owner, and i mention that because of the problems of the high price of gasoline have nothing to do with the station owners. these are small business owners. they're having a difficult time with the cash flow due to the higher costs to purchase the product, and they are also on the front lines getting the wrath of the consumers as they get the sticker shock when they fill up their tank. i could tell you that consumers are hurting today every time they go to a gasoline station to fill up their car. it's affecting their household budget. it's affecting our economy. and it will become even more dire as we go to the summer months when more and more families will be deciding on their family vacations and the costs of gasoline will very much figure into it, having a direct

impact on our economy. but i can tell you a group of companies that are not hurting as a result of the gasoline price increase, and they are our big oil companies. with gas prices escalating, oil profits have soared. there's a direct relationship, mr. president, as our economy is suffering with higher gasoline prices, the profits of the oil companies go up. the five largest oil companies -- exxonmobil, shell, b.p., chevron and conocophillips -- have seen nearly $1 trillion in profits, profits, $1 trillion in profits over the last ten years. in the first quarter of 2011 alone, the first quarter, first three months, they had a record profit of $35.8 billion. now, when you compare that to a year ago, these companies have seen an increase in their

profits. where american businesses are suffering, where household incomes are being stretched, the oil industry makes more money on higher prices of gasoline. now, i'm for the free market economy. i hope businesses make a lot of money, hire more people. that's good. but that's not the situation with the oil industry. most of their profits go to their stockholders and to repurchase shareholders' interest. it's not going to create new jobs in america. secondly, they are making these profits in part because of taxpayers' subsidies. so the person that goes up to fill up his or her tank at a gasoline station is being affected adversely twice. first by the costs of the

gasoline of the day, and secondly they are being asked as taxpayers literally to help subsidize the oil industry. that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. now, in 2005, president george w. bush said -- and i'm going to quote -- "i will tell you with with $55 oil, we don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. there are plenty of incentives." well, as you know, mr. president, the crude oil price per barrel today is not not $55. it's $100. and it's even gone higher than that. at the time, 2005, all of the big oil c.e.o.'s agreed, that there was no need for subsidies with oil prices reaching $55 a

barrel. once again today, it's $100 a barrel. now, we will have a chance later this week to consider legislation to eliminate these attacks loopholes. senator menendez has introduced legislation and we're going to have a cloture vote on that later this week. i want to talk about the largest tax provision that's involved in this legislation, section 199. it's about $18 billion of taxpayer revenue involved in this. let me just give you a little history about the genesis of this tax provision. it was originally put in the tax law for foreign sales companies. u.s. companies that exported products overseas. for, you see, a united states manufacturer is at a

disadvantage from foreign country manufacturer. if you manufacture your product in europe or asia and import it into america, you can take off from the imported price the tax -- the value-added tax that's added in europe and asia. but if you're an american manufacturer and you're sending your products into europe or asia, and, yes, there are taxes involved to producing the product here in america, you cannot take that tax off when you send that product into europe. so we are competing on an unlevel playing field. american manufacturers are not in the same competitive advantage. congress did something about that and passed the tax provision to give u.s. manufacturers who export products a tax break. that's what we did. now, obviously, the oil industry didn't get that tax break. first of all, they're not what

you would call traditional manufacturing, and secondly, they import a lot more than they ever export. they export their crude oil. the amount of their exported product is far less than that. but the problem happened after we passed this foreign sales provision. companies in europe and asia took us to the world trade center and said that this was an illegal subsidy to u.s. manufacture. we argued, and i think the right position, that it was not but we lost the case. as a result, we had to redo the tax provisions, and we passed what's now known as section 199. and what we did is we did rough justice. we gave all manufacturing a certain tax break, figuring that it would be fair to deal with their manufacturing that was used for exsport. now -- export. now, i must tell you that i

don't think any of us envisioned at any time that $18 billion of that revenue would go to the oil industry. we didn't need this break. this is not a matter of subsidizing their products in the export market, when as we know petroleum and oil is a global product. so it makes no sense whatsoever to continue this tax provision for the oil industry. it should have been repealed a long time ago. but one thing is clear. it's not needed that the profits of the oil industry is very, very high. and we need these revenues for other purposes. we need these revenues in order to deal with deficit reduction. i hear my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk frequently about how we need a credible plan to reduce the federal deficit. i agree with that, we do need a federal plan to reduce the federal deficit. but if you don't start with getting rid of these tax expenditures that are clearly

not serving any public purpose, we can't start with the easy things, how are we going to make the tough decisions? we're being asked to tell our seniors they are going to make do with less, they will pay more. the oil industry can do without this subsidy that they don't need. i tell you, you're going to hear all types of scare tactics used by those who oppose this repeal. one of the common lines is that it will increase the price at the gas pump. nothing could be further from the truth. i could just tell you the basic math here. again, $140 billion in profits we're talking about annually, that's annually projected to be be $140 billion. the tax provisions here are about $4 billion on an annual basis, annual. the numbers i was giving you before are ten-year numbers. so this is on an annual basis. and that last -- i think 2009, over 85% of the profits went

back in to the shareholders. so there's no possible way that it would have an impact on price. let me just quote from some experts in this area. severen berlinstein, the codirector of the university of california-berkeley center for energy markets observes, and i quote -- "gasoline prices are a function of world oil prices and refining margins. the incremental change in production that might result from changing oil subsidies will have no impact -- repeat, no impact on world oil prices and therefore no impact on gasoline prices." and our own congressional research service, and i quote -- "in the recent market environment, prices are well in excess of costs." repeat again -- "prices are well

in excess of costs, and a small increase in taxes are unlikely to reduce oil output and enhance -- and hence increase petroleum product prices." so let me just put that myth aside. now, one of the things i think all of us are concerned about is how do you bring down gasoline prices? i have been told well, this tax tax -- will this tax eliminating it bring down gasoline prices? no, it won't. but i tell you what it will do. it will give us all the tools we need in order to move forward with energy policies in america. we're going to be asking for budget priorities to deal with energy independence so we can bring down energy prices. we have to get rid of these unnecessary tax expenditures so we can have a budget that makes sense and is fiscally responsible. and yes, there are things that we can do to help bring down

gasoline prices. we can certainly regulate speculation in the commodities market, the commodities future trading commission, give them the tools that they need. it's interesting, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to cut their resources. we think they should have the resources in order to get their job done. it's time that we take on the monopolistic policies of the countries that produce oil. these are countries, many of which are really not what you would call at all free economic countries. they are manipulating price and supply. we need to do a better job of taking that on. we need a comprehensive energy policy. i've said that many times on the floor, america has a little over 2% of the world reserves of oil and we consume 25% of the world's oil. we've got to get off of oil. we have to get off of imported oil. the only way we do that is develop alternative renewable

energy sources, use less energy so our nation can become energy independent. mr. president, that will not only help us as it relates to the current economic problems, it will also help us create more jobs in america, will make us more energy secure and will also help our environment. but the first step is to repeal the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. let me close by quoting from an editorial that appeared in my local paper, "the baltimore sun," on friday -- this past friday, may 13. i'm just going to quote a small part of it. "what tennessee of billions of dollars in potential profits isn't good enough without the government adding some kind of sweetener to your $100-barrel of black gold? that's just greedy. with the nation facing a debt

crisis, it's downright immoral. to be talking about trimming medicare and medicaid, basic health care for our seniors and the poor while preserving tax breaks that cost the federal treasury $21 billion is just beyond the pale." mr. president, i agree with the editorial in the "baltimore sun." it's well past time that we end these taxpayer subsidies. we're going to have a chance to do it this week. the first vote will be on cloture, whether we have -- we want to take this issue up for a vote up or down. i don't think it's terribly complicated. i think this is an issue that the american people expect us to take a stand on on an up-or-down vote. i hope my colleagues will support the consideration of senator menendez' bill to repeal these tax subsidies and vote to

repeal these subsidies so that we can help the american taxpayers and work together to develop an energy policy to make america secure so that we can have stable energy costs, including reducing the costs of gasoline at the pump, which is affecting every one of our constituents. with that, mr. president, i would notice an absence of a quorum and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, the senate is expected to take up a bill that would repeal

$20 billion in outdated, antiquated tax breaks for the oil and gas companies. in many cases this tax break was created about a century ago and they have little, if anything, to do with modern job-creating energy policy. mr. president, it's time for them to go. these oil and gas tax breaks, they are targeted in this bill that we're going to vote on, they are narrow, special interest tax subsidies that distort the marketplace. it happens to pad the profits as a result of the tax breaks, and

it does nothing to keep gas prices down. it simply doesn't make any sense to me that we would continue to rely on oil and gas tax breaks that were originally written in 1916. these rules are truly vestiges of another era. and in some cases, rather than encouraging energy independence, the tax breaks actually promote energy dependence on the opec oil-producing member states and other foreign countries that produce oil. for example, there's a part in it called "the dual capacity provision" and it allows major oil companies to claim a foreign tax credit for royalties paid to foreign governments.

