the pace of confirmation for executive branch nominees, as part of an overall reform of the Senate rules.

Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Collins and I, in conjunction with the leaders, worked closely to develop this bill and the accompanying resolution, which we will turn to immediately after the bill, to improve how the Senate deals with executive nominations.

Throughout this entire process, we have partnered with folks from both sides of the aisle, and many have significantly contributed to this process. This package is an essential piece of the bipartisan rules reform we began at the start of Congress, and Senators Lieberman and Collins have had a lot of experience in this regard. They have tried it before, and their advice to us has been invaluable as well.

The Senate was designed to be a thoughtful and deliberative body. But the confirmation process is often slowed to a near standstill. This legislation will clear some of the more noncontroversial positions so the Senate can focus on its constitutional advise and consent power as it was intended, to confirm the most important positions.

The bill is not intended to take away or diminish the Senate's advise and consent power. The power will remain and still be used for the confirmation of senior policymaking appointments. The purpose of this legislation is to help the Senate function better and more efficiently.

Rather than spending time in committee and on the floor confirming nominees who have part-time appointments, nonpolicymaking responsibilities, or who directly report to Senate-confirmed individuals, we can alleviate ourselves of this burden and make these individuals nonconfirmable.

With that said, I recognize that some of our chairmen would like to see certain positions remain confirmable. We are continuing to work with them on their concerns, and we want to be flexible. We will be working with some of those Senators from both sides of the aisle who have voiced some objections and think the list is too large.

However, we also want to avoid the hollowing out of this bill so it no longer represents real reform. Over the past few decades, hundreds of these positions have been created which have contributed to a clogging of the Senate and a delay in getting good mid-level candidates in place to help the government function effectively.

The bill will eliminate from Senate confirmation 200 executive nomination positions. It covers several categories of positions, including legislative and public affairs positions, information technology administrators, internal management and administrative positions, and deputies or nonpolicy-related assistant secretaries who report to individuals who are Senate confirmable.

Additionally, we have removed thousands of positions from the Public Health Service Officer Corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Officer Corps from the confirmation process. These positions are noncontroversial and their removal will further prevent the possibility of gridlock. Removing those positions from the Senate confirmation process will allow a new administration to be set up with more efficiency and speed, thus making government work better for the people.

The public should not be harmed because we are not able to get qualified people confirmed in a timely manner. The bill will also create a working group that will provide recommendations to the President and the Senate to further improve the confirmation process. The group will focus on offering guidance on the paperwork process for nominees through examining the creation of a single searchable electronic smart form and will also conduct a review of the current background investigation requirements.

In conclusion, this will help make the confirmation process less tedious for nominees by preventing them from having to submit the same information in several different forms to several entities. The bill was successfully passed by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and S. Res. 116, which we will turn to immediately after this bill, was marked up in the Rules Committee unanimously.

We are confident that this bill, in conjunction with the resolution, will eliminate many of the delays in the current confirmation process. In conclusion, these delays are very detrimental to the efficient operation of government and to the efforts to recruit the most qualified people to these Federal jobs.

The public deserves a focus of our deliberation on confirming the most important positions and not to hold up those generally noncontroversial positions which more closely resemble appointments that are currently made without Senate approval.

I yield the floor, and I know my colleague, Senator Alexander will speak next.

Mr. President, on May 22, 2011, the Joint Committee on

the Library organized, elected a chairman, a vice chairman, and adopted its rules for the 112th Congress. Members of the Joint Committee on the Library elected Senator Charles E. Schumer as chairman and Congressman Gregg Harper as vice chairman. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Will my colleague yield?

Mr. President, I wish to add my accolades about Leon Panetta. I know him well. We roomed together for 11 years here in Washington. He is a strong, smart, honorable, and devout man. He will be a great Secretary of Defense. I thank my colleague for praising him and add my accolades.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library will meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at 11:30 a.m., in SC-6 to conduct its organization meeting for the 112th Congress.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on (202) 224-6352.

joint committee on congress on printing

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee of Congress on Printing will meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at 11:30 a.m., in SC-6 to conduct its organization meeting for the 112th Congress.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on (202) 224-6352.

Mr. President, today I honor Dr. Paul LeClerc, president and chief executive officer of the New York Public Library, NYPL, on the occasion of his retirement. On June 30 of this year, Dr. LeClerc will leave his post at the NYPL, having served as its leader since December 1, 1993. Dr. LeClerc is a true scholar and leader and the New York Public Library and the city of New York will deeply miss his leadership at this iconic institution.

