[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 183 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8713-S8715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX BREAK EQUALITY
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today is a great day to be an oil company
in America. Not since August 27, 1859, when Edwin Drake drilled that
first oil well in Titusville, PA, has there been a day as good for the
oil industry in our country as today.
Why is today a great day for Big Oil? Well, I will tell you. Last
night at 2 a.m., the Republican leadership released its spending bill.
Tucked into that bill on page 1,865 is a provision that would massively
reshape our Nation's energy policy. Tucked into that bill is language
that would roll back longstanding U.S. law and allow the oil industry
to sell American crude oil overseas for the first time in more than 40
years.
If this becomes law, it means potentially $175 billion in new revenue
for the oil industry over the next decade, up to $500 billion in new
revenues for the oil industry over the next 20 years. That is why this
provision is in there. It is corporate welfare for the most profitable
industry in the history of the world, the oil industry.
What does this mean for the American people? Lifting the ban on the
exportation of American oil so it goes overseas rather than staying
here in America. It will be a disaster for our economy, for our
climate, for our national security, and for our consumers. Do you
remember the old mantra of the Republican Party, ``Drill here, drill
now, pay less''? Now they have changed it. Their new mantra is ``Drill
here, export there, pay more.''
The oil industry push to export American oil isn't about helping
consumers at the pump; it is about pumping up Big Oil's profits. When
has the oil industry ever pushed for policies that would drive down
prices and their profits? These are for-profit corporations, not
charitable institutions. They are looking to make lots of new money off
of selling oil around the world but not here in the United States.
If we allow this to happen, it will be a disaster for consumers in
many regions of the country--for example, the Northeast. The Department
of Energy has said that losing our refineries on the east coast, which
could easily happen because of this new law, will lead to ``higher
prices,'' ``higher price volatility,'' and the potential for
``temporary [supply] disruptions'' in our region.
Right now consumers across America in 2015 are saving $700 because
gasoline prices are so low and $500 on home heating oil because prices
are so low. That is a stimulus, almost like a tax break in the pockets
of working-class and poor Americans all across our country.
Exports would wipe out this economic stimulus for average Americans.
It would begin to lead to the higher prices that the oil industry
wants, both on the global market and here in the United States of
America. And the new revenue the oil industry collects from exports is
not magically created out of thin air; it will be transferred from
American consumers and our domestic refiners into the pockets of the
Big Oil companies in our country. This could amount to one of the
largest single energy taxes in the history of the world.
Remember, Saudi Arabia and their OPEC allies control the global oil
trade. They control the price that is paid on the global market, and
recently OPEC suggested oil prices may rise again next year, putting in
jeopardy the economic benefits that low gasoline prices and the low
home-heating oil prices have provided for average Americans.
Second, national security. Importing our oil while we export our
young men and women abroad--that is what we have right now. We are
importing oil from Saudi Arabia, from Nigeria, from Algeria, from
Kuwait, and from Iraq. That is what happens every day. That is a big
reason we have so many young men and women over in the Middle East
protecting those cargo ships of oil coming into our country. We still
import 5 million barrels of oil a day. China and the United States are
the largest importers.
We don't have oil to export. We are still importing 25 percent of our
oil into our country right now, and we are importing it from countries
we should not be importing that oil from. If we have a chance to back
out that oil, to tell those countries we don't need their oil any more
than we need their sand, we are doing a big favor for our young men and
women in uniform. We are allowing ourselves to step back and be more
dispassionate in the decisions we make about our relationships with all
of those countries.
What this decision says is we are going to export our own oil even as
we continue to import oil from the Middle East. This will only heighten
our dependence upon oil coming in from countries that we should not be
importing oil from if we have a chance to back it out. That is what is
wrong with this decision at its heart--oil. It is not like a widget. It
is not like a computer chip. You don't fight wars over that. You fight
wars over oil. That is why ISIS targets the part of Syria that it does.
That is why the part of Saudi Arabia that has the oil is the one now
being jeopardized by rebels. That is why Libya is so valuable and being
fought over--oil, oil, oil--and the revenues that they produce in order
to then create that instability, create that jihadism that we are
dealing with. We should be backing out all the oil we are importing
from that region if we have a chance to do so, and we do, but not after
this bill passes. We are going to be in a situation where we basically
are saying we are going to be permanently dependent upon that oil being
imported from that region.
