issue of infrastructure in america and, specifically, what do you perceive to be the end game for the reauthorization this week? >> yeah. that's a good question. well, in about three hours we'll have a vote, three or four hours on a partial extension. i want to get to a longer-term bill, infrastructure bill. the problem we have is the law. the actual highway trust fund goes insolvent in 2013. so our budget reflects the law. i wanted to make sure our budget reflected a new consensus on how to move forward with the law, but that hasn't been reached yet, so our budget reflects the law which is trust fund exhaustion in 2013. nobody wants to see that happen. nobody wants to see this massive dropoff in funds. ..

so that our budget can adjust to the new agreement. the key business. the way the highway bill was written in the past, it bases obligation limits on projections of gas tax revenue. gas tax revenues came under those projections and if you have a trust fund, a trust fund works like this. revenues come in and you can stand up to those revenues. that's how we think trust fund should would. what ended up happening was over the last number of years about $35 million was rated out of the general fund, treasury borrowing to go to the highway trust fund. we can't keep doing that but if you want to have a real trust fund you have to operate it like a real trust fund. so what we're saying is if we want to not have this split of

drop in obligations, contract authority, you've got to come up with a way to pay for smoothing out by now. that's what the reserve fund is therefore, to accommodate a compromise to keep the highway trust on a roll and solvent and not have a cliff of obligation limits which could really disrupt our own infrastructure. >> i'm told i'm wrong but there's time for just one more. >> hi. congressman ryan, jeff, so actually going up to the question of your, citizens for tax justice ran the numbers on your income tax cut, and even accounting for recruiting all the shelters, itemized deductions, the healthier exclusion for employers, and removing the minimum tax, your

margin and rate reduction surprise mayors with an average tax cut of about 187,000 a year, according to the estimations. on top of that, it was the cbtb, they concluded that 62% of your spending cuts come from, you know, support programs, medicaid, food stands, et cetera. so you're not only balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, you're cutting programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich. i'm wondering how you justify that? >> unfamiliar with those think tanks. i voice taken issue with her aspect, with their analysis. i will put you this way. we think of millionaires and the tax code we often think of aaron rodgers, prince fielder or a movie star. i'll go back to the issue. it's mostly small businesses, successful small businesses. 65% of our net new jobs in america don't come from the big corporations in america can

become from successful small business. half the people in this country work for the successful small businesses. where i come from its the business out in industrial park that has 50 to 250 imposed at the chop shops, the manufacturers. those are the people who are struggling right now to create jobs, and their tax rate is subject to go to as high as 44.8% in january, when most of our national competitors, china, india, england, ireland, canada are lowering their tax rates on their businesses. so we are looking at raising our tax rates on these businesses to as high as 45 or so when the international average is about 25%. i would argue it's not a fair system, because no two businesses are the same with respect to the taxes even if they had the same amount of income. ge, a corporation which is different, had a lot of tax, had a lot of a lot of income but no tax liability, legally.

but ups, another really big successful business in this country, paid i think 34% effective tax rate while their competitors a 24 pacific we're saying was equal lies, let's make sure that everybody pays the same tax rate based upon the amount of money and income they make whether their business or an individual. we think that's fair, we think it is better for jobs. with respect to these programs you mentioned, they are growing at unsustainable rates. food stamps have quadrupled over the last 10 years and that's in excess of accounting for the recession. we have to remember that if we just keep these programs on this unsustainable path, then they will crash. then we will have a debt crisis, then we will not be able to actually service these people because under a debt crisis you are cutting indiscriminately across the board in a very, very ugly way. because you had to cut current people on these programs. that's what they're doing in

greece. that's the destruction that is occurring in people's lives. we are saying let's get ahead of this problem, let's preempt a debt crisis the let's get these programs working better so that they are growing anymore sustainable rate. but more importantly let's not buy into this notion that all the ideas, the best ones come from bureaucracies wanting. our states have a better idea of how to help people. the idea that government, i really believe we should give more power and authority the states to customize is benefits to the unique needs of the population. i live in wisconsin, in jane so, it's a whole lot to the new york city but why should they have the same exact one size fits all rule that tells people in my state how to fix these programs and help people like they are in new york city? they are different problems. what we are trying to say is let's replicate the successes of the 1996 welfare reform, let's empower local communities to actually help people, and at the end of the day if we keep

growing government and spending and borrowing a debt so much, you end up crowding out those social intermediary institutions. you crowd out civil society. you displace those key common bonds of communities working for the common good, like churches and charities and civic organizations. if you're taxing people so much, if your debt is getting so high, you will make it much more harder for civil society to operate and help people who need it. and that's why those are the principles used in applying this comment and if we think we can just simply taxing people at much higher rates, tax injunction act at much higher rates, much higher rates than our foreign competitors and keep spending like we are, we wind up with a debt crisis. the people who will get hurt the first and the worst in a debt crisis are the people who need government the most. the poor, the elderly, the sick. we want to prevent that from happening. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you, appreciate it.

[applause] >> thank you. our next guest is the ranking member of the house budget committee, representative chris tidland. representative van hollen as remind will offer a few brief remarks and then sit down for an interview and then take questions from the audience. representative van hollen was elected to congress in 2002 rising to become one of the youngest of the democratic leadership in 2008. in addition to representing a district of maryland, and serving in house authorship, representative van hollen was elected by scholars in 2010 to serve as the top democrat on the house budget committee. in 2011 he was also appointed to the 12 member bipartisan committee on deficit reduction but i'm pleased to welcome representative van hollen. [applause] >> thank you very much.

thank everybody for joining us today, and i want to thank the "national journal" for bringing us all together. you pick exactly the right time to be talking about this issue, since we debated the budget on the floor yesterday and, of course, we have the votes today. i also want to take a moment to thank paul ryan, because as chairman of the budget committee, i think he has conducted the proceedings in the committee and on the floor with civility and with her factionalisms. so i'm grateful to him for that because we do have very deep differences in approach from but i think it's important that we make those differences known in a civil way. and i think on our committee we have accomplished that objective. and let me begin by talking about some of the reasons we have deep differences over the republican budget, and then talk a little bit about how the democratic alternative. we are here at the very

important time in our country. i think we all know that, because of the extraordinary actions that were taken over the last four years, as well as the tenacity of the american people and the tenacity of small businesses, we've gone from an economy that was in total collapse to one that is slowly recovering. still fragile, but headed in the right direction. and we certainly don't want to do anything now to mess that up. in our view we certainly don't want to return to some of the economic policies that got us into the mess to begin with. and we are concerned that the republican budget does that, that it disrupts the fragile recovery, and undercuts investments that are going to be important for the long-term economic strength of the united states of america.

just to give you a couple of examples, in the area of transportation, which is an area we are debating on the hill right now, in addition to the budget, the republican budget proposes to cut transportation funding by 46%. next year. that's what is in their budget right now. we have 17% unemployment in the construction industry. we have lots of roads and bridges and transit ways that need to be modernized. it seemed to be a no-brainer that we would make those important investment, not just now but also have a long-term transportation plan. that kind of plan is proposed in the president's budget. it's propose in the democratic budget. but it's not part of the republican budget. that's just one example of the kind of investments that we should be making, and as a result of some of the cuts that

the republican budget proposes in the area of transportation, and other things in the near term, many independent analysts, including some you will hear from on your next panel, have estimated that the republican proposal will lose up to 2 million jobs over the next two years. if you combine the kind of cuts and investments i'm talking about, along with the elimination of some of the enhanced earned income tax credit, in child tax credit, that would be less spending power from many people who are the lower end of the income scale, who spend more of the dollars they have. and that spending is aboard during a time of economic recovery. they would cut a lot of that and that's one of the reasons you find that these analysts have made those projections. so rather than taking measures that could slow down and jeopardize this fragile

recovery, we believe we need to focus on jobs and getting the economy moving, as we put into place a long-term deficit plan. and they are clearly linked. the congressional budget office estimates that one-third, one-third of the current deficit, deficit for fiscal year 2012, is due to the fact that the economy is underemployed. if we were at full employment the deficit would be a full one-third lower than it is today. so that's why it's so important to focus on that component. now, for our long-term growth and economic soundness, we need to put in place today a credible plan to reduce the deficits and the debt. and the question is not whether we need to do that, there is agreement on the. the question is how. the question is what choices we

make in that process. and there are very big differences. if you look at the approach taken by every bipartisan group that has explored this challenge, you will find that they took a balanced approach, meaning they recognized that we need to reduce our deficit through a combination of cuts in spending, but also through revenue. and a democratic alternative, which i'll talk about briefly again in a minute, does that. it takes that balanced approach, whereas the republican plan doesn't. there are new revenues in the republican plan. now, maybe that's not surprising, given the fact that the overwhelming majority, 98% of house republicans have signed this pledge, saying that they will not close one single tax loophole, won't eliminate a

single tax subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction. you hear a lot of talk from them about tax reform. the difference is the bipartisan groups that look at tax reform said let's do tax reform in a way that broadens the base to reduce the rates but let's use a significant amount of generated us to reduce the deficit. where's the republican position is not 1 penny from eliminating a tax preference would go to deficit reduction. and when you take a position, when you take one side of the budget equation off the table, it means you've got to do with the deficit at the expense of everyone and everything else. and that's what the republican budget does. that's why it is up slashing medicaid by over $800 billion, so that by the year 2022, that's cut by a third.

