Floor Statements

Mr. President, imagine there is a choice for Congress to make. Here is the choice. There are two doors. We are standing before both of them, but we have to pick one of the doors. Behind door No. 1 is a choice that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve calls ``catastrophic.'' The Secretary of the Treasury says if we open that same door, it could lead to a financial crisis ``more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.'' Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Chairman Bernanke says that opening that door would be ``catastrophic.'' Secretary Geithner says it would lead to a financial crisis ``more severe than the crisis from which we

are only now starting to recover.'' The majority of the American people we represent say opening that door would be ``disastrous''--not just a bad idea, not one that would lead to discomfort, but one that would lead to disaster. It would not be just irresponsible to make that choice; we would be out of our minds.

Well, we are going to have to make up our minds and do that sooner rather than later. That is because today America has hit a milestone, but it is not one anyone is celebrating. Today is the day we hit our debt limit, which means we have reached the maximum amount the United States is allowed to borrow. It means that with each passing day, we are that much closer to the disaster that would come from defaulting on our debts--the day we would forfeit, for the first time ever in the history of this great county, the full faith and credit of the United States. This is the crisis Chairman Bernanke called ``catastrophic,'' what Secretary Geithner warned 10 times over would make the great recession look small, and what the American people demand we avoid.

Defaulting on our obligations would be unprecedented, but it is not unavoidable. We can be responsible leaders and choose to open the other door. It might not be ideal, but we have to make a choice. Door No. 2 is a much better, safer, and smarter choice.

Let's be clear about what the debt limit does and does not mean. Raising the debt limit when it is absolutely necessary--and to do it right now--lets us pay the bills that have already come due. We borrow a lot of money in this country. That is not a new phenomenon or unique to one party; it is how America has done business for centuries. Borrowing a lot of money means we owe a lot of money. We cannot cut off our own ability to pay those debts.

Here is what it does not mean. The emergency we enter today is not about a penny of new spending. It is not about new programs or new taxes. It is not about creating new obligations, only meeting existing ones. The debt limit is about paying what we already owe.

If we do not act, if we allow the United States to default, the day of reckoning will be much, much worse than today. Things will be much, much worse for American jobs, families, and businesses than they already are. And the fallout will be felt around the world.

Right now, a lot of people are reaching for that first door--the one that leads to catastrophe and crisis. They are looking at this choice through a political lens, not an economic lens, and they are willing to risk the strength of our economy just to make a political point. We cannot afford to play these political games and trigger a default crisis that would lead to a catastrophe. We cannot afford to make unrealistic demands or hold hostage policies that affect real people. Speaker Boehner recently asked that everyone should act as an adult and reach a solution. I second that request. Let's open the second door and honor our obligations.

Once we avert this crisis, we can have another important adult conversation--a conversation about saving. One good way to do that--not the only way but a good, easy, obvious way--is to cut wasteful spending. Taxpayer giveaways to companies pulling in record profits is the epitome of wasteful spending. We all know which companies I am talking about--the five biggest oil and gas companies. It is time to make sure we take away incentives they do not need and we cannot afford. They can afford it. We cannot afford to give it to them.

That is a question that will come before the Senate this week. It is a question of fairness, really. The bonus checks taxpayers are writing to Big Oil are absurd and obscene. They defy common sense.

The big oil companies, we know, are not hurting. It does not need a hand, Big Oil. In the first 3 months of this year, the oil industry made $36 billion in profits alone--not revenues, profits. That is $12 billion a month. That is $3 billion a week. It is pretty good money. Meanwhile, the American taxpayer is giving those same successful companies $4 billion a year. So when you take these companies' profits and add in the handout you, I, and every taxpayer gives them, America is saying to Big Oil: You make $3 billion a week for 52 weeks, and we will basically give you a 53rd week for free.

Well, what about the average American taxpayer, the one who is footing the bill for this Big Oil bonus? ExxonMobil now pays a smaller share of its income in taxes than the average taxpayer. This is not because the average American is paying more in taxes; it is because Big Oil is paying less.

Over the last 4 years, since Democrats have controlled the Senate, we have cut taxes for middle-class families nine different times. The Democratic Senate has passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut in different ways. Again, the Democratic Senate has passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut. And now families pay less in Federal taxes as a share of the economy than since 1950, when Harry Truman was President.