now, the foreign tax credit was never intended to offset royalty payments. it was originally intended to offset foreign income tax payments. so a company does business in a foreign country. they pay an income tax. the tax code was created so that you could offset for their american income tax and use as a business deduction that foreign income tax payment. but what has happened is that the oil companies have twisted that and are claiming that that is like an income tax that they've paid to a foreign government. it isn't. it's a royalty payment. the tax code was never intended for that and here is another

loophole in our tax code that does nothing more than promote reliance and dependence on foreign oil. and, for that matter, foreign governments. now, that's exactly what we ought to be reversing, just from a national security standpoint, not even to speak of the threat to our national economic condition because we are now importing 70% of our daily consumption of oil from foreign shores. in addition to repealing those kind of tax subsidies, we also need to close a loophole that allows oil companies to claim a tax break for their own irresponsible actions. turns out that b.p. has figured out how to shift nearly a third

of their cleanup and legal costs of the gulf of mexico oil spill on to the backs of our american taxpayers. now, here's what they've done. they've come out with a projection of future income and profitability in a report that came out. they expect that they're going to have somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion of payments that they're going to make as a result of their irresponsible action of having this huge deep and water horizon micando oil well spill. part of that, of course, is payments to local governments. part of that is payments through the gulf claims facility fund. part of that's going to be a hefty fine that's going to be imposed by the federal government. well, very cleverly they have

gotten their tax lawyers together and they've figured out that what they can do is claim that as an expense, a deduction and save themselves $11.8 billion in taxes. what b.p. is doing, is treating its cleanup and legal expense as an ordinary and necessary cost of doing business. these costs aren't ordinary business expenses and they should not be tax deductible. and so when the five oil company c.e.o.'s were in front of our finance committee, i asked the c.e.o. of b.p., i said, "are you going to do this?" and he said, that's what the law allows. that's what we're going to do. and i said, well, what the law allows doesn't make it right.

i said, why don't you take a cue from the boeing company or from goldman sachs. for the expenses they incurred as a result of untoward activity, they voluntarily did not employ this part of the tax code to use it as a business deduction and, therefore, to cut their taxes. and, of course, when a company like this cuts their taxes nearly $12 billion, guess who makes up the difference? the rest of us do, us american taxpayers. so i've filed a bill, mr. president, "the oil spill tax fairness act," and it aims to reduce the deficit by billions of dollars by preventing oil companies from shifting the cost of oil spills on to our taxpayers.

in the past, congress has stepped in to prevent unconsequence tax deductions for expenses, such as civil and criminal fines, bribes, lobbying expenditures, political contributions, excessive executive compensation. we've done that in the congress by passing laws to prevent those as tax deductions. well, we ought to step in and do it again. b.p. i think anybody would say was irresponsible and negligent to the detriment of a whole lot of people and the company should not be able to claim tax savings for their missteps. and especially so -- this is just pouring salt on the wound -- while our people are being squeezed at the pump every day because of the price of

gasoline at the same time that in the first three months of this year, the first quarter, those five oil companies had $35 billion in profits. i mean, how much more flagellation can the american taxpayer take? today's rising gas prices reflect more than just record profits for the oil companies. there's also rising demand in asia. it's clearly clear that our oil and energy markets are no longer governed by just supply and demand. speculation, mr. president, is back with a vengeance. we saw the handiwork of speculators two years ago when the price of oil hit an all-time high of $147 a barrel only to

plummet 80% of that price just a few months later. that's not supply and demand. that's not the working of the economic market. that is in part caused by speculators running the price of oil up and then, because they had to drop their positions on the commodities futures trading commission and the exchanges, they started dropping all of those futures contracts in oil. now speculators are using the turmoil in the middle east and north africa as an excuse to drive the price of oil sky-.

sky- -- price of oil sky-high. and it makes no sense that we continue to let these commodities exchanges self-regulate by setting their own margin ranges and other rules. last year when we passed the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, congress empowered that commission that i just mentioned, the cftc, the commodities futures trading commission, we empowered them under the new law to rein in excessive speculation so that commodities markets don't fly off the rails. yet this same commission has yet to finalize new rules to impose speculative position limits which are the amount of money that you have to put down in order to buy these oil futures contracts.

there are a number of us who have been working for months in this senate to push the cftc to act. the law we passed was clear and it's time for the federal regulators to follow through. mr. president, sadly i want to recall a little over a year ago something that a lot of us remember so vividly many people can't forget the i am images of the oil that was gushing from 5,000 feet below the surface of the gulf of mexico. in my public service for decades i've warned about the dangers of drilling out there in the gulf.

it's now unbelievable that almost a year after the gulf oil spill, and all of the environmental disaster that occurred as a result of this, folks are still now talking about being willing to risk the economy of the entire gulf coast again. you remember that 11 people died because safety took a back seat to expediency and profit. and so last week the house passed three bills that would speed up oil production in a way that ignores serious safety concerns. and now senator mcconnell has a similar proposal, and these bills would require the secretary of the interior to approve or deny drilling permits

within a maximum of 60 days. and if the secretary doesn't take action within that time, a permit is deemed improved. that's like saying, a home buyer, if they are not approved for financing within 60 days, they automatically get the financing regardless of their credit. or it's like saying, if a prisoner doesn't hear back from the parole board in two months, that prisoner is going to be automatically out on parole. let me stop right here, mr. president, and ask my colleague, the great and distinguished senator from new hampshire, if i may be allowed by unanimous consent to continue and finish, and i think i can be done in about two or three minutes. i thank the senator from new hampshire. well, it's simply irresponsible to deregulate an inherently

dangerous activity in this manner. and it's a slap in the face to the commercial fishermen, the hoteliers and the small business owners on the gulf coast who, to this day, have not been made whole. and yet these bills are out here. the house passed it. senator mcconnell's bill would roll back the department of interior's post-deepwater horizon revisions to offshore leasing, revisions that came about because of what we learned from the oil spill. and senator mcconnell's bill seeks to limit the fundamental right of americans. and that's access to the courts. his bill would not allow floridians, who want to file a

civil lawsuit regarding any offshore energy projects in the gulf of mexico, to have a claim near their home in florida or their place of business in florida. instead, under his bill, they have to go to the fifth circuit. that's mississippi, louisiana, and texas. now, why should people from florida have to file a claim there? why can't they go through the 11th circuit, which is the one for the state of florida and georgia? the fifth circuit certainly can't be the only circuit with expertise on the subject of offshore energy. i believe we have a responsibility to protect access to the courts, and senator mcconnell's bill jeopardizes that for the people that do not have the luxury of going far off to another state. to bring a lawsuit.

and so, meanwhile, the house has passed a bill last week that seeks to open -- now it's getting personal -- they seek to open the eastern gulf of mexico off of florida, that which senator martinez and i have off limits in law. for obvious reasons we have it off limits in law. it's the largest testing and training area for the united states military in the world. we have two letters from two successive secretaries of defense, including the present one, secretary gates, that says you can't have oil drilling and related activities. they use the word "it is incompatible with the military training and testing mission."

that is the largest training and testing area for the u.s. military in the world. it's the gulf of mexico basically off of florida. and, of course, you all have heard me over and over talk about all the dry holes. there's not much oil out there off of florida. the oil is where the lord intended the oil to be, and that was for years the sediments coming down the mississippi river and then being come pablghted compacted and then for millions of years the compacting of the earth's crust has formed that oil. that's off primarily louisiana, some off of mississippi, some off of alabama and texas, not florida. so the proponents of these bills claim they are they'll lower gas prices. at the same time the oil and gas companies are making millions of dollars. just look at their first quarter report. and we're giving big tax

subsidies to the oil companies. mr. president, the price of oil dropped $17 last week. it was the largest weekly decline in over two years. but you know what? i don't think the folks at the gas pump saw a commensurate drop. i think it's about time that we gave them some relief. and we're going to have a chance to do that. now, mr. president, i conclude by saying that we're not fooling ourselves. to be able to get an individual bill like this for an individual tax break, however objectionable that tax rate is, it's going to be difficult to get 60 votes to break a filibuster. but, mr. president, help son the way.

-- help is on the way. there is a group called the gang of six. they are meeting, and they're trying to put together a package to solve our deficit crisis and to make real progress over the next decade or so, as we move toward budget balance, a condition that we enjoyed as recent as 2001. not only a budget balance but a budget surplus. and so it is my hope that when we get down to putting this package together of how we're going to lower the deficit, that people of good will will come together and recognize there are things in the tax code that have got to be changed to make them right.

i have enumerated but a few here today. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i look forward to the comments of the very distinguished senator of new hampshire. shaways mr. presidenthampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm pleased that i could be here to hear our colleague from florida talk about the importance of ending the disibs that we're currently -- subsidies that we're currently paying to the world's largest oil companies and about the importance of continuing to preserve the gulf and make sure that the regulations that we put in place last year continue. i appreciate his leadership on both of those issues and particularly on protecting the gulf, which is really a national treasure. so, thank you very much to our colleague from florida, senator nelson. i came down to the floor today

to talk about the important legislation that's before us to reduce our deficit by ending the needless subsidies for the nation's largest oil companies. at a time when americans are paying these companies $4 a a gallon for gasoline -- in some places it's more than that -- it might be surprises to some people out there that these same companies are receiving $4 billion a year in subsidies from the american taxpayer. the legislation that's before us in the senate right now would end six of these single payer rat tax handouts. one of them repeals a provision that essentially amounts to a subsidy for foreign oil production, a second closes a loophole that lets oil companies drill for free on public lands in the outer continental shelf, another ends a practice that lets oil companies manipulate

the numbers when deducting the costs of new wells from their taxes. under current law, in fact, oil companies sometimes can deduct more than they actually paid to put in place the well. while so many families and small businesses nationwide have struggled to pay the high cost of gasoline, the five largest oil companies in the united states collectively made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last decade. yet because of unnecessary and outdated tax subsidy, exxonmobil, the biggest oil company, paid no u.s. income tax at all in 2009. boy, that's hard to explain, i think, to the small businesses in new hampshire and florida and delaware who are struggling in this recession to pay their taxes, that the biggest oil

company in the country that made the highest profits didn't pay any taxes at all in 2009. with record deficits ending those giveaways is a commonsense step towards fixing the federal budget. i've heard some people who are in favor of these giveaways say that we need them so the oil companies can keep prices low. but as senator nelson so clearly put it, the nonpartisan congressional research service said last week in a report that rolling back these tax handouts won't raise gas prices. with prices so high, they said, oil companies will do all they can to maximum production from all existing wells and the oil supply will remain unchanged. a barrel of oil is currently selling for far more than it costs an oil company to produce. these subsidies are doing nothing to make gasoline cheaper.

