[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 7111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             OIL SUBSIDIES

  Mr. REID. 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.

                          ____________________