So this really is a question of fairness. It is about Big Oil paying its fair share. It is also a question of priorities. The people who want to keep giving Big Oil $4 billion a year are the same ones who want to take the social safety net away from the sick, seniors, and the poor. These people kick and scream about investing in cancer research or protecting student loans that help so many afford the rising costs of college, but ask them to recognize the absurdity of giving Big Oil taxpayer money they do not need and they cover their eyes and plug their ears. Ask them to defend it, and they cannot.

That is what happened last week. The Nation watched the Big Oil bosses try to defend it. Frankly, they did not do a very good job. It is not their fault for doing so poorly--they were trying to defend an indefensible position. But it is their fault for holding that position.

So this is a question of fairness and a question of priorities. It certainly is a question of economics. But it is not a question of gas prices. Independent, nonpartisan experts--and even some of the CEOs themselves--say taking away these giveaways does not have a thing to do with the price at the pump. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply not telling the truth.

Those distractions are disruptive to this debate. So are the gratuitous attacks on the patriotism of the debaters. One of those companies, ConocoPhillips, said using taxpayer money to pay down the deficit rather than pad Big Oil's pockets was ``un-American.'' It is hard to comprehend that, Mr. President. ConocoPhillips said using taxpayer money to pay down the deficit rather than pad Big Oil's pockets was ``un-American.'' That is ConocoPhillips' word, not mine. Attacking another's patriotism has no place in this debate. It is offensive that this company has done that; that is, saying that because we want to pay down the debt and not give these bonuses to these big oil companies is un-American? I do not think so. It is offensive that this company has done that and shameful that its CEO, whom we saw on TV this past week, refuses to recant or to apologize. I disagree strongly with his position on this issue. I disagree with his claim that only one side of this debate loves this country. I question his sense of fairness. I question his priorities. But I do not question his patriotism. He should not question mine.

Would the Chair announce morning business.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, the majority leader be recognized to move to proceed to Calendar No. 42, S. 940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, and Calendar No. 43, S. 953, the Offshore Production Safety Act; that there be up to 4 hours of debate prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to S. 940; that the vote on the motion to proceed be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; further, that at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 18, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 43, S. 953; that there be up to 4 hours of debate prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to the bill; that the vote on the motion to proceed be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; and finally, in addition to what I just asked, that if a motion to proceed contained in this agreement does not achieve 60 votes, the motion is withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the following postal naming bills, en bloc: Calendar No. 46, 47, 48; S. 349, S. 655, and H.R. 793.

I ask unanimous consent the bills be read the third time and passed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 177.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am told there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading.

I ask for the second reading of this piece of legislation in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, but I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 17; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; and that the Senate recess following the rollcall vote on confirmation of the Carney nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; finally, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate begin consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 42, S. 940, under the previous order.

Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote around noon tomorrow on the confirmation of the nomination of Susan Carney, of Connecticut, to be U.S. circuit judge.

Additionally, there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. That vote will occur at approximately 6:15 tomorrow night.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Merkley.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend, the senior Senator from Nebraska.

Following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business until 1 p.m. today. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the majority will control the next 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of Michael Francis Urbanski to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia. There will be 1 hour of debate on that. So at approximately 2 p.m. there will be a vote on the confirmation of the Urbanski nomination.

Mr. President, I am told that S. 953 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill.

Mr. President, as I speak, the heads of the five largest oil and gas companies in the world are testifying across the street. With the country watching, these extremely wealthy CEOs of extremely profitable corporations are trying to explain to the Senate and, most importantly, to the American people why they still need taxpayer handouts. I don't envy them because it is an impossible position to defend.

Think about this: In just the first 3 months of this year, the oil industry made $36 billion in profits alone--not revenues, profits. That is $12 billion a month. That is $3 billion a week. In anyone's book, that is pretty good money. Meanwhile, the American taxpayers are giving these same successful companies $4 billion a year. So when we take these companies' profits and add in the handout you, I, and every taxpayer give them, America is saying to big oil: You make $3 billion a week for 52 weeks, and we will basically give you a 53rd week for free. Even in the strongest economies, that seems unnecessary. In this recovering economy, it is downright indefensible.

Defending these tax breaks is such a hard thing to do that the big oil bosses have called for backup. Most of our Republican colleagues have eagerly answered the call publicly already. But there is something I learned in the courtroom a long time ago: When you try to defend the indefensible, you are left with not much of a case. That is why the Republican defenders of big oil have resorted to simply making things up. They will tell us that without this taxpayer-funded bonus, gas prices will go up. They say that because they know it is a scary thought. Gas prices are already high. But there is a big problem with their argument: It is false. It is not true.

