Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 23, 2013, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Benghazi: The Attacks and the Lessons Learned.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on January 23, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the work of Barbara Koirtyohann, a friend and long- time Hallmark executive who is retiring this year. Barbara has worked at Hallmark for 39 consecutive years, and has been active in the Kansas City community.

Barbara is from the Kansas City area and still calls Kansas City home. She is currently the Director of Public Affairs for Hallmark Cards and she is the founding member of the Greeting Card Association's Postal Affairs Committee. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that any postal reforms have minimum negative impact on the ``citizen mailer.''

During her time away from the office Barbara has been a solid member of Kansas City's civic community. She has been active with the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, and currently serves as the chairman of their Public Policy Council. In addition, Barbara is a current board member at Hope House, a shelter for battered women and their children. She has also served on the boards of Children's Mercy Hospital and Missouri Citizens for the Arts. Kansas City is a better place because of Barbara Koirtyohann.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Barbara Koirtyohann on her retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate my friend, Mr. Sam Hamra.

Born in Steele, MD, Sam received both business and law degrees from the University of Missouri and served as an officer in the U.S. Army Field Artillery and Second Armored Cavalry Regiment. He began practicing law in Springfield, MO, and later became the city attorney for Nixa and St. Robert and the governmental relations attorney for Branson.

As Sam's practice became more successful, he never forgot his modest roots, or those less fortunate. In 1976, Sam was elected president of the newly formed Legal Aid Association of Green County, MO, known today as the Legal Services of Southern Missouri, LSSM. The Legal Aid Association was created to help low income citizens whose legal needs would otherwise be unmet. Under Sam's leadership, LSSM has helped thousands of Missourians in 43 counties.

On October 11, Legal Services of Southern Missouri will dedicate their new building, the ``Sam F. Hamra Center for Justice.'' It is my hope that this building will help LSSM provide services to Missourians for many years to come.

In addition to his contributions to the legal community, Sam is very active in many local organizations. He served on the board of the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame, the Springfield area Sports Hall of Fame, and the Springfield/Branson Transportation Study Committee. As the chairman of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Building Fund, he raised over $300,000 for the construction of a new Chamber building.

Sam's dedicated service is an inspiration to all Missourians. His achievements and commitment to helping those in need deserves the highest commemoration and I am proud to honor him today.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in honoring and congratulating Mr. Sam Hamra.

Mr. President, today I wish to lead the Senate in congratulating Mrs. Birdie Elise Davidson on reaching her 100th birthday on September 7 of this year.

Birdie was born in Muskogee, OK, to Essie and Max Davidson and grew up with three brothers. She moved to St. Louis when she married Mr. Louis Sachs. She and Mr. Sachs have three children, seven grandchildren, and six great granddaughters. Her daughter, Marjorie, is married to Mr. Louis Susman, the U.S. Ambassador to Court of St. James in the United Kingdom. Her daughter, Nancy, lives in Highland Park, IL. Her son Louis, Jr., lives in San Diego, CA.

After retiring with her husband to Key Biscayne, FL, Birdie earned recognition for her philanthropic activities. She is best known for her work for the American Cancer Society.

The social and technological developments that Birdie has witnessed in her lifetime are truly incredible. She has lived through two world wars, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, and the Great Depression. She has experienced the birth of the Internet, humanity's journey into space, and the eradication of polio and smallpox. Birdie was born before women had the right to vote, but ninety-six years later, she supported President Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. Upon meeting then-candidate Obama, she told him: ``Young man, I have been alive through 17 Presidents and I am counting on you being the 18th--don't disappoint me!'' She urged President Obama to set new records and to challenge conventional wisdom because she knows the scope and speed of change possible in American life as few others do.

Today, I join with my colleagues in the Senate in congratulating Birdie and her family on this amazing occasion, and wishing her good health and happiness.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my concerns about S.3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Like many of my colleagues, I voted today to allow the Senate to fully debate and consider amendments to this bill, but I want to make it clear that I have some significant concerns about this legislation and unless improvements are made, I cannot support the legislation in its current form.

At the outset, let me just say, I do firmly believe that the Congress should take action to address our Nation's vulnerability to cyber threats. A cyber attack on our critical infrastructure, whether it be our energy grid, a regional water supply, or our financial markets, could significantly harm our economy, our national security, and our way of life. However, the legislation before us today still needs significant improvement before it can become the law of the land.