and medicaid, just to remind everybody, two-thirds of that money goes to support nursing homes and disabled individuals. that's why the republican approach cuts to medicare guarantee, and we can have a discussion about exactly how that works, but the reality is that seniors on medicare would be getting the equivalent of a voucher, and that voucher would decline in value relative to the rising cost of health care. so their purchasing power declined significantly and all the risk of rising health care costs is put on seniors under that plan. they also dramatically cut our investments in higher education. they get deeply into the food and nutrition programs, a whole set of cuts that we believe will make it harder for us to accomplish our goal for the

united states of america to accomplish the goal of outeducating and outcompeting and outbuilding the rest of the world, which we have to do in this very competitive international economy. that's why we take a balanced approach. we make some tough cuts. we adopt all the cuts that were made as part of the budget control act. we proposed additional cuts in the area of mandatory spending. but we also propose additional revenue. we proposed additional revenue from having the tax rates on the very high income earners go back to where they were during the clinton administration. we have revenue from closing a lot of the corporate tax preferences, and all told, like the president's budget, we have about $1.5 trillion in revenue as part of our budget. in fact, our budget gaps pretty

much the framework of the president approach. not every detail, not every recommendation, but the overall framework that the president took in his budget. and because we have a revenue component, it means we don't have to guesstimate important investments in our future, investments in education, investments in infrastructure or transportation, investments in scientific research. some of the things that have helped power our economy. in the past and should help our our economy in the future, and because we have a balanced approach it means we don't have to slash the social safety net as the republican budget does. so i'll just close again by saying the issue here is not whether we reduce the deficit and whether reduce the debt, we have to do that. the question is what choices we make in the process.

and we believe that the right approach is the approach taken by various bipartisan groups that bring a balance to the equation looking both at the spending side of the equation, but also the revenue side of the equation. and with that, again, i thank you for the invitation, look forward to any questions you've got. [applause] >> so, we're going to start by fast boarding a little bit. i want you to bring it to the november-december type it and tell us how that's a question best plays out? >> we have a convergence of at least three major fiscal events. one is the sequester, one of course is the expiration of the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts, all of them, and then we also have

the looming issue of the debt ceiling where we are currently scheduled to hit that ceiling, probably sometime at the end of next year, maybe dinner this year. we may be able to manage into the early months of the following year. so the convergence of those events folded a couple possibilities. one possibility is it is an action forcing event that produces a positive result, where you could get an agreement that deals with the question of the taxes, together with the sequester. after all, the sequester is about $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. our budget, the democratic alternative budget which will have on the floor of the house today, like the president's budget, eliminates the sequester and replaces it with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by taking this balanced approach. now, at the end of this year, under current law, as i said all

the tax cuts expire. that's about $5 trillion compared to current policy. so you have the ingredients for a deal that could take a balanced approach along the lines of various bipartisan commission. the question is whether or not in that short period of time, after the election, congress would be able to deal with that, or whether you'd really have that spill over into the first couple of months of the new administration. i think that if you don't get this longer-term agreement in that period of time, it would be difficult to get tax reform will be a part of this equation, that you're talking more likely, having to address this in the early months of the next administration. although, again, we would all like to do this, to be clear, we would all like to do this sooner

rather than later. but that ability to get a balanced approach is so far escaped as for the reasons i said earlier. >> let's rewind and talk about the budgets that are on the floor today. narayan plan, which are most everyone thinks will pass the house, has been criticized as really not serious approach because of the past policies that it promotes. a democratic plant is also seen as a not very series approach because it adds $6 trillion to the deficit. so the question is, why did you not take the opportunity to go far enough in addressing the structural problem of a social programs that are really driving at least half of the problem? >> i'm glad you asked that. the democratic budget, just to be clear, takes us down from a deficit which is over 8% of gdp today to under 3% of gdp by the

are 2015, and keeps the deficit under 3% of gdp for the remainder of the period, and stabilizes the debt as a percentage of gdp. so we stopped the sort of rapid increase in the deficit and debt. we stabilized that during the end of the period. now, the issue of dealing with medicare has been an important question in this debate. i had a chat with me but i didn't end that bring it income but it's a very useful chart because it was a chart that was offered by chairman of the committee, paul ryan, during our budget market. and what he showed was that with respect to medicare, which is a driver of future costs, that the plan that he laid out, that paul ryan laid out, and the plan that the president has proposed and the one that is adopted in the democratic alternative, actually have the same cost trajectory on medicare. those lines are the same, and

the question is how you hit that cost trajectory compared to the projected increase in health care costs. how do you deal with that, and the republican poll that said, give you a voucher with the risk on seniors. the approach we've taken is to try to change the incentives in the medicare program to put more focus on rewarding people who deliver value care, quality of care, rather than quantity of care. in other words, you don't pay a hospital every time someone gets reiterated to the hospital on the same related, the same condition. we've already begun to implement some of these things. there are other mechanisms in the afford the care act that will do that. there are backstop provisions to also bring down those costs. so we have very different approaches, but interestingly the chart present by the chairman of the committee shows

that the cost trajectory for being with those costs is actually the same under both plans. so, we do address those issues. we will need to do more. these are 10 year budget window's. we would get projections way out in the future, but we are going to have to take this one step at a time. the first step was to stabilize the debt. we do that. >> none of the budgets we've seen have adequate address social security. why is everyone avoiding social security? >> well, i think the best approach to social security, and this is an issue we discussed actually in the subcommittee, and i'm disappointed we didn't address some of these issues in that context, you really need to take the approach that ronald reagan and tip o'neill did back in the 1980s, which is a bipartisan approach. i think that the model for how

you get this done is out there. but you're right, i mean, that issue is not specifically address. now i would point out that the social security trust fund is 100% solvent between now and the year 2037. if congress takes no action between now and 2037, social security beneficiaries would take about a 25% reduction in their benefits. so it is a significant issue that should be addressed. the sooner we address it the better. but i do want to make it clear that the social security trust fund as of now is solvent, projected solvent by the trustees, 100%. >> without addressing social security though, why should anyone look at any of the budgets that are at play right now as anything more than just political document? >> well, unfortunately for the purposes of this year, in other words, for action in congress

for the remainder of this year, i think the parts of the budget that are going to be potentially acted upon are really, are the portions that deal with discretionary spending. through the appropriations committee process, and as i think a lot of people in this room know, part of the budget control act that we passed last year which has a trillion dollars over 10 years in discretionary savings, established these budget levels, including for this current fiscal year, 1,047,000,000,000 for all the discretionary spending and spending on ongoing operations of government. unfortunately, the republican budget violates that agreement. they came in at a lower number, and that could create complications down the road, because the senate is going to stick with the agreed upon

levels. i hope that doesn't lead to threats of government shutdown in the fall. we had hoped that by getting that agreement we would have some stability in the process. but as to the other big pieces of the budget, so taxes, tax reform, how are you going to move forward on some of the bigger health programs, medicare, medicaid, these other issues? those are issues that will be dealt with in the campaign, and these are issues for the presidential election. there are major differences of opinion. the real issue is after that election is over, are we going to be able to reach some compromise? there some people that say well, look, these elections are going to send, the public will send such a huge and powerful signal that they will appoint, you know, the way in just one direction or another. is going to be crystal clear. my view is the election, while all these issues will be debated, at the end of the day

you are not going to have sort of one answer from the public. you will have to compromise. and at the end of the day, while people have strong feelings about what they believe is the best way forward on each of these issues, you're not going to get a solution without genuine compromise. people just can't get things 100% their way, which is why we believe that the approach we've taken at least is a step in that direction by taking a more balanced approach. >> will come back to the postelection period in a minute, but let's stick with one area of commonality among all of the budgets we've seen, that is the frenzied popularity of closing loopholes. >> yes. >> you don't get a lot of money out of closing loopholes. but we can come back to that. mr. ryan wouldn't answer the question about what little he thinks, what little he has in mind for the ways and means to do with. will you? >> well, there are a couple of areas --