The New York Public Library is one of the preeminent libraries in the world and under Dr. LeClerc's leadership it has implemented a series of initiatives that have made it a world leader in the field of information collecting and distribution. Just to name a few, these achievements include strategic alliances with the most important collections in Western Europe, South America and Russia; creating for the public's use one of the most advanced IT systems in any library; and creating a new Center for Scholars and Writers at the historic Stephen A. Schwarzman Building at Fifth Avenue.

In addition to being at the forefront of research, the New York Public Library's over 90 locations bring services to every neighborhood of the Bronx, Staten Island, and Manhattan. Last year alone, 15.4 million New Yorkers

visited these neighborhood branch libraries looking for services that they can't receive anywhere else; 2.4 million individuals visited the NYPL's four research libraries, accessing many of the collections and programs I have already described; and 25.4 million people from around the world visit the Library's Web site and online collections each year. Dr. LeClerc has overseen all of these magnificent resources and we are so thankful to him for his passion and dedication.

As Dr. LeClerc retires from the library, leaving his mark on its past and future, I would like to ask my colleagues to join with me today in honoring him for his over 17 years of dedication to the New York Public Library, the city of New York, and pursuers of knowledge worldwide.

Mr. President, first, even though I do not agree with him, it is always a pleasure to listen to my friend from Utah give his arguments. But I will just give mine instead of talking to him. I will just remind him of one thing. This bill is not intended to lower gas prices; it is intended to reduce the deficit. It clearly does that.

If my colleague cared so much about reducing that deficit, the oil companies are a good place to start. The money does not go for spending, it goes for deficit reduction.

Anyway, I rise today in support of the legislation authored by my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez has championed this legislation for quite some time. I applaud the work he has done to build support for it.

As you know, our leader, Senator Reid, has scheduled a vote on it in just a few minutes. I sincerely hope the bill will pass. Nothing would be better in terms of showing bipartisanship and giving the American people hope that we can come to a fair agreement on our long-term fiscal challenges than to pass this legislation today.

In the last election voters gave those of us who serve in this Chamber two distinct mandates: First and perhaps foremost, they said: Make the economy grow. Create good-paying jobs. Make sure that American dream which says the odds are higher you will do better 10 years from now than you are doing today, and the odds are higher still your kids will do better than you, that American dream, make sure it burns brightly.

Some have wondered if it is beginning to flicker, and their mandate to us in this election was get that candle glowing again. But, second, they said do something else at the same time. They said in no uncertain terms: Reign in the out-of-control Federal deficit. They told us to take the bull by the horns and confront our mounting debt.

On that point, I will agree with my colleague from Utah. Now, it is very hard to accomplish one of these two goals. To accomplish both at once is a Herculean task. There are many choices ahead, most of them rather difficult. That is why this is so hard. But one choice is not tough at all, not by a mile. It is obvious. At this time of fiscal restraint, when we have to make cuts that are so painful and hurt middle-class families, to continue to give big oil companies giant tax breaks makes no sense whatsoever.

Getting rid of these corporate subsidies to Big Oil is a no-brainer. Decades ago, when these breaks were enacted, oil was $17 a barrel. Maybe it made a modicum of sense in those days to give companies an incentive to explore and produce. But with the price of crude oil hovering at $100 a barrel, and Big Oil reaping record profits with every barrel they drill, it defies logic to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on these subsidies.

Believe me, the free market gives the oil companies enough of an incentive to produce. When oil is $100 a barrel, they certainly do not need a financial nudge from Washington. Now, at the same time, middle- class Americans get hit with a double whammy. They are paying $70 or more to fill that gas tank. Then, in addition, when they pay their taxes, some of those hard-earned tax dollars are being used to line Big Oil's pocket with these subsidies.

In my home State of New York, the price of gas is up 35 percent on average compared to this time last year. Economists estimate the typical family will pay as much as $1,000 more on gas this year than last--$1,000 a year. The average family makes about $50,000. It is so hard they sit around the dinner table after Friday night supper, mom and dad. They sit down and figure out: How are we going to pay these bills? How are we going to give our kids the life that we want to give them? And they are paying $1,000 more for gasoline. At the same time we are subsidizing oil companies.

Families across the country are still struggling to make ends meet as the economy slowly recovers. With billions of dollars' worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at record highs, it is no wonder the top five oil companies just announced jaw-dropping profits. These companies are not only among the most profitable businesses in the United States, they are among the most profitable in the whole world.

In the first quarter of this year alone, the big five brought in $35 billion in profit. In the past decade, they took home nearly $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t.''

There is nothing wrong with these profits in and of themselves; in America we celebrate success; we want the private sector to thrive. But at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt and we are grappling with painful cuts, both because we have the dual goal of growing the middle class and also reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we continue to subsidize such a lavishly profitable industry.

