[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4556-4567]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




IMPOSING A MINIMUM EFFECTIVE TAX RATE FOR HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS--MOTION 
                               TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2230, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 339 (S. 2230) a bill to 
     reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective tax rate 
     for high-income taxpayers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 
minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Big Oil Subsidies

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today in a moment when 
America is in crisis, and I don't think we are paying appropriate 
attention to the problems that befall our society. There are still too 
many people out of work, too many people who can't afford health care 
presently, and too many people who can't educate their children because 
they don't have the means. They are struggling. Millions of homes are 
still on the edge of foreclosure. And here we see a situation that is 
unacceptable under any stretch of the imagination.
  I rise today to talk to the American people who are struggling every 
week to provide the necessities for family life. At the same time, I 
ask my Republican colleagues why they would insist on continuing tax 
subsidies--gifts, really--to multibillion-dollar oil companies at the 
expense of ordinary, hard-working, middle-income families. Right now, 
these families are forced to come up with $4 per gallon--$60 to $80 
dollars, typically--to fill the tank every time they have to go to the 
gas station. That is a huge burden. The big five oil companies have 
made almost $1 trillion in profits in the last decade. Look at how much 
money these companies made in the last year alone. It was a record $137 
billion between the big five oil companies.
  Look at them: ExxonMobil--these poor guys need a subsidy. They only 
made $41 billion--$41 billion--in a single year. Look down the list. 
The last of the five must believe that trying to catch up is pretty 
tough. They only made $12 billion. That is Conoco, the last. In 1 year, 
they made $12 billion.
  Given how well these companies are doing, why are we giving them 
billions of dollars in tax breaks? The legislation we are voting on 
today presents a better idea. It says we should end these tax breaks 
and instead invest in clean energy solutions that can break our 
dangerous dependence on oil.
  Investing in renewable energy has helped launch industries that 
create jobs and clean up our air and provide homemade -- homemade -- 
American power. Clean energy is also our best chance to break through 
spiraling gas prices and our reliance on foreign oil. One would think 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to put a stop 
to the punishing effects of higher and higher gas prices on middle-
income working people. Why wouldn't they want to end America's 
dependence on fossil fuels and eliminate needless tax breaks for oil 
companies? Two words: Big Oil.
  Big Oil is doing all it can to protect their tax breaks. Even a 
retired chairman and CEO of Exxon said it is not necessary; they do not 
need it. But they are taking it. Big Oil is doing all it can to protect 
their tax breaks, and the Republicans are lining up to help Big Oil.
  It is time to tell the truth. Making oil companies pay their fair 
share in taxes is not going to raise the price of gas, contrary to what 
they publish. It just means Big Oil executives might have to trim their 
sail a little bit and share in the problems we have. A long time ago 
when I was a soldier, we had an excess profits tax for companies that 
made, in a way, unconscionable amounts of money based on the situation 
our country was facing. So it is just a matter of sharing some of the 
responsibility our country has in order to keep everybody feeling as 
though they are participating in the American dream, not a nightmare.
  While millions of Americans are struggling every week to pay their

[[Page 4557]]

bills, everybody should take a look at how much oil companies are 
paying their executives. Here is a fellow who personally runs 
ExxonMobil, the CEO, and he was paid $29 million last year. That is 
what I said, $29 million. Conoco Phillips' CEO received $18 million, 
and Chevron's exec made $16 million in income in 1 single year.
  By the way, that is from money earned for an essential product. When 
we look at gasoline, it almost compares to having medicines available 
because when we look at the cost of gasoline, we might ask: What would 
it take to educate all the children who can learn? Way less than we see 
demonstrated on these charts and their balance sheets. Working men and 
women in this country on average make just over $27,000 a year--$27,000 
a year.
  I don't begrudge high profits. I really don't. I ran a big company, a 
company I helped start, which has 45,000 employees. It is a huge 
company. It is a company that calculates the employment records every 
month. The company is called ADT. So I don't mind big profits.
  The question is, Who are you taking them from and how critical is the 
product they are being forced to buy? Right now, people are paying an 
average of $3.91 per gallon of gas.
  What about the people who live in other places? We picked at random a 
county in Mississippi. The county is called Issaquena County. Last 
year, the entire income for all the people in that county who were 
working was just over $16 million. All the people in a single county 
made $16 million. This poor guy at Chevron made $16 million by himself, 
and the others would leave all of those in that county way behind. A 
single oil company CEO made more in 1 year than all the people in that 
county put together. These hard-working people are already contributing 
to the income of oil executives whenever they fill up their gas tanks. 
Is it fair to ask them to chip in with their tax dollars to pay even 
more toward these record-setting salaries?
  Over the last 10 years, CEO pay at Exxon and Chevron has more than 
tripled. Over the same period, gas prices have nearly tripled. The 
picture is clear: Working people are struggling to fill up their tanks 
while oil executives are struggling to carry their big fat paychecks to 
the bank. It is almost beyond belief that Senators are lining up to 
protect tax breaks for oil companies--some Senators, I say--beyond 
belief.
  I say to them: Mind your responsibilities. You were elected not just 
by oil company executives or even oil company employees. Let's focus on 
the hard-working Americans who are paying more and more at the gas 
pump, the clean energy workers who might lose their jobs, and our men 
and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to protect oil 
supplies.
  The American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, that they 
are ineffective, and they are immoral considering the conditions that 
exist in our society. Continuing to subsidize oil companies only 
increases our dependence on dirty fuels. It keeps us on a dead-end road 
to sky-high energy bills, more oilspills, and dangerous pollution 
levels.
  So I call on my colleagues to kick Big Oil off of the welfare rolls 
and invest in clean energy jobs. Let's end the industry's tax breaks 
and break our country's addiction to oil and other dirty fuels. Let's 
invest in clean energy and smart transportation, not windfalls for oil 
industry executives and lobbyists. Let's make certain our children and 
our grandchildren inherit a country that is fiscally sound, morally 
responsible, and free from its dependence on oil.
  Let's not worry about the oil companies. They can take care of 
themselves. Let's stop this drain on our society, this drain on 
working-class citizens. Let's pay attention to the millions and 
millions of people in America who say: Just give us a chance, give us a 
chance to make a decent living; give us a chance to educate our 
children; give us a chance to keep our jobs; give us a chance to 
maintain our homes; get us off the possible foreclosure line. That is 
what we are looking for.
  That is the purpose of this legislation--to say to the American 
people: Look in this Chamber, Mr. and Mrs. America. Look in this 
Chamber and see the people who are supporting Big Oil profit fattening. 
Look at those who are supporting these profits.
  Again, I don't mind companies making profits, but when the profits 
come in almost blood money, when you think of the effect gasoline has 
on family life, it is unfair, it is indecent, and it is improper.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Our friends on the other side, the Senate Democrats, 
have put on a clinic this week on how not to run a serious legislative 
body. If they have achieved anything at all, it is to make Americans 
even more frustrated with Congress, as if that were possible.
  Faced with skyrocketing gas prices, Senate Democrats turned to a bill 
that even they admit doesn't lower them. Then, to make matters worse, 
they blocked Republicans from offering anything that might. That was 
their brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices: raise taxes on 
energy companies, when gas is already hovering around $4 a gallon, then 
block consideration of anything else just to make sure gas prices don't 
go anywhere but up.
  Somehow they thought doing this would set up some kind of political 
win for them, which, frankly, I don't understand. I mean, I can't 
imagine anybody giving them any high-fives for not lowering gas prices. 
But, anyway, that was obviously the plan. It appears to have fallen 
short because now they want to move off this issue and on to another 
political vote to yet another debate where the goal isn't to make a 
difference but, rather, to make a point--to increase taxes not lower 
prices at the pump.
  Well, I don't expect this next vote will have the political punch 
they expect either. But that is the Democratic plan anyway. It is 
getting quite tedious. Day after day after day, Senate Democrats all 
choose to come out here not so we can make an actual difference in the 
lives of working Americans and families struggling to fill the gas 
tank, but so we can watch them stage votes for show. For some reason 
they thought they would put some political points on the board this 
week if the American people saw them voting for a tax hike we all knew 
ahead of time didn't have the votes to pass.
  That didn't work. If anyone has any doubt about that, just ask 
yourself why they were moving to actually get off of it. Now they think 
they will score political points by staging another vote on a tax hike 
we know doesn't have the votes to pass.
  None of this makes sense to me. But that is how the Democrats have 
chosen to run this place. If they want to keep trying to distract the 
American people from the fact they do not have any solutions to the 
problems we face, that is their prerogative. But that is not going to 
keep Republicans from talking about ours. That is not going to keep us 
from trying to actually make a difference around here.
  Surveys show two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way the 
President is handling high gas prices.
  We know high gas prices are having a negative impact on Americans' 
daily lives. So we think the American people are entitled to this 
debate. They sent us to do something other than put on a show, and that 
is why we will continue to insist on a serious debate.
  The majority leader frequently complains there isn't any time to 
focus on priorities such as cybersecurity, postal reform, and the 
Export-Import Bank, not to mention maybe passing a budget for the first 
time in 3 years. Yet he seems to find the time to hold not one but two 
political show votes on tax hikes.
  The way I see it, the American people didn't send us to score 
political points. As I said, they sent us to make a difference. So I 
will be voting against this tax hike on American energy manufacturers, 
and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I hope that when the Senate returns in April, Democrats will have 
heard from their constituents and will focus

