[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7585-S7588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the two different 
energy packages we are debating in the Senate this week because there 
are two. There is not just the one that the Senator from Tennessee, the 
Senator from Texas, and the Senator from Arizona were talking about 
earlier. There are two, and I think we need to focus on both.
  First, with regard to the effort to lift the moratorium on offshore 
drilling, let me make one correction on the record.
  It is being repeatedly said by our Republican friends that 85 percent 
of the Outer Continental Shelf is off-limits to drilling or off-limits 
to any kind of leasing. That is not true. The reality is very 
different. The reality is what this chart demonstrates; that is, that 
67 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf today is available for 
leasing.
  The reason they say it is only 15 percent is because they do not 
count Alaska, but Alaska is part of the United States. The area around 
Alaska has an Outer Continental Shelf, just like the rest of the 
country has an Outer Continental Shelf.
  It is clear when we look at it that there is a lot of potential in 
the Outer Continent Shelf around Alaska. In fact, the Department of the 
Interior has two lease sales scheduled for next year in the Outer 
Continental Shelf in Alaska. The Department of the Interior has 16 
lease sales scheduled in the next 4 years in the Outer Continental 
Shelf. This month, in August, they have a lease sale in the Gulf of 
Mexico. There is a whole series of lease sales coming up, both in 
Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, in areas that are available for 
leasing.
  So the constant refrain that we hear that 85 percent of the Outer 
Continental Shelf is not available for leasing is just not true, and I 
wanted to correct the record in that regard. If anybody wants to 
dispute that, I urge them to come to the floor and tell me I am wrong. 
But I am not wrong. These are figures from the Minerals Management 
Service. They are the ones in charge of the leasing, and they confirmed 
these figures.
  Now let me talk about the other energy-related package which is 
before us today. Tomorrow the majority leader has announced that we are 
going to vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to 
what is called the enhanced tax extenders package. I think the better 
title for this would be the energy production and conservation tax 
package. But let me describe what is in this legislation.
  This is a very important piece of legislation, and I strongly believe 
we need to proceed to it, then pass it, and send it back to the House.
  With regard to energy, the package includes tax incentives that are 
essential to this country if we are going to decrease our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  It promotes renewable alternatives to foreign oil. Among these 
provisions is the production tax credit. The production tax credit is 
available for people who put in wind farms.
  We have all seen T. Boone Pickens' advertisements on television. He 
is talking about the production tax credit. He was before our Energy 
Committee 3 weeks ago, and he has testified that he favors extending 
the production tax credit. That is what is in this legislation.
  It also contains a key 8-year extension of the solar energy and fuel 
cell investment tax credit. This gives companies the certainty they 
need to make additional capital investments in U.S. solar facilities 
while enabling businesses to adopt technologies that can significantly 
benefit our environment.
  It includes a long-term extension of the residential energy efficient 
property credit through 2016. It allows the cap for that to go from 
$2,000 up to $4,000.
  It authorizes $2 billion in new clean renewable energy bonds to 
finance facilities that generate electricity from renewable sources.
  In the more immediate term, it establishes a new credit for plug-in 
electric-drive vehicles. I have heard a lot of discussion by our 
Republican colleagues about how much they favor electric plug-in hybrid 
vehicles. This legislation actually will do something to promote the 
development of those vehicles. It is a new credit starting at $3,000 
and increasing for each kilowatt hour of additional battery capacity.
  It incentivizes commercial vehicle owners, particularly trucks, to 
invest in idling-reduction units, such as auxiliary-power units and 
advanced insulation so as to reduce their demand for more fuel.
  It extends credits for energy-efficient improvements in existing 
homes and in commercial buildings.
  In addition to all these energy-related tax provisions, which I think 
are extremely important for us to enact--and let me say, essentially 
all of the existing provisions I am talking about that we are trying to 
extend are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, at the end of 
December. We need to extend them so people can make investments this 
fall knowing there is still going to be that tax provision in law come 
next year.
  But in addition to these energy production and conservation 
provisions, American businesses generally have a great deal at stake in 
this legislation. The legislation extends the research and development 
tax credit. This is extremely important to high-technology firms in our 
country. It accelerates appreciation for qualified leasehold restaurant 
and retail improvements. This is small business. Small businesses 
around this country need this provision extended.
  It extends an important international tax provision for businesses 
that engage in active financing.
  Individual families have a tremendous amount at stake in this 
legislation. First of all, this legislation contains the so-called 
patch for the alternative minimum tax. What that means is that there 
are literally millions of Americans who will be able to avoid having to 
calculate and pay taxes under the alternative minimum tax if we enact 
this legislation. If we do not, then they have to go ahead and do that. 
So this is very important.
  It extends the child tax credit. I have heard candidates for 
President talk about how much they favor the child tax credit. Well, 
this extends the child tax credit and provides a tax credit of up to 
$1,000 per child to help working poor families.
  It extends the qualified tuition deduction for higher education 
expenses--people who have children in university or college who want to 
have those tuition expenses deducted.
  It enables retirees to continue making tax-free IRA rollovers to 
qualified charitable organizations.
  Mr. President, there is another provision that has been inserted by 
the chairman of the Finance Committee that I think is very important, 
and that is the provision we call the Secure Rural Schools and Payments 
in Lieu of Taxes legislation. Three-quarters of the Senate voted for 
this legislation when it came up before.
  We have schools around this country in rural areas that are laying 
off teachers today because we have not been able to reauthorize the 
Secure Rural Schools Program. This package will provide $3.8 billion to 
some 2,000 county governments in 49 States to increase support for 
schools and roads and other critical needs.
  There is a lot in this legislation that is extremely important, so 
the obvious question is, Well, why can't we just pass it? Who is 
objecting? Well, when you try to analyze that question, you get to the 
issue of offsets. Everyone says they favor the provisions I just 
described, but they say--particularly on the Republican side--well, we 
don't agree with the offsets. Let me take a few minutes to describe the 
different--the variety and flavor of the objections we have heard with 
regard to offsets.
  First of all, let me say that this is not a new piece of legislation 
before the Senate. This legislation came up in June of 2007. We were 
not able to pass it. It came up in December of 2007. We were not able 
to pass it. It came up again in 2008 and passed with a large margin 
because, frankly, there were no offsets in that legislation, which was 
the Republican preference. It came up

