[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3117-S3120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued
Amendment No. 3286 To Amendment No. 2917
(Purpose: To provide energy tax incentives)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending
amendments are set aside.
The clerk will report the Baucus amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hagel,
and Mrs. Carnahan, proposes an amendment numbered 3286.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment consists of the energy
tax incentives reported by the Finance Committee.
Let me explain why this amendment is necessary.
The short term energy crisis has ended. But the long term problem has
not.
[[Page S3118]]
Earlier this year, at a House hearing, Energy Secretary Abraham
summed up the energy situation. He said that ``Over the last 12 months
we have seen energy supply shortages, natural gas and gasoline price
spikes in the Midwest and California, and terrorist attacks within our
borders.''
He was right on target. His words emphasize that energy independence
matters. It matters to our economy, to our national security, and to
the well-being of average American families.
Take one example. Gas prices.
Remember last summer. The price was $1.70 per gallon. A record high.
Just 6 weeks ago, the national average retail price for gasoline was
$1.14 per gallon.
Since then, gas prices have climbed again. Today, the national
average price is back up to $1.42 per gallon.
Over the past several years, prices have been extremely volatile.
This volatility has had a sharp economic effect, disrupting
businesses and lives.
Here is why. The difference between $1.14 per gallon and $1.70 per
gallon is 56 cents per gallon.
The average household uses about 1,100 gallons of automobile gasoline
a year. All else being equal, that amounts to a swing in household fuel
expenditures of more than $600, just for transportation.
That is like a $600 tax increase, on every American family.
For a small business, the economic impact of these price swings can
be even worse.
And the situation is not likely to improve anytime soon.
Between now and 2020, worldwide demand for oil is projected to
increase from 76 million barrels a day to nearly 120 million barrels
per day. That's an increase of almost 60 percent.
Clearly, the more we depend on only one source of energy, the more we
are subject to price fluctuations.
With that background, let's turn to the legislation.
The chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, has designed
the underlying energy legislation that is the basis for our energy
policy.
Now why should tax incentives be part of the bill?
The use of tax incentives to promote energy development is not some
radical new idea. From the time of the enactment of the income tax in
1916, we have had tax incentives for the production of oil and gas.
In 1978, we went further. We created the first tax incentives for
renewable fuels and for conservation.
These incentives were effective. Last July, at a Finance Committee
hearing, economist Kevin Hassett told the committee that the tax
credits ``were fairly successful at stimulating conservation
activity.'' More specifically, he found that ``a 10 percentage point
credit would likely increase the probability of investing [in
conservation] by about 24 percent.''
The Finance Committee amendment takes this experience to heart. We
use targeted tax incentives to promote investments that are critical to
energy independence.
We do this in three important ways. First, we create incentives for
new production, especially production from important renewable sources.
Second, we create incentives for the development of new technology.
Third, we create incentives for energy conservation.
Let me explain each in turn.
First, new production. Regardless of the source, total U.S. energy
production directly affects our dependence on foreign sources of
energy.
If U.S. production rises, while consumption remains constant or
falls, we become less reliant on foreign energy. Unfortunately, the
opposite is expected to occur.
Through 2020, energy consumption is projected to increase more
rapidly than domestic production. If that happens, our reliance on
foreign energy--shown on the chart as ``net imports'' of energy--will
increase accordingly.
Here is how we address the problem.
We extend the wind and biomass credit for an additional 5 years. We
also qualify many more sources as renewable fuel sources, including
geothermal, solar, plant life, and other sources.
We create incentives for clean coal. If you retrofit to use currently
available clean coal technology, you are eligible for a production tax
credit. If you use advanced technology, you're eligible for both an
investment credit and a production credit.
We create a new credit for oil and gas production from marginal
wells, and a limited tax break for geological and geophysical
expenditures.
Each of these tax incentives will encourage more energy production,
from a variety of renewable and traditional sources.
Let me turn to the second key element of the bill. New technology.