[[Page 4558]]

on jobs and prices at the pump--rather than the latest political vote.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if my friend would yield. I have a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on S. 2204, which is currently set for 11:30, be moved to start at 
11:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Members should not be worried about this because we will 
keep the vote open until at least noon. So everybody who was scheduling 
to vote at 11:30 can still do that.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we have all been following what has 
been going on across the street this week with great interest. While we 
all have our preferences, none of us knows at this point how the 
Supreme Court will rule. But one thing we should all be able to agree 
on is that the President's health care bill is a mess, an absolute 
mess.
  The American people clearly don't like it. Polls show the majority 
want the law repealed. More than two-thirds of the public, including 
most Democrats, believe the core of this bill is unconstitutional. It 
is loaded, literally loaded with broken promises.
  The President said it would lower costs. It is, in fact, raising 
costs. Proponents said it would create jobs. Now we know it means fewer 
jobs. The President said families would save on their premiums. They 
are, in fact, going up. He said people would be able to keep the 
insurance they have and like. They will not. CBO's most likely 
prediction finds 3 to 5 million Americans will lose their current plan 
every single year. The President said he would protect Medicare, but, 
instead, the law raids Medicare for over $500 billion, cutting billions 
from hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and Medicare Advantage.
  The President promised the American people their taxes wouldn't go up 
one penny. Two years later, the American people found out their taxes 
will be going up by more than $550 billion. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation found no fewer than 11 separate taxes and penalties that fall 
squarely on the middle class.
  Remember the CLASS Act? The administration said it would be fiscally 
stable and would reduce the deficit. A couple months ago, it was 
determined to be unsustainable and was shut down before it even began.
  The President told the American people, ``Federal conscience laws 
will remain in place.'' Two years later, he turned around and gave his 
approval to HHS to mandate that religious-affiliated schools, 
universities, hospitals, and charities would have to violate their 
religious tenets or pay a hefty fine.
  Finally, the health care law will increase Medicaid rolls by nearly 
25 million people, costing already cash-strapped States another $118 
billion--money many Governors, including Kentucky's, don't know where 
to get.
  This law is bad for Kentucky, it is bad for the country, and it is 
bad for health care. Americans don't want it. Regardless of what the 
court decides this summer, it should be repealed and it should be 
replaced. It should be replaced with commonsense reforms that lower 
costs and that Americans actually want--reforms that protect jobs and 
State budgets, reduce the deficit, reform entitlements, and strengthen 
Medicare.
  One broken promise is one too many. This law is full of broken 
promises from top to bottom.
  Two years ago, then-Speaker Pelosi said we would have to pass this 
bill to find out what was in it. Now we know. The American people have 
had a chance to decide for themselves. They don't like it. They want it 
repealed, and that is what we plan to do.


                             Tornado Relief

  Madam President, I once again share with my colleagues stories of the 
heartbreaking events in my home State of Kentucky in the aftermath of 
the horrific wave of storms and tornadoes that ravaged my State, along 
with several others in the Midwest, earlier this month.
  As I have already stated on the floor, these were very severe 
tornadoes, with at least 11 funnel clouds confirmed by the National 
Weather Service to have touched down in my State, blowing at wind 
speeds up to 125 miles an hour.
  We know 24 Kentuckians lost their lives and more than 300 were 
injured. Many homes, churches, schools, and places of business were 
destroyed. Scenes of destruction still exist across the State in places 
such as Magoffin County, Menifee County, Kenton, Morgan, Laurel, 
Lawrence, Martin, Pulaski, Johnson, and Trimble, all those counties in 
my State which were among the hardest hit.
  Kentuckians are working hard to rebuild. I am pleased to say that 
despite the tragedy of lives lost, families grieving, and memories 
destroyed forever, there is some good news to report; that is, how 
inspiring it is to see so many good-hearted Kentuckians come together 
to provide for their neighbors in the wake of these tornadoes.
  Take, for example, the congregation of Arthur Ridge Baptist Church in 
the town of East Bernstadt, located in Laurel County. Thanks to the 
leadership of Pastor Steve Smith, Arthur Ridge Baptist Church opened 
its doors within hours of the storm's end to provide food and shelter 
for those who needed it.
  Pastor Smith kept the church doors open for 24 hours a day and served 
up to 700 meals a day to local residents who had no food, no kitchen, 
and no home to call their own. According to Pastor Smith, people from 
all over the area pitched in. Folks from different churches worked to 
prepare meals, and many residents donated items such as dishes, 
silverware, toiletries, pillows, and blankets for care packages to 
distribute to the victims of the storm. Local businesses did their part 
too. The nearby Little Caesar's pizza in London gave away 120 pizzas in 
1 day, soon after the tornadoes. Many other local restaurants donated 
food as well.
  Thanks in part to the efforts of Pastor Smith and the congregation of 
Arthur Ridge Baptist Church, life is just a little bit better for many 
in East Bernstadt. At first, the church had to tend to people's most 
immediate and ``simple needs--water, a hot meal, an air mattress to 
sleep on,'' says Pastor Smith, who is a Laurel County native and has 
been the pastor at Arthur Ridge now for 6 years. He says, however, 
``People are over the shock and awe.''
  Weeks after the tornadoes passed, the church was still open 14 hours 
a day, distributing 125 to 150 meals a day and running a clothing 
distribution center. Pastor Smith's latest focus was on finding a place 
to set up donated washing and drying machines so local storm victims 
without homes can actually clean their clothes.
  Over 3,500 people have registered to volunteer in the region, and as 
of last week over 25,000 meals had been served to displaced families.
  This is just one story of how many Kentuckians have joined together 
to help the least fortunate in my State. Hawk Creek Baptist Church in 
Laurel County, First Baptist Church of East Bernstadt, and Trinity 
Freewill Baptist Church of Martin County also opened their doors to 
provide shelter and relief to displaced Kentuckians and the volunteers 
working to help them in the days after the disaster struck.
  Jim Paul, director of the organization called Ken-Tenn Relief Team, 
was in East Bernstadt the morning after the storms with food supplies. 
He trucked in a tractor-trailer load of donated food and other items 
and personally volunteered dozens of hours in at least three counties 
to aid storm victims.

[[Page 4559]]

  In Morgan County, the local Appalachian Regional Healthcare hospital 
suffered serious damage. Every second-floor window of the hospital was 
literally blown out, doors were torn off their hinges, and part of the 
roof was ripped off. Dozens of people were injured and the patients had 
to be evacuated to nearby hospitals.
  Luckily, Martie and Teresa Johnson, owners of a nearby Wendy's 
restaurant, stepped in to help. They served 450 hot meals to the 
cleanup crew who came in to repair the Morgan County ARH hospital and 
also traveled to Salyersville and gave away food there.
  One television station in Hazard, WYMT, held a telethon to raise 
money for victims across the State. I was pleased to play a small part 
in that effort myself, as the television station asked me to record a 
greeting describing the devastating effects of the tornados. The people 
of the region raised over $180,000 in the telethon for disaster relief.
  The local J.C. Penney of Corbin donated clothing and shoes to area 
elementary school students, and the employees of the store took up a 
collection to donate winter, spring, and summer clothing for the 
children.
  ``Some of [the employees] don't have a lot to give, but when this 
came up, they all wanted to know what else we needed,'' says Tiffany 
Flint, the Corbin J.C. Penney store manager.

       We hope it will help the children to look good and feel 
     good. We just wanted to do this to help them get back on 
     their feet.