in fact, the former c.e.o. of shell oil company spoke about drilling subsidies last february and he said, and i quote, "with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary." but, i think it's important to be clear. this legislation isn't about punishing the oil companies for doing well. we want all companies in america to do well. it's really about reducing the deficit and our debt and making smart policy choices with our limited resources. tax breaks for wig corporations are just spending under another name and all government spending of taxpayer dollars has to to come under scrutiny as we tackle our debt and deficits. we're naiver going to get our massive deficits and debt under control unless we're prepared to eliminate outdated and unnecessary government programs.

and that means government programs that we support on the democratic side of the aisle and it also means outdated and unnecessary programs that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle support. providing tax handouts to one of the most profitable industries in human history, an industry that clearly needs no help from taxpayers, is a logical place to start. mr. president, as we emerge from this historic recession and grapple with our long-term deficits, we have to ask ourselves, what are our priorities? investing in a next-generation economy? reducing the national debt we leave to our children? or is it providing outdated tax breaks to one of the most profitable industries in the history of our country? i think the choice is pretty clear. and i hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this

legislation to eliminate these giveaways, reduce the deficit, and strengthen our economy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. asuggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in support of legislation -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call, sir. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in support of legislation we'll later vote on this week authored by my good friend from new jersey, senator menendez. as this chamber knows, senator menendez has been championing this legislation for quite some

time. he's is -- he's had the precious and foresight to focus on this idea early on. and i applaud the hard work he's done to build support for it. i'm also glad that our leader, senator reid, has scheduled a vote on it this week and i hope the bill will pass. i've heard even a few of my friends from the other side of the aisle say they're considering voting for it. nothing would be better, mr. president, in terms of showing bipartisanship and giving the american people hope that we can come to a fair agreement on the budget than to pass the legislation this week. now, in the last election, voters gave those of us who serve in this chamber two distinct mandates. they told us to do two things at once, either which -- either one of which alone would be hard to do. first and perhaps foremost, they said make the economy grow, create good-paying jobs, make sure that that american dream

that says the odds are you'll be doing ten years better than you're doing today, they're pretty good, and the odds are better still that your children will do better than you. that's the american dream. and since the founding of our great republic, that candle has blown -- has burned brightly in the eyes of americans who have been here, whose ancestors have been here since the mayflower has landed as well as in the eyes of americans who are just here for a generation or two and even immigrants. but they also gave us a second mandate. not just grow the economy, not just employ people but they gave us a second -- rein in the out-of-control federal deficit. reign it in. and the american people -- rein it in. and the american people had wisdom because both these goals are important. some say that the debt isn't important. i believe it is. and here's the way i put it. we, the federal government, are a blindfolded man and we're walking towards a cliff.

once we fall off that cliff, there's no getting back up. now, the debate is whether we're 20 feet from that cliff or 200 yards from that cliff. but we know sooner or later, no matter what our distance, if we keep walking, we're going to fall off. once you fall off, there's no getting back up. so that means we have to take the bull by the horns and confront our mounting deficit. it would be hard enough to accomplish one of these two goals. to try to do both at once is a herculean task. and i think everyone's trying to do the right thing, regardless of their ideology, but there are strong different feelings and clear policy differences. there are many tough choices ahead, but one choice -- there's at least one choice that isn't tough at all, not by a mile. it's obvious to me and to most americans, whether people you just talk to as you go about your state or whether looking at the polling data, that at this

time of fiscal restraint to continue to give the big oil companies giant tax breaks makes no sense. getting rid of these corporate subsidies to big oil is a no-brainer. decades ago, when these breaks were enacted, oil was $17 a barrel. and maybe it made sense in those days to give companies an incentive to explore and to produce. one of the subsidies that the menendez legislation repeals, the oil depletion allowance, dates back to 1913. that's the same year a man named william burton patented a new oil extraction process called thermal cracking. well, mr. president, big oil no longer cracks petroleum using mr. burton's method. it's an outdated process but the outdated tax subsidy still remains on the books, amazingly enough. with oil hovering at a hundred

dollars a barrel and big oil reaping record profits, it defies logic for the government to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on these subsidies. we are writing out a check, $4 billion, to the big oil companies. does that make sense, when we have so many other needs and we have a huge deficit? to me it doesn't. at the same time americans get hit with a double whammy. when they drive up to the pump, they're paying $4, close to it, a gallon for gasoline, diesel fuel, and big oil is taking some dollars out of their pockets because their taxes, a small percentage of it, goes to pay these big oil subsidies. how galling. in my home state of new york, the price of gasoline is up 35% on average compared to this time

last year. economists estimate that a typical new york family, a typical american family will pay as much as a thousand dollars more on gas this year than last. a thousand dollars, when these families sit around the dinner table friday nights after dinner, mom and dad, and they try to figure out how they're going to pay all the bills. those gas prices make things much harder. families across the country struggle to make ends meet as the economy slowly recovers. they can't afford to get gouged at the bump. and with billions of dollars worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at near-record highs, it's no wonder these top five oil companies just announced mind-boggling profits. these companies are not only among the most profitable businesses in the u.s. but they're among the most profitable businesses in the whole world. in the first quarter of this year, the big five brought in

$35 billion in profit. in the past decade, they took home nearly a trillion -- that's a trillion with a "t." now, there's nothing wrong with profits in and of themselves. in america, we celebrate success. we want the private sector to thrive. we want them to make good profits. but at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt and we're asking every family to tighten their belt and we're grappling with painful cuts because we have the dual goal of growing the middle class but reducing the deficit, it bogels the -- it boggles the mind that we continue, we continue to subsidize such a lavishly profitable industry. there are priorities. i said this to the oil company executives last week when they testified before our finance committee. there are priorities. how many americans would choose to give oil companies an extra subsidy rather than kids who deserve to go to college help

them pay for their tuition? that's what some of my colleagues are recommending. and when i asked mr. mulva, the head of conoco, one of the big five oil companies, i said, well, we -- what -- which would you choose? he said, well, they're two different things. mr. mulva, in all due respect, they're not. if we have to reduce the deficit by a certain amount, if we take the $21 billion that we're giving you, that gives us some money to play with that we might be able to deal -- or not play with but to use for good purpose, that we could give to prevent cuts in helping middle-class families defray the cost of tuition and sent their kids to college, which is part of the american dream. so they are related, at least in a government deficit world, at least in a budget world in which we live, every dollar, every dollar that you don't spend on one thing is a dollar you might

be able to use on something else. so just try to wrap your head around it. big oil is recording record profit, gas prices are near an all-time high, and we, the american taxpayer, are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of $4 billion a year. you need the imagination of lewis carroll, who wrote "alice in wonderland," to come up with a more ridiculous scene fai sce. that's why i strongly support and i'm proud to cosponsor senator menendez' "close big oil tax loopholes act." this legislation will put an toned taxpayer handouts to the five largest integrated oil companies and use that $21 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. this $21 billion is an excellent down payment on the effort to get our fiscal house in order, and if we use this $21 billion, it will be a little easier to reach our huge goal of reducing the deficit. it will be a little easier to complete our dual goals of

reducing the deficit but still growing the economy. the bill repeals a host of byzantine tax provisions that only a lobbyist could love, such as the deduction for tertiary injectants and deduction for intangible extraction costs. someone thought these up a long time ago. they've sat in our tax code but they mean lots of money to big oil. small- and medium-sized oil firms are exempt. the only companies the legislation deals with are the big five -- shell, exxonmobil, chevron, conocophillips and british petroleum. now, i've heard pundits from the hard right parrot big oil's talkingpoints that repealing these giveaways would increase gas prices for sciewmples nothing could be further from the truth. last week taboo major studies -- one from the nonpartisan congressional research service and another from the joint

economic committee -- found that ending these absurd subsidies would not -- would not -- impact the price of gas and neither -- neither of these studies -- these were scientific studies done by economists; they didn't have any biases -- and in what perhaps was an inadvertent moment of candor at last week's finance committee hearing, exxonmobil's c.e.o., mr. rex tillerson said, and i quote, "gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices which are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not by companies such as ours." let me repeat what he said. because it directly answers the argument that some on the other side of the aisle have made that if we repeal these subsidies we'll raise gas prices, because that means that the companies would decide to raise them because er they're getting less subsidy. here's what tillerson said. "gasoline prices are a function

of crude oil prices, which are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not by companies such as ours." now, that doesn't seem like an objectionable comment. it's true, but when he what i had that comment, mr. tillerson of exxonmobil was conceding that repealing taxpayer-funded subsidies for the big five will not increase prices. prices are set, as he says, by global supply and demand. that's not to say that repealing the subsidies will necessarily bring down prices. we are not making that claim. all along we've been clear that the purpose of this bill is to make a dent in the deficit by repealing tax breaks for the five companies that are the least in need of help from uncle sam. lowering the cost of gasoline and ridding our country of its dependence on foreign oil requires, of course, a long-term comprehensive approach.