[[Page S7586]]

with offsets again in June, on June 10 of this year, and again June 17 
of this year, and both times it failed. So let me talk about this 
offset issue. I think that is the core of the problem.

  The rhetoric on the Republican side has been varied. Some Senators 
have said it is wrong to offset temporary extensions of current law 
with permanent tax increases. Now, obviously, the fact that all of this 
is adding to the deficit--if we don't offset, it all adds to the 
deficit--doesn't seem to concern people. But somehow or other, there is 
something about permanent and temporary that is out of sync and 
objectionable to some people.
  As I understand it, the bill that Senator Baucus has now filed and 
that we are going to vote on tomorrow addresses this concern. It 
sunsets the extender offsets at the end of the budget window and 
thereby makes sure they are not permanent offsets.
  A second argument on offsets we have heard from some Republican 
Members is that they will not accept paying for new tax provisions with 
offsets, but they will not agree to pay for extensions of current law 
with offsets. To me, this is something of a peculiar argument. Offsets 
of existing tax law would be acceptable provided that the offsets were 
in the nature of a nondefense discretionary spending cut. But if you 
are trying to offset with additional revenue, it is not acceptable.
  I know this is getting obtuse, but frankly it is getting difficult to 
sort through all the rationale that has been put forward for opposing 
the legislation.
  A third argument is that some Members say they are opposed to any and 
all offsets. To include offsets, they say, is tantamount to raising 
taxes on someone in exchange for cutting taxes on someone else, so that 
nothing should be offset.
  I would hope Members paid attention to the news from yesterday. The 
news from yesterday was that we are, in fiscal year 2009, going to have 
a budget deficit, estimated by this administration--this is not a 
Democratic estimate, this is the Bush administration saying that the 
new administration will come into office with a deficit of $482 
billion, the highest on record. Our debt will climb by over $800 
billion this 1 year to more than $10 trillion when this President 
leaves office. I would think that information would concentrate 
people's minds on whether we ought to offset some of these tax 
provisions, and clearly, it seems to me, we should.
  I think the truth is that the concern on the Republican side about 
offsets is really driven by a different factor, and let me just 
describe that because I don't think we have had enough discussion of it 
here on the floor as yet.
  There are many on the Republican side who are concerned that if they 
agree to offsets for this package we are voting on tomorrow, this would 
set a dangerous precedent when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the so-
called Bush tax cuts, are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. So 
they say: If we agree to offsets here, then someone is going to say we 
ought to have offsets there, and clearly that is not going to be a good 
position to be in. I would just say that offsetting the current package 
will cost up to $55 billion. In contrast, the Congressional Budget 
Office says that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--the Bush tax 
cuts--and adding an AMT patch is going to cost a little over $4 
trillion. So we need to focus on the challenges before us, not think 
hypothetically about how a future tax cut may be handled.
  Some of our Republican colleagues have pointed to other provisions in 
the legislation that they find objectionable. I know some of them have 
said there was a provision in here that allowed trial lawyers to deduct 
certain expenses. That has been stripped out. Some have said there is a 
provision to require the Davis-Bacon Act. But the last extenders bill, 
as well as the one before us today, includes no such provision.