Moreover, as my great friend and colleague, Senator McCaskill, highlighted this morning in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, those record profits smell a bit fishy. There is a reason to suspect that some of the biggest oil refiners are artificially depressing supply in order to raise prices to pad their bottom lines.

I am proud to have cosigned Senator McCaskill's letter, as did the entire Democratic leadership team. I look forward to the FTC's response. I am also proud to cosponsor the Menendez bill we are considering today, Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. The legislation will put an end to the taxpayer handouts to the five largest integrated oil companies and use the $21 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. This $21 billion is an excellent downpayment on our effort to get the Nation's fiscal house in order.

The bill repeals a host of Byzantine tax provisions that only a lobbyist could love, such as the deduction for tertiary injectants and the deduction for intangible extraction costs. Small- and medium-sized oil firms are exempt. The legislation, even though some might like to go further, deals with the big five--ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP.

I have heard pundits from the hard right parrot Big Oil's talking point that repealing these giveaways would increase gas prices for consumers. The facts beg to differ. Last week, two major independent studies--one from the Congressional Research Service and another from the Joint Economic Committee--found that ending these absurd subsidies would not impact the price of gas. I compliment Senator Casey for his leadership on the second study.

In what was perhaps an inadvertent moment of candor at last week's Finance Committee hearing, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said:

Gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices, which

are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not

by companies such as ours.

When he made that comment, Tillerson of ExxonMobil conceded that repealing taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil will not increase prices. Prices are set, as he says, by global supply and demand.

That is not to say repealing subsidies will necessarily bring down prices. We are not making that claim. All along we have been clear: The purpose of this bill is to make a dent in the deficit by repealing tax breaks for the five companies that are the least in need of help from Uncle Sam.

Lowering the cost of gas and ridding our country of its dependence on foreign oil requires a long-term, comprehensive approach. In the months ahead, I expect the Democratic caucus will unveil a thorough and forward thinking plan to do just that.

In the meantime, I say to every one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If they are serious about deficit reduction, the Menendez bill is their chance to show it now. There is no good reason not to support this sensible legislation sponsored by my friend and colleague from New Jersey.

Just try to wrap your head around it: Big Oil is reporting record profits, gas prices are near an all-time high, and we, the American taxpayers, are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of $4 billion a year. One needs the imagination of ``Alice in Wonderland'' 's Lewis Carroll to come up with a more ridiculous scenario.

The bottom line is this: At a time of sky-high prices, it is unfathomable to continue to pad the profits of companies with taxpayer- funded subsidies. The time to repeal these giveaways is now.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation we will later vote on this week, authored by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. As we all know, he has been championing this legislation for quite some time. He had the prescience and foresight to focus on this idea early on, and I applaud the hard work he has done to build support for it.

I am also glad our leader, Senator Reid, scheduled a vote on it this week. I hope the bill will pass. I have heard that even a few of my friends from the other side of the aisle say they are considering voting for it.

Nothing would be better, in terms of showing bipartisanship and giving the American people hope that we can come to a fair agreement on the budget, than to pass the legislation this week.

In the last election, voters gave those of us who serve in this Chamber two distinct mandates. They told us to do two things at once, either one of which alone would be hard to do. First, and perhaps foremost, they said make the economy grow, create good-paying jobs, make sure of that the American dream which says the odds are that you will be doing better 10 years from today and the odds are that your children will do better than you. That is the American dream.

Since the founding of our great Republic, that candle has burned brightly in the eyes of Americans, whose ancestors have been here since the Mayflower landed, as well as in the eyes of Americans who are just here for a generation or two and even new immigrants.

They also gave us a second mandate--not just grow the economy, not just to employ people but a second one: rein in the out-of-control Federal deficit. The American people, as usual, had wisdom, because both these goals are important. Some say the debt isn't important. I believe it is.

Here is the way I put it: We, the Federal Government, are a blindfolded man, and we are walking toward a cliff. Once we fall off that cliff, there is no getting back. The debate is whether we are 20 feet from the cliff or 200 yards from it. But we know that sooner or later, no matter our distance, if we keep walking, we are going to fall off. Once you fall off, there is no getting back. So that means we have to take the bull by the horns and confront our mounting debt.

It would be hard enough to accomplish one of these two goals. To try to do both at once is a Herculean task. I think everybody is trying to do what is right, regardless of their ideology, but there are strong and different feelings and clear policy differences.

There are many tough choices ahead, but there is at least one choice that isn't tough at all--not by a mile. It is obvious to me and to most Americans, whether it is people you talk to as you go about your State or looking at the polling data, that at this time of fiscal restraint, to continue to give the big oil companies giant tax breaks makes no sense. Getting rid of these corporate subsidies to Big Oil is a no- brainer.