it's something we must do. it is outrageous that our country sends $1 billion a day overseas -- wealth out of american pockets -- and who do we send them to? people we dislike intensely. ahmadinejad of iran, chavez of venezuela. why are we doing that? because we failed to come up with lon a long-term policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. in the month ahead i expect the democratic caucus will unveil a thorough and forward-thinking plan to do just that. in the meantime, if republicans in the house are serious about deficit reduction, the nen nen des bill is their chance to show it now. if we're going to come together, isn't this the easiest place to coul together? we're going to have a lot of hard strulings as we attempt to reduce the deficit, as the debt

ceiling looms over us. but this is an easy one. and many people on my side of the aisle are scratching their heads. for if colleagues on the other side can't give in on something like this, what are they going to give in on? speaker boehner said earlier this week he wants to make trillions of dollars in cuts. well, here's a good place to stamplet the speaker himself has said as much. at one point he seemed to say that subsidies to the big five make some sense to eliminate them. let's not forget that speaker boehner was in favor of repealing oil subsidies before he was against it. so the bottom line is this: at a time of sky-high oil prices, it's unfathomable to continue to pad the profit of companies with taxpayer-funded subsidies. the time to repeal these giveaways is now.

no more should we send $4 billion this year -- next year, or any year to the five big oil companies which have made record profits and admittedly by the admission of mr. tillerson will not affect -- we take it away from them, won't raise gas prices a blum nickel. our plan to cut the deficit begins with ending wasteful subsidies to big oil. the republican plan, as embodied by the ryan amendment, which almost every republican in the house voted for, begins with ending medicare as we know it. that's a bright-line difference between our side and theirs. we know what choice the american people want us to maifnlg make. i yield the floor. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you,

mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 8:00 p.m. for debate only with senators -- for debate only with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senior senator from new york who has been a real leader on this issue to bring more tax fairness to the american people and take away the subsidies of companies that -- there's just five companies that absolutely don't need those subsidies, and to help deal with the budget d and we can do that with one simple step that far fume conservative -- that far too many conservative politicians in this country are are resisting. we first of all know, mr. president, that our nation's spending in its budget should reflect our nation's priorities, should reflect our investments in education, infrastructure, how it will strengthen our economic competitiveness, whether in west virginia or

ohio, through the entrepreneurship of small businesses. it should also reflect our priorities to create jobs here at home to encourage companies to invest in clean energy, to end our nation's dependence on foreign, dirty oil. last week, unfortunately, we heard just how out of touch some politicians and their benefactors in the oil industry are with the real priorities and real problems facing our nation. huge federal budget deficits, $4-a-gallon gas, americans struggling to find a job or put food on the table, even if they are employed. i got a letter recently -- laurie from lakewood, ohio, wrote "this recession has hurt our family budget for the past three years. my husband and i have had our pay reduced. we cut our expenses don't, go out to eat to movies or to department stores. my husband and i are both working second jobs to keep food on the table the.

we car pool and do everything we can. i'm at the end of the i don't know where tolls cut. i don't have the option of not putting gas in my tank because i have to get to my jobs. if you can do anything, it would help so many of us who are struggling." laurie's story is similar to that of so many americans and so many oweians from ash at that beulah to hamilton to lim lime. the working mom who drives from home to the big cities to work downtown, truck drivers in toledo where high gas prices jeopardize their ability to operate and transport products across the country, small business owners in lima, zane zanesville, fenly and mansfield and chillicothe who worry that high gas prices cut into already razor-thin margins where money spent on gas means less spent on goods and services. their stories stand in shopper contrast to what he we heard last week when the c.e.o.'s of

the five largest oil companies testified to the senate finance committee. theyen sissed on holding on to those -- they insisted on holding on to those tax loopholes that they said before dhee want and they've acknowledged they won't use to expand production. the common refrain we hear from conservative washington politicians is that just as americans -- american families are fighting -- or tightening their belts, so, too, should the federal government. just ask laurie and the thousands of other ohioans who work hard and play by the rules and are doing everything they can to get by. what about big oil? they're doing just fine with windfall profits, billions and billions and billions. the five largest oil companies made $3 2 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. based on that, over four quarters, over this full calendar year of 2011, you can project five companies' profits

being $128-plus billion. $128-plus billion. their profits are good. but when they're more than $30 billion in the first quarter alone, it is clear they don't need these taxpayer-funded giveaways. if americans spent 28% more for gas during the first month of 2011, than they did in the first month of 2010. meanwhile, the big five oil companies made 38% more profits. the company -- companies then used a major portion of these additional profits by -- to buy back stock, enrismg their board of directors and senior managers and large shareholders. these massive profits were possible by a misguided part. tax code, one that allows them to take care advantage of credits that are in fact meant to encourage american manufacturing. that's why the close big oil tax loopholes act is so important. the bill would end more than $2

billion of tax subsidy, deductions and royalty relief that big companies receive each year. consumers are already paying $4 a gallon at the pump. they should not be forced to write another $2 billion check to companies that don't need it. but that's exactly what our tax code allows. it grants -- how do you put it any other way? it grants corporate welfare to big oil. it is unnecessary. it undermines the actual manufacturing that can create jobs and strengthen our production of domestic clean energy. we should promote only those tax credits, only preslice those tax credits that constitute an effective use of tax dollars. for example, manufacturers from across ohio and the nation have benefited from the 48 advanced manufacturing tax credits that help us move away from our dependence on foreign oil. 48-c leverage public incentives to attract private-sector investment. that means government and business working together to create jobs and build a clean

energy economy. seven ohio companies were warded th 125 million in initial 48-c funding in the first phase last year. these companies and their workers in bedford, ohio, cyrus, ohio, circleville, perisburg and toledo will retool their factories to build clean energy products from wind turbine bolts to energy-efficient lamps to state state-of-the-art solar panel tech nosmtion i introduced the security and energy and manufacturing act to extend the 48-c program. the seamack would create grants to invest in more companies, especially small and medium-sized manufacturers that don't have tax liabilities or companies that struggle to find. it is very different from what the oil industry is demondessing that they keep. because there's a -- their tax sniives accomplish none of this. we are asking that those start-up companies, those

companies that are not yet so profitable, that they can take these 48-c tax credits because they simply don't have the tax liability yet. we're asking that those be part of the code so those companies will get some assistance as they begin to grow their businesses and conserve energy this. would further promote u.s. clean energy manufacturing, ensuring our manufacturers produce more. instead ofate don't wanting this incentive, westin republican opposition in the senate and republican opposition in the house forces us to continue to allow big oil to exploit the manufacturing deduction to extract oil from the ground. they don't need anymore incentive to drill for oil when they're getting close to $100 a barrel. that's not -- what they're doing is not manufacturing in any sense of the word. we need a more comprehensive reexamination of the corporate tax code. in the meantime, though, mr. president, we should all be

able to agree that there's simply no justification for continuing tax subsidies to companies that have no need for them. this legislation is modest. it's only in the scheme of a huge federal budget -- in the consume of $125 billion a year profits for the oil company, its only in the scheme of that a first step. after removing these unnecessary tax loopholes, the senate should work on cracking down on both reckless wall street speculators and opec members who manipulate prices through collusion and price-fixing. one step is take away the tax subsidies where middle-class families in dayton and akron and canton and youngstown and charleston and beckley are taking -- take being away -- they're reaching into their pocket and giving to the oil company. at the same time, the administration needs to crack down on wall street speculators

who are gaming the system as they manipulate prices with opec nations through collusion and price-fixing. by taking these necessary steps, we show our spending and our tax code and our budget can reflect how we can fuelly these the priorities. mr. president, the time to act is is now. i ask my colleagues, my more conservative colleagues here, to join us. we can -- it is a pretty easy step to move forwards a better fiscal situation, a more coherent budget policy that we eliminate these tax subsidies that have gone to america's five largest oil companies, some of the most profitable companies frankly in the history of the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. on tuesday, may 17, the majority leader be recognized to move to proceed to calendar number 42, s. 940, the close big oil tax loopholes act, that calendar number 43, s. 953, the offshore production and safety act. there be up two four hours of debate fryer a vote on the motion to proceed to -- prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to s. 940, that the vote on the motion to proceed be subject to a 60-vote threshold, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. further, that at 10:30 a.m. on wednesday, may 18, the senate

resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 43, that will be up to four hours of debate fryer a vote on the -- prior to a vote on the motion to proceed on the bill, that the vote on the motion to proceed be subject to a 60-vote threshold, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: final, understood what i just asked consent, the motion to proceed contained in this agreement does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, the motion be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the

