Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this country has a $13 trillion national debt and a record-breaking deficit, and it is time we began to address that issue. This country has the potential now to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, away from offshore drilling into energy efficiency and sustainable energy, and when we do that, we create millions of good-paying jobs over a period of years. That is what this amendment does. Over the last decade, the five largest oil companies in America-- ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell--made over $750 billion in profits. These profitable companies do not deserve to continue to have major tax breaks that in some cases not only prevent them from paying anything in taxes but enable them to get huge tax refunds from the IRS. What the Sanders-Menendez-Whitehouse-Wyden-Lautenberg amendment would do is eliminate three major loopholes. It would bring $35 billion into our coffers over a 10-year period. It would use $25 billion of those $35 billion for deficit reduction. It would use $10 billion to fund energy conservation and sustainable energy and in the process create over 100,000 new jobs over a period of years. It may make sense to somebody, but it does not make sense to me that we have a company such as ExxonMobil, which has been the most profitable company in the history of the world, making huge profits and last year not only paying nothing in taxes but getting a refund from the Treasury of $156 million. Let me repeat that. ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world--year after year, huge profits--last year not only paid nothing in taxes but received a $156 million check from the taxpayers of this country to help them. That is absurd. ExxonMobil is not the only company to enjoy that kind of outrageous tax treatment. Chevron received a $19 million tax refund; Valero Energy, a $157 million refund; and ConocoPhillips received over $450 million in tax breaks from the oil and gas manufacturing deduction over the past 3 years. I am going to yield the floor in a moment because I want to refute some of what my friend from Oklahoma will be saying. Here is what the bottom line is. The bottom line is we have a huge deficit and huge tax breaks for profitable corporations. We have the opportunity now to do what President Obama put into his 2011 budget and eliminate those tax breaks, bring $35 billion more into the Treasury-- $25 billion for deficit reduction and $10 billion to create over 100,000 new jobs as we make our country more energy efficient and we move to sustainable energy. With that, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Inhofe have?

Mr. SANDERS. Allow me to finish my remarks. This is where we are. Where we are right now is a moment at which we either go forward or not, be serious or not. We hear day after day concerns about the deficit. What we know is the oil industry, year after year, has been enormously profitable. We know in 2009 a number of oil companies, including ExxonMobil, did not pay any taxes. Let's do something about it. Let's pass this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. I reserve the remainder of my time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, what we are talking about now is beginning to address the deficit issue in a significant way, and $25 billion over a 10-year period is a good start. I think we cannot continue to have people coming down to the floor of the Senate and saying: Think about the legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren. And then when it really comes to the point of doing something, of saying to ExxonMobil, which made $19 billion in profit last year and got a $156 million refund from the IRS, you can't have it both ways, this is a time to stand up and do the right thing. Again, it is not just ExxonMobil. It is Chevron, which received a $19 million refund from the IRS. It is Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion of sales last year and received a $157 million refund check. What we have the opportunity to do now is to, in fact, address the deficit crisis--$25 billion over a 10-year period; create over 100,000 new jobs over that period as we move into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. I have 3 minutes?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on June 15, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 15, 2010, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset: Comprehensive Legislation for the 21st Century.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 15, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Executive Nomination.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 15, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 15, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the issue of abusive corporate tax breaks has even gotten the attention of Forbes Magazine, which reported on April 1, 2010--this is Forbes Magazine--Forbes 500, dynamic capitalism, Forbes Magazine, and this is what they say on April 1, 2010: As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all. Forbes Magazine. This is not one of the more progressive journals in America. So enough is enough. We can and must reduce the deficit in a way that does not harm the American middle class. Making sure that large and profitable corporations are not able to avoid paying taxes could significantly reduce the deficit. It is not the only thing we have to do, but it would be an important step forward. As a first step in this direction, the amendment I am proposing today goes after the three most generous tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry and would raise over $35 billion in revenue over a 10-year period--$35 billion, 10 years. All of these tax breaks