  I also wish to reiterate my sincere disappointment with the 
administration. President Bush has previously committed to the energy 
tax incentives in this bill, which were enacted by the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. When he visited my home State of New Mexico to sign the 
act, the President praised that bill for recognizing ``that America is 
the world's leader in technology and that we've got to use technology 
to be the world's leader in energy conservation.'' But while some of us 
in Congress have been working to ensure that America maintains this 
leadership role, the administration has been absent. I must question 
the sincerity of the President's commitment to energy security when he 
sits by idly and allows these provisions to lapse.
  It is time for Republicans to stop moving the goal posts. It is time 
to address America's pressing challenges and it is time to acknowledge 
the dire fiscal budgetary situation in which we find ourselves, and not 
to dig the hole even deeper. It is time to pass the extenders package 
before we leave this week.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used his 15 
minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I believe 
it is extremely important for us to go ahead and proceed to and pass 
this tax extender package, and I hope colleagues will support that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President I rise in support of the comments of my 
colleague from New Mexico, who has done an excellent job, along with 
the Senator from Montana, in putting this together.
  We have heard a lot of talk on the floor about drilling. That has 
gotten a lot of the heat, but the light is right here with the 
extenders. I say to my colleagues, these tax extenders, which are 
focused on energy alternatives, are far more important to reducing gas 
prices than drilling. Whether you are for drilling or against it, we 
all know you cannot drill your way out of this problem; that just by 
drilling, by focusing on drilling, we are telling both Saudi Arabia and 
ExxonMobil that they are going to continue to control our destiny for 
decades to come. And look what that has brought us to now--$4-a-gallon 
gasoline.
  The only solution is to wean ourselves from oil and, to a lesser 
extent, natural gas and to move to alternatives such as wind and solar 
for electricity, and battery-powered cars, electric cars, and gas-
powered cars to deal with automobiles, and other kinds of efficiency-
enhancing measures. If we ever want to be free of big oil, this is the 
place to go.
  So for all the speeches we are hearing from the other side about 
drilling, which won't bring any more oil for 7 to 10 years--and, of 
course, we are for a plan of increasing our domestic production and 
drilling that is more efficient and quicker, but no amount of drilling 
is going to solve our problem.
  We know why they want drilling. Big oil wants drilling. Well, I say 
that the American people don't want ExxonMobil or OPEC or Saudi Arabia 
controlling our destiny any longer because that brought us $4-a-gallon 
gasoline. We want alternatives. We want a car that can run by 
electricity--just as powerful, just as long a ride, just as smooth, if 
not a smoother ride, than gasoline-driven cars and a heck of a lot 
cheaper. We want our homes powered--heated and cooled--by wind power 
and solar power and biomass and so many of the other alternatives--
cellulosic ethanol--and this bill takes the first large step to doing 
that. The tax extender bill will increase focus on solar.
  Talk to the people who do these alternatives. They say that unless we 
extend the tax cuts, particularly for a longer period of time, they 
cannot make an investment. Germany is way ahead of us in this area, as 
is France, and China is leaping ahead of us in this area, and all 
because my colleagues don't want to close some tax loopholes primarily 
dealing with people who put their money overseas and defer their taxes, 
which no American should have the right to do.
  So I say to my colleagues, you want to bring down gasoline prices? 
You want to bring down the cost of home heating oil? The best thing to 
do is move this extender package. It is far better than drilling--
whatever your view on drilling. Let's see what happens when we vote on 
these proposals this afternoon and tomorrow. All the talk about $4-a-
gallon gasoline--less important than defending those who hide their 
money overseas and won't pay taxes. That is what the votes are going to 
show here.