[inaudible] >> we are now leaving this "national journal" interview with congressman chris van hollen to take you live to the senate. the event continues on our website, c-span.org. the senate is about to gavel in today. members will continue to work on the so-called rule bill, which will require taxpayers with more than to endorse him in, to be a minimum of 30% in federal taxes. they will also take a procedural vote on a bill to roll back tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies. also waiting senate action, maybe a transportation bill that the house is considering this afternoon. now live coverage of the senate. senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our dwelling

place in all generations, help us to run when we can, to walk when we ought and to wait when we must. give our lawmakers this day the wisdom to follow your guidance. illuminate them with your divine light, providing them with a discernment greater than their own. sustain them by the radiant vision of the ultimate triumph of your truth. may they sense your presence and make this day one of constant inner conversation with you.

lord, give them a productive day as they cast their burdens on you. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 29, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, we will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2230, the paying a fair share act. the time until 11:30 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, republicans the final 30 minutes. filing deadline for second-degree amendments to s. 2204 is 10:30 a.m. this morning. at 11:30, there will be a cloture vote on the repeal big oil tax subsidies act. the transportation bill expires at the end of this month, so that will have to be addressed before we leave this week. we're waiting to see what the house is doing, as i think a lot of people know. the republican leadership there has tried to bring up a bill on two separate occasions. they had to bring it down because they didn't have the votes to pass what they wanted. so i assume that we will have -- something will pass over there, i guess. we have been waiting all week. i'm confident that they can

scrounge up 218 votes. mr. president, over the past decade, five major oil companies have made more than a trillion dollars. that's not billions. it's a t, trillions. they have also taken home billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, our money, they have also taken to add thousand those grossly exaggerated profits. they get these subsidies they don't need. you don't need to take my word for it, mr. president. even oil executives admit an industry making hundreds of billions of dollars in profits every year doesn't need a handout from the american taxpayer. the shell c.e.o. said a decade of high gas prices are an incentive, enough for oil companies to bill for more oil. quote -- "my point of view is that with high oil prices, such

subsidies are totally unnecessary." close quote. we agree, mr. president. so do almost 80% of the american people. there is no reason for these companies, five companies, as lt year made $137 billion. they don't need subsidies from the american taxpayer. so today, senate republicans will have a chance, another chance, another opportunity to show americans where they stand on this issue. i hope that they will allow us to invoke cloture on this and complete this legislation today. they appear poised, however, on -- what i have heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle to pick the pockets of american taxpayers in order to line the pockets of these oil executives. unless we vote to repeal these wasteful giveaways, the country will spend another $25 billion over the next decade making -- making these rich oil companies

that much richer. the oil executives who benefit from this bad policy and the republicans who go to bat for them want you to believe that repealing tax oil subsidies will increase gas prices. it's not true. the only effective way to bring down the price at the pump is to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. we have made progress toward that during the obama years. in almost the four years that he has been in office, domestic oil production has increased every year. and america's dependence on foreign oil hasn't decreased every year. everyone should hear what i said again. during the obama years, domestic oil production has increased, dependence on foreign oil has decreased. last year, perk used -- america used the lower percent of foreign oil than in almost two decades thanks to president obama's smart oil energy policies. we have heard speeches in here

in effect saying drill, baby, drill. mr. president, we're doing a good job. we cannot produce our way out of this mess we're in. america controls less than 2% of the oil in the world. we use more than 20% of it. even though we're doing better, and that's good, we must lessen our dependence. we must become energy independent. we can do that. there are huge discoveries of natural gas that the republicans voted against are using them. can you imagine that? a bipartisan bill, menendez and burr, to use the natural gas. we have more natural gas -- we have more natural gas reserves than any country in the world. so we wanted to start a program here. why don't we use some of it. and boon pickens -- by the way, who is not a democrat. it's his idea, joined by others. to move the big fleets that we

have millions of these 18 wheelers every day use all this fuel unnecessarily. we could convert these to natural gas. less polluting, easier on the engines, but the republicans voted against it. i guess the oil companies would rather you use their oil. the prices at the pump continue to rise. that's because chanting, as i said, mr. president, drill, baby, drill, isn't a comprehensive solution to this nation's energy problems, including high gas prices. we know what's going on in the middle east. we know how it's complicated issues. we need to continue a responsible domestic oil exploration. we can't drill our way to energy independence, as i just said. america must also invest in clean energy technologies. it will free us of our addiction over the long term. president obama was in nevada last week. between a place called railroad

pass and my home in searchlight is a huge what we call a dry lake. on that the city of boulder city which now owns that real estate. they have allowed huge construction projects of solar there. you drive by that, mr. president. it used to be we would see -- as a little boy, we would drive by that dry lake, you would look out there, it looked like it was water. it was mirage. now, mr. president, it's not a mirage. it looks like a lake because it's all those solar panels, more than a million of them there, producing huge amounts of energy. nonpolluting. that's the way it should be. we should have lots more of that. so repealing $24 billion in lavish subsidies to oil companies would pay for those clean energy investments with money to spare. with the savings, we can help move forward toward proven technologies like solar wind, advance batteries, even next generation vehicles. we can give innovators the tools they need to bring the next

electric caravaned solar panel from the drawing board to the board room. as most everyone knows, my wife hasn't been well so i have been coming -- haven't been going to nevada as much as i have over the 30 years i have been here, but i'm going out this coming week because she is doing much better, and one of the places i'm going to visit next week is a man by the name of byron giorgio who has developed a company for electric cars. i'm looking forward to that. they are manufactured there in nevada. it's programs like this that we need. we need to give innovators tools they need to bring the next electric car, as we have in nevada, or advanced solar panel from the drawing board to the board room, and we can pay down the deficit with money that's left over, but we can't do any of that if we continue to give taxpayer dollars to the most profitable corporations in the world. corporations made as i indicated a record $137 billion in profits last year. easy to keep track of because there is only five of them,

mr. president, these multinational corporations. this morning, the republicans consider whether to put oil company coffers ahead of taxpayers' wallets. i hope they consider this fact. the five major oil companies raked in last year 200 -- actually more, more than $260 million every minute of every day for one year. they didn't take christmas off. $260,000 a minute. thanksgiving, new year's, they got the money. more than 260 million a -- i'm sorry. $260,000 a minute. i got carried away with my zeros, but that's still a huge amount. $260,000 in profits every minute, every minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. it takes a typical family five years to earn what those oil companies took home in profits in a single minute last year.

american families are struggling, big oil companies are not. before my republican colleagues vote to send another taxpayer dollar to big oil, i hope they will consider that -- i hope they will consider the $260,000 a minute and i hope they will make the right decision as we vote at 11:30 today. mr. president, would you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2230, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 339, s. 2230, a bill to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective tax rate for high-income taxpayers. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: thank you, madam president. i rise today at a moment when america is in crisis. and that i don't think we're paying appropriate attention to the problems that befall our society. still too many people out of work, too many people who can't afford the health care presently, too many people who can't educate their children because they don't have the means. struggling. millions of homes still on the edge of foreclosure. and here we see a situation that is unacceptable under any stretch of the imagination.

i rise today to talk to the american people who are struggling every week to provide the necessities for family life. at the same time, i ask my republican colleagues why they would insist on continuing tax subsidies -- gifts, really -- to multimillion-dollar oil companies at the expense of ordinary, hard-working, middle-class families. right now, these families are forced to come up with $4 a gallon, $60 to $80 typically to fill up the tank every time they have to go to the gas station. that's a huge burden. the big five oil companies have made almost $1 trillion in profits in the last decade.