  The men's soccer team from Kentucky's University of the Cumberlands 
donated some of their time to help the less fortunate. Head soccer 
coach Brenton Benware, his staff, and nearly 30 student athletes drove 
to East Bernstadt to help clean up debris in the area.
  ``Going . . . was just another reminder of how blessed we really 
are,'' said Coach Benware. ``I think we were all deeply affected by 
what we saw and reminded how important it is to serve and help our 
neighbors in times of need.''
  While there, the University of the Cumberlands soccer team may have 
run into the soccer team from Union College, which also traveled to 
Laurel County to help. The team stacked wood from downed trees, cleared 
debris from backyards, and helped a man move a displaced steel roof 
that the tornado had deposited in his yard.
  Union College dean of students Debbie D'Anna was responsible for 
sponsoring the trip, while the school's campus food services donated 
snacks and bottled water, and James Jimerson of the school's physical 
plant loaned out tools. Local businesses, such as Knox Hardware and 
Pope's Lumber, donated work and cleaning supplies. Many faculty, staff 
and students of Union College donated items such as food, clothing, and 
other essentials.
  In Salyersville, a town in Magoffin County, the block known as 
``Restaurant Row'' was hit by a tornado and nearly every restaurant on 
it destroyed. One of the few left was a Dairy Queen owned by Doug and 
Sue Mortimer.
  On the night of the storms, they opened their restaurant, running on 
generator power, and served free meals to the volunteers working to 
clean up the wreckage.
  Several Home Depot stores in Kentucky and Indiana contributed to the 
relief efforts as well. In the West Liberty area, district manager 
Becky Young and store manager Jim Householder coordinated donations of 
approximately $2,600, and Jim's store employees were out immediately 
after the storm handing out paper towels, trash bags, and gloves to 
relief volunteers.
  Other Home Depot stores in Kentucky and Indiana, led by district 
manager Tim Choate and district human resource manager Lee Ann Bruce, 
donated thousands of dollars' worth of products such as chainsaws, 
gloves, respirators, tarps, water, and trash bags to organizations such 
as the Henryville Fire Department and local United Way chapters. And 
store employees volunteered to assist those organizations in the 
recovery.
  Lowe's stores in Kentucky have also pitched in, providing gloves, 
tarps, shovels, bleach, and other supplies to communities all across 
the State. In addition to over $300,000 donated by the company to 
relief efforts after the storms, the Lowe's district manager for 
Kentucky, Stephen West, dispatched ``Lowe's Heroes,'' store employees 
who are volunteering their time and construction know-how.
  Local Walmart stores in Kentucky as well as the company's foundation 
have provided tens of thousands of dollars' worth of water, cleaning 
supplies, baby food, diapers, and more to help the community. Bob 
Gound, the market human resources manager for Walmart locations in 
eastern Kentucky, has taken the lead in coordinating these efforts. And 
local store employees are making bag lunches and handing them out in 
the hardest-hit Kentucky communities.
  I have seen firsthand in my recent visits to the Bluegrass State both 
how severe the destruction is, and how hard the people of Kentucky are 
working to rebuild and lift their neighbors out of the dire 
circumstances that the cruel forces of nature have put so many of them 
in.
  It is thanks to altruistic and generous Kentuckians like Pastor Steve 
Smith, among many others, that I am confident that the Kentuckians hurt 
by these storms will recover. I and my staff throughout the State have 
heard so many heart-warming stories like the few I have just shared 
that it would not be possible for me to recite them all on this Senate 
floor.
  But I hope that the few stories I have shared are more than enough to 
reassure my colleagues, the people of Kentucky, and the world that we 
Kentuckians are stout of heart and firm in our resolve. We will prevail 
over this tragedy. We will rebuild towns like East Bernstadt to be 
better than they were before. And the families of Kentucky will 
hopefully one day heal the wounds in their hearts and continue on.


                         Tribute to Laura Dove

  Madam President, I know I have inconvenienced the Senator from 
Georgia, but I have one more rather brief comment. I would like to say 
a few words about Laura Dove, who is leaving us this week, sitting 
right here at the table on the Republican side of the Chamber in the 
well.
  For C-SPAN2 watchers out there, Laura is the assistant secretary for 
the minority. We wish she were the assistant secretary for the 
majority, but she is assistant secretary for the minority, which means 
she is one of the people who make this place run every day but whose 
names you don't hear on the rollcall.
  She has put in her time, starting out as a page in high school and 
later moving to the Republican cloakroom. She did a stint at the Senate 
Republican Conference and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. 
And then Dave Schiappa, the Secretary for the Minority, hired her back 
into his shop about 10 years ago.
  And she's done a fabulous job. Senate work is in Laura's DNA. Her 
dad's a past Senate parliamentarian. And she's been an invaluable 
member of the floor team for as long as I can remember--counseling 
members on the floor, working with committees to clear legislation, and 
doing countless other essential tasks, big and small, that nobody 
watching from home would even notice.
  She always has a smile, always handles the pressure down in the well 
with a cool-head, and I know she's been an anchor for Dave over the 
years. So we will miss having her around.
  And we wish her all the best as she moves onto other things.
  I know she wants to travel with her husband Dan, and her two children 
Jakey and Abby. I don't think any of us would be surprised if Laura 
came back. But for now, I thank her for her service to the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I would note that it is never an inconvenience to be 
deferred by a beautiful lady, and again I take all the remarks made by 
the leader about Ms. Dove, and I would add one thing about the best and 
greatest institution in America, the U.S. Senate, and that is that a 
young mother of two has become an institution to herself. Laura, we 
appreciate all you have done.

[[Page 4560]]




                            Missile Defense

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise to talk about two specific 
subjects, one of them a very troubling comment picked up by a 
microphone that was not believed to be live, made by President Obama to 
President Medvedev of Russia. It is a troubling comment to me because I 
spent most of the previous year in the Senate as a member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee working on the New START treaty, which the 
Senate adopted with 71 favorable votes a year ago, a treaty that is a 
treaty on offensive missiles, not defensive missiles nor strategic 
missiles.
  It is a treaty that began under Ronald Reagan, was ratified by George 
H.W. Bush shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was extended under 
George W. Bush and terminated a couple of years ago and needed to be 
renewed. It is a treaty that did three things. First of all, it reduced 
offensive weapons held by the Russians and the Americans; second, gave 
us unilateral access to Russia and the Russians unilateral access to us 
to trust but verify the warheads that existed; and third, new 
identification systems and holographs that made it almost impossible to 
hide or mimic nuclear warheads. It is a comprehensive treaty that is 
important to America, important to the free world, and, quite frankly, 
important to Russia.
  I would like to quote from the Washington Post exactly what the 
President was picked up as having said when he was talking to Mr. 
Medvedev after their official conversation.
  I quote from the Washington Post:

       On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, 
     this, this can be solved--

  I underline, nobody knows what ``this'' means--

     but it's important for him to give me space.

  President Medvedev said back:

       Yeah, I understand.

  Then the President said the following:

       This is my last election. After my election, I [will] have 
     more flexibility.

  That flexibility obviously refers back to ``this,'' which was in the 
first comment.
  So as a continuing member of the Foreign Relations Committee, one who 
is proud of the work we did on the START treaty but one who understands 
particularly the commitments of the country, I think it important that 
the President clarify what ``this'' meant and how flexibility would be 
applied if he were reelected as President of the United States for this 
reason: In the President's letter to the Senate to endorse the New 
START treaty and ask for its ratification, he said the following: that 
he pledged in his message to the Senate on the New START treaty ``to 
continue development and deployment of all stages of the Phased 
Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe, including qualitative 
and quantitative improvements to such system.'' That is a unilateral 
statement.
  I met with Vice President Joe Biden in his office outside this 
Chamber during the debate. Vice President Biden committed the 
administration in terms of continuing on missile defense. I met with 
Secretary of State Clinton. I met with Ellen Tauscher, who was one of 
the chief negotiators and chief operatives, a former Member of the 
House working for the State Department. There was never any wiggle room 
nor need for flexibility. The United States was committed to missile 
defense in Europe, we remain committed to this day, and it is important 
that the President reaffirm that and it not be in any way confused or 
blurred by the comments picked up by that microphone. It is too 
important to the country, it is too important to this body, and it is 
too important to me for us to be able to trust the words of each other, 
not to find out sometime later that they want flexibility to possibly 
move from those words. Nuclear defense clearly is very sensitive with 
the Russians, and I understand that. If there are negotiations on that, 
that ought to be in the open, not after we have time for flexibility. 
It ought to be forthright.
  I also would like to add that there is another missile defense issue 
that looms out there that we have to pay attention to. Israel is 
surrounded by missiles with warheads to injure the people of that 
country and take the country down. A missile defense system for Israel 
would be equally as important as missile defense deployment would be 
for the Eastern European countries.
  So missile defense was a vision of Ronald Reagan's, continued under 
every President of the United States since Ronald Reagan, and it is 
important that we remain committed to it. I believe it is particularly 
important to understand what the President said, particularly on 
missile defense, what ``this'' meant when he asked for flexibility, 
because there should be no wiggle room in our desire to protect and 
defend democracy not only in the United States but around the world.
  Madam President real quickly, we talked all week about gas prices, 
and there has been a lot of demonization from both sides. I am a pretty 
simple guy. I was a businessman for 33 years, went and got a degree in 
college in business, studied economics in high school, and learned one 
principle of free enterprise and competition: prices are determined by 
supply and demand. If your supply goes down and your demand goes up, 
your prices go up. On the contrary, if the supply is plentiful and 
demand goes down, your prices go down. You can blame gas companies, 
presidents' salaries, anything you want to blame; the fact is, we are 
talking out of the side of our mouth--and particularly in the 
administration--when it comes to exploration for natural resources in 
the United States of America, and only can we become energy independent 
when we develop all of our resources. I support that. I drive a hybrid 
car. I am not just somebody who talks about it, I believe it is 
important. It reduces my consumption, it extends my miles per gallon, 
and it is better for the environment.
  But we have proven through the Solyndra and other cases that some of 
the alternative energy sources were either not perfected or frankly 
just don't work. So while we are developing ones that do, we should be 
robustly exploring in the gulf, in Alaska, in the Midwest, in the 
Northwest, and offshore, such as my State of Georgia, the resources we 
know exist to raise the supply of petroleum in the United States and 
lower the price to the American taxpayer.
  All four sources of energy that are safe and reliable should be 
promoted. That includes nuclear energy. I am very proud and I am 
thankful to the President that he issued the loan guarantee on the 
first reactors licensed in this country since 1978. They are in Plant 
Vogtle in Augusta or Burke County, GA. But his Chairman of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission voted no on that final approval. He was outvoted 
4 to 1, but he voted no. That sends a signal that we may talk on one 
hand about having robust development of all resources, but when it 
comes to playing our hand on the actual vote, we really don't do it. 
The same thing is true with the Keystone Pipeline. You can't just 
approve the pipeline to the south without connecting it to the north 
because if you do, you don't get the petroleum.
  We can blame whomever we want to blame, but the fact is facts are 
stubborn, and supply and demand is what dictates price. We should 
robustly be exploring the natural resources of the United States for 
America to have less dependence on foreign oil and more dependence on 
our own oil where we know we have resources. We should pay attention to 
our environment and recognize that no country in the world has done a 
better job in the modern era since the industrial revolution of 
cleaning up its environment than the United States of America. No one 
looks after their environment harder than the United States of America. 
We owe it to our people to look equally hard at the cost of gasoline, 
the price of petroleum, and the robust exploration of our own natural 
resources here at home for less dependency overseas.
  I yield the floor and defer to the Senator from Louisiana, who has a 
lot of offshore resources of his own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 4561]]