I have heard from many in Missouri, including many companies operating or associated with the types of critical infrastructure that will be subject to the provisions of this legislation. They have raised concerns that, as currently structured, S. 3414 would create redundant oversight structures and add additional standards. Moreover, the bill may have the effect of creating a new Federal system that these entities will have to comply with even though many already work within well-established systems related to developing security standards and responding to cyber threats. I cannot support legislation that creates new and duplicative systems that will impact Missouri businesses in a negative way. While addressing the critical national security aspects of improving our Nation's defenses against and ability to respond to cyber attacks, cybersecurity legislation must improve the regulatory scheme and streamline processes for businesses, not the opposite.

Additionally, the carrot-and-stick approach that is created by the current bill would limit the sharing of cyber threat information, in a protected fashion, to those private entities which are participating in the voluntary cybersecurity program the bill would create. Those in the program would have to adopt specific standards and in return would receive relevant real-time cyber threat information. Those not accepting those standards and entering the program would not receive the protections of the program and would be limited in the cyber threat information they receive. Given that sharing such information could potentially thwart a cyber attack, it seems absurd that such information would go unshared because a particular entity was not a participant in the voluntary system. Such a provision inhibits the very type of information sharing we are trying to promote in order to enhance cyber security. In this respect, the carrot-and-stick approach simply does not make sense.

I also remain concerned with the scope of responsibility this legislation provides to the Department of Homeland Security. As we have found throughout the history of DHS, it has

relied heavily upon a contract workforce in order to satisfy its mission. At this time, the Department does not have the necessary expertise it will need to guide a multi-agency, multi-sector council in evaluating whether or not proposed cybersecurity standards are sufficient to address the evolving nature of cyber threats. The decision to place DHS in such a critical role leadership role in regards to many aspects of the cybersecurity scheme proposed by this legislation needs to be revisited.

I have other concerns with this legislation, but these are my chief concerns. I am pleased that both of the Senate's leaders have indicated that this legislation will be subject to a robust amendment process. I look forward to evaluating the amendments brought forward to this legislation, and I am hopeful that the amendments will improve the bill enough so that I can support it. If not, I will oppose the legislation and send it back to the committee process, where more work can be undertaken to generate an acceptable piece of cybersecurity legislation. Whether now or in the future, the Senate does need to pass legislation. But it must be legislation that is well crafted, balanced, and workable for the businesses that will operate under its scheme.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Edward J. ``Eddie'' Hamill, who is retiring on July 31, 2012 after more than three decades of exemplary service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. On July 17, the Missouri Farm Service Agency, FSA, held a reception for Eddie recognizing his service. Today, I would like to stand to honor his contributions to agriculture and the people of Missouri.

Eddie is a lifelong Missourian who has served the people of Missouri through his work at the Farm Service Agency since 1979. In addition to his dedicated work at the Farm Service Agency, Eddie's passion for public service is evident in his willingness to serve beyond his normal workload. He is active in the Perry Lion's Club, Mark Twain Young Farmers, Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Missouri Farmer's Union, and serves as a member of the Ralls County Health Department Board of Directors. On top of all this, Eddie operates a family farm with 1,200 acres of cropland and pasture for a cow-calf herd.

In July 2009, Eddie was appointed by President Obama to serve as the State Executive Director of FSA, responsible for overseeing the delivery of the income support, disaster assistance, conservation and farm loan programs. With more than 100,000 farms, Missouri agriculture employs nearly 250,000 people. Immensely productive and highly diverse, it is the backbone of Missouri's economy. The task of ensuring that Missouri's farmers and ranchers have the tools they need to provide for our families and communities is vital.

During his tenure as Missouri FSA Director, Eddie has worked tirelessly to ensure the agency is doing everything it can to properly serve our State. With nearly 100 offices in counties throughout the State, the local Farm Service Agency office is where Missouri farmers turn for assistance. A husband, father of four, and a farmer himself, Eddie believes in improving economic stability for Missouri farmers one family at a time. From the letters that have come in to my office from Missourians expressing the importance they place on their local Farm Service Agency office, the value of his approach and dedication is clear.

Perhaps nowhere has the value of Eddie's leadership been clearer than in response to the devastating natural disasters Missouri agriculture has faced. From the devastating flooding we experienced along the Missouri River, to the catastrophe at Birds Point, to this year's crippling drought conditions, Eddie and the entire Missouri Farm Service Agency staff have answered every call to help.

