Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act--Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to speak for a moment to the issue that was raised by my colleague from Missouri. Senator Claire McCaskill came to the Senate floor to take note of the vote that had just been issued, the rollcall that was just finished on a measure offered by Senator Menendez from New Jersey. It was pretty straightforward.

Here is what it said: The Federal tax subsidies of $2 billion a year to the biggest oil companies in America should end right now. The money in those subsidies should be used to develop other forms of energy--good for our future, clean for our environment, lessening our dependence on foreign oil--and the balance should be put into reduction of our deficit. Two billion dollars a year is going to the four biggest oil companies in America.

How are they doing? We all know how they are doing. Last year, again, they broke all records in the history of American business, reporting profits of $137 billion. The notion that we would take away $2 billion from these oil companies and put it into deficit reduction and energy research that could be good for our future seems like a given. In fact, it seems so easy that when we had a vote earlier this week to bring up this measure, over 90 Senators voted yes; let's go to it.

What happened on this vote today? We needed 60 votes, which sadly has become the norm in this Chamber. We needed 60 out of 100 Senators to say stop the fat-cat subsidies to the oil companies. We couldn't get it. We got exactly two Republican Senators to vote with us--two. It is a sad reality that many of the same Senators who wax eloquent on the Senate floor about our deficit and what to do about it, when it comes to a simple, straightforward vote to stop this wasteful, unwarranted subsidy to the most profitable companies on Earth, could not bring themselves to say no to Big Oil.

Meanwhile, families and businesses all across Chicago, IL, and America are paying more and more at the pump. Last Sunday I saw my first one--hang on, America; you are going to see one too--$5.03 a gallon. It was downtown Chicago at a BP station. Hang on tight, there is more to come from these oil companies that will then turn around and report the biggest profits ever in American business history.

We pay at the pump and we pay with our taxes. What is left? Here was our chance to stand up and do something. We know $4 billion is not going to change the oil industry, and it is not going to change Washington. But at least it was a statement about where we stand when comes to age-old indefensible tax subsidies to the biggest and most profitable companies in America. We couldn't bring ourselves to do it.

I agree with Senator McCaskill. These folks who get up and wail and cry about the deficit--call up this rollcall and ask them where in the heck they were when we had one chance to do something positive.

It is not the biggest disappointment of the week. There are two others that trump it. I have to tell you, it is hard for me to believe that again we were unable to get a bipartisan group together to start the conversation about post office reform in America. It is the most honored Federal agency.

When people are asked across America, what agency of government do they have a positive feeling about, it is the post office. They make jokes about it--we all do--but we know in our heart of hearts it is the best Postal Service in the world. We can still take an envelope and for less than 50 cents put it in a box and be confident that in a matter of a couple of days or three it is going to be delivered in the lower 48.

There are not many countries on Earth that even get close to making that claim for less than 50 cents. It is so good that the so-called package express folks who were trying to make this a private sector undertaking use the post office. They use the post office because of the efficiency of their delivery for the last mile of delivery.

So we have a problem. Fewer people are using first-class mail. They are using e-mail, bill payer. Revenues are down. Postal employees are down to around 600,000. Those who are retired are around 450,000. We need to bank money for retirees in the future. We are facing the need to make some hard choices about the Postal Service.

The Postmaster General came to my office about 5 months ago now. We sat down with Mr. Donahoe and said: Before you make harsh decisions about the Postal Service, closing post offices, reducing the mail deliveries and the like--before people's jobs are on the chopping block or at least in question, give Congress a chance to at least come up with a better approach.

Historically, that was a challenge Congress always accepted because we knew when it is something that big and important as the Postal Service, which is enshrined in our Constitution, it is our job. We are supposed to do that work.

So I asked him to postpone, if he would, until May 15, any closures of facilities so the House and the Senate could have a chance to act. I have been waiting. It has been hard to get into the Senate calendar. This week was our chance. Senator Harry Reid said we are going to bring it up because it is an important debate. We need to get together.

We called the bill on the Senate floor to move to this debate on the post office. To their credit, the independent Democratic chairman of the jurisdictional committee, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and the Republican ranking member, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, both voted to move to this measure.