  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about one of the most 
pressing challenges Louisiana families--indeed, most American 
families--face, and that is the price at the pump and the enormous hit 
that is to their family budgets, their pocketbooks, their wallets. It 
is really making life very difficult in the midst of a very weak 
economy.
  A few years ago the price was $1.84. That was on the day Barack Obama 
was sworn in as President of the United States. Now it has more than 
doubled; it is $3.80-plus. It seems to be rising every day, and that is 
a real crisis to a lot of American families. We should be committed 
here in the Senate, here in Washington, to connecting with the real 
world and focusing on real problems and real crises. For millions of 
Louisiana and American families, that is absolutely it. Unfortunately, 
I don't see real solutions and a real policy to address that coming out 
of the President or some of my colleagues on the Senate floor. Right 
now, to the minute, as we speak on the Senate floor, the President is 
speaking at the White House, and he is laying out his proposal to raise 
taxes on domestic energy companies and domestic oil and gas production. 
That is not a policy that is going to help Louisiana and American 
families with the price at the pump. In fact, it is a policy that is 
going to make it worse and not better.
  Folks get it in the real world. They certainly do in Louisiana. When 
we increase taxes on something, those are costs that almost every 
business, if they possibly can, is going to pass on to consumers. That 
is pushing prices up, not down.
  It is also the first rule of economics, as my colleague from Georgia 
said, supply and demand. If we tax something more, we get less of it. 
If we increase taxes on domestic energy producers, on domestic oil and 
gas, we will get less of it. Less supply means the price goes up. So 
those are two compelling reasons this proposal is not going to help 
Louisiana families and American families with their struggles with the 
price at the pump. It is going to make it even worse, when it has been 
getting worse on its own for a lot of related reasons, very 
dramatically. So that is not a policy. That is not a commonsense or a 
real-world solution.
  Likewise, one of the few other things I have heard from the President 
in terms of this matter is essentially begging other countries to 
increase their production. I don't think that is a policy worthy of 
America either. I think the perfect symbol for that approach is the 
President bowing to the princes of Saudi Arabia. It is a symbol of his 
approach of trying to deal with the price at the pump, and it is not 
good enough and it is not worthy of the American people.
  Other folks have also adopted this approach. Senator Schumer, our 
colleague in this Chamber, recently wrote Secretary of State Clinton on 
February 28, 2012, just a few weeks ago:

       To address this situation--

  Meaning the price at the pump--

       I urge the State Department to work with the government of 
     Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they are 
     currently producing well under their capacity.

  Begging Saudi Arabia is not an adequate solution, and it is not a 
policy worthy of America.
  President Obama's own Energy Secretary Secretary Chu said even more 
recently, on March 20 of this year:

       We're very grateful that Saudi Arabia has extra capacity 
     and it feels confident that it can fulfill any potential 
     deficits, at least the way the current markets are now, the 
     current demand I should say, are now.

  Again, begging Saudi Arabia, begging the Middle East, begging other 
countries, that is not an adequate policy and it is not a policy worthy 
of America.
  President Obama has done a world tour doing some of this in other 
countries. Notably, on March 20, 2011, when my part of the country was 
still struggling with the de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, a 
permit logjam blocking us from producing good, reliable American 
energy, putting Americans, Louisianans to work, the President went to 
Brazil to beg them to produce their resources and to promise them that 
the United States would be a great customer. Quote:

       We want to help you with the technology and support to 
     develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to 
     start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a 
     time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other 
     parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United 
     States could not be happier with the potential for a new, 
     stable source of energy.

  He means drilling in Brazil. I have to say this was like rubbing salt 
in the wound to most Louisianans. As I said, this was March 2011, a 
year ago, and we were still suffering from a continuing de facto 
moratorium that the President had imposed following the BP incident. So 
he was going to Brazil and urging them to drill, urging them to 
explore, committing America to that, and refusing to do it in America 
in the Gulf of Mexico. That is not a commonsense solution. That is not 
a real-world policy. That is not a policy worthy of America. None of 
this begging is.
  Other countries do have an energy policy, and it is not begging; it 
is developing. It is controlling their own future. Very recently in the 
press there have been reports that PetroChina has now become the 
leading company publicly traded in terms of production of oil, far 
surpassing Big Oil and all the other companies that have been demonized 
by my colleagues on the left on the Senate floor.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the press report 
printed for the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 29, 2012]

  PetroChina Produced More Oil Than Industry Giant Exxon Mobil in 2011

                         (By Associated Press)

       New York.--A big shift is happening in Big Oil: an American 
     giant now ranks behind a Chinese upstart.
       Exxon Mobil is no longer the world's biggest publicly 
     traded producer of oil. For the first time, that distinction 
     belongs to a 13-year-old Chinese company called PetroChina. 
     The Beijing company was created by the Chinese government to 
     secure more oil for that nation's booming economy.
       PetroChina announced Thursday that it pumped 2.4 million 
     barrels a day last year, surpassing Exxon by 100,000. The 
     company has grown rapidly over the last decade by squeezing 
     more from China's aging oil fields and outspending Western 
     companies to acquire more petroleum reserves in places like 
     Canada, Iraq and Qatar. It's motivated by a need to lock up 
     as much oil as possible.
       The company's output increased 3.3 percent in 2011 while 
     Exxon's fell 5 percent. Exxon's oil production also fell 
     behind Rosneft, the Russian energy company.
       PetroChina's rise highlights a fundamental difference in 
     how the largest petroleum companies plan to supply the world 
     as new deposits become tougher to find and more expensive to 
     produce.
       Every major oil company has aggressively pursued new finds 
     to replace their current wells. But analysts say Western oil 
     firms like Exxon Mobil have been more conservative than the 
     Chinese, mindful of their bottom line and investor returns. 
     With oil prices up 19 percent in 2011, they still made money 
     without increasing production.
       PetroChina Co. Ltd. has a different mission. The Chinese 
     government owns 86 percent of its stock and the nation uses 
     nearly every drop of oil PetroChina pumps. Its appetite for 
     gasoline and other petroleum products is projected to double 
     between 2010 and 2035.
       ``There's a lot of anxiety in China about the energy 
     question,'' says energy historian Dan Yergin. ``It's just 
     growing so fast.''
       While PetroChina sits atop other publicly traded companies 
     in oil production, it falls well short of national oil 
     companies like Saudi Aramco, which produces nearly 8 million 
     barrels a day. And Exxon is still the biggest publicly traded 
     energy company when counting combined output of oil and 
     natural gas. PetroChina ranks third behind Exxon and BP in 
     total output of oil and natural gas.
       PetroChina is looking to build on its momentum in 2012.
       ``We must push ahead,'' PetroChina chairman Jiang Jiemin 
     said in January.
       PetroChina has grown by pumping everything it can from 
     reserves in China, estimated to contain more than 6.5 billion 
     barrels. It drilled thousands of oil wells across vast 
     stretches of the nation's northern grasslands. Some of those 
     fields are ancient by industry standards, dating close to the 
     beginning of China's communist government in the 1950s.
       The commitment to aging fields distinguishes PetroChina 
     from its biggest Western rivals. Exxon and other major oil 
     companies typically sell their aging, low-performing fields, 
     or they put them out of commission.
       PetroChina also has been on a buying spree, acquiring new 
     reserves in Iraq, Australia, Africa, Qatar and Canada. Since 
     2010,