I am happy today to pay tribute to Eddie Hamill. He stands out amongst public servants, and he has my thanks and surely that of all Missourians for his service to our State. I wish congratulations and good luck to him and his entire family.

Madam President, today I voted in support of invoking cloture on Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, offered by Senator Landrieu. I supported cloture on this substitute amendment because, overall, Senator Landrieu's legislation would help our Nation's small businesses grow and find new markets. However, I had some concerns with aspects of the legislation that would increase sole-source contracting. In general, we need to ensure that where noncompetitive contracting programs are authorized, they are narrow and fair. In light of the fact that cloture was not invoked on the amendment, I look forward to working with Senator Landrieu on her legislation in the future.

Mr. President, Senator Nelson of Nebraska's amendment No. 2242 to S. 3240 passed the Senate today by voice vote. I was not in the Senate chamber at the time the voice vote on the amendment was taken. Had I been present or had the amendment been subject to a roll call vote, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. President, I was unable to arrive at the Senate Chamber in time for Senate rollcall vote 119. I would have opposed tabling amendment No. 2393 to S. 3240. The outcome of the vote would not have been changed had I been present.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 35 years ago I was a very young assistant prosecutor. There weren't any other women who were assistant prosecutors in Kansas City, and I got assigned a lot of cases that the men in the office used to jokingly call women's work, which meant that I got a lot of cases on welfare fraud and food stamp fraud. And then, as I spent more time in the office, I got sexual assaults and I got domestic violence.

I remember as if it were yesterday the feeling of helplessness as I sat across the desk from a woman who had been beaten to within an inch of her life, and I remember calling the police department and asking for help and them saying: You know, hon, let it go. Tell her to go home.

I remember her asking me: What do I do about my children? I have no money. I don't really want to prosecute him--I don't think he will leave me alone.

I remember not being able to sleep at night because I was so worried about the women who had really no place to go, no one to guide them through the terrifying journey the criminal justice system can be, much less the terrifying journey their lives were. That was 35 years ago.

When I ran for prosecutor in 1992, I said: I am going to start a domestic violence unit, because since then I had spent time working on the laws in Jefferson City, and I had also spent time on the board of a domestic violence shelter--one of the first in Kansas City--and then I became prosecutor, and we started a domestic violence unit.

The police department still pushed back and said: These aren't real crimes. If the victim doesn't want to testify, we have no evidence to go forward.

And I said to them: Wait a minute. We go forward on homicides when the victims can't testify. We should build these cases around the facts and circumstances regardless of the mental state of the victim.

I remember feeling so helpless that we had no resources. And then I remember, as the Jackson County prosecutor in Kansas City, when the Violence Against Women Act passed. I remember reviewing our grant application for the victim advocate in our office, and I remember all of a sudden thinking, you know, we are going to turn the corner.

Is it still a huge problem? Yes. But if you were there 35 years ago on the front lines and you knew the progress we have made to date, you wouldn't be voting no in the Judiciary Committee on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. You wouldn't be doing that.

So let's move forward. Let's make sure the victim advocates who arrive on the scene as a result of this important piece of legislation--let's make sure they stay on the job. Let's make sure there are not any young prosecutors today who are going home sleepless, much less victims who look at someone who claims they love them, claims they are their protector, but at the same time knowing that person is capable of taking their life. Let's make sure those women have someplace to turn to, their children have someplace to turn to. Let's reauthorize this act today and make sure all the women out there have that help and assistance they need in their time of need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have obviously been very fortunate to have the opportunity to give remarks from my desk on the floor of the Senate several times since the people of Missouri sent me in 2006. I do not think I have ever had a speech that I was going to give that was easier and harder than this speech--easy in that I am talking about someone I love; hard because this person I love is going on to a different place and a brighter future and I am going to miss her terribly.

This person's name is Angela Elsbury, and she has a job that people outside Congress do not fully appreciate. She is called the scheduler. But for anybody who does this work, they appreciate that somehow that title just does not do it justice. I do not know what the right title would be. I can think of several: In charge of my life, hand holder, the nicest person who has to say no, multitasker, mother to the entire office, disciplinarian, jokester.

There are so many things a good scheduler does that make our lives work. Angela came to this work having worked for the Governor in Missouri in a similar capacity. She actually joined my campaign and was one of the first ones through the door. She came from a place that, frankly, had not had a lot of people who were elbow to elbow with Governors and Senators. She came from a small town called Madison, MO. I think there are maybe just north of 500 people who live in Madison.

