[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.

                          ____________________