Big oil subsidies don't have a thing to do with the prices at the pump. A report released yesterday by a nonpartisan, independent agency says as much. Experts at the Congressional Research Service who wrote this report don't mention it just once, they write it over and over again. Here is one way CRS says it:

There is little reason to believe that the price of oil or

gasoline consumers face will increase.

Here is another:

Available output and prices should be unaffected.

Here is one more from the independent, nonpartisan expert report: Taking away big oil's tax breaks will have ``no effect on the price of gasoline.'' I repeat--no effect on the price of gasoline.

Little reason to believe prices will increase; prices should be unaffected; no effect on the price of gasoline--their words, not mine.

So the American people should know this: Every time you hear someone defend taxpayer gifts to oil companies by scaring you about gas prices, they are not telling the truth. Every time you hear someone say we need to find better uses for taxpayer money but we also need to keep giving billions and billions of dollars of that same money to oil companies, ask yourself how it is possible that both are true.

I am pleased to see that some of my Republican colleagues are coming around. The Speaker of the House recently said these companies should be paying their fair share. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Arizona admitted that subsidies are likely unnecessary. Even the former head of Shell, one of the five companies testifying today, agrees.

If we are serious about reducing the deficit, this is an easy place to start. It is, in effect, a no-brainer. Taxpayer giveaways to companies pulling in record profits are the epitome of wasteful spending. So this is the Democrats' idea: Let's use the savings from these taxpayer giveaways to drive down the deficit, not drive up oil company profits. There are no gimmicks in this legislation. It simply says, let's apply this money to the deficit. These CEOs and their companies are free to make as much money as they ethically can, and that is the way it should be in our great country. They just don't need the help of the taxpayers of our country. They don't need our help. And the country could sure use that extra $4 billion a year. It is such an obvious solution that it should have happened years ago.

Here we are with one side saying that black is black and the other side still insisting that black is blue. This debate would be a lot easier if the Republicans just came out and said what they really mean. They should simply say openly that they want to protect their friends in big oil. I don't agree with it, but that is their right. Instead, they are peddling misinformation and scare tactics. Republicans should at least have the decency to admit it and then let the American people decide who is best representing their interests.

Mr. President, in 1982, I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. I was elected along with the now-senior Senator from the State of Arizona, John McCain. We were both part of that class of 1982.

I have given a lot of speeches on this Senate floor. So has my friend from Arizona and so have all of us. Frankly, most of the speeches we give may have a little bite for a day or two. But the speech just given by my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, will be forever remembered in our country and in this body.

Senator McCain and I have had our differences over the years. That does not take away from the fact that we are friends. We love prizefighting, and we love our States that are neighbors, Arizona and Nevada. He has an admirable record representing his party and running for the Presidency of the United States and chairman of a number of committees during his tenure in the Senate. We came to the Senate together, in addition to the House of Representatives.

I want the record to reflect my admiration and respect--as I believe the whole Senate's respect--for the speech given by this fine man from Arizona. No one in the Senate--no one, without any qualification--could have given the speech that was given today. Why? Because he speaks with knowledge--personal knowledge--that I am sure he still remembers in those dark nights when he is trying to rest about his having been tortured. Here is a man who, after having been tortured brutally, solitary confinement for not a week, not a month but years, was given permission by the North Vietnamese to go home: We will let you go home.

He said: I am not going home unless I go home with my colleagues who are in prison with me. Think about that--that concentration camp, basically.

I wish I had the ability to express in words my admiration for what he has just said because the things we do when it comes to our evil enemy, to say that all holds are barred does not work. The easy thing to do would be to say we should treat them as poorly as they treat us. But it takes a resume and courage to stand and speak as my friend from Arizona did today.

Mr. President, I will end my remarks today by reading three paragraphs from an op-ed that is running all over the country today, in newspapers all over America, an op-ed written by Senator John McCain:

As we debate how the United States can best influence the

course of the Arab Spring, can't we all agree that the most

obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a nation

that holds an individual's human rights as superior to the

will of the majority or the wishes of government? Individuals

might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but

even then, as recognized in our Constitution's prohibition of

cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to

respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have

denied that respect to others.

All of these arguments have the force of right, but they

are beside the most important point. Ultimately, this is more

than a utilitarian debate. This is a moral debate. It is

about who we are.

I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. What I do

mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official

neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for

us to forget the best sense of ourselves.

Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through

deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans,

and different, stronger and better than those who would

destroy us.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 31, that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 31; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination, and statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; the President be immediately notified and the Senate resume legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 41, S. 498.

I ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.