[[Page 4562]]

     its acquisitions have totaled $7 billion, about twice as much 
     as Exxon, according to data provider Dealogic.
       Several other Chinese companies have become deal makers 
     around the globe as well. Total acquisitions by Chinese 
     energy firms jumped from less than $2 billion between 2002 
     and 2003 to nearly $48 billion in 2009 and 2010, according to 
     the International Energy Agency. More times than not, the 
     companies are paying above the industry average to get those 
     deals done.
       It's making some in the West nervous.
       In 2005, for example, CNOOC Ltd., a company mostly owned by 
     the Chinese government tried to buy American oil producer 
     Unocal. U.S. lawmakers worked to block the deal, asking 
     President Bush to investigate the role the Chinese central 
     government played in the process. Chevron Corp. eventually 
     bought Unocal for $17.3 billion.
       ``There's a resistance to Chinese investment in (U.S.) oil 
     and gas,'' Morningstar analyst Robert Bellinski says. ``It's 
     like how Japan was to us in the 1980s. People think they're 
     going to take us over. They're going to buy all of our 
     resources.''
       That's unlikely to happen. It doesn't make economic sense 
     to export oil away from the world's largest oil consumer.
       But the Chinese could make it tougher for Big Oil to 
     generate returns for their shareholders. China's oil 
     companies have been willing to outspend everyone and that 
     drives up the price of fields and makes it more expensive for 
     everyone to expand.
       ``You now have to outbid them,'' says Argus Research 
     analyst Phil Weiss. ``If you can't, you're going to have 
     access to fewer assets.''
       Longer term, Chinese expansion globally will bring benefits 
     to the U.S. and other economies. By developing as many oil 
     wells as possible--especially in Africa, Iraq and other 
     politically unstable regions--China will help expand supply.
       ``Frankly, the more risk-hungry producers there are, the 
     more oil will be on the market, and the cheaper prices are,'' 
     says Michael Levi, an energy policy expert at the Council on 
     Foreign Relations.
       Despite its swift expansion, PetroChina and other Chinese 
     companies still have much to prove to investors, analysts 
     say.
       PetroChina's parent, China National Petroleum Corp., for 
     example, has spent millions of dollars in Sudan to provide 
     highways, medical facilities and shuttle buses for the 
     elderly. Oil companies typically don't do that. All of that 
     increases the cost of business and minimizes the returns for 
     shareholders.
       In 2009 and 2010, PetroChina's profit margins for its 
     exploration and production business were only about two-
     thirds that of Exxon Mobil's. Its stock price has climbed 
     less than 1 percent, in the past year, compared with a 3.7 
     percent rise in the stock of Exxon Mobil Corp.
       ``You have to ask yourself: What is the purpose of 
     PetroChina?'' Bellinski says. ``It is to fuel China. That's 
     it. Although they're a public company, I'm very skeptical 
     that they have any interest in shareholder value creation.''

  Mr. VITTER. The Chinese are not going around the world begging. The 
Chinese are developing. The Chinese are trying to control their own 
destiny, and PetroChina is now the leading company in terms of 
producing oil.
  Petrobras in Brazil is another example. Brazil is developing its 
resources very aggressively. That is what I referred to when the 
President went there a year ago and applauded them and encouraged them 
with giving them U.S. resources to do it in terms of loan guarantees, 
and the President absolutely promised we would be a great customer.
  The Brazilians are not traveling the world begging. The Brazilians 
are controlling their own destiny. The Brazilians are responsibly 
developing their own resources, and our President even applauds that 
while refusing to do the same in this country.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the press report 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 19, 2012]

 China Gets Jump on U.S. for Brazil's Oil--Two Export Pacts a Coup for 
                                Beijing

                            (By Kelly Hearn)

       Buenos Aires.--Off the coast of Rio de Janeiro--below a 
     mile of water and two miles of shifting rock, sand and salt--
     is an ultradeep sea of oil that could turn Brazil into the 
     world's fourth-largest oil producer, behind Russia, Saudi 
     Arabia and the United States.
       The country's state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, 
     expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country's 
     oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the 
     seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for 
     export markets.
       The United States wants it, but China is getting it.
       Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in 
     March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma 
     Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two 
     huge state-owned Chinese companies.
       The deals are part of a growing oil relationship between 
     the two countries that, thanks to a series of billion-dollar 
     agreements, is giving China greater influence over Brazil's 
     oil frontier.
       Chinese oil companies are pushing to meet mandatory 
     expansion targets by inking deals across Africa and Latin 
     America, but they are especially interested in Brazil.
       ``With the Lula and Carioca discoveries alone, Brazil added 
     a possible 38 billion barrels of estimated recoverable oil,'' 
     said Luis Giusti, a former president of Venezuela's state oil 
     company, PDVSA, referring to the new Brazilian oil fields.
       ``That immediately changed the picture,'' he said, adding 
     that Brazil is on track to become ``an oil giant.''
       During Mrs. Rousseff's visit to China, Brazil's Petrobras 
     signed a technology cooperation deal with the China Petroleum 
     & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec.
       Petrobras also signed a memorandum of understanding with 
     Sinochem, a massive state-owned company with interests in 
     energy, real estate and agrichemicals.
       The Sinochem deal aims to identify and build ``business 
     opportunities in the fields of exploration and production, 
     oil commercialization and mature oil-field recovery,'' 
     according to Petrobras.
       The relationship with China goes back to at least two years 
     before Mr. Obama came to Brazil to applaud the oil discovery 
     and tell Mrs. Rousseff:
       ``We want to work with you. We want to help with technology 
     and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when 
     you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best 
     customers.''
       China rescued Petrobras in 2009, when the oil company was 
     looking at tight credit markets to finance a record-setting 
     $224 billion investment plan. China's national development 
     bank offered a $10 billion loan on the condition that 
     Petrobras ship oil to China for 10 years.
       A chunk of Brazil's oil real estate appeared on China's 
     portfolio in 2010, when Sinopec agreed to pay $7.1 billion 
     for 40 percent of Repsol-YPF of Brazil, which has stakes in 
     the now internationally famous Santos Basin, and the Sapinhoa 
     field, which has an estimated recoverable volume of 2.1 
     billion barrels. Statoil of Norway also agreed that year to 
     sell 40 percent of the offshore Peregrino field to Sinochem.
       Last year, Sinopec announced it would buy 30 percent of 
     GALP of Brazil, a Portuguese company, for $3.5 billion. GALP 
     has interests in the Santos Basin and a 10 percent stake in 
     the massive Lula field.
       ``The $5.2 billion cash-in we will get from Sinopec is 
     paramount for our strategy in Brazil,'' GALP CEO Manuel 
     Ferreira de Oliveira told Bloomberg News.
       ``It will give us a rock-solid capital base as we enter a 
     decisive investment period at the Santos Basin. This 
     operation values our existing Brazilian assets at $12.5 
     billion and is really a landmark for the company and for our 
     shareholders.''
       News reports in December said Sinopec is the current 
     favorite to buy stakes in Brazilian oil owned by Britain's BG 
     Group, which also has interests in the massive fields of 
     Carioca, Guara, Lula and Lara.
       On Jan 8., the French company Perenco announced it was 
     selling Sinochem a 10 percent stake in five offshore blocks 
     located in the Espirito Santos Basin. Some of the 
     transactions still await approval by Brazil's government.
       In December, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez 
     publicly reiterated his government's commitment to an oil 
     refinery joint venture with Petrobras.
       That project reportedly is set to be funded by China's 
     national development bank. Some news reports have quoted the 
     head of China's development bank saying that new deals with 
     Brazil are under consideration.
       James Williams, an energy economist with the U.S. 
     consulting group WTRG Economics, said the Chinese are taking 
     on big risks with ultra-deep-water investments.
       ``But for them, the benefits are greater, as they become 
     partners with companies that have better technology and 
     expertise,'' he said.

