[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3113-S3114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FINANCE COMMITTEE TAX INCENTIVES

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the cloture vote has been suspended until 
2:30 this afternoon. I think that is very wise. There are a few 
provisions that various Senators are trying to work out. I hope very 
much that they are worked out.
  One of the big provisions is the Finance Committee-passed tax package 
which I believe members of the Finance Committee believe very much 
should be part of this bill.
  The Finance Committee has worked long and hard on tax provisions to 
help wean America from OPEC. They are not huge incentives, but on the 
margin they will help a bit. They are divided roughly equally between 
conservation incentives on the one hand and production incentives on 
the other. The conservation incentives are renewable energy provisions. 
For example, they extend and modify what is called the section 45 
credit.
  In addition, the alternative fuels and alternative-fuel vehicles 
credit is to help America develop automobiles that are much more fuel 
efficient so we will consume fewer gallons of gasoline for every mile 
driven. There are a lot of great ideas, whether hybrids or fuel cells, 
but it is important to give those incentives.
  There are also some conservation and energy-efficiency incentives for 
energy efficiency in existing homes, for new home construction, a 
credit for residential solar, for example, wind, fuel cell properties, 
a credit for more efficient air-conditioners, water heaters, heat 
pumps, and the list goes on. That is the conservation side. As I said, 
it is about half of the total package.
  The tax incentives for 1 year total about $8 billion and over the 
life of the bill--that is 10 years--$14 billion. Half of that, as I 
mentioned, is renewables and conservation. The other half is production 
incentives. The production incentives are for clean coal technologies. 
We know we can utilize coal significantly in the future. It makes sense 
that we use cleaner technologies so that there is less pollution. There 
are oil and gas conventional incentives as well as some electric 
industry restructuring incentives.
  I might say, for our Native Americans on Indian reservations, we have 
provided accelerated depreciation and wage credit benefits for 
businesses that are on Indian reservations. This provision was thrashed 
out in committee. It passed out of the committee unanimously, albeit on 
a voice vote.
  I believe that, by and large, most Members of the Senate support--and 
support strongly--these provisions. They do help, on the margin, wean 
us a bit from our dependency on OPEC because they provide a little more 
self-sufficiency and have actual, honest to goodness provisions; that 
is, the myriad of conservation measures I mentioned.
  I take my hat off to our leader Senator Daschle, to Senator Reid, and 
to Senator Lott for trying to figure out ways to put this together so 
we can finally pass the energy bill. It is an almost impossible 
situation. You have 100 Senators, each with a different point of view. 
But as to the Finance Committee provisions, by and large, the President 
proposed many of them in his proposed energy tax package. Senator 
Bingaman, chairman of the Energy Committee, has proposed energy tax 
incentives. Senator Murkowski has proposed energy tax incentives. That 
is some indication why we in the Finance Committee passed this measure 
out unanimously.
  It is bipartisan by definition. It is broad based, but it is not 
germane, obviously. That is why I hope we can get the agreement in some 
responsible fashion to take up and pass the Finance Committee package 
in a posture so it will be included in the bill, that it is not 
excluded perhaps because cloture is invoked, therefore making the 
provision not germane.
  It is a good provision, the Finance Committee package. I think it is 
also important we pass it because there may be scoping issues in 
conference. I

[[Page S3114]]

cannot guarantee 100 percent, just because the House has about $30 
billion in tax incentives, that necessarily any provision the Senate 
has in mind would be within the scope; it may not be.
  Second, if we do not pass our energy tax incentive package, we will 
be disadvantaged in negotiating with the House. The House will have 
passed $33 billion, the Senate zero. One can argue, look at what is in 
the Finance Committee package, but I can tell you, having worked with 
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in conference many times, 
I know what he is going to say. I know it is going to give him a leg 
up. It is going to give him an advantage. And it is going to make it 
more different for us in the Senate to get provisions we want.
  Third, that is no way to operate. The Finance Committee has done its 
business. We had many hearings. We have had a markup. We have debated 
these issues. We passed out our provision incentives to add, to 
complement--in fact, supplement--the underlying energy bill. We waited 
until the rest of the bill was about ready to pass to bring up our 
package. I think it is only appropriate--in fact, it is for the good of 
the country, definitely--that these provisions be included.
  So with great respect I urge all my colleagues, in the next couple 
hours, to help all of us together, as 100 Senators, figure out a way we 
can bring up and pass the Finance Committee tax incentives. They are 
good. They are good for America--half conservation, half production. I 
think it is basically by and large agreed to.

  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________