and look how much money these companies made in the last year alone. it was a record $137 billion between the big five oil companies. look at them. exxonmobil, those poor guys, they need a subsidy. they only make $41 billion. $41 billion in a single year. and we look down the list. the last of the five that are trying to catch up, it's pretty tough, they only made $12 billion, conoco. in the last year, $12 billion. given how well these companies are doing, why are we giving them billions of dollars in tax breaks? the legislation that we're voting on today presents a better idea. it says that we should end these

tax breaks and invest instead in clean energy solutions that can break our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. investing in renewable energy has helped launch industries that create jobs and clean up our air and provide home made american power. clean energy is also our best chance to break through a spiraling gas crisis and our reliance on foreign oil. you would think that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to put a stop to the punishing effects of higher and higher gas prices on middle-class working people. why wouldn't they want to end america's dependence on fossil fuels and eliminate needless tax breaks for oil companies? two orders. big oil. big oil. big oil is doing all it can to protect their tax breaks.

and it was even said by a retired chairman, c.e.o. of exxon, that it's not necessary, they don't need it, but they are taking it. big oil is doing all it can to protect their tax breaks, and the republicans are lining up to help big oil. it's time to tell the truth. making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes is not going to raise the price of gas contrary to what they published. it just means that big oil executives might have to trim their sails a little bit, share in the problems that we have. when i was a soldier a long time ago, we had an excess profits

tax for companies that made in a way unconscionable amounts of money based on the situation that our country was facing. so it's just a matter of sharing some of the responsibility that our country has to keep everybody feeling like they are participating in the american dream, not a nightmare. while millions of americans are struggling every week to pay their bills, i want everybody to take a look at how much oil companies are paying their executives. a fellow who -- the person who runs exxonmobil, the c.e.o., was paid $29 million last year. $29 million. conocophillips' c.e.o., $18 million. and at chevron, $16 million

income in one single year. and by the way -- and that's for money earned for an essential product. when you look at gasoline, it almost compares to having medicines available because these are -- when you look at the cost of the gasoline and you say what -- what would it take to educate all the children that can learn? way less than we see demonstrated on these charts and their balance sheets. working men and women in this country on average make just over $27,000 a year. $27,000 a year. and i don't begrudge high profits, i really don't. i ran a big company, a company that i helped start. it has 45,000 employees.

it's a huge company. it's a company that calculates the employment records every month. the company is called a.d.p. so i don't mind big profits. the question is who are you taking them from and how critical is the product that they are being forced to buy? right now, people are paying an average of $3.91 for a gallon of gas. what about the people who live in other places? we just at random picked a county in mississippi. the county is called esaquina county. now, last year, the entire income for all the people in that county working was just over $16 million. all the people in the single

county, $16 million. this poor guy at chevron, he made $16 million himself. the others would leave all of the -- those in that county way behind. a single oil company c.e.o. makes more in one year than all the people in that county put together. these hard-working people are already contributing to the income of oil executives whenever they fill up their gas tank. is it fair to ask them to chip in with their tax dollars to pay even more towards these record-setting salaries? over the last ten years, c.e.o. pay at exxon and chevron have a nearly tripled.

over the same year, gas prices have nearly tripled. the picture is clear -- working people are struggling to fill up their tanks while oil executives are struggling to carry their big, fat paychecks to the bank. it's almost beyond belief that senators are lining up to protect tax breaks for oil companies. some senators, i say. beyond belief. i say to them mind your responsibilities you were elect -- responsibilities. you were elected not just by oil company executives or even oil company employees. let's focus on the hard-working americans who are paying more and more at the gas pump than clean energy workers who might lose their jobs and our men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to protect oil supplies. the american people know that

these subsidies are unnecessary, they are ineffective and they are immoral, considering the conditions that exist in our society. continuing to subsidize oil companies only increases our dependence on dirty fuels. it keeps us on a dead-end road to sky-high energy bills, more oil spills and dangerous solution levels. so i call on my colleagues, kick big oil off of the welfare rolls and invest in clean energy jobs. let's end the industry's tax breaks and break our country's addiction to oil and other dirty fuel. let's invest in clean energy and smart transportation, not windfalls for oil industry executives and lobbyists. let's make certain that our children and our grandchildren inherit a country that's fiscally sound, morally responsible and free from its

dependence on oil. let's not worry about the oil companies. they can take care of themselves. let's stop this drain on our society, this drain on working class citizens. let's pay attention to the millions of people in america who say just give us a chance, give us a chance to make a decent living, give us a chance to educate our children, give us a chance to keep our jobs, give us a chance to maintain our homes. get us off the possible foreclosure line. that's what we're looking for. that's what the purpose of this legislation is, is to say to the american people, hey, look in this chamber, mr. and mrs. america, look in this chamber and see the people who are supporting big oil, profit

fattening, who are supporting these profits. and again, i don't mind companies making profits, but when the profits come really almost in blood money when you think of how much gas -- the effect that gasoline has on family life. it's unfair. it's indecent. it's improper. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: our friends on the other side, the senate democrats, have put on a clinic this week on how not to run a

serious legislative body, and if they have achieved anything at all, it's to make americans even more frustrated with congress, as if that were possible. faced with skyrocketing gas prices, senate democrats turned to a bill that even they admit doesn't lower them. and then to make matters worse, they block republicans from offering anything that might. that was their brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices. raise taxes on energy companies when gas is already hovering around $4 a gallon, then block consideration of anything else just to make sure gas is -- gas prices don't go anywhere but up. somehow, they thought that doing this would set up some kind of political win for them, which, frankly, i don't understand. i mean, i can't imagine anybody giving them any high fives for not lowering gas prices.

but anyway, that was obviously the plan. and it appears to have fallen short, because now they want to move off this issue and on to another political vote, to yet another debate where the goal isn't to make a difference but rather to make a point. to increase taxes, not lower price at the pump. well, i don't expect this next vote will have the political punch they expect either, but that's the democratic plan anyway. and it's getting really quite tedious. day after day after day, senate democrats ask us all to come out here, not so we can make an actual difference in the lives of working americans and families struggling to fill the gas tank, but so we can watch them stage votes for show. for some reason, they thought they would put some political points on the board this week if the american people saw them voting for a tax hike that we

all knew ahead of time didn't have the votes to pass. that didn't work. if you have any doubt about that, just ask yourself why they were moving to actually get off of it. and now they think they will score political points by staging another vote on a tax hike we know doesn't have the votes to pass. none of this makes sense to me, but that's how the democrats have chosen to run this place, and if they want to keep trying to distract the american people from the fact that they don't have any solutions to the problems we face, that's their prerogative. but that's not going to keep republicans from talking about ours. that's not going to keep us from trying to actually make a difference around here. surveys show two-thirds of americans disapprove of the way the president is handling high gas prices and we know high gas prices are having a negative impact on americans' daily lives. so we think the american people are entitled to this debate. they sent us here to do something other than put on a show, and that's why we'll

continue to insist on a serious debate. the majority leader frequently complains that there just isn't any time to focus on priorities like cybersecurity, postal reform, and the export-import bank, not to mention maybe passing a budget for the first time in three years. yet he seems to find time to hold not one but two political show votes on tax hikes. well, the way i see it, the american people didn't send us here to score political points. as i said, they sent us here to make a difference. so i'll be voting against this tax hike on america's energy manufacturers, and by urge my colleagues to do the same. and i hope that when the senate returns in april, democrats will have heard from their constituents and will focus on jobs and the price at the pump rather than the latest political vote. now on another matter, we've

been following what's going on --. mr. reid: plant. if my -- he. mr. reid: madam president. if my friend. mr. mcconnell: i'd be happy to yield. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the cloture vote on s. 2204 which is set for 11:30 be moved to start at 11:15. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: senators should not be worried about this. we'll keep the vote open until at least noon so everybody that was scheduled to vote at 11:30 can still do that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: across the street with great interest. while we have preferences, none of us knows at this point how the supreme court will rule. one thing we should all be able to agree on is the health care's -- president's health care bill is an a mess, an absolute mess. the american people clearly don't like it, polls show the majority want the law repealed. more than two-thirds of the public including most democrats believe the core of this bill is unconstitutional and it's loaded, literally loaded with broken promises. the president said it would lower costs. it's in fact raising costs. proponents said it would create jobs. now we know it means fewer jobs.