were recommended for elimination in President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget request. Specifically, this amendment eliminates the expensing of intangible drilling costs to raise over $10.9 billion. It eliminates percentage depletion for oil and gas while saving over $9.6 billion; and it eliminates the so-called manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas production, saving over $14.7 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. I want my colleagues to take a look at this chart, because what this chart tells us is that during the last 10 years, the five largest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Texaco, and ConocoPhillips-- earned over $750 billion in profits--10-year period, $750 billion, the top five oil companies. During the first quarter of this year, big oil's profits increased by 85 percent. Providing tax breaks to this profitable industry at a time of record-breaking deficits simply does not make sense. We can't afford to do it. Let me give one example of the absurdity of continuing to provide tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. I want my colleagues to take a look at this chart right here. As we all know, ExxonMobil was the most profitable corporation in the history of the world from 2006 through 2008, making $40 billion in profits in 2006, $41 billion in 2007, and $45 billion in 2008. Not bad. These profits, among other things, enabled Exxon to provide a $398 million retirement package to its former CEO, Lee Raymond. In 2009, one of the most economically difficult years since the Great Depression--millions of people losing their jobs, their homes, their savings--ExxonMobil was still able to make $19 billion in profits in the midst of a severe recession. I have a question for my friends on both sides of the aisle to consider: Out of that $19 billion profit, how much did ExxonMobil pay in taxes to the IRS? How much did they pay? How many billions of dollars? How many hundreds of millions of dollars did they pay? Well, the answer is: Zero, not one red nickel. So all over America, working families are struggling to keep their heads above water. They pay their taxes. Yet we have a corporation, the most profitable in the history of the country, that last year made $19 billion in profit, and they didn't pay a nickel in taxes. But that is not, as they say, the whole story. It gets worse than that. As this chart right here on my right shows, ExxonMobil reported to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any Federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million refund from the IRS. Twenty-two percent of the children in this country live in poverty. We have record-breaking deficits. We have a $13 trillion national debt, and ExxonMobil receives $156 million in a tax refund after making $19 billion in profits. This has to stop. This amendment I am offering would begin to make sure that ExxonMobil pays at least a minimal amount of their record-breaking profits in taxes to the Federal Government. That is the very least we can do. But ExxonMobil is not the only corporation enjoying these tax breaks. Chevron, the fourth most profitable oil company in America, a company that made a $10 billion profit last year when other companies were fighting to stay alive, reported to the SEC that it received a $19 million refund from the IRS. This is Chevron. I know. It is not as much as ExxonMobil, but a $19 million refund after you make $10 billion in profits, that is not too shabby. Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million refund check from the IRS, and over the past 3 years it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction that this amendment seeks to eliminate. And on and on it goes. ConocoPhillips, et cetera, et cetera. Let me very briefly turn to what this amendment would do with the revenues. In terms of deficit reduction, as I have indicated, the benefits are substantial. As we all know, the underlying bill we are debating today, which I support, would increase the deficit by about $87 billion over 10 years. This amendment, my amendment, would cut that by about a third--$25 billion over 10 years. This amendment importantly would also invest $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program which, as I mentioned earlier, will create jobs, save people money on their fuel bills, and help transform our energy system away from fossil fuels. I get a little bit tired of hearing my friends come to the floor of the Senate talking about the need to reduce our deficit. I get a little bit tired of people talking about the need for equity. If we cannot address a situation where some of the most profitable corporations in America pay zero Federal taxes and, in fact, get a tax rebate, then I am not quite sure what this institution is doing. So we now have an opportunity to move forward, to address our deficit crisis. We have an opportunity to move forward to transform our energy system. We have an opportunity in this amendment to create jobs and break our dependency on fossil fuel. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a debate on amendment No. 4318; that the time for such debate be limited to half an hour equally divided; that once the time has expired on this debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on amendment No. 4318.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I hear my friend's objection. I think that is unfortunate. The American people should be able to have a different vote and debate on this issue. But I hear what the Senator has said.