[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3752-S3754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 782, which the clerk will report by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 782) to amend the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
DeMint amendment No. 394, to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Paul amendment No. 414, to implement the President's
request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.
Cardin amendment No. 407, to require the FHA to equitably
treat homebuyers who have repaid in full their FHA-insured
mortgages.
Merkley/Snowe amendment No. 428, to establish clear
regulatory standards for mortgage servicers.
Kohl amendment No. 389, to amend the Sherman Act to make
oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.
Hutchison amendment No. 423, to delay the implementation of
the health reform law in the United States until there is
final resolution in pending lawsuits.
Portman amendment No. 417, to provide for the inclusion of
independent regulatory agencies in the application of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
Portman amendment No. 418, to amend the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) to strengthen the
economic impact analyses for major rules, require agencies to
analyze the effect of major rules on jobs, and require
adoption of the least burdensome regulatory means.
McCain amendment No. 411, to prohibit the use of Federal
funds to construct ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage
facilities.
McCain amendment No. 412, to repeal the wage rate
requirements commonly known as the Davis-Beacon Act.
Merkley amendment No. 440, to require the Secretary of
Energy to establish an Energy Efficiency Loan Program under
which the Secretary shall make funds available to States to
support financial assistance provided by qualified energy
efficiency or renewable efficiency improvements.
Coburn modified amendment No. 436, to repeal the volumetric
ethanol excise tax credit.
Brown (MA)/Snowe amendment No. 405, to repeal the
imposition of withholding on certain payments made to vendors
by government entities.
Inhofe amendment No. 430, to reduce amounts authorized to
be appropriated.
Inhofe amendment No. 438, to provide for the establishment
of a committee to assess the effects of certain Federal
regulatory mandates.
Merkley amendment No. 427, to make a technical correction
to the HUBZone designation process.
McCain amendment No. 441 (to Coburn modified amendment No.
436), to prohibit the use of Federal funds to construct
ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 5
minutes for debate only equally divided on amendment No. 436, as
modified, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
Who yields time? No one has yielded time. Time will be charged
equally to both sides.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am speaking on this amendment. I
oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. There is
going to be a change with biofuels in this country. We are going to see
a phasing out of the support for biofuels in terms of Federal policy.
But the time to do it is not in the middle of the year after 7 years of
Federal support with 5 days' notice.
Senator Thune and I have an alternative bill that actually takes the
rest of the year, the last 6 months of this year, the funding, and puts
$1 billion into deficit reduction, and then allows the industry to keep
its footing so it can actually compete with oil.
I would remind my colleagues that this is now 10 percent of our fuel
supply. There have been studies done that show the price of gasoline
would escalate up to $1 more a gallon if the rug were suddenly pulled
out from under this industry. It is the only competition with oil. So
while this industry, unlike the oil industry, has acknowledged that
there is change ahead and that they are willing to be part of this
change and actually put money on the
[[Page S3753]]
table, the time to do it is not now on an unrelated bill with no
discussion of a comprehensive energy plan for this country.
I know Senator Thune would like to talk about his opposition to this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
motion. As the Senator from Minnesota has pointed out, there is a
better way to do this. I think we can all work together in a
constructive way and accomplish what the proponents of this amendment
want to do, but do it in a way that does not disrupt this industry.
In December, 81 Senators--81 Senators--voted for tax policy. Here we
are 6 months later and we are going to say we are going to pull the rug
out. We are going to tell you guys just to go pound sand--after giving
them a commitment back in December that we would have this tax policy
in place until the end of the year.
That is not the way to do business. This can be done in the right
way. I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion, and then we can work
together to try to get to where we have a solution in place that is
good for jobs, good for the energy industry in this country, and good
for the taxpayers of America.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one negative aspect of Senator Coburn's
amendment No. 436, as modified, to the Economic Development
Revitalization Act of 2011 is that it is a tax increase that is not
offset by a tax cut of an equal or greater amount.
It takes away a tax incentive and therefore increases taxes but fails
to cut taxes in another area, such as by lowering tax rates. I do not
favor taking away tax incentives without cutting taxes in other areas
to reach a revenue-neutral result.
Revenue-neutrality should be judged using a current-policy baseline
and not the unrealistic current-law baseline that builds in trillions
of dollars of tax increases.
However, in this case, the policy considerations regarding ending the
tax incentive for corn-based ethanol outweigh this general principle. I
will note that this is not the case for the larger-dollar, and more
significant, tax incentives such as the home mortgage interest
deduction.
With respect to these tax incentives, any changes that increase
revenue must be offset with a tax cut in another area, such as by
lowering tax rates. My vote in favor of the Coburn amendment should not
be viewed as a precedent for increasing taxes.
Taxes are already headed higher than they historically have been
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Americans are
not undertaxed, Washington overspends, and we need to get that spending
under control.