Decades ago, when these breaks were enacted, oil was $17 a barrel. Maybe it made sense then to give companies an incentive to explore and produce. One of the subsidies the Menendez legislation repeals, the oil depletion allowance, dates back to 1913. That is the same year a man named William Burton patented a new oil extraction process called thermal cracking. Big Oil no longer cracks petroleum using Mr. Burton's method. It is an outdated process, but the outdated tax subsidy still remains on the books, amazingly enough.

With oil hovering at $100 a barrel and Big Oil reaping record profits, it defies logic for the government to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on these subsidies. We are writing out a check for $4 billion to the big oil companies. Does that make sense when we have so many other needs and a huge deficit? To me, it doesn't.

At the same time, Americans get hit with a double whammy. When they drive up to the pump, they are paying $4--or close to it--a gallon for gasoline, diesel fuel, and Big Oil is taking some dollars out of their pockets because their taxes--a small percentage of it--go to pay these Big Oil subsidies. How galling.

In my home State of New York, the price of gasoline is up 35 percent, on average, compared to this time last year. Economists estimate that a typical New York family--a typical American family--will pay as much as $1,000 more on gas this year than last. When these families sit around the dinner table on Friday nights after dinner and mom and dad are trying to figure out how they are going to pay their bills, those gas prices make things much harder. Families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, as the economy slowly recovers. They can't afford to get gouged at the pump. With billions of dollars' worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at near record highs, it is no wonder these top five oil companies have just announced mind-boggling profits. These companies are not only among the most profitable businesses in the United States, but they are among the most profitable businesses in the whole world.

In the first quarter of this year, the big five brought in $35 billion in profits. In the past decade, they took home nearly $ 1 trillion--that is with a T. There is nothing wrong with profits in and of themselves. In America, we celebrate success. We want the private sector to thrive and make good profits. But at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt and we are asking every family to tighten their belt and we are grappling with painful cuts because of the dual goal of growing the middle class but also reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we continue to subsidize such a lavishly profitable industry.

There are priorities. I said this to the auto company executives last week when they testified before our Finance Committee. There are priorities. How many Americans would choose to give oil companies an extra subsidy rather than help kids who deserve to go to college pay for their tuition? That is what some of my colleagues are recommending. When I asked Mr. Mulva, the head of Conoco, one of the big five oil companies--I said: Well, which would you choose? He said they are two different things. Mr. Mulva, in all due respect, they are not. If we have to reduce the deficit by a certain amount, if we take the $21 billion we are giving you, that gives us some money to play with that we might be able to deal--not play with but to use for good purpose-- that we could give to prevent cuts and help middle-class families defray the cost of tuition to send their kids to college, which is part of the American dream. So they are related--at least in a government- deficit world, at least in a budget world in which we live; every dollar you don't spend on one thing is a dollar you might be able to use on something else.

Try to wrap your head around it. Big Oil is recording record profits. Gas

prices are near an alltime high and we as American taxpayers, are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of $4 billion a year. You need the imagination of Lewis Carroll, who wrote ``Alice in Wonderland,'' to come up with a more ridiculous scenario.

That is why I strongly support and am proud to cosponsor Senator Menendez's ``Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act.''

This legislation will put an end to taxpayer handouts to the five largest integrated oil companies and use that $21 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. This $21 billion is an excellent downpayment on the effort to get our fiscal house in order. If we use this $21 billion, it will be a little easier to reach our huge goal of reducing the deficit. It will be a little easier to complete our dual goals of reducing the deficit but still growing the economy.

The bill repeals a host of Byzantine tax provisions that only a lobbyist could love, such as the deduction for tertiary injectants and the deduction for intangible extraction costs. Some thought these up a long time ago. They have sat in our Tax Code, but they mean lots of money to Big Oil.

Small- and medium-sized oil firms are exempt. The only companies the legislation deals with are the big five--Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and British Petroleum.

I have heard pundits from the hard right parrot Big Oil's talking point that repealing these giveaways would increase gas prices for consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Last week, two major studies--one from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and another from the Joint Economic Committee--found that ending these absurd subsidies would not--would not--impact the price of gas. Neither of these studies--these were scientific studies done by economists. They did not have any biases.

In what was perhaps an inadvertent moment of candor at last week's Finance Committee hearing, ExxonMobil's CEO Rex Tillerson said:

Gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices, which

are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not

by companies such as ours.