senate proceed to the following postal naming bills en bloc -- calendars number 46, 47, 48, which are s. 349, s. 655, and h.r. 793. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: ask consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 177. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 177, designating the week of may 15 through may 21, 20011, as national -- 2011 as national public works week. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate proceed.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous i asks consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told that there's a bill at the desk due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk wilthe clerkwill read the bill t time. the clerk: h.r. 1231, the act to amend the outer continental shelf lands act and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading of this piece of legislation in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 but i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i ask consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m., that's tuesday, may 17. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. and that the senate recess following the roll call vote on the confirmation of the carnie nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. final, at 2:15 p.m., senate begin consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 42, s. 940, under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president there, will be a roll call vote around noon tomorrow on the confirmation of susan carney of connecticut to be a circuit judge. additionally, there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 940, the close big oil tax loopholes act. that vote will occur at approximately 6:15 tomorrow night. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask

that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of senator merkley. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak to senate bill 940. tomorrow evening, we're going to have a vote on whether to proceed to debate this bill which closes oil and gas tax loopholes, thereby raising a significant amount of additional revenue for important projects here in the united states of america. i rise in favor of this cloture motion tomorrow, because if we have a successful vote tomorrow evening, we will finally get to debate this issue of whether or not we should continue to have massive tax giveaways to the most profitable companies in america. gas is at $4. every american is going to the pump and they're finding that once again, the total toll as they fill up their 15-gallon

tank in their car is well over $50 and could hit $60. wow, that is a huge chunk out of my family budget once or twice a week and it really diminishes what's available to be spent for other core expenses to the families. indeed, that $4 at the gas pump is raiding americans' pocketbooks. now, americans don't also need to be subsidizing the same highly profitable oil companies through their paychecks, through tax loopholes. now, make no question, the companies are highly profitable. oil is now a hundred dollars a barrel, so companies are able to sell oil that costs no more to produce today than it did a month ago, no more to produce today than it did three months ago when oil was much lower, no more expensive to produce today

than a year ago when it was $3 a gal lofnlt so oigallon. so oil companies are experiencing enormous profits. the final quarter files for conocophillips $4 billion. b.p., $7.1 billion in profit. exxon, $10.7 billion in profit. now, that $10.7 billion equates to $5 million an hour, every hour, day and night, throughout the week, throughout the weekend through the entire quarter. $5 million per hour. i think if you have an ounce of commonsense then you'll recognize that if you're making $5 million per hour, you don't need taxpayer subsidies to stay afloat. now, these subsidies come in many forms.

the first is the domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas. now, this allows you to deduct a specified percentage, 6% of your qualified domestic production income. so it's not just you get to deduct expenses. you also get to deduct income as if it was a business expense. now, wouldn't all of us when we're filing our taxes like to deduct our income as an expense and thereby drastically cut our tax bill? well, it's a sweet deal for big oil. and then we have the ability to expense intangible drilling costs. now, the basic notion is that when you have equipment that's necessary for the success of a company, then you depreciate that equipment over the life of the equipment. if the equipment lasted five years, you expect it over five

years. and this is things for the oil industry such as derricks and tanks and pipelines and other physical structures. but this allows the companies to take that deduction of the entire expense immediately, not expense it over the life of the -- of the capital equipment like everyone else. so another sweet deal. the third is a special deduction called the tertiary injection cost deduction, and it comes in the form of a tax credit. and a tax credit is much more valuable than a tax deduction because it's a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the taxes that you owe. and this is for employing enhanced oil recovery methods, methods that are to the benefit of an oil company because they get a lot more oil out of an oil field if they employ wise stewardship of that field. so they so they have the incentive to do that anyway, but we're giving them this huge benefit. that's sweet deal number three. then you have the dual capacity

taxpayer credit. now, this one you almost can't believe is real, because dollar for dollar we, the taxpayers in america, reimburse the oil companies for the taxes they pay overseas. well, quite frankly, it's america stubsidizing the foreign -- subsidizing the foreign taxes. so oil companies just pass through. it is certainly incentive for the foreign companies to tax heavily because they get it all back from america. it is also proven incentive for companies to call royalties a foreign income tax, so that they get reimbursed for their royalties as well. as proposed, changing this will reduce the deficit by $429 million in fiscal year 2012, and $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2021. that's the fourth sweet deal. in our for the fifth, the incentive depletion deduction.

firms that extract oil or gas are permitted to deduct 15% of the sales to recover their capital investment in oil and gas reserves. they get, again, to deduct their sales essentially in a situation as if they're an expense. so that's sweet deal number five. in that case, often the value of the deduction exceed exceeds the of the invevment original investment. then number six: royalty relief for deepwater outer continental shelf production. the department of interior must allow companies to in certain types of drilling on the outer continental shelf, allows them to not pay royalties on a certain minimum volume of production. while royalty relief is a great relief to the oil companies and cops at great cost to the american treasury.

that's sweet deal number six. well, this world in which companies have over the years inserted various provisions, making a very strong case for each one at the time why this was necessary amounts to an enormous tax bill. this bill that takes and modifies these provisions for the top five companies that of the largest profits would produce about $2 billion in savings, for closing these six tax loopholes. the question we all need to ask ourselves is, is that $2 billion per year put to better work than subsidizing companies that are making enormous profits at the pump? one possibility is that $2 billion goes towards decreasing our defendant. a lot of folks on the floor of the senate talked about how important that is.

which is more important? giveaways to the most profitable or r reductions in the national dt? how about creating jobs in you know, we have constantly been trying to get a bill to this floor that takes and produces low-cost loans for energy-saving renovations. it is considered the most powerful job creator dollar for dollar of any idea that's been put forward. it is in the form of home star, which provides low-cost energy-saving loans to families, and they can pay them back from the savings in energy. it pots people to work in america, in the construction that's 50% unemployed. or how about building star, does the same thing on commercial buildings. how about rural energy star, the bill that provides these low-cost loans through rural co-ops, so that rural america can benefit from energy savings

and can pay back these low-cost loans from the savings on their monthly utility bill? now, the reason this creates so many jobs is because not only can you not outsource overseas the jobs themselves so the construction work is done, but almost every single thing that's used in energy-saving economy from the insulation to the caulk to the double-paned windows is made here in america. that's why you get so much tremendous leverage he. you put american construction industry to work, and you utilize american products. well, maybe it's more important to create jobs than it is to give away $2 billion to the most profitable oil companies in america every year. maybe it's important to shore up medicare. some of my colleagues have talked about they want to dismantle medicare.

they want to turn it into a situation where it's a voucher program, where the voucher would not increase as medical costs increase, so that slowly medicare would be wiped out as the ability to provide hell health care for our seniors. maybe it is more important to provide a strong exphair program than it is to give away $2 billion a year to the most profitable five oil companies in america. maybe it is more important to enable our children to get loans to go to college. so we are becoming the first generation of adults whose children are getting less education than we are because the cost of tuition has gone up disproportionately to the income of a working family, and the more that tuition goes up in comparison, the more that our students have to wrestle with whether they can afford to go to

college. and if they gl go, whether they need to dropple out in order to save money to go for a second year. and often they don't get back in that situation. so maybe it is more important that we proceed to help american students, our children, go to college than to give away $2 billion to the five most profitable oil companies in america. now tomorrow we're going to have a vote. and the vote is simply whether this is important enough to debate. whether it is important enough for us to come together as a chamber and say that it matters whether tax loopholes are carved out through special interest lobbying over the past 40 years in order to get very sweet dealings when they serve no basic core purpose in the american economy. we need to have that debate. i want to encourage my

colleagues across the aisle to vote "yes" tomorrow, to vote "yes" on a motion to proceed so we can get on to the bill and have that debate. under the rules that have been established, we need 60 votes. otherwise my colleagues across the aisle threaten to filibuster that they were going to do a silent filibuster blocking the ability of this chamber to have a debate. well, let me tell you, this needs to be debated. fiscal responsibility needs to be debated. these tax giveaways need to be debated. the trade-offs between sages our students and tax giveaways needs to be debated. the trade-off between reducing the deficit and these giveaways needs to be debated. the contrast and comparison between shoring up programs that provide health care to our seniors and these giveaways needs to be debated. so i encourage my colleagues, do not shy from your responsibility

to wrestle with difficult challenges. come and vote "yes" tomorrow evening on proceeding to debating the giveaways to the five most profitable oil companies in america so that we can consider whether those funds will be better-serving american citizens by reducing the deficit or by providing core programs. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on the motion to proceed motion to proceeds item number 42, s. 940 and calendar, item number 43, s. 953, be equally divided in the usual form. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: thank you. under the previous order, the senate is adjourned until senate is adjourned until

at today's state department briefing spokesman mark toners book about the rest of international monetary fund chief dominique. a manhattan judge denied bail i connection with sexual assault charges against him. other topics include the recent killings of palestinian protesters on the israeli border. unrest and violence and syria and citric clinton's upcoming visit to pakistan. this is just under 35 minutes. >> good afternoon welcome to the state department.