So not only did she begin the campaign and do a lot at the beginning of the campaign keeping us organized and allowing the schedule to work, she came to Washington and has done remarkable work. Her work is so remarkable that everybody kind of thought it was easy. That is the mark of a very good scheduler because it is the hardest job--the hardest job--in the office.

Not only does she have to put up with the frustration of me when the hours are long and the meetings are back to back and there is not time to get a breath, she has to put up with everyone in Missouri who cannot understand why I cannot be in five places at one time and why it is not possible for me to vote one hour and be in Rolla, MO, the next hour. She does all that with incredible grace and intellect and a smile on her face. She is just a very special person.

The thing about these jobs is there are days I get worried about our democracy, and then I look at the resumes of the young people, whether it is the great pages who serve us morning, noon, and night in the Chamber or whether it is the amazing people whom I work with in my office. These are people who could go other places in the private sector and make a lot of money. They choose to come here. They are drawn here. They are drawn to their government. They are drawn to public service.

So, as a result, I mean, what do I love about my job? Let me count the ways. But one of the things I love most is being surrounded by patriotic, intellectual Americans who want to do the right thing and do not care that they have to still live like they are in college, who do not care that the idea of buying a car is a fantasy because it is just too expensive, who do not care that they have to have an hour commute in order to get housing they can afford. They want to be a part of it.

I am surrounded by a team like that, but in the driver's seat, kind of making the car go where it needs to go, and making sure it does not get broken down on the side of the road has been Angela. I am not sure exactly how this car is going to navigate without her. I have a feeling we are going to have a few bumps. There may be an out and out collision. There may be some scrapes and some wailing and some hollering about people who are upset or it does not work.

I do know this, that we always say somebody's shoes are hard to fill. These shoes will be very hard to fill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2030.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Madam President, S. 89 makes significant changes to the Federal Employees Compensation Act, FECA, which I support. The changes seek to reduce overspending in the program. But this is an amendment that will allow a couple of considerations that I think are important to include.

The amendment, along with other things, would improve upon the current program by providing those injured while deployed in armed conflict additional time to file a claim for FECA benefits and to ensure that deployed employees injured in a terrorist attack overseas while off-duty would receive the FECA benefits. It also creates an exemption for hardship if someone would be eligible for food stamps if their benefits are decreased even further.

These provisions are similar to the FECA reform legislation, H. Res. 2465, that has already passed the House of Representatives, and I ask for the consideration of the body of this amendment.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2031. I ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This amendment reflects the efforts of a lot of people to deal with rural post office closings in a way that will be straightforward and fair to rural communities across this country. It is going to prevent any closings for 1 year while the reforms which are embedded in this bill have a chance to begin to work. It then sets some clear standards for potential closures.

I want to thank Senator Moran who did some great work on this subject in committee. He deserves credit for beginning the process of taking a hard look at rural post offices and how we were dealing with them. I obviously want to thank Senator Merkley who has worked on this, Senator Tester who has worked on it, and Senator Sanders. But I really want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for continuing to model to this body what true bipartisanship looks like, and who continually strive for that very elusive and rare but valuable commodity in a democracy, that thing known as compromise. This amendment now represents one of those compromises. I am proud to be a part of it. I think it strikes the right note of protecting rural post offices but also with a realistic eye toward the future and how we are fair to rural communities in a way that is predictable and one that, frankly, shows some accountability for the Postal Service.

I ask that this be taken up by voice vote.

Mr. President, I spent a lot of my childhood in a very small town in Missouri. From the time I was about 3 years old until the fourth grade, I lived in a town called Lebanon, MO. My dad was a life insurance salesman and sold life insurance, in fact to many of the soldiers at Fort Leonard Wood, and my mother's family had the corner drugstore about a block off Main Street in Lebanon, MO.

I have fond and vivid memories of my childhood in Lebanon, and one of them was the trip I would take whenever I was hanging out down at my family's drugstore. This was my great-uncle and great-aunt who had raised my mother, so they were like my grandparents. He was the pharmacist and she ran the lunch counter at the drugstore, and I would go with my great-uncle on his run to the post office. We would walk up 2 blocks and go into the post office. I even remember how it smelled. I remember how it looked. I remember what happened there. My memory is that it was a gathering place, that I would have to tug on my great- uncle's coat and say, ``Let's go, Uncle Tom. Let's go'' because he would invariably find people at the post office with whom he needed to visit. It wasn't a big place, but it was a very important place in Lebanon, MO.

