[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7312-7313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CHOICE TO BE MADE

  Mr. REID. 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

[[Page 7313]]

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.

                          ____________________