Think big. Thing new. Think way into the future.
New technology can bring both energy independence and a cleaner
environment.
Before long, our cars and trucks will run on electricity, new and
alternative fuels, and fuel cells. And maybe someday, when we get home
from work, we'll plug our fuel cell automobiles in to generate the
electricity for our homes.
But we need to make investments in these technologies today. History
tells us it can take a very long time to deploy new technology. The
first commercial telephone service was offered in 1876, but it took
more than 90 years to make the service available to 90 percent of
residences in the United States.
It would be a shame if it takes half that time to bring these
promising new technology vehicles to market.
So here is what we do.
We create tax credits for the purchase of new technology vehicles.
These vehicles of the future. They'll be powered by alternative fuels,
by fuel cells, and by electricity.
In the near term, we provide tax credits for the purchase of hybrid
vehicles, which run partly on electricity and partly on gasoline.
What is so great about these vehicles?
For starters, fuel cell and electric vehicles are zero-emissions
vehicles. In the meantime, hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles can
speed us toward the development of these zero emissions vehicles.
On top of that, when it comes to emissions and fuel economy, these
vehicles have significant advantages compared to traditional fuel
vehicles.
To make sure of this, we provide tax credits only to vehicles that
meet very stringent emissions standards.
There's a related point. New vehicles require new fuels. And it takes
new infrastructure to deliver these fuels. Therefore, we provide tax
incentives for the installation of new refueling station technology and
for the purchase of alternative fuels.
All told, these investments in new technology will transform
automotive transportation in the United States, so that it is cleaner,
more fuel efficient, and less reliant on imported oil.
The third key element of the bill is conservation.
Conservation is the only way to solve the problem of excessive
dependence on foreign imports. When we increase conservation, it has
the same effect as if we reduce consumption. We see that this will
lessen our reliance on foreign sources of energy.
Conservation also will have positive environmental effects. Namely,
cleaner aid.
Perhaps most important, tax investments in energy conservation will
reduce monthly energy bills.
How do we accomplish this?
We create incentives for people to get more complete energy
consumption information with devices like the smart meter, which allows
people to track energy use in their homes.
We create incentives for people to buy energy efficient
refrigerators, air conditioners, and other appliances.
And we encourage energy efficient construction, to make homes and
commercial buildings more energy efficient.
Those are the three key elements of the bill. New production, new
technology, and conservation.
We also address several other issues. Perhaps the most important is
electric utility restructuring. This is important for investor owned
utilities, municipal utilities, and cooperatives. And, of course, for
consumers.
But there is a lot of uncertainty. We all remember the rolling
blackouts in California. Many other states also have been affected. In
Montana, the legislature has had to delay the implementation of a law
calling for retail choice, because the state does not yet have a
competitive market in place.
[[Page S3119]]
There is similar uncertainty in other states and nationwide.
To my mind, we don't yet know what a restructured electric industry
will look like.
In light of this, the amendment tells the Treasury Department to
report back to us by the end of the year on restructuring and the tax
issues it raises. The study will help us make the right decisions to
address future issues raised by restructuring.
Senators Bingaman and Murkowski may wish to go further, as part of
this bill, and Senator Grassley and I are discussing options with them
now.
At the same time, there are some current problems, that we do know
how to address.
The amendment does so with respect to nuclear decommissioning funds
and the treatment of cooperatives.
Before closing, I'd like to acknowledge all of those who helped write
the Finance Committee bill.
The President's budget called for tax incentives for renewable
resources, residential solar systems, alternative fuel vehicles, and
combined head and power systems.
Those are included.
Our committee members have also made very important contributions.
Our ranking member, Senator Grassley, has worked hard to make this a
balanced, bipartisan bill.
Senator Hatch and others were the principal authors of the
alternative fuels provisions.
Senator Rockefeller was the principal author of the clean coal
provisions. Other Members were responsible for other important
provisions.