I felt good about the fact that they were working together, along with Tom Carper of Delaware and others, in a bipartisan effort to make this post office what we need it to be. I have confidence in Senators Lieberman and Collins because they have done historic work in the past when it came to reforming our intelligence agencies after 9/11; the two of them did it. I credit them, many times publicly, for their bipartisan cooperation. Here we had another chance: We are going to bring postal reform to the floor, and we failed to get 60 votes.

Unfortunately, we could not get more than five from the other side of the aisle to even engage in the debate on Postal Service reform. Now we will be gone for 2 weeks. When we return, it will be a lot closer to April 15 and a lot more challenging for us to get anything done.

Those two disappointments--that we could not seize $4 billion in savings for the deficit in oil company subsidies and that we wouldn't accept our responsibility to deal with postal service reform--I am afraid that has been matched and trumped by what is going on in the House of Representatives.

Think about this: Two weeks ago we passed a bipartisan bill on the floor of the Senate for the Federal Transportation bill. When it comes to our economy and its future, it is hard to think of anything more important than investing in highways, mass transit, airports and ports, and rail lines to make sure that we have an economy ready to compete in the 21st century, that businesses can locate in America with confidence that their products can move to the markets as quickly as possible.

This bill comes up every 5 years, and it is a political piece of cake. Democrats and Republicans agree. We all have needs in our States and districts, and we always come together with a bipartisan bill. We did in the Senate.

Two Senators couldn't be further apart on the political spectrum than Barbara Boxer of California and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma. But you know what. They accepted their political responsibility and came up with a bipartisan Federal transportation bill that passed the Senate 74 to 22.

Meanwhile, what was happening in the House? The House was just one crash after another. Their first highway bill went nowhere--rejected. Their second highway bill they would not even call for a vote. Time passed, and more and more of these measures were falling apart. They withdrew the chairman of the committee in the House in charge of it and said: We are going to put somebody else in. They brought in another name. I couldn't keep up with it.

The Speaker of the House and the House Republican caucus made a dog's breakfast out of this Federal Transportation bill. Today, to add insult to injury, they not only would not call our bipartisan bill, which is all we have asked for--I see Senator Boxer on the floor. All we said is, bring the Boxer-Inhofe bill to a vote in the House. It is a bipartisan bill. It is good for this country. For goodness' sakes, vote on it.

No, we are not going to do it. If it isn't the House Republican bill, we are not going to consider it.

What do they do instead? Senator Boxer can explain what they did instead. They said: We will kick the can down the road. We will extend the highway taxes for 90 days and get back to you later.

A person might think, no harm, no foul. Just extending it 90 days, there is no harm. Wrong. State after State, county after county will tell you that this 90-day extension freezes efforts to build projects across America and will cost us at least 100,000 jobs. The number may be much larger, but it will cost us at least 100,000 jobs. Do we need jobs at this moment in time in America? I should say so. In the midst of a recovery from a recession, one of the areas hit the hardest is the construction industry. And it is not just a matter of the workers out there on the job, it is all of their suppliers. The truckdrivers, the material men, and all of them are now going to be put on hold because the Speaker of the House refuses to call a bipartisan Senate transportation bill for a vote.
That is all we asked--up or down, call it for a vote. Why wouldn't he call it for a vote? Because it would pass. To his embarrassment, it would pass. Well, he got his way, I guess. He is going to send us a 90-day extension. The alternative of letting the highway trust fund lapse is not a reasonable one, not one any of us would embrace. But what a wasted opportunity.

My colleague and good friend, who is sitting right here and has been in this business, the House and the Senate, for a long time, poured her heart and soul into that Federal Transportation bill. She accomplished what nobody thought she could. When she said she was going to sit down with Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and work it out, we said: Bet that works; the two of them are so different. But when it comes to this measure, they see eye to eye. They worked it out. I am proud of what they did. I didn't like everything in the bill, but nobody does. But I voted for it, saying it is bipartisan, it moves our country forward, and it creates almost 3 million jobs. The Boxer-Inhofe bill creates and saves almost 3 million jobs. Is that important at this moment in our history? You bet it is. If you are not in favor of creating good-paying jobs right here in America for American families, what the heck are you doing in this business? And instead, the House said: No, we will not even let you vote on this measure. House Democrats tried the entire week to get this measure up. Even a few--just a few--House Republicans spoke up and said: Bring it up for a vote. It wasn't good enough.