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. These oil companies used tobacco industry lobbyists and tactics to cast doubt on global warming science. What this is about is, if our Nation is to prosper, if we are to create the millions of jobs we desperately need, we have to have science-based public policy and not politically based. I would hope that we will reject, very strongly, the Murkowski resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the Murkowski resolution which, sadly, is sponsored by virtually the entire Republican caucus, which would overturn EPA's endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to the public health and welfare. This resolution is not about whether EPA or Congress should regulate greenhouse gas emissions. What this resolution is about is whether we go forward in public policy based on science or based on politics. That is what this resolution is about. I have a very hard time understanding where all of this antiscience sentiment is coming from. If an American gets sick and goes to a doctor, she does not worry about whether that doctor is a Republican or a Democrat, whether the doctor is conservative or progressive. The concern is that the physician is well trained by a certified academic institution and has the scientific knowledge needed to treat the ailment. That is what Americans go to doctors for. It is not a political issue. It is a matter of science and biology, of the best medical treatment available. But somehow when we talk about global warming, we do not have to worry about the science, we do not have to worry about what the leading experts and scientific institutions all over the world are telling us. For whatever reason, this discussion about global warming is now political, not scientific. This is absurd. It should be no more political than the best cancer treatment available or how we deal with a broken leg. Let's look at the science. Let's look at the leading scientists all over the world. Scientists at the following world-renowned American institutions have all found that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Here they are: NASA, National Science Foundation, Departments of Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Transportation, Health and Human Services, State, Commerce, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The CIA believes global warming presents one of the major security risks facing our country. If all of these scientific institutions are wrong, why do we continue funding them? But this is not an issue just for the American scientific community or governmental agencies. This is the consensus that exists in virtually every country in the world. It is ironic this resolution against the science of global warming comes from the Republican Senator from Alaska, a State clearly experiencing the impacts of global warming. The Alaska State government Web site says: Global warming is currently impacting Alaska and will continue to impact it in a number of ways. These impacts include melting polar ice, the retreat of glaciers, increasing storm intensity, wildfires, coastal flooding, droughts, crop failures, loss of habitat and threatened plant and animal species. Three Alaskan villages have begun relocation plans, and the U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers says over 160 more rural communities are threatened by erosion from global warming impacts. This is going on in Alaska. The evidence of global warming is overwhelming. NASA has reported that the previous decade was the warmest on record--90 percent of observed glaciers are shrinking. Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1910 and now has just 30. Arctic sea ice is covering smaller areas every summer. Sea levels have risen as much as 9 inches in some areas, causing the island nation of Maldives to divert revenues to purchase a new homeland for its people. Harmful insects are migrating for higher altitudes and causing forest destruction, including 70,000 square miles of American and Canadian forests since 2000. So with all of this evidence, who is arguing against global warming? Who is saying it is not real? Well, the well-known climate expert Glen Beck has suggested climate scientists should commit suicide and compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler. There you go. Rush Limbaugh, another scientist of outstanding repute, says global warming is ``bogus'' and is the work of ``pseudoscientists.'' Well, from where are these rightwing media commentators getting their talking points? In many cases from precisely those corporations that want us to remain dependent on fossil fuel, that want us to continue importing hundreds of billions of dollars a year of foreign oil, that want to continue making record-breaking billions and billions of dollars in profit as they charge us $3 per gallon of gas. During the 1990s, big oil companies such as Exxon and BP funded an industry front group called the Global Climate Coalition.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 4318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, that the bill be passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3473, introduced earlier today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to Senate consideration of S.J. Res. 26 be modified to provide that the debate time on the motion to proceed be allotted in 30-minute alternating blocks, with Senator Murkowski controlling the first 30-minute block, and with the first block commencing at 9:45 a.m., Thursday, June 10.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, June 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following leader remarks, the Senate consider S.J. Res. 26, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will debate, for up to 6 hours, the motion to proceed to the joint resolution of disapproval of the EPA findings with respect to greenhouse gases. If all time is used, Senators should expect the vote on the motion to proceed to occur at around 3:45 p.m.