I also appreciate the help of the leaders of the Energy Committee,
Senators Bingaman and Murkowski. We are lucky that they also are
members of the Finance Committee, and we benefited from their expertise
and dedication.
In other words, this has been a cooperative effort, all around.
Pulling this together, we have a package of tax incentives that are
important in their own right and that will complement the broader
energy bill.
In short, this amendment is good environmental policy and good energy
policy.
Don't get me wrong. This bill is not a panacea. It is a work in
progress. It is just a step. But it is a good step. A step in the right
direction.
I thank members and urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The amendment (No. 3286) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, may I ask the Senator from Montana,
my understanding is that there is going to be a managers' amendment out
of the Finance Committee on the energy tax aspect.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. Given the posture we are in, I
assume procedurally that is available at this time. But that is an
assumption. I am not positive. That is an assumption. If procedurally
that is available, the Senator is correct.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, I would like to have some assurance that we will
have an opportunity for input in the managers' amendment before I would
agree to a unanimous consent which I assume will be forthcoming. The
Senator from Montana has not proposed a unanimous consent, he has just
proposed this; is that correct?
Mr. BAUCUS. In answer to the Senator, the Finance Committee tax
incentives are now part of the energy bill. The Senate has adopted
them. They are in the bill now. I am not at this point attempting to
seek a UC request.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, it would be my hope we could work to----
Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. I have been working with the Senator and
with the distinguished chairman of the committee to try to figure out
what appropriately could be put in that package.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It would appear, Madam President, it would be a
combination of either specifically identified amendments that could be
agreed upon or we would have to address the issue of germaneness. If I
have the assurance of the chairman of the Finance Committee that he is
willing to work with us on that aspect, I would be satisfied.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, might I inquire of the Senator from
Montana, it is the Senator's intention that the Finance Committee
version--not a modified version of that--be offered for inclusion in
the underlying bill; is that correct?
Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my good friend, the Senate has already adopted
the measure that passed the Finance Committee. That is now an adopted
amendment and now part of the energy bill.
Mr. KYL. The reason I ask is, there was some confusion at the desk as
to which version the Senator was offering.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
Mr. KYL. Since there was not an amendment pending at the desk.
Mr. BAUCUS. The two versions at the desk were identical.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to just announce that we will be
offering a unanimous consent request shortly that would propose that we
limit the number of amendments to be taken post cloture to a certain
number. I believe we are going to suggest seven on a side. But let me
say, with or without that unanimous consent request, post cloture,
Senators would still be eligible to offer amendments having to do with
certain tax provisions or any other provisions of the bill.
What we are simply trying to do is to find a way, at long last, to
bring this bill to closure. I remind my colleagues that I laid this
bill down on February 15. It is now April 23, and the only way we are
going to bring this to conclusion so that we can move to other
legislation is to either get this unanimous consent request that
Senator Lott and I are about to propound or cloture.
So I ask my colleagues for their cooperation in this regard. And
failing the unanimous consent, as my colleagues may note, I have moved
the cloture vote to 2:30 this afternoon. So one or the other will
occur. Either we will get a UC or we will have a vote on cloture at
2:30 this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I appreciate the work we have been able to
do to try to get a reasonable agreement as to how to proceed on the
death tax matter. I think the agreement just entered is fair to all
sides.
Also, I think it is very important that we have the tax section as a
part of our energy package, when it is completed, because many of the
important incentives to get more production and to find alternative
fuels and develop new technologies--whether it is hybrid cells or
whatever it may be--are in that section. We have almost $15 billion
that came out of the Finance Committee unanimously, as I recall. So
that needed to be included. The fact that it is included is a very
important recognition that work has been done by Senator Grassley,
Senator Baucus, and others.
With regard to the unanimous consent request we are going to propound
to limit the number of amendments and get to passage by a time certain,
I also think that is the right thing to do. There may be many
amendments that are out there, but we could not get an agreed-to
number. I know we can accept a limited number of five or seven,
whatever that number may be. Also, we are prepared to make a commitment
to get final passage on this legislation no later than Thursday at 6
o'clock. I think that is the responsible thing to do. I support that.