[[Page S7587]]

  This bill is a vital bill. This bill has so many good provisions in 
it that will wean us from oil.
  I say to my colleagues once again, we know we cannot drill our way 
out of the problem. We have twiddled our thumbs for 7 years. It is 
about time we started giving the tax incentives to alternative energy 
and freeing our country of OPEC, of Saudi Arabia, of ExxonMobil, and of 
$4 gasoline.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again, I express the concern that we as 
Republicans are labeled as the party that only chooses to drill, drill, 
drill our way out of high energy prices. Our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are viewed as the party that is saying no to any 
domestic production, no to providing for more energy independence when 
it comes to what we can do for ourselves, and whose answer is only: 
Stop the speculation; the answer is only renewables.
  I come from a producing State. Alaska has been doing a fine job over 
the past 30 years, providing oil to the rest of the country and 
providing it in quantities that truly make a difference. We want to be 
able to continue to provide it. But we recognize that drilling is not 
the only answer. It is not the only thing that is going to get this 
country to a position where we are not going to be held hostage by the 
geopolitical events in Nigeria, in Venezuela, in Iran.
  We have to be doing more. The answer is a little bit of everything. 
It is to find more and use less. When we are talking about finding 
more, we have to be realistic about where we can find more and it 
should not be in Saudi Arabia's backyard. It should not be in 
Venezuela. What we can do here we should be doing here.
  When we say we need to have an energy policy in this country that 
encourages production and encourages investment for production and 
discourages consumption, that is what we need to be working toward, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, not just this finger pointing, saying 
all you want to do is drill and us, on this other side, saying all you 
want to do is nothing. We are not answering the problems our 
constituents are facing back home right now. We are not delivering to 
them what they need, which is answers.
  I want to talk a little bit about the situation in my State. The 
chairman of the Energy Committee, for whom I have such respect, has 
indicated that in the proposal he is advancing he is looking to do more 
when it comes to offshore exploration and development in Alaska. As I 
said, we are a State that supports production. We support development 
in the northern country. But we also recognize that oftentimes things 
are out of our control when it comes to the ability to produce.
  I requested from the Department of Interior, the Minerals Management 
Offices, MMS, the summary status of what is happening with the 
litigation that is blocking us from doing any meaningful production 
when it comes to offshore Alaska, Alaska OCS. There is a total of six 
litigation cases that are filed against MMS affecting the Alaska OCS. I 
can provide the details, certainly, but I think what I would like to 
highlight is--whether it is the 5-year leasing program lawsuit that has 
been filed by the Center for Biologic Diversity, the Chukchi Sea sale 
193 lawsuit, the Beaufort Sea sale 202 lawsuit; the Shell exploration 
plan lawsuit--Shell's operations have been held up for two seasons now 
because the ninth circuit has not moved on a decision there--we have a 
Beaufort and Chukchi Sea seismic survey lawsuit. Other MMS litigation 
is an FOIA lawsuit related to the Chukchi Sea sale, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service incidental take regulations, Beaufort Sea as well as 
Chukchi Sea notices of intent to sue for violations of endangered 
species as they relate to polar bear, fin and humpback whales, and 
eiders--my point is we do have opportunities up north. We do have a 
resource that is incredible. We recognize it. Again, we would like the 
ability to be producers for the Nation. It is not just the challenges 
we face dealing with an Arctic environment. So much of what happens 
that causes delays so that we do not see increased production 
domestically in this country is due to the litigation.
  I want to speak a little bit about not necessarily the challenges but 
the opportunities that we have in the northern environment specifically 
to produce, and the opportunities that are brought to us because of the 
technology. Some in this body have suggested that drilling is not the 
way out and drilling indicates we are guilty of an old way of thinking 
about energy issues. I think it is probably more accurate to say those 
who oppose the production of conventional oil and gas in this country 
as part of a balanced energy policy that includes renewables and 
includes conservation are the ones who are guilty of old, outdated 
thinking. It is clear that those who oppose increased domestic 
production are utterly resistant to the technological changes that have 
occurred both onshore and offshore in gas production in the past 40 
years in this country.
  Some people say we are mired in the past. I think that is because 
they refuse to either learn about or to accept the changes in 
technology that allow for oil and gas to be produced without harm to 
the environment, wildlife, or to the land. We recognize there can be 
accidents. We know that firsthand in Alaska. We live daily with that. 
In fact, I spoke with a fisherman in Cordova--that whole community is 
still living daily with a terrible accident that happened in our State 
some 20 years ago. We know an oil barge can hit an oil tanker, as we 
have seen in Mississippi. But so can pollutants be accidentally 
released while companies make photovoltaic cells; or chemicals used to 
make batteries for hybrid and electric cars can accidentally spill and 
harm the environment. An offshore wind turbine foundation might harm 
fisheries habitats. A windmill on shore might kill birds. Methane gas 
might explode. An accident can happen. But why not look at the real 
impacts of modern technology and the real risks that modern technology 
involve?