[inaudible] international freedom for democracy and global affairs [inaudible] and will have the office of international democracy. he's the founder and president of the wilson center and pastor of the baptist church and was the founder and member of the enrichment program. also served as an adviser on clinton a defeat to president clinton's council. [inaudible] >> [inaudible] also assistant secretary

indonesia, malaysia and japan from may 17th through the 22nd, 2011. in singapore on may 19th assistant secretary campbell will meet with senior officials and participate in meetings with the government can't discuss bilateral and regional issues and then travel to jakarta on may 20th where they will participate with meetings with officials to coordinate the regional forum. and the east asia summit as well. following the meetings he will travel on may 21st for an additional 84 governor officials, academics and business leaders and then i arrived may 21st where he will meet the senior japanese officials to discuss bilateral come regional and global issues . his engagements in southeast asia and japan on the pursuit

for presence in the region and depart japan for washington on may 27th. that's it. i will take your questions. >> well, i don't have any specific details to announce what. the secretary does plan to visit pakistan to have an in-depth strategic discussion and to convey the u.s. government views on the way forward and pakistan. she will go and have those discussions in the right context and with the right preparation. we are engaged right now with pakistanis to believe that route. over the past 24 hours she spoke with senior pakistani leaders and president zardari and the prime minister as well as the general. and also i understand that

special representative marc grossman will be traveling to pakistan and continue discussions and laid the groundwork for the secretary's visit. he is supposed to leave this week. i don't have a precise date. i will get that. >> -- in islamabad. you're saying eventually. does that mean that schedule is no longer? >> i don't know specifically how that impacts the scheduled meetings. if i give more details will give them to you. >> she's not confirmed to go in late may as we previously scheduled? >> my understanding is that we are laying the groundwork for her visit and we will announce those dates when we have them, when we are confident the ground work has been late.

>> will she meet with pakistani opposition figures? >> i'm not sure. usually she meets with a broad range of civil society and opposition figures. i don't know -- i mean, her schedule is -- it would be in flux. i don't want to get into too much detail. we haven't announced anything beyond her intend to go there. >> so what did she tell about gillani, kayani and zardari? >> well, you know, we don't get into the substance of those kind of discussions, but i think we talked about the current state of play, where we are at, but also she was -- she talked about a way forward in the relationship. obviously, as we sit here and from the white house as well as capitol hill, that osama bin laden's whereabouts raised some concerns and questions and we are trying to move on to address those questions as well as forward with the relationship because we feel it is in both our country's interests. >> the m.a.d.d.. >> she didn't tell them that

she would be coming? >> - e -- yes, i'm sorry. she did say that she was -- again, i mean, just to paraphrase what i just said initially, that she plans to visit to have an in-depth strategic decision. but again, we want to make sure that those discussions can take place in the right context. go ahead. >> today the much awaited rana trial was starting in chicago and they're doing the jury selection. it hasn't started. but in that, the star witness will be the u.s. government prosecutors -- will head lee -- who is saying that the isi role in the mumbai attacks. so by all this you don't like the word whitewash that we are doing with pakistan so we are just going to forget every -- all the connections that the isi has had with terrorists? >> i think we have been clear, again, this is an ongoing legal process, trial, and so i can't say a lot about it. but speaking globally about the

mumbai attacks, we've asked that all parties answer questions that have been raised by the mumbai attacks and -- >> the six americans who were -- >> who were killed in that -- those attacks, the isi connection with the terrorist organizations being a point of -- is that u.s. doing anything to find those connections, or is it just we are going ahead as if nothing was wrong between the u.s. and pakistan? >> welcome again, those are allegations and we've asked the pakistani government to address those allegations in the past. there's a criminal -- brother there is a trial ongoing now that's aiming to answer some of those questions, but i don't want to get into it beyond that . >> i know there are allegations . the fbi has filed charges in the chicago court in which they have mentioned major iqbal who

is a iqbal officer. >> i just meant -- there is a legal process under way and anything i say on here can obviously -- semidey know anything about -- >> is anyone from this building sitting in on the hearing? >> that is a good question. i will ask that. >> christoff how's his hands raised so i will go back to you . >> i want to know how we'd win this department learned -- did learn about his arrest and the state department has been involved in any way in the procedure? >> obviously, again i feel like i say this a fair amount appeared that this is an ongoing legal matter and i need to be somewhat circumspect in that way. though we were informed shortly after his arrest. i'm aware -- aware how we were informed whether it was through the imf itself or through press reports or through the local authorities. i can try to find out. and -- obviously we have remained engaged.

there are some -- this is an ongoing investigation. so i am describing our role to great detail because -- i don't want to color the investigation in any way. but obviously, there is issues of his status here and we would try to be helpful to investigators and answering some of the questions. >> what is his status? >> again, i can't really answer those kind of questions because it is an ongoing criminal investigation. estimate to the employees of the imf, world bank or any of the bretton woods institutions in general, do the enjoy diplomatic immunity any kind -- consular inanity, diplomatic immunity? >> well, again, i know you're asking a question in the abstract but it clearly pertains to this individual case, and i can't -- >> i know it's been looked at right now, but beyond that i can't provide any more detail. >> justin general? >> again, i don't want to answer that question in the

abstract because obviously it speaks to the specific case. >> again, i know this -- >> so if i had asked this question on friday would you be happy to give me an answer? >> obviously this is a complex issue as well and so my understanding is folks are looking into this and i don't have any more details. >> as a general principle, you had seemed to have a pretty good idea of who enjoys diplomatic immunity and who doesn't around the country. >> well, it's not all that simple, frankly, so it is a complex -- >> really? well, a couple -- not so long ago in pakistan there was a case where -- had diplomatic immunity. >> welcome that was a -- that was a bilateral diplomatic immunity. i mean a was and cut -- >> yeah, so i'm asking in terms of the multilateral human tide, bretton woods tied organizations to these people enjoy diplomatic immunity? >> again, i said that being -- one of the questions that's being addressed. but given that this is an

ongoing criminal investigation i can't address it now. >> you don't know if the employee of the imf working on the street right now has diplomatic immunity or not? >> i don't know. it would have to be -- i would have to look at the specifics of the case and individual. >> holum. >> that was sent to your liking ? >> nope. and i think the -- i find it very difficult to believe that this building hasn't figured out whether someone in -- and answer to the question on that. >> and i think that what was said was that these are issues -- questions there being addressed buy appropriately the experts but i can't talk and added in this forum at least not right now. >> can i ask a question has he been in contact with you? >> yes. >> [inaudible] no, we can't change the subject yet. >> go ahead.

>> [inaudible] again, and answering that question would speak to this particular individual's case, and i'm not at liberty to discuss his status right now. >> welcome can you explain why -- >> why not -- >> -- why you can't answer the question in the abstract? >> because it and it's not an abstract question because we all -- >> yes, it is. >> no, it's not. >> you just admitted that if i asked this question on friday he would have been able to give me an answer. >> that's why it is grounded in the real situation that -- >> we can have this discussion -- >> as soon as i get an answer for you i will give it, okay? let's move on the -- >> what kind of visas do you have [inaudible]

>> do you have a comment on the killing of the palestinian demonstrators in the west bank along the borders of lebanon and along the border with syria by is really forces? >> sure. thanks for raising that. we obviously have been following the eve ensler and are aware that protesters were killed and injured in the border clashes there with israeli defense forces. clearly we regret the deaths and injuries. to avoid an escalation of the situation we encourage all parties to exercise restraint and maintain the integrity and security of the border areas. israel, like any other country, has the right to secure its borders. we also would like to commend the palestinians for their work in helping to keep order in the west bank. as of today, they're has been no other reported fatalities. >> but do you condemn the killings of the unarmed palestinian demonstrators? >> again, i thought i was pretty clear in saying that we regret these deaths and injuries and express our sympathies and condolences. but just to make clear that the

israelis israel does have the right to defend its borders. >> a quick follow-up? >> let's move around a little bit. go ahead. >> on this subject -- >> yeah, sure. >> ghosh can go. >> does the state department believed that the syrian government played a role in allowing the border crossing to be open and created in this situation? >> well, we do think that this is an effort by the syrian government to play a stabilizing world. there is -- it is clearly an effort by them to take focus of the situation that's happening right now and syria, and it's a cynical use of the palestinian cause to encourage violence along its borders as it continues to repress its own people within syria. >> and uzi role for iran and the lebanon border crossing skirmish? >> again, these -- syria and iran continue to play on helpful walls and -- in destabilizing the region. and have you communicated with the syrian government through our ambassador there?

>> i'm not -- i have to verify. i can imagine he speaks to the syrian authorities frequently and i could imagine he would convey these views, but i will confirm that. >> are you aware of the rest of the west bank of palestine -- or american citizen, a palestinian academic whose last name is qumsiiya? >> i'm not. we will look into it. >> can you check into that? was arrested by the israelis as part of -- >> was that today? >> was that today or over the weekend? >> i believed was on saturday or sunday. >> we will look into it. >> thanks. >> do you have the name? >> i will give it to you. >> go ahead. >> i have a followup on that question. if you think that the israelis used excessive force in dealing with the demonstration -- demonstrators?