Let me repeat what he said because it directly answers the argument that some on the other side of the aisle have made that if we repeal these subsidies, we will raise gas prices because that means the companies would decide to raise them because they are getting less subsidy. Here is what Mr. Tillerson said:

Gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices, which

are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not

by companies such as ours.

That does not seem like an objectionable comment; it is true. But when he made that comment, Mr. Tillerson of ExxonMobil was conceding that repealing taxpayer-funded subsidies for the big five will not increase prices. Prices are set, as he says, by global supply and demand. That is not to say repealing the subsidies would necessarily bring down prices. We are not making that claim. All along we have been clear that the purpose of this bill is to make a dent in the deficit by repealing tax breaks for the five companies that are the least in need of help from Uncle Sam.

Lowering the cost of gasoline and ridding our country of its dependence on foreign oil requires, of course, a long-term comprehensive approach. It is something we must do. It is outrageous that our country sends $1 billion a day overseas, wealth out of American pockets. To whom do we send them? People we dislike intensely--Ahmadinejad of Iran and Chavez of Venezuela. Why are we doing that? Because we failed to come up with a long-term policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

In the months ahead, I expect the Democratic caucus will unveil a thorough and forward-thinking plan to do just that. In the meantime, if Republicans in the House are serious about deficit reduction, the Menendez bill is their chance to show it now.

If we are going to come together, is this not the easiest place to come together? We are going to have a lot of hard struggles as we attempt to reduce the deficit, as the debt ceiling looms over us. But this is an easy one, and many people on my side of the aisle are scratching their heads. If our colleagues on the other side cannot give in on something such as this, what are they going to give in on? Speaker Boehner said earlier this week he wants to make trillions of dollars in cuts. Here is a good place to start. Indeed, the Speaker himself has said as much.

At one point, he seemed to say it makes some sense to eliminate subsidies to the big five. Let's not forget that Speaker Boehner was in favor of repealing oil subsidies before he was against it.

The bottom line is this: At a time of sky-high oil prices, it is unfathomable to continue to pad the profit of companies with taxpayer- funded subsidies. The time to repeal these giveaways is now. No more should we send $4 billion this year, next year, or any year to the five big oil companies which have made record profits and admittedly, by the admission of Mr. Tillerson, if we take them away from them it would not raise gas prices a plug nickel.

Our plan to cut the deficit begins with ending wasteful subsidies to Big Oil. The Republican plan, as embodied by the Ryan amendment, for which almost every Republican in the House voted begins with ending Medicare as we know it. That is a bright line difference between our side and theirs. We know what choice the American people want us to make.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first I want to give kudos and accolades to my friend and colleague and fellow Madisonian--Madison High School in Brooklyn, NY, that is--Bernie Sanders. I have rarely met, not just here in the Senate but in public life, people who display the passion and the effectiveness combined that Bernie does. Sometimes it is a lonely world for him in a certain sense, because he feels these issues so strongly. He is so outstanding at articulating them in every way. And he wonders why the world does not change a little more. Well, Bernie, in terms of this world, which changes slowly, unfortunately, we would agree with that, you have done a great deal of good for people who need help. I am glad you are here, and I am glad you are my friend.

I rise today in support of the legislation authored by my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. As you know, the Democrats here on our side of the aisle are focusing on this legislation this week and next. But Senator Menendez has been championing this legislation for quite a while. He was prescient to focus on this idea. I am glad we will have a vote on it. I hope the vote will pass. I have heard a few of our Republican colleagues now have said they would consider voting for it. Nothing would be better in terms of showing some bipartisanship and giving us some hope that we can come to a fair agreement on the budget than to pass this legislation.

In the last election, voters who gave those of us who have the privilege of serving in this Chamber two distinct mandates. They told us to do two things at once. First, perhaps foremost, make the economy grow. Create good-paying jobs. Make sure that American dream burns brightly, the dream that says to the average middle-class family: The odds are pretty good that you will be doing better 10 years from now than you are doing today, and the odds are very good that your kids will do better than you.

For that dream, which has burned so brightly in this country for hundreds of years, the candle began to flicker a little bit in this decade, because median income went down even before the recession, which meant that even if you had a job--and we know that millions are out of work despite the fact that they look--I think of all of the people whom I have met who are struggling because they do not have jobs. But even people who do have work have a difficult time when they sit down at that dinner table Friday night after dinner, figuring out how they are going to pay the bills. The cost and needs keep going up. And even when you have a job, the income does not seem to keep up.

So that is one obligation voters sent us, and it is a very justified one. Second, they said in no uncertain terms,

rein in the out-of-control Federal deficit. Rein it in. And they are right. Because in a certain sense, I have said this before, but I think it is worth repeating: The debt--the symbolic nature of the debt is as follows: We, the U.S. Government, are a blindfolded man, and we are walking toward the cliff. Once we fall off that cliff, there is no getting back up.