  Mr. VITTER. According to recent press reports, there is a budding and 
building relationship between Brazil and China, and China is taking 
advantage and forming contracts to take advantage of that resource. We 
should learn a thing or two from other folks around the world, and we 
should not just beg; we should build and develop. We should take our 
own future into our own hands, and we have an enormous opportunity to 
do that.
  The United States is actually the single most energy-rich country in 
the world, bar none. When we look at total energy resources, we lead 
the world. Russia is second, and other countries

[[Page 4563]]

follow way behind. Saudi Arabia is third but cannot compare in terms of 
total resources. No Middle Eastern country can compare, and China is 
below that. We have the resources. We are the single most energy-rich 
country in the world, and this map shows it.
  We have enormous reserves, particularly shale in the West, natural 
gas in finds on land, and offshore enormous potential of reserves of 
oil. Literally, there are hundreds of years' worth. So what is the 
problem? The problem is we are the only country in the world that puts 
well over 90 percent of those resources off-limits and doesn't develop 
them, but we can do better.
  We can reasonably, responsibly, and safely open that access. We can 
do what Brazil is doing; we can do what China is doing. We do not have 
to beg. We can have a policy worthy of America and Americans. We can 
take control of our own destiny.
  What will that mean? It will mean great U.S. jobs, which by 
definition cannot be outsourced. We cannot have a domestic energy job 
producing good, reliable energy in the United States and outsource it 
to China or India. We will build more energy independence, not having 
to beg Saudi Arabia or go to Brazil as a customer or anything else. We 
will even increase revenue to lower deficit and debt. After the Federal 
income tax, the biggest source of revenue to the Federal Government is 
royalty or revenue on domestic oil production. It is second only to 
Federal income tax. It would be enormous new revenue to reduce deficit 
and debt. And, of course, we can help lower the price at the pump. We 
can increase supply, which lowers the price.
  So I urge us to do what the American people want us to do: to adopt 
common sense, to adopt a real policy, and to take control of our own 
destiny. Begging is not a policy, at least not one worthy of Americans. 
This tax proposal to increase taxes on U.S. oil companies and domestic 
oil production is not a policy that will do anything but increase the 
price at the pump, decrease supply, and that is the opposite of what we 
need. Let's do what will make a difference: increase supply, control 
our own destiny, and do more right here at home.
  I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                         Rising to the Occasion

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, in a moment I am going to speak about 
energy. But, first of all--as I was waiting to have the opportunity to 
do this--I want to thank Senator McConnell for giving us an update on 
what is going on in Kentucky. We do a lot of very important things 
here. One of the things I am going to talk about, energy, is one of the 
most important, and yet it is good to hear the stories of ordinary 
Americans doing extraordinary things. This truly is what our country is 
all about, and my thoughts and prayers are with the people of Kentucky. 
But it is so refreshing--we talk a lot about our problems, but the 
strength of America is people like the folks in Kentucky and all 
throughout America who rise to the occasion as they need to.
  The increasing price of gas is a costly reminder of how dependent our 
country is on foreign oil. This is one of the most pressing issues we 
face today because the price at the pump directly impacts our everyday 
lives, and Arkansans are telling me they are worried about what it is 
doing to their bottom line.
  Americans are frustrated with the increase in the cost of gas, and 
rightfully so. In my home State of Arkansas, the cost for a regular 
gallon of gas is up 22 cents from a month ago according to AAA. The 
letters, calls, e-mails and Facebook posts I receive from Arkansas are 
saying the same thing. It is harder to fill their tanks while making 
ends meet.
  Arkansas families are faced with tough choices because the rising 
prices are dipping into their family's disposable income. The increase 
in the price of gas puts a strain on family budgets.
  Earlier this week I hosted a townhall with Arkansans throughout the 
State. While I expected the major discussion to be about this issue, I 
was surprised at how much it dominated the conversation. During the 
event we took an informal poll asking participants if the increase of 
gas has forced significant changes in their daily habits. Seventy-eight 
percent of those who answered said the price had a significant impact.
  Sarah, from Mountain Home, AR, said on her Facebook page that the 
increase in gas prices has forced her family to allocate more money for 
fuel expenses, which leaves less money for food, making it frustrating. 
Sarah and other Arkansans should not have to choose between getting gas 
to get to work and the necessities they need in the household.
  Chris from Mena, AR, wrote that he notices an increase in the price 
of groceries. He said:

       People should be aware of how fuel costs affect everything 
     we buy and do.

  I agree with Chris because the increased price for gas adds to the 
transportation costs that are passed along to consumers.
  Donnie Smith, the CEO of the Springdale-based Tysons Food, told the 
Arkansas Business Journal that with Springdale as a price point, there 
has been an increase of more than 55 percent in the cost of diesel in 
the past 5 years. This is significant because the company uses fuel to 
transport feed to family farmers, chickens to and from the farms, and 
the finished products to customers around the world.
  American families and businesses deserve a plan that will help bring 
down the prices at the pump. The legislation before this Chamber 
proposed to raise taxes on American energy producers. This will not 
change supply and demand, as Senator Isakson talked about a few minutes 
ago. These are basic truths. Supply and demand does control costs. This 
will do nothing to that.
  Again, hard-working Americans will be left with the bill as a result 
if this bill were passed. I believe the better way begins with adopting 
an energy strategy that increases production of American energy in a 
clean, efficient way through developing wind, solar, and hydrogen 
technologies as well as tapping into the vast majority of natural 
resources our country is blessed with.
  The reality of our country's nonexistent energy policy is it forces 
us to rely on the Middle East for oil. We import about 9 million 
barrels of oil every day, half of our supply. This is costly to our 
economy, our citizens, and it threatens our national security. This is 
the only developed country in the world that refuses to use its natural 
resources. Opening Alaska's Wildlife Refuge and increasing offshore 
exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf is a step in the right 
direction that puts us on a path of energy independence. We can boost 
our domestic energy supply through the development of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. The proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would transport 700,000 
barrels of oil per day from Canada to U.S. refineries in the gulf coast 
and allow us to get reliable and secure oil from our largest trading 
partner and trusted ally. Unfortunately, while I support this project 
and voted in favor of it several times in this Chamber, the project was 
rejected by the majority after President Obama took the time to lobby 
his Members to vote against it after vetoing the project earlier this 
year.
  There is no time like today to pass legislation to fully utilize the 
resources we have been blessed with in our country, but this should not 
come at the cost of our energy producers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. President. If the Chair would 
please let me know when I have used 5 minutes, I would appreciate that.
  We have a very important vote in front of us that goes to the 
question of whether consumers are going to continue to be held hostage 
by basically having one energy source at the pump or whether we are 
going to give competition to the oil companies and if we are going to 
give consumers choice.
  I believe we need to do everything; there is no question about that 
in my mind, but that doesn't mean having a Tax Code that has embedded 
in it for

[[Page 4564]]