the president said families would save on their premiums. they're in fact going up. he said people would be able to keep the insurance they have and like. they won't. c.b.o.'s most likely prediction finds three million to five million americans will lose their current plan every single year. the president said he would protect medicare. but instead, the law raids medicare for over $500 billion, cutting billions from hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and medicare advantage. the president promised the american people their taxes wouldn't go up one penny. well, two years later the american people found out their taxes are going up by more than $550 billion. the joint committee on taxation found no fewer than 11 separate taxes and penalties that fall squarely on the middle class. remember the class act, the administration said it would be

fiscally stable and reduce the deficit. a couple of months ago it was determined to be unsustainable and was shut down before it even began. the president told the american people -- quote -- "federal conscience law will remain in place." two years later he gave his approval to hfs to -- h.h.s. to mandate that religious affiliated hospitals and charities would have to violate their religious tenets or pay a hefty fine. finally, the health care law will increase medicaid rolls by nearly 25 million people, costing already cash-strapped states another $118 billion, money that many governors, including kentucky's, don't know where to get. this law is bad for kentucky, it's bad for the country, it's bad for health care, americans don't want it, and regardless of what the court decides this summer, it should be repealed and it should be replaced. it should be replaced with

commonsense reforms that lower costs and that americans actually want. reforms that protect jobs and state budgets, reduce the deficit, reform entitlements, and strengthen medicare. one broken promise is one too many. this law is full of them. full of broken promises from top to bottom. two years ago, then-speaker pelosi said we'd have to pass this bill to find out what was in it. now we know. the american people have had a chance to decide for themselves. they don't like it, they want it repealed, and that's what we plan to do. now, madam president, on another matter, i rise once again to share with my colleagues stories of the heartbreaking events in my home state in the aftermath of the horrific wave of storms and tornadoes that ravaged my state along with several others in the

midwest earlier this month. as i've already stated on the floor these were very, very severe tornadoes with at least 11 funnel clouds confirmed by the national weather service to have touched down in my state, blowing at wind speeds up to 125 miles an hour. we know that 24 kentuckians lost their lives and more than 300 were injured. many homes, churches, schools, and places of business were destroyed. scenes of destruction still exist across the state in places like magofen county, lawrence, martin, pulaski, tremble, all those counties in my state which were among the hardest hit. kentuckians are working hard to rebuild, and i'm pleased to say that despite the tragedy of lives lost, families grieving, and memories destroyed forever, there is some good news to report. and that is how inspiring it is

to see so many goodhearted kentuckians come together to provide for their neighbors in the wake of these tornadoes. take, for example, the congregation of arthur ridge baptist church in east burnstead in laurel county. thanks to the leadership of pastor steve smith, are arthur ridge baptist church opened its doors within hours of the storms to provide food and shelter for those who needed it. pastor smith kept the church doors open 24 hours a day and served up to 700 meals a day to local residents who had no food, no kitchen, and no home to call their own. according to pastor smith, people from all over the area pitched in. folks from different churches worked to prepare meals, and many residents donated items such as dishes, silverware, toiletries, and care packages

to distribute to the victims of the storm. local businesses did their part, too. the nearby little caesar's pizza in london gave away 120 pizzas in one day soon after the tornadoes. many other local restaurants donated food as well. thanks in part to the efforts of pastor smith and the congregation of arthur ridge baptist church, life is just a little bit better for many in east burnstead. at first the church had to attend to the folks' most immediate and simple needs, water, a hot meal, an air mattress to sleep on, says pastor smith who has been the pastor there now for six years. he says, however, at this point people are over the shock and awe. weeks after the tornadoes passed, the church was still open 14 hours a day distributing 125 to 150 meals a day, and running a clothing distribution

center. pastor smith's latest focus was on finding a place to set up donated washing and drying machines so storm victims without homes can actually clean their clothes. over 3,500 people have registered to volunteer in the region and as of last week, over 25,000 meals have had been served to displaced families. this is just one story of how many kentuckians have joined together to help the least fortunate in my state. hawk creek baptist church in laurel county, and trinity free will batfist church of martin county also opened their doors to provide shelter and relief to displaced kentuckians and the volunteers working to help them in the days after the disaster struction struck. jim paul, director of the organization called kenten relief team was in east burnstead the morning after the storms with food supplies. he trucked in a tractor traylor

load of food and personally donated dozens of hours. in morgan county, the local appalachian regional health care hospital suffered serious damage. every second floor window of the hospital was literally blown blown out, doors were torn off their hinges and part of the roof ripped off. dozens of people were injured and the patients evacuated to nearby hospitals. luckily marty and theresa johnson, owners of a meesh wendy's restaurant stepped in to help. they served 450 hot meals to the cleanup drew criew that came to repair the hospital and also traveled to saywyervville. mr. . one television station held a telethon. i was pleased to play a small

part as the television station asked me to record a greeting. people of the region raised over $180,000 in the telethon. the local jcpenney donated clothing and shoes to area elementary school students and the employees of the store took up a collection to donate winter, spring, and summer clotheing for the children. some of the employees don't have a lot to give but when this came up and they all wanted to know what else we needed, says tiffany flint, the corbin store manager, we hope it will help the children to look good and to feel good. we just wanted to do this to help them get back on their feet. the men's soccer team from kentucky's university of the cumberlands donated time to help the less fortunate. head soccer coach, brendan benware drove to east burnstead

to help clean up debris in the area. going was another reminder of how blessed we are, said the coach. we were all deeply affected by what we saw and how important it is to help our neighbors in time of need. while the -- there, the university of the cumberlands soccer team may have run into the soccer team of union college who also traveled to laurel county to help. the team stacked wood from downed trees, cleared debris from back yards and helped a man move a displaced steel roof that the tornado had deposited in his yard. union college students were responsible for sponsoring the trip, while the school's campus food service donateed snacks and bottled water. james jamerson of the school's plant loaned out tools.

others donated cleaning supplies. many faculty and staff of the college donateed items such as food, clothing and other essentials. in sawyersville, the block known as restaurant row was hit by a tornado and nearly every restaurant on it destroyed. one of the few left was the dairy queen owned by doug and sue modderman. the night of the storm, they opened their restaurant running on generator power and served free meals to the volunteers working to clean up the wreckage. several home depot stores in kentucky and indiana contributed to the relief efforts as well. in the west liberty area, district manager becky young and store manager jim householder coordinated donations of approximately $2,600 and jim's store employees were out immediately after the storm handing out paper towels, trash bags and gloves to relief volunteers. other home depot stores in

kentucky and indiana led by district manager tim chote and district human resource manager leanne bruce donated thousands of dollars' worth of products such as chain saws, gloves, respirators, tarps, water and trash bags to organizations such as the henryville fire department and the local united way chapters. and store employees volunteered to assist those organizations in the recovery. lowes stores in kentucky also pitched in, providing gloves, tarps, shovels, bleach and other supplies to communities all across the state. in addition to over $300,000 donated by the company to relief efforts after the storm, the lowes district manager for kentucky, steven west, dispatched lowes' heroes, store employees who volunteer their time and their construction know-how. local wal-mart stores in kentucky as well as the company's foundation have provided tens of thousands of

dollars' worth of water, cleaning supplies, baby food, diapers and more to help the community. bob gound, the market human resources manager for wal-mart locations in eastern kentucky, has taken the lead in coordinating these efforts. and local store employees are making bag lunches and handing them out to the hardest hit kentucky communities. so, madam president, i have seen firsthand in my recent visits to the bluegrass state both how severe the destruction is and how hard the people of kentucky are working to rebuild and lift their neighbors out of these dire circumstances that the cruel forces of nature have put so many of them in. it is thanks to the altruistic and generous kentuckians like pastor steve smith, among others, that i'm confident that the kentuckians hurt by these storms are going to recover. i and my staff throughout the state have herat so many

heart-warming stories like the few that i have just shared that it would not be possible for me to recite all of them on the floor here today. but i hope that the few stories i have shared are more than enough to reassure my colleagues, the people of kentucky and the world, that we kentuckians are stout of heart and firm in our resolve. we will prevail over this tragedy. we will rebuild towns like east bernstad to be better than they were before. and the families of kentucky will hopefully one day heal the wounds in their hearts and continue on. madam president, i know i have inconvenienced the senator from georgia, but i have one more rather brief comment. i'd like to say a few words about laura dove who is leaving us this week, sitting right here at the table on the republican side of the chamber in the well. now, for c-span watchers,