Now the debate is whether we are 20 feet from that cliff or 200 yards from that cliff. But we know sooner or later if we keep walking straight, we are going to fall off. So that means try to rein in this out-of-control Federal deficit. It would be hard enough to accomplish one of these goals. To try to do both at once is a Herculean task. It is why we are having such divisions here, and it is why everyone is grappling.

I think everybody is trying to do the right thing regardless of their ideology. But there are strong feelings. So when we can come to issues that seem to have an easy common ground, because things are so difficult, we ought to jump at them. That is what the Menendez amendment is. It is a choice that is not a tough one, not a mile, because it is obvious that at this time, when there are so many needs, to continue to give the oil companies the kinds of tax break we do makes no sense. Getting rid of these corporate subsidies to Big Oil is a no-brainer. Decades ago these were passed. Oil was $17 a barrel. Maybe it made sense in those days to give companies an incentive to explore, to produce.

One of the subsidies the Menendez legislation repeals, the Oil Depletion Allowance, dates back to 1913. That is the same year a man named William Burton patented a new oil extraction process called ``thermal cracking.'' Well, Big Oil no longer cracks for petroleum using Mr. Burton's method. It is an outdated process, decidedly. But the outdated tax subsidy still remains on the books, amazingly enough. With oil hovering at $100 a barrel, Big Oil reaping record profits, it defies logic for this government to spend billions of dollars, for these taxpayers to give dollars out of their pocket every year when they are struggling, to tax giveaways to Big Oil which is making record profits.

Believe me, the free market gives the oil companies enough of an incentive to produce. When oil is $100 a barrel, they do not need an extra subsidy from the government to produce. They are going to produce every bit of oil they can.

They make huge profits, so they do not need a financial nudge from Washington. At the same time, middle-class Americans get hit with a double whammy. They are paying $70 or more to fill up their gas tanks, and then some of their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to line Big Oil's pocket.

In my home State of New York, the price of gas is up 35 percent on average compared to this time last year. Economists estimate the typical family will pay almost $1,000 more on gas this year than last. Families across the country are still struggling to make ends meet. As the economy slowly recovers, they cannot afford to get gouged at the pump.

With billions of dollars worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at near record highs, it is no wonder that the top five oil companies just announced mind-boggling profits. These companies are not only among the most profitable businesses in the United States, they are among the most profitable in the whole world. In the first quarter of this year alone, the Big Five brought in $36 billion in profits. In the past decade, they took home nearly $1 trillion--not a billion, a trillion dollars in profits.

There is nothing wrong with these profits in and of themselves. In America we celebrate success, we want the private sector to thrive. But at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt, and we are grappling with painful cuts because we have the dual goal of growing the middle class but also reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we continue to subsidize such a lavishly profitable industry.

There are priorities. I said this to the oil company executives today when they testified before the Finance Committee. I want to salute Chairman Baucus for holding such outstanding hearings. There are priorities. How many Americans would say, if we had to choose, that we should give oil companies an extra subsidy rather than help kids who deserve to go to college pay for college?

That is what many of my colleagues are recommending. That is what the House budget recommended. How many of my colleagues would say we ought to cut cancer research but still continue to give the oil companies the subsidies we do? Again, the Ryan budget does that.

I understand they say we have to cut spending. We do. But we also have to cut out wasteful giveaways such as tax breaks for Big Oil. I would do that before I cut aid to college students who are struggling to pay for college, which is more and more expensive, before I cut cancer research, which has saved millions of lives, including people we know and love. I would do that before I cut money for veterans or cut money to keep our homeland secure. But the budget Mr. Ryan has proposed, and many of the budgets I have seen come from colleagues on the other side of the aisle, choose these subsidies to Big Oil over money to help kids pay for college, over cancer research, over helping our veterans, over keeping our homeland secure.

Hardly any American would agree with that. Hardly any American, Democratic or Republican, liberal, conservative, North, East, South, or West.

Try to wrap your head around it. Big Oil is reporting record profits, gas prices are near an all-time high, and we the American taxpayers are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of $4 billion a year.

You do not need the imagination of Lewis Carroll to come up with a more ridiculous scenario. That is why I strongly support and I am proud to cosponsor Senator Menendez's Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. This legislation will put an end to taxpayer handouts in the five largest integrated oil companies, and use the $21 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. This $21 billion is an excellent downpayment on our effort to get the Nation's fiscal house in order. The bill repeals a host of Byzantine tax provisions that only a lobbyist could love, such as the deduction for tertiary injectants and the deduction for intangible extraction costs.