In terms of energy policy for our Nation, I think the case is more
clear in favor of this amendment. I do not believe it makes sense to
provide a tax incentive for a product that is also mandated by the
Federal Government, which is what we have with ethanol. Moreover,
energy tax incentives should be a temporary boost, not a long-term
strategy to support an energy source that cannot compete on its own. I
believe the time has come for corn ethanol to stand on its own as a
transportation fuel.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I will vote today against cloture on
amendment No. 436, dealing with subsidies for the ethanol industry,
because its author used inappropriate procedural tactics to attach it
to an unrelated bill devoted to economic development.
I support eliminating unnecessary tax subsidies to the ethanol
industry, but today's vote is a political maneuver orchestrated by
members of the minority party. I am pleased that the Senate will have
an opportunity to vote on the merits of this issue, without extraneous
debates over Senate procedure and process, in the coming days.
I will then support this measure to eliminate subsidies to the
ethanol industry, which is necessary to save taxpayer dollars, reduce
the deficit, and rein in our national debt.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on Senator Coburn's amendment to the Economic
Development Revitalization Act of 2011 to repeal the volumetric ethanol
excise tax credit and the tariff on ethanol imports. I will vote
against cloture on this amendment because of assurances that there
would be another vote on ethanol subsidies in the near future without
the extraordinary procedural problems occasioned by this amendment as
it was brought to the floor.
My position on corn ethanol subsidies is clear. I am a cosponsor of
Senator Coburn's Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act. I
also signed a letter last fall along with several of my colleagues
opposing the current extension of the volumetric ethanol excise tax
credit and the tariff on ethanol imports.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have introduced into the Record the
industry that gets this tax credit--they represent 97 percent of all of
the ethanol that is blended--does not want the $3 billion. They say it
is not a disruption to them, and, in fact, it is $3 billion that we
cannot afford to pay.
It is something that already has accomplished its purpose through a
government mandate. I would yield the remainder of my time to the
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I
think everybody in this body now knows that I am strongly for this
measure. Unfortunately, I think it has created a lot of feelings that
really do not work to the benefit of this body.
It is my understanding there is an offer from the leader that we will
have a vote by Friday next, which means a week from this Friday. I tend
to just say what I think. On our side, I think there are real concerns
about the process used to bring this amendment to the floor. I think
that has created some, unfortunately, very bad feelings which even are
enough to affect people's votes.
My view has been a little different. I have watched this ethanol
amendment go from $1.5 billion in the early part of the 2000s to where
it costs $5.7 billion now. It is a triple crown. It is a subsidy, it is
a mandate, it is a protective tariff. It should go. I have no question
about that.
I also want to see this body have an ability to work together. It
also gives us a little bit of time to see if we can negotiate some
agreement between the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from South
Dakota. That would be the best of all worlds. Whether we can do this, I
do not know, but I am certainly willing to try.
What I hate to see is this vote get so caught up--which it is now
caught up in process--that we have no chance of sorting it out. I have
asked the Senator from Oklahoma would he consider withdrawing this
amendment so we can try and see if we could----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would ask unanimous consent for a couple of seconds
more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN.--so that we could try and see if we can work
something out with Senators Klobuchar and Thune. I would implore him
once again, I think for the best interests of our body as a whole, both
sides, we ought to take the time to try to work it out. I think we lose
votes right now on the basis of the process alone that we would not
lose on just a straight vote.
I believe if it were not for the process, we would have 60 votes.
That is my belief. So I want the Senator from Oklahoma to know that
right up front. I would implore him to let us withdraw the amendment,
try to negotiate a solution, and then take this up, as the leader has
pledged, by Friday next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the reason this amendment ended up the way
it is, is because we don't have an open amendment process in the Senate
anymore. Rule XXII gives every Senator the right to offer an amendment.
We
[[Page S3754]]
have no Senate unless we have the right to offer an amendment.
There is no usurpation of the power of the majority leader. He gets
to set what bills are on the floor. Every Senator has the right to file
cloture on their amendments--every Senator. They also have every right
to offer amendments.
We would not be in this position if we did not have a closed
amendment process instead of an open amendment process. I would like to
solve this problem. I recognize that this is going to be blue-slipped
anyway. I thank the majority leader for his offer. I do not think it
accomplishes what we want. I think we end up losing what we can get and
what we should get.
I think the American people deserve to have us take this $3 billion
out of the hands of the large oil companies now, not to the benefit of
any American except to their detriment and their children.
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
amendment No. 436, as modified, to S. 782.
Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John McCain, Richard Burr, David
Vitter, Kelly Ayotte, Scott P. Brown (MA), James E.
Risch, James M. Inhofe, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi,
Johnny Isakson, John Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, John
Cornyn, Jeff Sessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on
amendment No. 436, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma,
Mr. Coburn, to S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of
2011, should be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Pryor
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Toomey
Vitter
Webb
NAYS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carper
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Casey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are
59. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Senator from Florida.
____________________