cable-satellite public affairs network watchers out there, laura is the assistant secretary for the minority. we hope -- we wish she were the assistant secretary for the majority, but she is the assistant secretary for the minority, which means she is one of the people who makes this place run every day but whose name you don't hear on the roll call. she has put in her time, starting out as a page in high school and later moving to the republican cloakroom. she did a stint at the senate republican conference and the national republican senatorial committee. and then dave chiappa, the secretary of the minority, hired her back in his shop about ten years ago, and she has done a fabulous job. senate work is in laura's d.n.a. her dad is a past senate parliamentarian, and she has been an invaluable member of the floor team for as long as i can

remember, counseling members on the floor, working with committees to clear legislation and doing countless other essential things, big and small, that nobody watching from home would even notice. she has always got a smile, always handles the pressure down in the well with a cool head, and i know she has been an anchor for dave over the years. so we will miss having her around, and we wish her all the best as she moves on to other things. i know she wants to travel with her husband dan and her two children, jakey and abby. i don't think any of us would be surprised if laura came back someday, but for now, i want to thank her for her service to the senate. and, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. isakson: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i would just note it's never an inconvenience to be deterred by a beautiful lady. i will take all the remarks made by the leader about miss dove,

and i would only add one thing in what is the best and greatest institution in america, the united states senate, a young mother of two has become an institution unto herself, and lara, we appreciate all that you have done. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that kate cabrath and michael be given floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i rise to talk about two specific subjects. one a very troubling comment picked up by a microphone that was not believed to be live made by president obama to president medvedev of russia. it's a troubling comment to me because i spent most of the previous year in the united states senate as a member of the foreign relations committee working on the new start treaty, which the senate adopted with 71 favorable votes a year ago. a treaty that's a treaty on offensive missiles, not defensive missiles nor strategic missiles, a treaty that began

under ronald reagan, was ratified by george h.w. bush shortly after the fall of the berlin wall, extended under george w. bush, terminated a couple of years ago and needed to be renewed. it's a treaty that did three things. first of all, reduced offensive nuclear weapons held by the russians and the americans. secondly, gave us unilateral access to russia and the russians unilateral access to us to trust but to verify the warheads that existed. and third, new identification systems and holographs that made it almost impossible to hide or mimic nuclear warheads. a comprehensive treaty important to america, important to the free world, and quite frankly important to russia. i want to quote from the "washington post" exactly what the president was picked up as having said when he was talking to mr. medvedev after their official conversation, and i quote from the "washington post" -- "on these issues, but particularly missile defense,

this can be solved." i underline nobody knows what this means." but it is important for him to give me space." president medvedev said back -- "yes, i understand." then the president said the following -- "this is my last election. after my election, i will have more flexibility." that flexibility obviously refers back to this which was in the first comment. so as a continuing member of the foreign relations committee, one that's proud of the work that we did on the start treaty but one that understands particularly the commitments of the country, i think it's important that the president clarify what this meant and how flexibility would be implied if he were re-elected as president of the united states, for this reason -- in the president's letter to the senate, to endorse the new start treaty and ask for its ratification, he said the following -- "you pledged in your -- he said the following -- he would pledge in his message

to the senate -- on the fazed adaptive approach of nuclear missile defense in europe, including qualitative and quantitative improvements to such system." that is a unilateral statement. i met with the vice president joe biden in his office outside this chamber during the debate. vice president biden committed the administration in terms of continuing with missile defense. i met with secretary secretary e clinton. i met with ellen tauscher, who is one of the chief operatives, former member of the house working for the state department. there was never any wiggle room nor need for flexibility. the united states was committed to missile defense in europe, and we remain committed to this day, and it's important the president reaffirm them and not be confused or in any way blurred by the comments that were picked up on that microphone. it is too important, it is too important to the country, it is too important to this body and it is too important for me to be able to trust the words for each other without finding some time

later they want flexibility without possibly removing from those words. nuclear defense is very sensitive with the russians. i understand that. the negotiations on that, that ought to be in the open, not after we have got time for flexibility. it ought to be forthright. i also want to add there is another missile defense issue that looms out there that we have got to pay attention to. israel is surrounded by missiles with warheads to injure the people of that country and take the country down. a missile defense system for israel would be equally as important as missile defense deployment would be for the eastern european countries. so missile defense is a mission of ronald reagan continued under every president of the united states since ronald reagan, and it is important we remain committed to it. so i think it's important to understand when the president said particularly on missile defense what this meant when he asked for flexibility, because there should be no wiggle room in our desire to protect and defend democracy, not only in the united states but wherever exists around the world. madam president, on one other subject real quickly, we have

talked all week about gas prices, and there has been a lot of demonization from both sides. i'm a pretty simple guy. i was a businessman for 3 years, went, got a degree in college in business and studied economics in high school and learned one principle of free enterprise and competition -- prices are determined by supply and demand. if your supply goes down and your demand goes up, your prices go up. on the contrary, if the supply is plentiful, demand goes down, your prices go down. you can blame gas companies, presidents' salaries, anything you want to blame, but the fact of the matter is we're talking out of the side of our mouth and particularly in the administration when it comes to exploration of natural resources in the united states of america, and only can we become energy independent when we develop all of our resources. and i support that. i drive a hybrid car. i'm not just somebody that talks about it. i believe that's important. it reduces my consumption. it extends my miles per gallon, and it's better for the

environment. we have proven through the solyndra case and other cases that some of the alternative energy sources are either not perfected or quite frankly just frankly don't work. so while we're developing ones that do, we should be robustly exploring in the gulf, in alaska, in the midwest, in the northwest, and offshore like my state of georgia. the resources we know exist raise the supply of petroleum in the united states and lower the price to the american taxpayer. all sources of energy that are safe and reliable should be promoted. that includes nuclear energy. now, i'm very proud, i'm thankful to the president that he issued the loan guarantee on the first reactors' license in this country since 1978. they are in augusta and burke county, georgia. but his chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission voted no on that final approval. he was outvoted 4-1, but he voted no. that sends a signal that we may talk on one hand about having robust development of all resources, but when it comes to

play with our hand on the actual vote, we really don't do it. the same thing is true with the keystone pipeline. you can't just approve the pipeline to the south without connecting it to the north because if you do, you don't get the petroleum. very simply, my message is this. we can blame whoever we want to blame, but the fact of the matter is facts are stubborn things and supply and demand is what dictates price. we should be robustly exploring the natural resources of the domestic united states of america for less dependence on foreign oil and more dependence on our own oil where we know we have rich resources. we should pay close attention to our environment, and we should recognize that no country in the world has done a better job in the modern era since the industrial revolution of cleaning up its environment than the united states of america. no one looks after its environment harder than the united states of america. we owe it to our people to look equally hard at the cost of gasoline, the price of petroleum and the robust exploration of our own natural resources here at home for less dependence overseas. madam president, i yield back my

time and defer to the senator from louisiana who has a lot of offshore resources of his own. mr. vitter: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. i, too, rise to talk about one of the most pressing challenges that louisiana families, indeed most american families face, and that is the price at the pump and the enormous hit that is to their family budget, their pocketbooks, their wallet. it is really making life very, very difficult in the midst of a very weak economy. a few years ago the price was $1.84. that's on the day-bedroom was -- the day barak obama was sworn in. now it's $3.80 plus, seems to be rising every day and that is a real crisis to a lot of american families. we should be committed here in the senate, here in washington to connect with the real world and focus on real problems and

real crises. and for millions of louisiana and american families, that is absolutely it. unfortunately, i don't see real solutions and a real policy to address that coming out of the president or some of my colleagues here on the senate floor. right now, to the minute, as we speak here on the senate floor, the president is speaking at the white house and he's laying out his proposal to raise taxes on domestic energy companies and domestic oil and gas production. that's not a policy that's going to help louisiana and american families with the price at the pump. in fact, it's a policy that's going to make it worse, not better. folks get it in the real world. they certainly do in louisiana. when you increase taxes on something, those are costs that

almost every business, if they possibly can, are going to pass on to consumers. that's pushing prices up, not down. it's also the first rule of economics. as my colleague from georgia said, supply and demand. if you tax something more, you get less of it. if we increase taxes on domestic energy producers, on domestic oil and gas, we will get less of it. and less supply means price goes up. so two compelling reasons why this proposal isn't going to help louisiana families, american families with their struggles, with the price at the pump. it's going to make it even worse when it's been getting worse on its own for a lot of related reasons, very, very dramatically. so that isn't a policy, that isn't a commonsense or a real-world solution. likewise, one of the few other things i've heard from the