I rise today to talk about an amendment that will save that sense of community for dozens of rural towns in Missouri. I am very aware, as a former auditor and someone who spends a lot of time looking at our budgets and trying to figure out the numbers, of the crisis we have in terms of the fiscal sustainability of our Postal Service.

I commend the work of the committee on which I am lucky to serve with Senator Lieberman as the chair and Senator Collins as the ranking member. It is one of the places where we have maintained strong bipartisanship in the Senate. In fact, I believe Senator Lieberman's committee could serve as a role model for other committees on how to work in a bipartisan way. And I commend Senator Carper and many others--Senator Brown of Massachusetts and also Senator Merkley--who have worked on this amendment, also, trying to find a way to save these rural post offices.

I know we have a problem here, but when we look at the numbers, closing rural post offices doesn't help. It is 1 percent--less than 1 percent--of the budget. It is less than 1 percent of the amount of savings we need to save out of the postal budget. So in 167 different communities in my State, something that is essential far beyond the bricks and mortar to those communities would close all in the name of less than 1 percent. That doesn't make sense to me.

The strength of our Postal Service has been that it is reliable, that it is affordable, and that it goes to the very last mile. What will we lose in these communities if we shut down these

post offices? Senior citizens would lose a place where they can depend on getting their prescription medicines. Many of these communities have no pharmacies--in fact, most of them don't--and they rely on the mail for their drugs. Small business owners would lose a shipping location. The small business owners in these rural communities depend on that post office to take packages to and to receive packages from. I think this is a sacrifice we should not make. These post offices are worth fighting to save.

When I go home and meet with Missourians and when I get outside of St. Louis and Kansas City and Springfield and Columbia, almost every single time, someone walks up to me and talks about their post office. They feel strongly that it is the one symbol they have in their community that makes them viable as a community, and I would hate to see them lose it.

I believe we should look at the closure of these post offices as a very last resort. Frankly, to me, it looks knee-jerked because it doesn't appear to me to be very thoughtful. I have not been able to get the post office to even give me the rhyme or reason as to why some of these post offices are closing. Very few of them save a significant amount of dollars.

This amendment would impose a 2-year moratorium on rural post office closures to allow the Postal Service to enjoy some of the reforms that have been put in this bill in a very thoughtful and thorough process by Chairman Lieberman and many of his colleagues. It would also say after 2 years that there is a specific list of transparent criterion that must be considered before a post office could be closed.

First, it would have to ensure that seniors could retain the same access to their prescriptions they receive in the mail, that seniors and those with disabilities would have the same access to postal services they currently do, and make sure small businesses are not financially harmed by a rural post office closure.

This is not kicking the can down the road. This is being more thoughtful about preserving the part of the Postal Service that defines it. I am hopeful this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. I am hopeful this is a rural issue.

We all know the last mile is the most expensive. Throughout the history of our country, government has stepped in and done a little more to give services the last mile. No business model in the world works when you have to take services that last mile down that one road, all the way down to a house at the end of the road sometimes several miles. It didn't work for electricity, so we did things to help with rural electric co-ops. It didn't work for phones, so we did the USX fund to help with phones. It didn't work for broadband, so we stepped in and have done things to assist with broadband. Now we are going to say to these rural communities: The last mile is not as important. These post offices are not as important. We can make due without it.

I think that is a big mistake, and I hope we can save these rural post offices. This is very important in my State, and I want young girls who are growing up in these small communities to have the same warm and fond memories of the local post office that I carry with me every day.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we just had a vote. Imagine for a minute we had a government that was spending too much money, and imagine for a minute that we needed to spend less money; that we needed to change our Tax Code to a Tax Code that was fair, simpler, and didn't pick winners and losers. Imagine for a minute this was a crisis, and imagine for a minute this crisis was being wielded like a political 2 by 4 by the majority of the Republicans who serve in the Senate--the debt crisis.

Then imagine for a minute that we had the most profitable corporations in the history of the planet and they were booking $30 billion in profit every quarter; over $130 billion in profits year after year, didn't matter whether the economy was bad, good or indifferent--amazing profits.