Small and medium-sized oil firms are exempt. The legislation only deals with the Big Five: Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP. I have heard pundits from the hard right parrot Big Oil's talking point that repealing these giveaways would increase gas prices for consumers. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Independent analyses have repeatedly found that ending these absurd subsidies would not impact the price of gas. In what was perhaps an inadvertent moment of candor at this morning's Senate Finance Committee hearing, ExxonMobil's CEO Rex Tillerson said: ``Gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices, which are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand--not by companies such as ours.''

That does not seem like an objectionable comment. It is true. And when he made that comment, Mr. Tillerson of ExxonMobil has conceded that repealing taxpayer-funded subsidies for the Big Five will not increase prices. Prices are set, as he said, by global supply and demand.

That is not to say that repealing the subsidies will necessarily bring down prices. We are not making that claim. All along we have been clear that the purpose of this bill is to make a dent in the deficit by repealing tax breaks for the five companies that are the least in need of help from Uncle Sam.

Lowering the cost of gas and ridding our country of its dependence on foreign oil requires a long-term, comprehensive approach. In the months ahead, I expect the Democratic caucus will unveil a thorough and forward-thinking plan to do just that.

In the meantime, if Republicans in the House are serious about deficit reduction, the Menendez bill is their chance to show it now. There is no good reason not to support this sensible legislation. Speaker Boehner said earlier this week he wants to make trillions of dollars in cuts. Here is a good place to start. Indeed, the Speaker himself has previously said as much. Let's not forget he was in favor of repealing oil subsidies before he was against it. The bottom line is this: At a time of sky-high oil prices, it is unfathomable to continue to pad the profits of oil companies with taxpayer-funded subsidies. The time to repeal these giveaways is now.

Our plan to cut the deficit begins with ending wasteful subsidies to big oil. The Republican plan begins with ending Medicare as we know it. That is a bright-line difference between our side and theirs. We know what choice the American people will make.

Mr. President, I ask that the Presiding Officer report the nomination.

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

Madam President, first, I commend my colleague and friend from Illinois for his outstanding remarks on both subjects, the deficit and on immigration. I am here to talk about the deficit, but I will just touch on immigration.

People are saying, well, why is the President going to El Paso when we

have not made enough progress on immigration? They bring up a point, but the President's point is the right one. He is bringing the message to the country on why we need real immigration reform.

I think there is one point on which 100 Members of this Chamber would agree: our present immigration system is broken, badly broken. We turn away lots of people who should be here. We also do not have a rational system for who should come here, and America is the lesser for it. As the Senator from Illinois pointed out, immigration is part of our proud heritage, and immigrants help America.

One of the reasons we are doing a lot better than Europe is we have welcomed new people into this country, and we integrate them and say: As quickly as you can, become Americans. We all came from somewhere else originally.

Now, I am still very hopeful that as the President sets the table and let's America know how important this is, we can get bipartisan immigration reform done in this Chamber, on the floor of the Senate, and even over in the House. It is hard, no question, but I believe, first, to get comprehensive reform we need bipartisan support. That is obvious. But, secondly, that people see enough need to do it that we can actually get it done, particularly if the President goes around the country, as he is beginning to do today in El Paso and as he has done in the past, and talks about the need for immigration reform, setting the table so we can actually get something real done.

Now, let me speak to the issue I came here to speak about, which is the deficit.

Speaker Boehner was in my hometown of New York City last night, and he talked about how important it is to get a handle on this deficit. On that issue, my colleagues on this side of the aisle and I certainly have no problem. Neither does President Obama. The President has proposed $4 trillion in cuts--a huge amount of cutting, $4 trillion--to close the deficit both on the spending side and the tax side. So anyone who thinks one side wants to cut the deficit and the other does not has not looked at the facts. But, obviously, we have to come together.

If each side sticks to its own position, nothing will happen. There should be one obvious place where Speaker Boehner and his colleagues can show some goodwill; that is, on these subsidies to big oil. No one can defend them--no one. Oil companies are making record profits. Gas prices are at an all-time or close to an all-time high, and we, the taxpayers, are continuing to subsidize the five big oil companies.

You could not write a more ridiculous scenario. Senator Menendez, along with Senators Brown and McCaskill, later today will introduce legislation that our side agrees with, which will say take all that money and put it to deficit reduction. There are some who would have preferred to put the money into encouraging independence from particularly foreign oil. But because the deficit is such a huge problem and because we might have a dispute with our friends on the other side as to where the money ought to go, everybody can agree it would be worthwhile to take a little bit of the burden off of the taxpayers, have the oil companies pay their fair share, and stop these ridiculous tax breaks and subsidies to the five big oil companies.