  I will use my example of what is happening up north with oil 
exploration. During the past 31 years, the Prudhoe Bay oil field has 
produced 15 billion barrels of oil. This is about one-fifth of all the 
oil that this country has produced over the last three decades. During 
that 31-year time period I can tell you the technology has vastly 
improved. When Prudhoe opened, wells were drilled over the top of the 
oil deposits themselves. The wells were about every several hundred 
yards. Today, hundreds of wells can be drilled from a single well pad 
and they do this through the technique of directional drilling. That 
allows the companies to drive wells from one tiny gravel pad that can 
reach oil deposits under the surface up to an area 8 miles in diameter. 
That leaves more than a 100-square-mile area of habitat undisturbed 
between these well pads. These well pads have decreased in size by 88 
percent during the life of the Prudhoe Bay field.
  In addition to directional drilling, we have the 3-D and even 4-D 
seismic testing. This pinpoints the location of the wells, technology 
that doesn't harm any animals in the process.
  Once the companies find the areas they want to explore, they build 
ice roads to move drilling equipment to the site, roads that melt in 
the spring leaving no trace, no sign of human activities come summer. I 
stood on this floor. I told you how it works. It is like a Zamboni 
going across the tundra. In addition, we place mats--they call them 
duramats--on the ground to protect the fragile tundra to make sure the 
wheel tracks are nowhere to be seen when the spring arrives in the 
Arctic.
  The new technology goes on. New detection systems on pipelines can 
sniff out the hydrocarbon molecules and actually shut down a pipeline 
before drops of oil can reach the environment. It includes requirements 
that all equipment when they are stopped--up north in Prudhoe, all 
those areas there--all equipment, whether it is the truck or the rig, 
when they are stopped they actually place what are called diapers, 
absorbent pads, under the engine to catch any drops of oil before they 
touch the ground. More oil probably leaks on the driveways here in 
Washington, DC than ever reaches the environment of Alaska's North 
Slope.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I want to sum up very briefly. I am talking about 
onshore, but I can tell you, as it relates

[[Page S7588]]

to OCS development, we are seeing those same levels of technology. Well 
valves are dependable. We have not had a well blow out since the Santa 
Barbara accident in 1969. We recognize that our technology allows us to 
do more than 30 years we could ever have dreamed about. Let's allow us 
to use our ingenuity to produce so we have the resource we need as a 
country. Let us use our ingenuity to take this resource and to develop 
the renewables and the alternatives that are the future of this 
country. Let's use our ingenuity to be more creative when it comes to 
conservation and efficiencies. The ingenuity we use with our production 
of oil and gas is something that should not be disputed but should be 
encouraged.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.

                          ____________________