almost 100 years special tax breaks and subsidies for the oil 
companies, and the other new clean energy alternatives that are growing 
and creating jobs in our country do not have the same treatment. In 
fact, they limp along with a tax cut that expires every year, not sure 
if it is going to continue, which is what is happening right now.
  People are losing their jobs right now in the areas of wind 
production and other areas because they are not sure what is going to 
happen. Yet we give preferential treatment to an industry right now 
whose top five companies are making about $260,000 a minute--a minute. 
For people in Michigan, the average wage does not equal $260,000 a 
year, yet $260,000 a minute in profits for the oil companies, and we as 
customers, as consumers, have the great privilege of on the one hand 
paying whatever they want to charge at the pump because there are no 
alternatives and not enough choices, and at the same time out of the 
other pocket we get to subsidize them.
  One hundred years ago those subsidies probably made a lot of sense. I 
am sure I would have voted for them as we were starting the new 
industrial economy and incentivizing the production of oil certainly 
made sense. I still support the efforts for small businesses and local 
efforts, but the top five companies do not need taxpayer subsidies 
right now when they have the highest profits of any business in the 
world.
  So what are we talking about? We are talking about--in tough times 
and budget deficits and when we need to be focused on jobs and getting 
us off of foreign oil--making choices that make sense for the future 
and not the past. That means closing down these special subsidies for 
the top five companies that, again, are earning profits of about 
$260,000 every single minute, and turning those dollars over to new 
clean energy alternatives such as biofuels, wind, solar, electric 
batteries, and all of the things that need to happen--including natural 
gas, which my colleague from New Jersey has been a champion of--so that 
we actually have real competition and we can actually go look at the 
price at the pump and say, you know what, it is too much; I am going to 
do something else.
  We are beginning that process with new electric vehicles and I am 
proud that those are being made in Michigan. We have advanced biofuels 
right now. If we didn't have advanced biofuels at the pump in the few 
places we do, we would actually see prices a dollar higher on average 
than they are right now. So there is a little bit of competition, but 
we have a long way to go.
  This bill takes dollars from subsidies that are no longer needed, 
that don't make sense from the American taxpayers' standpoint or an 
energy standpoint, and turns them over to continue 19 different tax 
cuts for entrepreneurs, small businesses, and those who are creating 
the new clean energy alternatives in the future.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side have said that taking away 
government subsidies will increase prices. It is amazing to me that 
somehow Friday seems to increase prices; Memorial Day seems to increase 
prices. I think whatever the market will bear increases prices. But 
when the CEOs of the big five companies came to the Finance Committee I 
actually asked them--because folks are saying taking away government 
subsidies for them will increase prices. I said: How much do we have to 
pay you to bring down the price? Give me a number. How much do we have 
to pay you to bring down the price?
  Finally, one of the CEOs actually said: Well, I did not say we would 
be raising gas prices at the pump. I did not hear anyone else say that, 
either.
  So that is what they said. They were not willing to go on record as 
saying they would raise the prices at the pump.
  Instead of throwing huge government handouts at some of the most 
profitable companies ever, we should be paying down the debt and we 
should be providing tax cuts for the jobs and the new alternatives for 
the future, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important 
bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. ENZI. Today I wish to discuss high gasoline prices and to express 
my concern that the legislation we are debating will only cause the 
price at the pump to increase. We need to have a serious debate about 
energy policy in the Senate. We have not passed substantial energy 
legislation since 2007, and without a sound energy policy, we will 
continue to see price instability.
  Unfortunately, the legislation we are debating is not that sound 
energy policy. Instead, it is an effort at political theater, designed 
to force a vote on a proposal that the majority finds politically 
popular.
  Republicans understand that the problem we face today will not be 
solved by taxing the five largest oil companies. Unlike the majority, 
we understand that you cannot expect to lower energy prices when you 
increase taxes. Increasing taxes will lead to higher prices.
  I want to see lower prices, and so I oppose S. 2204. Instead of 
passing this legislation, the Senate should take up any one of the 
ideas my colleagues and I have proposed.
  The Senate should pass legislation to approve the Keystone XL 
Pipeline so we can obtain more of our energy from Canada as opposed to 
countries like Saudi Arabia. The Senate should pass legislation to 
prohibit the EPA from implementing its greenhouse gas policy--which 
will make it more difficult to use our most abundant, domestic energy 
source--coal--to power our homes, businesses, and daily lives.
  The Senate should pass legislation to open up more areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf to exploration and production, and should require the 
administration to grant permits for responsible energy development. We 
should also pass legislation to open up a small area of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to energy development.
  Any one of those actions would have a much more positive impact on 
our Nation's energy situation than the legislation we are debating 
today. S. 2204 is an effort to punish the Nation's five largest energy 
companies because oil prices are high.
  Republicans stand ready to have a serious debate on energy because we 
know our policies are the best solution for achieving energy security. 
We recognize that the problems we are facing are an undersupply of oil 
as well as an instability in some countries where a substantial amount 
of oil is produced.
  To address these issues, I want to produce more American oil on 
American soil. I want to see more oil produced in regions like the 
ANWR. I want to determine what technology is needed to recover the 
nearly 800 billion barrels of oil shale that the Rand Corporation has 
suggested are recoverable. I want to see permits granted in areas of 
Wyoming so we can develop our State's coal bed methane. We also want to 
see more wind turbines and solar energy panels in places where they 
make sense.
  Republicans truly support an ``all of the above'' approach. We 
support traditional sources like coal, oil, and natural gas. We support 
alternative sources like wind and solar. And our record shows that to 
be the case.
  President Obama claims to support an ``all of the above'' approach. 
However, his record shows something different. Earlier this week, his 
administration released a rule that will make it exceedingly difficult 
to build a coal-fired power plant in the future. That action follows 
his administration's decision in 2010 to put a moratorium on leasing in 
the Gulf of Mexico and their decision to put in place policies that 
make it more difficult to develop natural resources on our Federal 
lands. President Obama claims to support natural gas--at the same time 
his administration seeks to stop hydraulic fracturing, the tool that 
has allowed us to access our abundant natural gas reserves.
  President Obama also claims that there isn't a silver bullet to bring 
prices down. That may be true, but if you add up all of his 
administration's efforts to hold up American energy production, there 
are a number of measures we could undertake to make our situation 
better. Unfortunately, the legislation we are debating today is not one 
of those measures.

[[Page 4565]]

  What's further unfortunate about S. 2204 is that it is an attempt to 
punish a sector of our economy that is doing well. The oil and gas 
sector has created jobs during the recession and employs more than 9 
million American workers. It is a sector that employs a lot of people 
in my State. In 2010, more than 21,000 workers were employed in the oil 
and gas industry in Wyoming. Instead of punishing these companies for 
their success, we should be finding ways to work with them so they can 
put more Americans back to work.
  It is valuable to have a discussion about energy like we have had 
this week. It allows us to point out the differences between the vision 
we offer of more production and more jobs versus the vision of our 
colleagues on the other side, which is essentially higher taxes and 
higher energy prices. When we have finished voting on S. 2204, which 
everyone acknowledges will fail, we should sit down and have a full 
debate about our energy future. I am confident that our vision is the 
right one if we want an America that has a secure energy future.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 2204.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, which I have cosponsored.
  This legislation would repeal five specific tax subsidies and a 
royalty relief provision to the largest oil companies, which simply do 
not need them and which our Federal Government definitely cannot 
afford. And this bill would invest the savings from repealing these 
subsidies to extend vital clean energy incentives that have recently 
expired. It would also save billions of dollars in order to reduce the 
deficit.
  This is a simple vote, really. If you are for subsidizing profitable 
and polluting industries and raising taxes on clean, innovative, and 
renewable energy companies, you should not support this bill. But if 
you are for fiscal responsibility, balancing the Federal budget, and 
investing in a cleaner energy industry that is less dependent on 
international oil markets and suppliers, you should vote yes.
  If you are against increasing taxes on clean energy sources such as 
wind, solar, and energy efficiency, you should vote yes. And if you 
believe that we cannot afford to spend Federal dollars subsidizing an 
industry that needs no help, you should vote yes.
  Oil prices have risen to well above $100 per barrel, and according to 
AAA, California currently has the highest gasoline prices of any State 
in the continental United States, currently at $4.30 per gallon of 
regular unleaded.
  But these higher prices are not the result of a change in the cost of 
producing and refining oil.
  According to a Finance Committee analysis of the SEC filings of the 
three largest oil companies in the United States that filed, it costs 
them an average of $11 to produce one barrel of oil. At today's prices 
that is nearly $100 in pure profit for each barrel.
  The result is massive oil company profits on the backs of American 
consumers. Last year, the top five oil companies made more than $135 
billion in profit. That is an increase of 80% over what they made in 
2010.
  Yet the largest oil companies are not using these profits to produce 
more oil. Oil production for the biggest five oil companies was down 4 
percent last year.
  Instead of using their enormous revenues to invest in drilling, the 
big five oil companies are buying back stock, issuing dividends, and 
lobbying governments.
  For example, Shell Oil's profits increased by 54 percent between 2010 
and 2011. But its production decreased by 3 percent.
  And the American taxpayer is providing oil subsidies that increase 
profits, stock prices, and dividends--and don't produce more oil or 
lower gasoline prices.
  U.S. taxpayers subsidize these hugely profitable oil companies to the 
tune of over $2 billion dollars per year, year after year.
  Some Members of Congress still believe these subsidies lead to lower 
gas prices, despite all evidence to the contrary.
  As Severin Borenstein, the codirector of University of California 
Center for the Study of Energy Markets, recently said:

       The incremental change in production that might result from 
     changing oil subsidies will have no impact on world oil 
     prices, and therefore no impact on gasoline prices.