So I ask Speaker Boehner to show some good faith. Some on his side have already said these subsidies don't belong. They were created at a time when oil was $17 a barrel, when we worried about production here. Oil was hovering at just over $100 a barrel again yesterday. You don't have to worry about their desire to explore. They are looking every place they can. They don't have to have a subsidy to do it.

Some might argue: What about the small and middle-size companies? Many of us believe they too should not get the tax breaks. But this bill Senator Menendez will be introducing shortly doesn't even touch them--just the five big oil companies and just the tax breaks they now get. Why not? It is a perfect way to start this debate and show some good will.

Democrats have agreed to cuts--lots of cuts. People on the other side of the aisle can show some agreement on revenues. This area of revenues, which almost nobody can dispute, should not be there. So the time to repeal these giveaways is now. We would most prefer to do it in a bipartisan way. Speaker Boehner, and those on his side of the aisle, can show some good faith that they are not dug in and saying that only my way will lead to the kind of scenario that many tremble at, which is the debt ceiling not being approved.

We on this side of the aisle don't believe that should happen. Many on the other side have said they don't. The first good step that could be taken on the other side to show little give is to eliminate these big tax subsidies to big oil. I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge Speaker Boehner to pivot on his speech from yesterday and support this proposal. It would create a great deal of good will and put us in the direction of reducing the deficit that we all so much want to do.

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

Mr. President, the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m., to conduct an executive business meeting to consider the nomination of William J. Boarman, of Maryland, to be the public printer, followed by a legislative business meeting to consider S. Res. 116, to provide for expedited Senate consideration of certain nominations subject to advice and consent and S. 739, a bill to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the Senate at no net cost to the Federal Government.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee, 202-224-6352.

I will yield.

Might I ask a question of the Chair? What is the time status? There is 35 minutes until noon; is that divided?

Could I ask unanimous consent----

Madam President, I believe we have 37 minutes remaining; is that right, 19 and 18?

I know Senator Leahy wants to close with 5 minutes.

So what we could do, equitably, is give each of the six Members on the floor 5 minutes.

OK. Madam President, I have the floor and I ask to be recognized.

Madam President, I rise to talk about a serious crisis in the third branch of government; that is, the rate of vacancies in the U.S. district courts.

There is a crisis that is unlike almost all the other issues we grapple with on a daily basis. It has a very simple solution. My colleagues and I deal with a lot of very difficult and very divisive problems every day. Not many of them lend themselves to solutions that are both politically and economically costless, but this one is easy: confirm these judges.

Take the district court nominees who were passed out of committee with bipartisan support, schedule votes on the floor, and confirm them. It sounds easy. Apparently, it is not. It is not easy because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have slowed the confirmation of district court judges to a trickle, even those nominees who were passed out of the Judiciary Committee with no objection from Republicans.

This Congress, I am grateful for the hard work of Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Majority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader McConnell in beginning to unclog the pipeline, but we still have a long way to go. To go the rest of the distance, to restore the pace of judicial confirmations before the Federal judiciary faces the worst vacancy crisis in history, we need the consent of our Republican colleagues.

Here are the facts: The targeting of district court nominees is unprecedented. Five of the nineteen district court nominees who have received split votes in the last 65 years have been President Obama's nominees. We have only confirmed 61 of his district court nominees. By this time in their Presidencies, we had confirmed 98 of President Bush's and 114 of President Clinton's.

Judicial vacancies affect nearly 100 Federal courtrooms across the Nation. One in nine seats on the Federal bench is vacant. So we should approve these nominees.

As for the current nominee pending on the floor, he is somebody who deserves nomination. When we ask about nominees, we are concerned the standard used by my colleagues is, would I have nominated this person, rather than is this person whom I might not have nominated in the mainstream? Jack McConnell is clearly in the mainstream. He has more than 25 years' experience as a lawyer in private practice. Leading Republican figures in Rhode Island have endorsed him. But he has garnered opposition not because of his qualifications but because of his clients. That is not fair, that is not right, and that is not how we do judicial nominees.

He has chosen his work as a private lawyer, and that has no bearing on his judicial temperament, his interpretive philosophy or his legal acumen. In the interest of my colleagues who require more time, I would urge, at the very least, that people take the standard of the Senator from Tennessee--don't block cloture on this nominee. If you think he is not qualified, vote against him.

Jack McConnell deserves to be on the bench. I am glad Leader Reid has called him, and Senators Reed and Whitehouse have taken the lead. I urge, at least on cloture, that my colleagues let this nominee be voted upon.

I yield the remainder of the time I have been allotted so others of my colleagues might speak.