And Senator Daschle and I have been working for the last 24 hours to
try to come to that agreement.
It is time we bring consideration of this bill to a conclusion. We
have had a full debate, lots of amendments. I am sure nobody is
perfectly happy with it, but to have expended over 5 weeks and then not
be able to bring this to conclusion, would be disastrous for our
country, and the Senate would look very bad.
So I hope we come to an agreement on how to get a vote on this
legislation, complete action, and send it to conference for final
activity.
[[Page S3120]]
With that, I yield the floor, Madam President, and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, yesterday was the 1:30 p.m. filing
deadline. The Baucus-Grassley amendment was not part of the substitute
then so people couldn't draft amendments to that section. To be fair, I
ask unanimous consent that Members have until 1 p.m. tomorrow to file
first-degree amendments to the Baucus-Grassley title and that Members
have until 10 a.m. Thursday to file possible second-degree amendments
to those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have noted on a couple of occasions
this morning that it was our intention, in close consultation with the
distinguished Republican leader, to see if we might find a way to bring
closure to the bill, either with or without cloture. But I ask
unanimous consent that immediately following cloture, notwithstanding
the cloture vote, and notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the
Senate resume consideration of the energy bill with the opportunity of
each leader or his designee to offer seven amendments which are either
energy or tax related.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I
want to say again, this is the right way to proceed. We have been on
this legislation for 5 weeks. We have had a full debate. Senators on
both sides of the aisle have had opportunities to offer their
amendments. This will give us seven more opportunities on each side. We
will have to get a limit. We will have to have a process, which will
not be easy for either one of us. But we have discussed this in our
caucus. We are prepared to accept the limitation. This would also be
the process that would get us to a conclusion by, I believe, Thursday
or Friday, at the latest, of this week.
I support this initiative, and it is a bipartisan effort. I thank
Senator Daschle for making the request. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
would like to ask the majority leader if three amendments would be
considered among his amendments. The first would be Senator Schumer's
amendment to remove the ethanol mandate, the renewable fuels mandate
from the bill; second would be Senator Boxer's amendment to remove the
safe harbor provisions relating to liability; and the third would be my
amendment to remove PADDs I and PADDs V from the renewable fuels
requirement.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I certainly want to work with the
distinguished Senator from California to accommodate her and other
Senators who wish to be heard on the ethanol question. I know this is a
very important matter for them. At this point, I would not be able to
confirm that three of those seven amendments would be related to
ethanol, although I would not want to assume that they would not be
part of it.
I think we would want to negotiate with all of our colleagues to
accommodate as many Senators with an interest in offering amendments as
possible. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, this is in addition to,
cloture notwithstanding. Those amendments that are eligible to be
offered postcloture, we anticipate they would still be offered. It
could be, and I would guess most likely would be, the case that one or
more of those amendments would be able to be offered without the
inclusion in this unanimous consent request.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In response to the majority leader, if I may, Madam
President, we do not know at this time whether they would all be
germane under the bill. Based on the fact that the majority leader is
only reserving seven spaces and will not permit three spaces for this,
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I had a commitment to offer an
amendment to the energy bill dealing with the right of the Eskimo
people of Alaska to proceed with oil and gas development on their
lands. This weekend I conferred with them and their representatives,
and they would prefer not to raise that issue at this time and to allow
the process to go forward in terms of the energy bill and in terms of
their rights which they may wish to raise at another time but do not
wish to have me raise at this time.
Under the circumstances, I want the manager of the bill to know we
will not offer the amendment that would permit drilling on the lands in
the Kaktovik area that are owned by the Kaktovik Eskimos, and the
subsurface rights owned by the North Slope Borough. I believe the
decision is a right one, and I am going to honor their request not to
introduce the amendment at this time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________