I know the Senator from California is here, and I want to give her a chance to say a word about the impact of the measure that just passed the House of Representatives. She has gone in it, in many cases State by State, to measure what it means to just extend the highway trust fund and not pass a bill that can create and save up to 3 million jobs. She told me that in my State, it was something like 4,000.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. There are 4,500 jobs lost if we let the federal transportation program expire this summer because Speaker Boehner refuses to call up this bill. That is the reality. Is it any wonder that the approval rating of Congress is in single digits when you take a hard look at what this does to our Nation? At a time when we need Congress to work together, the Speaker will not call the bipartisan bill from the Senate. The Senate will not take up postal reform. The Senate refuses to even cut the $4 billion subsidy to the biggest oil companies in America.

It is a disappointment to me because many of us worked hard to come here. I feel honored to have this job and feel a responsibility to the people we represent. I think the Senate, on those two votes I mentioned, and the House with their action today have let down the people of this country.

I would like to yield to the Senator from California. I have another statement to make, but I want to give her a chance.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

THE DREAM ACT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senate is not a place for sprinters, only long-distance runners, because sometimes we need patience beyond human endurance to see an idea that one believes is meritorious finally make it--to get passed by the Senate and maybe even the House or maybe even signed into law. Sometimes it happens quickly; more often it takes a long time.

My personal story that kind of leads when it comes to examples is the DREAM Act, which I introduced 11 years ago. This was legislation that addressed a problem I learned about from my Chicago office. We got a phone call. The phone call was from a mother. She was Korean American and she ran a drycleaners. In Chicago, 75 percent or more of the drycleaning establishments are owned by Korean families. She came to this country years before, brought her little girl with her, and then raised a family, and she became an American citizen.

Fast forward to her little girl who became a musical prodigy. In fact, she was in demand at some of the best music institutions in America, including the Julliard School of Music and the Manhattan Conservatory of Music, offering her admission to come and develop her skills as a concert pianist. As her daughter filled out the form to apply to these schools, she turned to her mother and said: Where it says ``nationality'' what should I write? Her mother said: I don't know. We never filed any papers for you after you came to America. The daughter said: What can we do? The

mother said: We can call Durbin.

So they called my office and we checked with the Immigration Service. They came back and said, the law is very clear that when a child is brought to this country and through no fault of their own is undocumented, the law is clear they have to leave for at least 10 years. They have to go back to wherever they were before or anywhere they want to go, but they can't be here. I thought to myself: This girl did nothing wrong. Mom and dad didn't file the papers and here she is in this predicament.

So I introduced the DREAM Act. It has five simple provisions. Here is what it says: If you came to the United States as a child, if you have been a long-term U.S. resident, if you have good moral character, if you graduate from high school and you either complete 2 years of college or serve in the U.S. military, we will put you on a path to become a citizen of the United States. You have to earn it. We are not going to give it to you, but we are going to give you that chance. Just because mom and dad may have done an illegal act, we will not hold you as a child responsible for it.

The net result of this bill, when it becomes law, will strengthen our military--and we have the support from military leaders all across the United States; they want these young men and women to enlist. They will bring diversity and talent to the military. It will also mean they will be contributing to America with their higher education. They are going to be tomorrow's doctors and engineers, soldiers and teachers. We don't want to lose their talents. We don't want them educated in America for 13 years and then cast aside. We want them to stand and be part of our future and make us a stronger Nation.

Keep in mind that for most of these students it comes as a shock when they finally ask the questions and get the answers and realize the flag they have been pledging allegiance to every single day is not the flag of their country. They are people without a country. That is what the DREAM Act is about--to give them a chance.