>> will again i think that we are looking for is restraint on all sides. we certainly don't want to see a continuation of the violence and certainly palestinian security forces to play a consecutive roll -- construction full and that was an encouraging sign. but we all recall all sides i think to show restraint living forward. we don't want to see any more deaths or violence. >> weigel the psychiatry was meeting with the king abdullah of jordan, the prime minister netanyahu was addressing knesset. and some of the things that he said were basically that -- darussalam will be the eternal capital of israel, the refugees' situation has be to be sold to outside of israel, the settlement blocks will stay , and it was obviously our final status issues. >> i'm sorry. the first thing was going to be -- >> jerusalem will always be the eternal capital of israel, not the -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> e turtle, sorry. >> that's okay i thought you said internet. [laughter] >> [inaudible]

>> so do you think the peace process is that not going anywhere considering the statements he's taking? >> nope. i don't want to be that pessimistic. obviously there are tremendous challenges in the peace process moving forward. we obviously took a hit last week with the senator mitchell resigning. but the process continues, and senator mitchell has created a strong team, and they're going to continue to work to move this process for. as i said, ultimately all these are issues that were raised today, and issues that can only be resolved through direct negotiations. and they're remains our ultimate goal here. but we look for to the prime minister netanyahu's visit at the end of this week the president. >> well, a process is continuing isn't it? >> the peace process. >> yeah, i know. >> the peace process, how was it continuing? >> welcome again, david hale is acting now in the interim capacity as -- leading his team and he will continue to talk to both parties coming and we will

continue to make efforts to get them back in the negotiating table. that remains our thrust here. >> can i ask a question? >> sure. >> this statement that said that people are involved in the violence here until may 15th to kind of hand themselves and for face legal persecute repercussions. i was wondering what you thought of that statement because it kind of seemed like there would be a bit of a witch hunt going on for those people if they didn't take that evoke a lot of ugly images. >> it's troubling. it also speaks to what we've seen which is the syrian security forces going from town to town and arbitrarily arresting people, and fortunately unfortunately it is in keeping with this kind of behavior. i'm not aware of the statement but it's obviously troubling. >> so, it's obviously troubling

. they are going on a witch hunt for people going town to town. yet you still think that this government has legitimacy? >> that is a decision for the syrian people, but i felt i was pretty clear in saying last week that i think the government is rapidly closing and it needs to stop its current behavior and take steps to address the aspirations. >> is it ultimately really up to the syrian people? it looks as if the protests are standing and have no discipline aspects. it kind of seems to most of the people have decided -- >> i think when you're going to see is, what we are seeing in fact is the more the syrian government has these protesters strengthening the cause and there is no way that they are going to resolve the situation

for violence. we are going to continue to work this out with our international partners. this is something we have great concern with the secretary but also the international level discussing allies and partners on the way forward to address and put pressure on the regime to make them stop. the estimate these are difficult situations and the president is going to have to talk about, you know, a lot of this this week in his speech. so, but obviously we are aware that it's not a one-size-fits-all approach to the situation going on in many of the countries. but we are aware of it and we are -- we have taken to the human rights commission. we are pursuing other measures against asad and his regime to

keep pressure on them. >> i mean, look, mo. i mean, michelle, it's a serious, serious situation. and every day brings more discouraging news. and we are obviously working, as i said, with our international partners to find ways the weekend convey our concerns to the syrians and convince them that they need to stop this kind of behavior and to take steps to address the people's concerns. >> so why do you think the regime is still legitimate now? >> why do what? >> why do you think the regime and syria is still legitimate? >> look, i think that the need to -- but it's very clear that the syrian people have these aspirations. they are only growing in strength in their cause. and thus by far, the syrian government which has talked about reform in the past and even continues to talk about reform, has done very little. we've not seen much in the way of action. and so, so as our concerns build, we are trying to convey

our concerns to the syrian government. we've done this through our ambassador. we've done this in concert with the e.u. and other programs. and we are going to continue to apply pressure on them. but again, this is it very fluid situation. >> you know of the secretary spoke about syria specifically with king abdullah? >> i don't know because i haven't gotten a readout, but they talked -- they said they were going to discuss regional issues. i can't imagine a would have come up, matt. >> -- is it true that you are getting cautioned by the saudi king and by the gulf states against taking any sort of severe measures against syria? >> are you getting a cautioned by the saudi market the other monarchies in the gulf against taking more severe measures against syria? >> no, look, we are looking at syria on its own merits of our -- >> -- demerits, thank you -- [laughter]

i don't know how it could be clearer -- look, we've taken it to the u.n., we've issued unilateral sanctions, we worked with the e.u. who is also passed a strong set of sanctions and we continue to talk about this with our friends in the region and we are going to continue to seek ways to apply pressure and we have also been come paying conveying. >> don't you think that this regime has demonstrated care about that and approves, close to a thousand people killed by accidents, over 9,500 people arrested, these are serious numbers and so don't you think they've shown the opposition --

you say that it's up to the syrian people, but this level it's really not up to them so we just don't know like what we are leaving for for you to say okay we don't see this regime as legitimate. >> , again, i don't think it's a failure on the syrian government to continue to lash out violently against this movement on its own soil and to go after these individuals and resort to violence. the only digging themselves in deeper even though the initially talked about reform that's going by the wayside. so it's on the syrian government to show whether it has any intention of performing

or not. again, we are concerned about it and looking at additional ways to apply pressure. >> [inaudible] >> we said that is an option. we are looking at all kind of options. >> i will refer you to the white house. [inaudible] obviously it's a difficult situation and a difficult context and we continued to fall the government to provide access for the organization's

to be able to report accurately on some of the things that are happening on the ground. we have initiated sanctions against some of the actors who've been planning these kind of operations and these actions against civilians. and we are looking at other ways to apply that sanctions pressure and also trying to elevate it to an international level. obviously, as -- it's not just the united states that is concerned about this; it's our other allies and partners who are increasingly concerned with in the region and elsewhere including the e.u.. i agree -- >> they are not protecting civilians. >> i agree it is a challenge. we've seen this challenge elsewhere, but those are what -- does what we are doing. >> on this very point, could the united states conceivably take initiative to organize an international fact-finding mission that has the european union, the arab league, the u.n. -- >> right, right i mean, i believe that issue is right now

with the u.n. human rights commission that asked for access to syria to conduct such a mission. and we would obviously support that. >> changes topics? >> the new u.n. report just came out linking the technology sharing missile technology sharing between iran and north korea. do you have anything on that? >> i did see that. we will try to get a reaction. obviously it raises concerns that we've had in the past. but i will try to get a more substantial if reaction. >> also, part of the report as saying that china is facilitating this sharing. does that concern you at all? is it something you been talking about? >> we're looking at the report and studying it, but these are concerns in terms of intelligence sharing between north korea and iran that we have raised before. not intelligence sharing that

nuclear missile technology sharing. but again, we will -- we have raised this concern in the past and we will continue to do so. >> of the pla chief is in d.c. this week and he's supposed to meet cicatrix clinton. do you have any information about their meeting and what issues they are going to raise? >> i don't. i will address it as it gets in your -- near. >> you have any comment on the acquittal of knesset luis posada carilles occurred cubin diane texas? >> we don't discuss extradition matters. who is this guy again? >> [inaudible]

>> are you saying that it's not -- [inaudible] >> i feel like i'm playing charades here. i think i will go back to what i said before which is we have legal experts addressing these issues. >> in other words it's not clear what the status is? >> again, these issues are often complex and require a fair -- >> i thought they were fairly cut and dried. >> at least they usually are when they are american diplomats who are claiming diplomatic immunity. they are very cut and dry. >> you people -- you don't -- >> that's not necessarily true. we always need to confirm, and then when we speak, we speak with confidence, but -- >> well, would you -- i mean, if bob zoellick for instance

for to travel overseas he would have diplomatic immunity? >> i don't know. i assume so but i don't know. >> so, you do know what his status is and you just aren't -- haven't been told that you can say, is the correct? >> it's an ongoing investigation and i'm not going to discuss it. >> i'm not asking you for what the -- benet i and understand that. >> i've given up on asking for what the answer is because as simple as i think that would be for you to give a yes or no i realize you've been told you can't and i don't really want to leave you twisting in the wind, i just want to know if -- if this building has a position on what his status is. >> we would have a position but i'm not going to share that. i'm done talking about it. estimate i don't understand why you will share the position. estimate because it is an ongoing criminal investigation. >> what is an ongoing criminal investigation have to do with someone's diplomatic status or not? estimate it speaks to -- >> the door is closed.

i'm not going to talk about it anymore because it's a criminal investigation. you know, you can keep -- >> you understand -- >> you're asking me something in the abstract but it pertains to this specific case. i think i've said that ten or 12 times now and i'm done addressing it. go ahead. >> the new burmese president today issued a general amnesty for political prisoners. do you have any comments on that? >> i've seen the press reports. i'm aware of it. obviously we will have to wait and see how that develops. we've called on the release of all political prisoners in burma immediately. this seems to be fairly -- what am i going to say? what was i trying to say? it's a very conditions based, whether we are releasing some immediately and others -- they are commuting their sentences to life imprisonment. so there's a lot of details here, but we would just to reiterate our call that all prisoners should be released immediately.