president in terms of this is essentially begging other countries to increase their production. and i don't think that is a policy or a policy worthy of america, either. i think the perfect symbol for that approach is the president bowing to the princes of saudi arabia. it's a symbol of his approach to trying to deal with the price at the pump and it's not good enough and it's not worthy of the american people. other folks have also adopted this approach. senator schumer, our colleague in this chamber, recently wrote secretary of state clinton -- in fact, february 28, 2012, just a few weeks ago. quote, "to address this situation, meaning the price at the pump, i urge the state department to work with the government of saudi arabia to increase its oil production as they are currently producing

well under their capacity." begging saudi arabia. that's not an adequate solution, and it's not a policy worthy of america. president obama's own energy secretary, secretary chu, said even more recently, march 20 of this year -- quote -- "we're very grateful that saudi arabia has extra capacity and i feel confident that it can fulfill any potential deficits at least the way the current markets are now, the current demand, i should say, are now." again baghdading -- begging saudi arabia, begging the middle east, begging other countries. that's not an adequate policy and it's not a policy worthy of america. president obama has done a world tour doing some of this in other countries. notably on march 20 in 2011, when my part of the country was still struggling with the de

facto moratorium on the gulf of mexico, a permit logjam brock brock -- blocking us from producing good american energy, putting louisianans to work, the president went to brazil to beg them to produce their resources and to promise them that the united states would be a great customer. quote, "we want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. at a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the united states could not be happier with the potential for a new stable source of energy" close quote, meaning drilling in brazil. i have to tell you, this was like rubbing salt in the wound to most louisianans. as i said, this was march,

2011, a year ago. and we were still suffering from a continuing de facto moratorium that the president had imposed following the b.p. incident. so he was going to brazil, urging them to drill, urging them to explore, committing america to that and refusing to do it in america in the gulf of mexico. that's not a commonsense solution, that's not a real-world policy, that's not a policy worthy of america. none of this begging is. now, madam president, other countries do have an energy policy, and it's not begging. it's developing. it's controlling their own future. very recently in the press -- and i'll submit this for the record -- there have been reports that petrochina has now

become the leading company, publicly traded in terms of production of oil, far surpassing big oil and all the other companies that have been demonized by my colleagues on the left here on the senate floor. the chinese aren't going around the world begging. the chinese are developing. the chinese are trying to control their own destiny, and petrochina is now the leading company in terms of producing oil. petrobraz in brazil is another example. brazil is developing their resources very aggressively. that's what i referred to when the president went there a year ago and applauded them and encouraged them with -- giving them u.s. resources to do it in terms of loan guarantees and the president absolutely promised would be -- we'd be a great customer.

the brazilians aren't traveling the world begging. the brazilians are controlling their own destiny. the brazilians are responsibly developing their own resources. and our president even aflawdz that -- applauds that while refusing to do the same here in this country. and it's interesting. according to recent press reports which i'll also submit pour the record, there is a budding and building relationship between brazil and china. and china's taking advantage and entering into contracts to take advantage of that resource. we should learn a thing or two from other folks around the world, and we shouldn't just beg, we should build and develop. we should take our own future into our own hands. and we have an enormous opportunity to do that. madam president, the united states is actually the single most energy-rich country in the

world, bar none. when you look at total energy resources, we lead the world. russia is second. other countries follow, way behind. saudi arabia is third, but cannot compare in terms of total resources. no middle eastern country can. and china is below that. we have the resources. we're the single most energy-rich country in the world. this map shows it. enormous reserves, particularly shale in the west. natural gas and in finds on land and offshore, enormous potential and reserves of oil. hundreds of years' worth, literally. so what's the problem? the problem is we're the only country in the world that puts well over 90% of those resources off limits and doesn't develop them. but we can do better. we can reasonably,

responsibly, safely open up that access. we can do what brazil is doing. we can do what china is doing. we don't have to beg. we can have a policy worthy of america and americans. we can take control of our own destiny. and what will that mean? it will mean great u.s. jobs which by definition can't be outsourced. you can't have a domestic energy job producing good, reliable energy here in the united states and outsource it to china or india. we'll build more energy independence, not having to beg saudi arabia or go to brazil as a customer or anything else. will even increase revenue to lower deficit and debt. after the federal income tax, the biggest source of revenue to the federal government is royalty or revenue on domestic oil production. second only to the federal income tax. it would be enormous new revenue

to reduce deficit and debt. and, of course, we can help lower the price at the pump. we can increase supply which lowers price. so, madam president, i urge us to do what the american people want us to do, to adopt commonsense, to adopt a real policy, to take control of our own destiny. begging is not a policy, at least not one worthy of americans. this tax proposal to increase taxes on u.s. oil companies and domestic oil production is not a policy that will do anything but increase the price at the pump, decrease supply. that's the opposite of what we need. let's do what will make a difference, increase supply, control our own destiny, do more right here at home. with that, madam president, i yield back the floor.

mr. boozman: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. in a moment i'm going to speak about energy but first of all, as i was waiting to have the opportunity do this, i want to thank senator mcconnell for giving us an update on what's going on in kentucky. we do a lot of very, very important things here, one of the things i'm going to talk about, you know, talking about energy is one of the most important, and yet it is good to hear the stories of ordinary americans doing extraordinary things. and this truly is what our country is all about, and i know that my thoughts and prayers are with the people of kentucky, but it is so refreshing. we talk a lot about our problems, but that's the strength of america. is people like the folks in kentucky and all throughout america that rise to the occasion as they need to.

the increasing price of gas is a costly reminder of how dependent our country is on foreign oil. this is one of the most pressing issues that we face today because the price at the pump directly impacts our everyday lives and arkansans are telling me they're worried about what it's doing to their bottom line. americans are frustrated with the increasing cost of gas and rightfully so. in my home state of arkansas, the cost for a regular gallon of gas is up 22 cents from a month ago according to aaa. the letters, calls, emails and facebook posts i receive from arkansas are saying the same thing. it's harder to fill up their tanks while making ends meet. arkansas families are faced with tough choices because of the rising prices are dipping into our families' disposal incomes. the increasing expense for gas puts a strain on family budgets.

earlier this week i hosted a teletown hall meeting with arkansans from throughout the state. while i expected the major discussion to be about this issue, i really was surprised at how much it dominated the conversation. during the event we took an informal poll asking participants if the increase of gas has forced significant changes in their daily habits. 78% of those who answered said the price had had a significant impact. sarah from mountain home, arkansas said on her facebook page that the increasing gas prices has forced her family to allocate more money for fuel expenses which leaves less money for food, making it frustrating. sarah and other arkansans should not have to choose between spending on gas to get to work and the necessities that they need in the household. chris wrote that he notices an

increase in the price of groceries. people should be aware, chris is telling us that people should be aware of how fuel costs affect everything we buy, everything we do. i agree with chris because the increased price for gas adds to transportation costs that are passed along to consumers. donnie smith, the c.e.o. of the springdale-based tysons food told the arkansas business journal that there has been an increase of more than 55% in the cost of diesel in the past five years. this is significant because the company uses feed transport for family farmers. american families and businesses deserve a plan that will help bring down the prices at the pump. the legislation before this chamber proposed to raise taxes on american energy producers.