Then imagine for a minute this government--that doesn't have enough money, where the debt is the political talking point of my friends across the aisle--tries to do something simple by saying maybe we shouldn't be spending money on the most profitable corporations in the world. That is what this vote just was.

How seriously can we take anybody who talks about debt reduction if they are not willing to pluck the low-hanging fruit of subsidies to a group of folks who, frankly, in Missouri, I guarantee you most people I represent would say are the least deserving of extra help from the Federal Government right now.

If we think about it, what we are doing is we are borrowing money to prop up, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, already wildly profitable corporations that don't have to pay us royalties because they get to deduct the royalties they pay other countries.

Seriously, if this was a fairytale I was reading to my grandsons--if I was reading this fairytale to Ian or Levy or Isaac--they would say: Well, this obviously is fiction because this couldn't be true. But it is, and that is what I call the definition of a special interest--that oil is so special around here, wields so much power and so much money that it turns all the talk about debt reduction into empty rhetoric.

Last year, the five companies spent $38 billion boosting their share prices just through stock buybacks--$38 billion in stock buybacks last year. In other words, the five largest oil companies spent in a single year on stock buybacks alone what they are claiming they need in taxpayer-funded subsidies over the next 10 years.

According to ExxonMobil's quarterly filings, every time the price of oil goes up by $1, they bring in $350 million in annual profit. These companies don't need these subsidies.

I hear people say, Well, if you don't give them the subsidies--which, by the way, is chickenfeed to them. What, $6 billion, $8 billion a year is nothing if you are banking $30 billion in profits a quarter. I have heard people say, If we don't give them this extra help, then they are going to quit exploring for oil and the price of gas will go up. That is so dumb. They have had these subsidies for 30, 40, 50 years. I think most of Americans realize the price of oil has gone up just fine during that time. We are paying plenty at the gas pump right now, and they have got those subsidies. How is that working out for us? Those subsidies are really keeping down the price of gasoline, aren't they?

The former Shell CEO, John Hofmeister, is on record as saying:

In the face of sustained high oil prices it is not an

issue--for large companies--of needing the subsidies to

entice us into looking for and producing more oil . . . my

point of view is that with high oil prices such subsidies are

unnecessary.

This is the CEO of Shell. He is admitting on the record that these subsidies

are unnecessary. At the time the Shell CEO said that, the price of oil was trading between $95 and $98 a barrel. Currently, it is at $105 a barrel. Contrary to the claims that some are making, eliminating these subsidies will not raise gas prices.

Last year, the companies spent $70 million to lobby to keep their subsidies. They get about $30 in tax breaks for every $1 they spend in lobbying. No wonder they spent that much on lobbying.

I want to take people at their word, and I want to take people seriously about debt reduction. I have cosponsored spending caps with my Republican colleagues. I have worked hard on reforming the way we spend money around here, whether it is contracting or earmarks. But with all due respect, I don't know how the American people can take anyone seriously about debt reduction if they are not willing to cut off from the spigot the most wealthy, profitable corporations in the history of the world.

How will we ever be able to look our grandchildren in the eye and say, You know, we took care of your future by making sure that our government was fiscally balanced. How can we ever do that if we can't do this as an easy first step? Can you imagine how paralyzed this place will be when we start talking about the kinds of cuts that hurt people who need them? And by the way, they are willing to make those. Talk about fairness. Think about this for a minute, economic fairness.

The Ryan budget would want to hold onto more tax breaks for multimillionaires--in fact, do more tax breaks for multimillionaires-- while they say to seniors, You know, we think it is time for you to wrestle with insurance companies for your health care. I know what it is like to wrestle with insurance companies for health care. Every American does. My mom doesn't have to. She is on Medicare. It gives her peace of mind.

If you look at what our friends are proposing in terms of fairness and you look at the vote we just had, in Missouri we would say that dog don't hunt. It doesn't work.

I hope in good faith that my Republican colleagues will quit thinking we need to continue to write checks to the wealthiest corporations in the history of the planet. I think Missourians--when I fill up my gas tank over the next 2 weeks as I travel around Missouri, I am going to stop people at the gas station and say, Do you think the royalties ExxonMobil pays to another country should be deducted from what they owe us? Think about that. It is ludicrous in this financial environment that we are in, in the U.S. Government. There are real people hurting out there, and we need to treat them fairly. We can start by pushing Big Oil away from the taxpayer trough, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider and that we will get a chance to vote on this again and that they can show the American people we all get it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.