>> could we have a clarification? >> sure. >> mitchell, i'm sorry. >> on mitchell, go ahead. >> mr. mitchell submitted his resignation on the sixth and was announced on 13th. could you tell us during this time was he given washington? was a meeting with psychiatry clinton or was he in new york all along? >> he was here, i believe, on friday that prior to that i believe he was in new york. i don't think he was here. >> this is another question of extradition. what has the state department started a process to get access to the pakistanis named in the case -- in rana's caisse? this is from the justice department sources that the request -- >> the we started an extradition process? >> no. to get access to the pakistani nationals who have been named in that indictment. >> it sounds like a department of justice question. i don't have any answer. >> they said that they cannot get a direct access to the pakistanis. it has to go through the state department and so has the state

department acted on the request ? >> i will have to check. i don't know. >> back to strauss-kahn again. have you gotten in contact with the lawyers? >> everybody sits back down for my very short answer. i don't know. [inaudible conversations] here's the date from the senate floor today.

>> [inaudible conversations]l: t >> i ask consent the quorum peaa call be fdispensed with.eergo thank you. i wanted to speak to minutes tod the above the average we have undergoing right now with the vice president and colleagues in the house of representatives to find a way to constrain andt spending, reduce our deficits and debt sufficient to warrant an increase in the debt ceiling as the president asked us in taf the congress to do. around we are told by the secretary fit treasury are around the first u part of august the united ceiling and therefore congress needs to pass legislation to ncm extend that authority. mad essentially this is because financial commitments that the f united states has already made i

can only be paid if we borrow eb money to pay those financial nd commitments and therefore the debt ceiling would need to be increased. the technology one of the primary things we need to do b the same time we raise the debt ceiling if that is to be ling oe accomplished is to ensure we don't have to keep doing it in n the future that is to say we don't keep piling on more and b more debt by increasing spending in the future so that ill be onings w necessary at that time.nd the on future aints spending, some limitations on or the ability of congress and the president to pass additional appropriations f for spending fw example. setting limits on the budget d for the next least the next couple of years so that we knows it's ackley how much the tim congress would be authorized tof spend and of course the limits y should take us back in time, ntey shouldn't be increasing the amount of spending but mony should read all the reductions.,

tackling entitlements.nd we all know that the big money n is in entitlements like da medicare, medicaid, social security and some other forms td of what is called mandatory that spending.lction spending that is committed to g groups of americans t that doesn't require congressional action but money we know we are going to have to spend in the hf future enormous sums of money to that if we are notthe i able to stop the increasewo in growth we are not going to be able to tios afford those programs in the e future and therefore would have ceiling.d another question is whether or r not it would be helpful in thisl connection to raise taxes. exe i have said that the republican side has said we will not raise taxes as part of this exercise t inye extending the debt ceiling. there may come a point in time d later this year or next year ale al're all ofd us would get undat together and engage in what lie some have called fundamental of

tax re eform or i like to call pro-growth tax reform because ad lot believe the tax code today is not conducive to economic e x growth and were we to make it reducing the corporate tax rate for example we could be much t more competitive with our foreign trading partners. some the president himself made the point we could reduce the corporate tax rate were we to eliminate what some have called loopholes. the and thereby reduce the amount tl of money that we have to kind collect through the tax rate bu itself, and this is a potential when we get into that kind of anform. rebal but i want to distinguish the point here of rebalancing our tax code to get a pro-growth kind of tax code with the possibility of generating more revenue to deal withhi our debth situation and those are two

totally different situations eni and while i would be very much in favor of taking a these tax expenditures, various subsidies for example to there different groups to see whethern we could reduce some of those e wo subsidies and thereby reduce the tax rates and a revenue neutral manners of the tax code growth in a revenue neutral manner meaning not in order to that's what the president we proposed collective to the corporate tax rate which is theo highest in the world today and if we could get that down from 35% down to 20 or 25% we could be much more competitive with trading partners are not the world one way to do thatexpendit is r the so-called tax expenditures.t just to give you an example or two. credits and deductions that ares taken for the production of things like ethanol or certain f

types of weather stripping are equipment or solar energy they s equipment. this is an effort to promote . so-called green energy. credits or deductionelsim calle tax expenditures. were some of those to be eliminated o reduced, then you t could offset the increase in reu revenue with a reduction in the tax rate, still half as much 'm money coming into the treasury would have a more sensible tax le con code.h the that is talking about there.iling qn let's contrast that with the tn situation of the debt ceiling question because that is the onn before us right now we have to l act on the debt ceiling in the next couple of months or so and the question is how should we t deal with our ballooning deficits and debt in order to ward and increasing the debt ceiling above what it is today.e and the answer of course is to s reduce spending not to raise axvenues we are increasing taxet

. i don't think anybody is peop suggesting increasing revenue b increasing the taxelim rates. ee but some people have said we ca eliminate some of these a com loopholes or tax expenditures en and that is the way we can ay collect more revenue if a and i company can't take a certain credit or deduction then it is going to have to pay more in tt point know if we are going to f get into that kind of a discussion that we should do it in the context of reforming the tax code so we can use those increased revenues in order to e reduce the tax rates as i said e before so that our country can be more competitive.on o that is the context in which we should be discussing the reduction or elimination of the just looking at this and an . then ict way and will get o more specific about the numberse our problem here is spending. ve we've increased spending so mucb more than it has ever been in the past that we are getting

very deep in debt to give a comparison here over 25% of gdpl that is the amount that we are of the now spending at the federal government level. the historical level was justy about 20% of the gdp. that is an enormous increase in country. some will point out the revenue. collected by the treasury are also down and that that ishe r r contributed to the deficit and to some extent that is true but what are the reasons for that? is primarily because the 2 recession that we have been amo since the end of 2006. the decrease in the amount of money they're making and so r therefore the reduction in the revenue collected as taxes so the revenues are down but it's do to the recession that we have. ave not cut the tax rates

ave not cut the tax rates since 2006lt for example. the last time we had any kind of tax reduction was as a result os the 2001 and the 2003 so-calledt boeshhi tax cuts but we wered ut generating a lot of revenue inee this country before the recession. generate less revenue both as families and as state and local governments and as the federal government. bud but cbo figures demonstrate thak under any of the budgets that have been offered including the obama budget, we will be back to the historic average levels of tax collections in just the next few years in the order of 20% of our gross domestic product so the revenues are not thehe problem. there are going to be back where they've always been. s our problem is the spending, an% as i said, the spending in thisn geuntry is i now above 25%. ara i miss spoke a moment ago when i'm talking about collections.

the tax collections in thise spe country averaged between 18 to 19% of our gross domestic product. the spending has8% been above 2% so the revenues are going to get back up to that 18 or 19%. under anypr of the budgets that haveun been suggested. the problem is spending.stic under the ball a budget, spending never gets below 23% f gross domestic product.below in the rise in budget goes from 25% we are today to below 20%. budget passed by the house ofwn representatives it's about 19.9% of the gross domestic product so that is a wayes to get spendings down to the historic levels.h revenues will be back to historic levels and that's the way that we have both a vibrantr economy and produce the revenue that the federalar government on every dollar as we have to dt

today. so when we are talking about hor g balanced, howat to reduce the looking at the revenue side or en looking at theti spending side.. and on spending we know that the big money is in the ok discretionary part of the of budget.2 we need to as a down payment be looking in the order of boehner magnitude of about $2 trillion. speaker boehner has said that if the administration wants to increase the debt ceiling bymak$ $2 trillion, then we should show $2 trillion in savings. about it's tralee and then let's get a trillion dollars. so far in our negotiations really talking about a couple hundred billion dollars, and ofn we've got to get to the trilliuo and the 2 trillion-dollarub lev. and over the course of ten years we are going to have to havethe iast double that to more than g $4 trillion if we are going tou,

handle the longer-term debt problem.udget, t budget the actual debt ceiling ' isre increased by $5 trillion or ten years.ing so we are not talking about -- e but under the obama budget, the amount that we would have to borrow in addition to what we t have is $12 trillion comes a trl president obama would be asking another $12 trillion, and that is not sustainable in this we'rg country. it's got to lines of ttheir lilyan budget a- i said and that means we have tn come up with at least abl $4 trillion between i would say four to $6 trillion of savings in order to be able to bend thic time. dble that means at least a coupleeri, least double that over this ten year period and that means a lot

more than what so far the negotiations are talking about g to read and i don't doubt the good will of the parties to achieve that objective but what i'm saying is it can't be tahieved by looking at at ndamen discretionary spending. you've got to look up a o fundamental entitlement reform a in order to achieve those kind thsocial s of savings. for those who say thatam mayingi change the medicare program or it may change the socialthat's security program, two things. one, nobody's talking about changing any of the programs fop anybody that is currently on. them or even somebody that is going to be on them within a ten year period of time.wh so we are not talking aboutway people on social security or people who are even nine years away from social security.n and second, with respect to the benefits promised in theare programs understand that if webe don't do something about them y. now, those benefits are not going to be there in 15 or 20 years. in fact under the social security the law is when it noeg longer has the money to pay thee

benefits this isn't a matter of either keeping in law what we haverogr rightam now or nothing, this isa programs now or having a owisue n dramatic reduction in benefits on the down the road. i wted that's why we need to tackle tho this issue now.se mr. president, one of the reasons i wanted to discuss thii on the floor today is because there is some misunderstandingra of the comments that i made on television yesterday to misunderstand people when they g talk about raising revenue inhei the context of dealing with ary budget deficit which republicans are not going to raise the tax ates in order to try to reduce this deficit with more revenue as opposed to savings. it's much different to talk about that than it is to say there are tax expenditures we can deal with and if we canalsor eliminate those or reduce them we could also reduce t