this won't change supply and demand. and senator isakson just a few minutes ago talked about these are basic truths, supply and demand does control cost. this will do nothing to that. once again hardworking americans will be left with the bill as a result if this bill were passed. i believe a better way begins with adopting an energy strategy that increases our production of american energy in a clean, efficient way. through developing wind, solar, and hydrogen technologies as well as tapping into the vast majority of natural resources that. the reality of our country's nonexistent energy policy is it forces us to rely on the middle east for oil. we import half of our supply. this is costly to our economy, our citizens and it threatens

our national security. this is the only developed country in the world that refuses to use its natural resources. opening up alaska's arctic national wildlife refuge and increasing offshore exploration on the outer continental shelf is a step in the right direction that puts us on a path of energy independence. we can boost our domestic energy supply through the development of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the proposed 1,700 mile pipeline would transport 700,000 barrels of oil per day from canada to u.s. refiners in the gulf coast and allow us to get reliable fuel from our largest trading partner and trusted a -- ally. unfortunately the project was

rejected by the majority after the president obama took the time to lobby against it after vetoing the project earlier this year. there is no time like today to pass legislation to fully utilize the sources we've been blessed with in our country, but this should not come at the cost of our energy producers. and with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry -- ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. if you would please let me know when i have used five minutes, i would appreciate that. mr. president, we have a very important vote in front of us that goes to the question of whether or not consumers are going to continue to be held hostage by basically having one energy source: at the pump. or whether we are going to give competition and give consumers choice. i believe we ought to do

everything. there is no question about that in my mind. but it doesn't just mean having a tax code that has embedded for almost 100 years special tax breaks and subsidies for the oil companies and the other new clean energy alternatives that are growing and creating jobs in our country. do i not have the same -- they do not have the same treatment. in fact, they limp along with a tax cut that expires every year, not sure if it's going to continue, which is what happening right now. people are losing their jobs right now in the areas of wind production and other areas because they're not sure what's going to happen. and yet, we give preferential treatment to an industry right now whose top-five companies are making about $260,000 a minute. a minute. people in michigan, the average wage does not equal $260,000 a year. and yet, $260,000 a minute in

profit. and we as customers, as consumers, have the great privilege of on the one hand, paying whatever they want to charge at the pump because there are no alternatives and not enough choices. and at the same time out of other pocket, we get to subsidize them. 100 years ago those subsidies probably made a lot of sense. i'm sure i would have voted for them, as we were starting the new industrial economy and incentivizing the production of oil certainly made sense. i still support the efforts for small businesses and local efforts. but the top-five companies do not need taxpayer subsidies right now when they have the highest profits of anyone, any business in the world. so what are we talking about? we're talking about in tough times with budget deficits, when we need to be focused on jobs and getting us off of foreign oil, making choices that make

sense for the future and not the past. and that means closing down these special subsidies for the top-five companies. again, who are earning in profits about $260,000 every single minute we are standing here. and turning those dollars over to new clean energy alternatives, whether it be biofuels, wind, solar, electric batteries, all of the things that need to happen. natural gas, which my colleague from new jersey has been the champion of. so that we actually have real competition and you can actually go look at that price at the pump and say, you know what? it's too much. i'm going to do something else. we're beginning that process with new electric vehicles. i'm proud that those are being made in michigan. we have advanced biofuels. right now if we didn't have advanced biofuels at the pump and the few places that we do, we'd actually see prices $1

higher on average than they are right now. so there's a little bit of competition. but we have a long way to go, and this bill takes dollars from subsidies that no longer need it. they don't make sense for american taxpayers' standpoint or energy standpoint. takes those dollars and moves it over to continue 19 different tax cuts. 19 different tax cuts for entrepreneurs, small small busi. those are creating the new clean energy alternatives in the future. some of my colleagues have said taking away subsidies will increase prices. somehow, mr. president, friday seems to increase prices. memorial day seems to increase prices. i think whatever the market will bear increase prices. when the c.e.o. came to the finance committee, of the big-five companies, i actually asked them if they're saying, folks are saying that taking away government subsidies for

them will increase prices. i said how much do we have to pay you to bring down the price? give me a number. how much do we have to pay you to bring down the price? and finally one of the c.e.o.'s actually said, well, we did not -- i did not say we would be raising gas prices at the pump. i did not prely hear anyone else -- i did not really hear anyone else say that either. so that's what they said. they were not willing to go on record as saying they would raise prices at the pump. instead of throwing huge government handouts at some of the most profitable companies ever, we should be paying down the debt and we should be providing tax cuts for the jobs and the new alternatives for the future. and i urge my colleagues to support this very important bill. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, i have been monitoring the debate on my repeal big oil tax

subsidies act, and i keep hearing over and over again from our friends on the other side of the aisle that if we just keep giving the oil companies taxpayer money, that they'll do the right thing. the problem is we already know that's not true. first of all, the united states has only 2% of the world's oil reserves, so we cannot drill our way out of this problem even if we wanted to. but more importantly, we cannot trust the big-five oil companies to simply do the right thing. let's look at the record. last year the big five oil companies took $2 billion of your money and saw their profits shoot up to $137 billion, an impressive 75% increase in profits. but did they use that extra money that we gave them in our subsidies to produce more oil?

no. they didn't. they took your money and they df oil. despite the fact that overall u.s. oil production is higher now than it has been in the last eight years, last year these five companies actually produced 4% less oil. so here's another way to look at it. as each of these companies pocketed our subsidies to pad those profits, they did not use this windfall to produce more oil. if you take the word of our friends on the other side of the aisle, we have a contract in essence with these five companies. we pay you $2 billion, and you give us more oil. last year they broke that contract and produced less. so instead, it appears that these poor oil companies took the taxpayers' $2 billion, and instead of having to suffer with only $135 billion in profits,

they made $137 billion in profits last year. mr. inhofe: would the nor yield for a question? mr. menendez: i'd be happy to at the end of my remarks. what a heartwarming story of robin hood in reverse. taking from the american taxpayer to give to the rich. so congratulations, big oil. you got $2 billion extra in profits, and we got 4% less oil. but, of course, we're not just seeing less oil. we're also seeing the american driver gouged with higher gasoline prices. so what happens when taxpayers are forking over $2 billion in subsidies a year to highly profitable oil companies who in turn produce less? we get a double whammy with $4 a gallon gas at the pump and a bigger burden on taxpayers. how is that a fair return on our taxpayer dollars? it's pretty generous to big oil which stands to profit $1

trillion over the next decade while getting $24 billion in subsidies. but it's a bad deal for consumers struggling to make ends meet. so first, the repeal big oil tax subsidies act takes back $24 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big oil, stops that insanity. the next step the bill takes is investing in alternatives to big oil: biofuel, natural gas, propane. by investing in these alternatives, we finally give big oil some competition in the marketplace that will give consumers the choice to use cheaper fuels and also drive down gas prices. for those reasons, i urge my colleagues to join me in getting back to reality and stop subsidizing industries that need it the least and start investing in the 21st century industries that will help us compete with china, that will create jobs, that will improve our environment and make us more energy-secure. it's time we stop trusting big

oil to do the right thing with our money and use it on things that actually make sense. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i just have one question before this morning's vote. one simple question: is this really the best we can do? is this the best we have to offer folks who are staring at $4 a gallon on gasoline? a bill that even democrats admit won't do anything at all to lower the price of gas. is this the best we can do? and a process that blocks any other idea from even coming to the floor for a vote. no other idea has been allowed other than a proposal that would inevitably raise the price of gas at the pump. does anybody really think the senate has done its job on this

issue? well, if you don't, if you think we should do more with the american people at a time when they're paying $4 a gallon for gas, then raise taxes on energy manufacturers and block a pipeline from canada, then you ought to vote against cloture. you should stand with republicans and insist that we do more to lower gas prices in this country. i see the president made a statement a little while ago in support of this proposed tax hike. my question is: where was the white house when the democrats voted to actually get off of this proposal? maybe they were too busy lining up votes against the keystone pipeline. maybe the president was too busy telling the russians about how he's hoping for more flexibility. my point is that democrats don't have to take orders from the white house. they don't need to serve the president's political strategy. they can do what their constituents want them to do on this issue.

they can vote to stay on this bill and fight for real solutions to the problems of high gas prices. and any other number of issues the democrats refuse to face, for that matter. we can use this institution to actually make a difference. and i hope at some point that's what my colleagues on the other side decide to do. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 2204, a bill to eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and renewable energy and energy conservation signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent ukes the -- by unanimous consent, the mandatory

quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 2204, a bill to promote renewable energy and energy conservation shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51. the nays are 47. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from missouri is recognized. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, you know, we just had a vote. imagine for a minute you had a government that was spending too much money. and imagine for a minute that we needed to spend less money. we needed to change our tax code

to a tax code that was fair, simpler, didn't pick winners and losers. imagine for a minute that this was a crisis. and imagine for a minute that this crisis was being wielded like a political two-by-four, by a majority of the republicans that serve in the senate, this debt crisis. then imagine for a minute that you had the most profitable corporations in the history of the planet, and they were booking $30 billion in profit every quarter. over $130 billion in profit year after year. it didn't matter whether the economy was bad, good, or indifferent. amazing profits. and then imagineor