  According to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, 
repealing tax subsidies for Big Oil would not result in higher gasoline 
prices.
  CRS concludes that because the current $100-per-barrel price of oil 
far exceeds the cost of production, it is unlikely that a small 
increase in taxes would reduce output in a manner that decreases supply 
resulting in higher gasoline prices.
  Yet these subsidies continue.
  This bill eliminates five tax subsidies that lower the tax burden for 
oil companies without producing a public benefit.
  These changes will prevent oil companies from deducting things like 
payments to foreign governments and also prohibit oil companies from 
claiming that oil production is ``domestic manufacturing'' deserving of 
incentives designed to help manufacturers compete with Chinese 
factories.
  This legislation also includes the key provisions of the Deepwater 
Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act, a bill Senator Bill Nelson and 
I introduced to eliminate royalty relief that rewards dangerous oil 
drilling methods.
  By eliminating sections 344 and 345 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
that provided mandatory royalty relief for deepwater gas and oil 
production on the Outer Continental Shelf, this bill will ensure that 
Americans receive fair value for federally owned mineral resources.
  In 2005, Congress created this royalty-relief program to encourage 
exploration and production in the ocean's very deepest waters.
  But the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed that safety and 
response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters to justify this 
incentive.
  When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17 
others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 
days.
  Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the 
pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic 
sludge, and more than one-third of Federal waters in the gulf were 
closed to fishing.
  This week, the National Academy of Sciences found that plumes of 
subsurface oil substantially damaged a community of deep-sea gulf 
corals.
  Drilling in deep water presents substantially more challenges and 
technical difficulties than drilling in shallow water or on shore.
  The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert 
torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier.
  The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, and the pressure 
in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch.
  The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, and many technical 
procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely controlled 
robots thousands of feet below the surface.
  Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized 
cold ocean waters, and the likelihood of these crystals forming 
increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters.
  This crystallization repeatedly impeded efforts to stop the gushing 
oil and was a primary reason it took so long to stop BP's Deepwater 
Horizon spill.
  Bottom line: the risks of drilling for oil in thousands of feet of 
water are far higher than other oil exploration methods, and spills are 
both ecologically devastating and hard to stop.
  American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize 
this most dangerous form of offshore drilling. It is not good 
environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either.
  I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we 
face, and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions 
produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal.

[[Page 4566]]

  That is why I believe it is unconscionable that Congress allowed the 
taxes on renewable sources of energy to go up on December 31, while 
taxpayer-funded subsidies continue to finance production of fossil 
fuels.
  I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative 
initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase 
energy efficiency, and incentivize the use of renewable energy.
  One of our biggest victories has been an aggressive fuel economy law, 
called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was enacted in 2007.
  In order to implement this law, the Obama administration has raised 
fleetwide fuel economy standards to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40-percent 
increase above today's standard. The fleetwide average will rise to 
54.5 mpg by 2025.
  This is important because these standards will dramatically reduce 
the economic burden of massive swings in the price of oil and gasoline 
on American families.
  By 2025, the average new car will reduce what an American family 
spends on gasoline by $5,200 to $6,600 during the life of vehicle, and 
that is assuming relatively affordable gas prices in the $3 per gallon 
range.
  If prices were to stay at today's levels, this law will save American 
families even more money.
  The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy 
industry has grown dramatically over the last few years due to the 
Federal incentives that are expiring and which this legislation would 
extend.
  The Treasury Grants Program, which expired in December, has helped 
fund the installation of more than 22,000 renewable energy projects 
with a generating capacity of more than 14,000 megawatts.
  The production tax credit has allowed wind power capacity to more 
than triple since 2005. If the production tax credit is not extended by 
the end of this year, Navigant Consulting estimates that annual 
installations of wind will drop by more than 75 percent, wind-supported 
jobs will decline from 78,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013, and total wind 
investment will drop by nearly two-thirds, from $15.6 billion in 2012 
to $5.5 billion in 2013.
  We simply cannot afford as a nation to abandon the renewable energy 
industry just as it is emerging as a major force in our economy.
  These are private sector jobs in a growing industry that is competing 
globally.
  Just 2 years ago, the United States added more new capacity to 
produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from 
natural gas, oil, and coal combined, for the first time. A great deal 
of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy 
incentives. That is where public investment in energy development 
should go.
  The Obama administration has offered up millions of acres of Federal 
land for oil extraction by oil companies. As a result, production on 
these Federal lands has increased.
  In fact, of the over 12,000 permits that the Obama administration has 
issued since 2009, 7,000 sit idle.
  But the fact is that whether or not the Federal government has opened 
enough land to oil drilling has almost nothing to do with gas prices, 
even though many politicians argue it does.
  According to a statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, 
inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by 
the Associated Press released this month, ``there is no statistical 
correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price 
at the pump.''
  The AP writes:

       If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, 
     you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. . . . 
     More oil production in the United States does not mean 
     consistently lower prices at the pump.

  Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent 
when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those 3 years went from $2.07 per 
gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.
  U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, 
when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that is 
not what prices are now.
  I don't believe oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. 
They are already reaping record profits.
  Over the last decade, the five largest oil companies have enjoyed 
nearly $1 trillion in profits and tens of billions of dollars in 
taxpayer subsidies. Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to 
their bottom line. This is unacceptable.
  Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits 
from those public resources, American taxpayers should receive a 
royalty as compensation. And when oil companies profit by charging $4 
per gallon of gas, they should pay income taxes like the rest of us do 
instead of relying on billions of dollars of tax subsidies to avoid 
their obligations.
  In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money 
should be spent wisely.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have been monitoring the debate on my 
Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act and I keep hearing over and over from 
our friends on the other side of the aisle that if we keep giving the 
oil companies taxpayer money, they will do the right thing. The problem 
is we already know that is not true.
  First of all, the United States has only 2 percent of the world's oil 
reserves, so we cannot drill our way out of this problem even if we 
wanted to. But, more importantly, we cannot trust the big five oil 
companies to simply do the right thing.
  Let's look at the record. Last year, the big five oil companies took 
$2 billion of your money and saw their profits shoot up to $137 
billion--an impressive 75-percent increase in profits. Did they use 
that extra money we gave them in our subsidies to produce more oil? No, 
they didn't. They took your money and they didn't produce a drop more 
of oil. Despite the fact that overall U.S. oil production is higher now 
than it has been in the last 8 years, last year these five companies 
actually produced 4 percent less oil.
  So here is another way to look at it. As each of these companies 
pocketed our subsidies to pad those profits, they did not use this 
windfall to produce more oil. If we take the word of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, we have a contract, in essence, with these 
five companies. We pay them $2 billion and they give us more oil. Last 
year, they broke that contract and produced less. So it appears that 
these poor oil companies took the taxpayers' $2 billion and instead of 
having to suffer with only $135 billion in profits, they made $137 
billion in profits last year.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to at the end of my remarks.
  What a heartwarming story of Robin Hood in reverse--taking from the 
American taxpayer to give to the rich. So congratulations, Big Oil, you 
got $2 billion extra in profits and we got 4 percent less oil.
  But, of course, we are not just seeing less oil, we are also seeing 
the American driver gouged with higher gasoline prices. What happens 
when taxpayers are forking over $2 billion in subsidies a year to 
highly profitable oil companies that, in turn, produce less? We get a 
double whammy with $4-a-gallon gas at the pump and a bigger burden on 
taxpayers. How is that a fair return on our taxpayer dollars? It is 
pretty generous to Big Oil, which stands to profit $1 trillion over the 
next decade while getting $24 billion in subsidies, but it is a bad 
deal for consumers struggling to make ends meet.
  First, the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act takes back $24 billion in 
taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and stops that insanity. The next step 
the bill takes is investing in alternatives to oil--biofuels, natural 
gas, propane, and a refueling infrastructure for these fuels as well. 
By investing in these alternatives we finally give Big Oil some 
competition in the marketplace that

[[Page 4567]]

will give consumers the choice to use cheaper fuels as well as drive 
down gas prices.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in getting back to 
reality and stop subsidizing industries that need it the least and 
start investing in the 21st century industries that will help us 
compete with China, that will create jobs, that will improve our 
environment and make us more energy secure. It is time we stopped 
trusting Big Oil to do the right thing with our money and use it on 
things that actually make sense.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have one question before this 
morning's vote--one simple question: Is this the best we can do? Is 
this the best we have to offer folks who are staring at $4-a-gallon 
gasoline, a bill that even Democrats admit won't do anything at all to 
lower the price of gas, and a process that blocks any other idea from 
even coming to the floor for a vote? Is this the best we can do? No 
other idea has been allowed other than a proposal that will inevitably 
raise the price of gasoline at the pump. Does anybody think the Senate 
has done its job on this issue?
  Well, if you don't, if you think we should do more for the American 
people at a time when they are paying $4 a gallon for gas than raise 
taxes on energy manufacturers and block a pipeline from Canada, then 
you ought to vote against cloture. You should stand with Republicans 
and insist we do more to lower gas prices in this country.
  I see the President made a statement a little while ago in support of 
this proposed tax hike. My question is: Where was the White House when 
the Democrats voted to actually get off of this proposal? Maybe they 
were too busy lining up votes against the Keystone Pipeline. Maybe the 
President was too busy telling the Russians about how he is hoping for 
more flexibility.
  My point is Democrats don't have to take orders from the White House. 
They don't need to serve the President's political strategy. They can 
do what their constituents want them to do on this issue. They can vote 
to stay on this bill and fight for real solutions to the problems of 
high gas prices and any other number of issues the Democrats refuse to 
face, for that matter. We can use this institution to actually make a 
difference. I hope at some point that is what my colleagues on the 
other side decide to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

                          ____________________