We have asked the Obama administration on a bipartisan basis to not deport these eligible young people, for they have done nothing wrong. If they do something wrong, it is another story. But if they have done nothing wrong, don't focus on deporting them. What we are trying to do is to give them a chance--just a chance--to earn their way to the American dream. I think the administration's new deportation policy is sensible and I think these young people deserve a chance.

I can give these speeches for a long time and they don't mean much until we meet the DREAM Act students. Let me show my colleagues two handsome young men from Illinois: Carlos and Rafael Robles. I met them both. Carlos and Rafael were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children. Today, Carlos is 22, Rafael is 21. They grew up in suburban Chicago in my home State of Illinois. They graduated from Palatine High School where they were both honor students. In high school, Carlos was the captain of the tennis team and a member of the varsity swim team. He volunteered with Palatine's physically challenged program where every day he helped to feed lunch to special needs students. Carlos graduated from Harper Community College and is now attending Loyola University in Chicago majoring in education. His dream is to become a teacher. Do we need more good teachers in America? You bet we do.

Listen to what one of Carlos's high school teachers said about him:

Carlos is the kind of person we want among us because he makes the community better. This is the kind of person you want as a student, the kind of kid you want as a neighbor and friend to your child, and most germane to his present circumstance, the kind of person you want as an American.

One of Carlos's college professors wrote and said:

He is, very simply, the finest student I have ever had the opportunity to mentor.

Rafael, his younger brother, has a lot in common with Carlos. In high school, Rafael was captain of the tennis team and a member of the varsity swim team and soccer team. He graduated again from Harper Community College--understand these young men would attend college in America with no Federal assistance--none. They have to pay for it out of their pocket. So he graduated from Harper Community College. Now he is at the University of Illinois in Chicago where he is majoring in architecture.

Here is what one of Rafael's teachers in high school said about him:

Rafael is the kind of person I have taught about in my Social Studies classes--the American who comes to this country and commits to his community and makes it better for others. Raffi Robles is a young man who makes us better. During my 28 year career as a high school teacher, coach, and administrator, I would place Raffi in the top 5 percent of all the kids with whom I have ever had contact.

Here is the unfortunate part of the story about these two amazing young men. They were both placed in deportation proceedings. I asked the administration to consider their request to suspend their deportations and they agreed to do it, for the time being. I think it was the right thing to do. Carlos and Rafael are represented by volunteer lawyers in Chicago.

After I met Carlos and Rafael, they sent me a letter asking Members of Congress to support the DREAM Act, and here is what they said:

We ask you today to see it in your heart to do the right thing, to listen, and to reward the values of hard work and diligence, values that made America the most beautiful and prosperous country in the world and that we're sure got you, as members of Congress, to where you are today in life. These are values we have come to admire and respect in the American people. We will continue to uphold these values until the last of our days--we hope eventually as citizens of the United States, a country we now see as home.

So I ask my colleagues who are critical of the administration's deportation policy or have difficulties with the DREAM Act, Would America be a better place if Carlos and Rafael are deported? Of course not. These two young men grew up here, they were educated here, they have done well here, they have earned their way here. They want to be part of our future.

They are not isolated examples. There are literally thousands of them just like Carlos and Rafael across this country.

When I introduced this bill 11 years ago, and I would give a speech like this and leave a hall, I could count on, if it were nighttime, someone standing by my car quietly as I approached and started to leave. They would ask me: Senator, can I speak to you for a minute.

Sure.

Senator, I am one of those students.

They were afraid of being deported if they raised their hand and identified themselves at the meeting. That has all changed now, and it has changed for the better. These young men and women are courageously stepping forward to identify themselves. It is no longer a mystery of who they are or what they want to be. They are real flesh and blood. They are children. They are the people you sit next to in church. They are the folks who are working hard next to your son or daughter in the library at school. You are cheering them on on the football field. You are watching them lead the USC Marching Trojan Band. You are watching as they are aspiring to become tomorrow's scientists, engineers,
doctors, lawyers, and teachers. They deserve a chance, and we should give them that chance by passing the DREAM Act.

I hope my colleagues will consider doing that as quickly as possible. They want peace of mind, they want a future, and we need them in America's future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source