I listened last night to all the Republican candidates for President
debating in Las Vegas about national security. Well, that is what this
is all about--this is all about that oil. This is all about that oil
revenue that goes into the pockets of people who should not
[[Page S8714]]
have our money, who spend it in ways we don't feel good about.
In my opinion, this decision will dramatically weaken our national
security position, weaken our ability to be stronger in the Middle East
because we are less dependent upon pretty much the only product they
make--oil--and would be able to deal with the national security issues
in a much better way, being much more clear-eyed, dispassionate, and
protective of American interests and the interests of those we are
allied with over the world.
Third, this is a tale of two tax breaks. One tax break is for Big
Oil. They get $7 to $8 billion a year in tax breaks, and it is
permanent--permanent. What happened in this bill is that the $7 to $8
billion for tax breaks for wind and solar are now going to be phased
out. We hear constantly from Republicans out here on the floor that
they believe in ``all of the above.'' Well, you can't have ``all of the
above'' competing fairly if one industry--the oil industry--gets their
$7 to $8 billion in tax breaks every year, and wind and solar--the
technologies of the 21st century--are going to have their tax breaks
phased out over the next 4 to 5 years. That is in this bill.
So the oil industry gets $500 billion in new revenues over the next
20 years, $140 billion worth of tax breaks over the next 20 years, and
wind and solar watch their tax breaks evaporate over the next 4 to 5
years. Is that a good deal for America, for the climate, for our job
creation in America with jobs that are here in America? That is not a
good deal. By the way, Big Oil wants their tax breaks so they can
export the oil out of our country. Is that a good deal? It absolutely
is not.
For the offshore wind industry, which has yet to be born, we need the
tax breaks to incentivize companies--wind companies from around the
world--to come to the Northeast, to come to this incredible place which
has been called the Saudi Arabia of wind. Those tax breaks are going to
phase out before an industry is even born--the offshore wind industry.
Does that make any sense? If we are going to give tax breaks to oil, we
should give tax breaks to the offshore wind industry. We should give
tax breaks to all these renewable industries on a predictable basis for
years to come. That is not happening in this bill. It is just the
opposite.
For national security, for equality, in terms of all energy resources
but especially those nonpolluting energy resources, there should be
equality, but there is not. There is not. We could have an America with
40 percent of all electricity being wind and solar by the year 2030, if
we kept the same tax breaks between now and 2030--40 percent. The 7
percent we would add in from hydropower and then the power that comes
from nuclear power in our country, over 60 to 65 percent of all
electricity in America would be noncarbon polluting by the year 2030,
but the tax breaks for wind and solar are going away in 4 to 5 years.
Does that make any sense? No, not at all. That is what this bill does,
and that is why this bill has that provision that was inserted late at
night a couple of nights ago that is on page 1,865 in this omnibus
bill.
The Koch brothers wrote a letter to all Republicans a couple of days
ago. They said: Lift the ban on exportation of oil out of our country,
even as we still import from the Middle East, and reduce and kill solar
and wind tax breaks.
Good. We understand the agenda. It is in this bill, and it is not
good for America. It is not who we are. It is not this innovation
economy which we know is going to have the capacity, like we did with
cell phones, to very briefly in history just move from this kind of a
phone in 1996, when it never really existed in people's pockets
anywhere on the planet, to this kind of phone and now 600 million
people in Africa have it today. We did that--America. We can do the
same thing with renewable energy, but we need to ensure that those tax
breaks are equal to oil's, for oil is the technology of the 19th
century, the oil of the 20th century. We have to have a vision of what
is possible here in the 21st century. This bill does not include that.
That is why it is being added to a must-pass bill. It could not pass
if it was not in a must-pass bill with unrelated issues, unrelated
appropriations. They needed it to carry it through because they could
not do it standing alone down here on the floor of the Senate.
So whether it be the impact on our economy, which is going to drive
prices higher, or whether it be on our national security, it is going
to increase our dependence upon imports from the Middle East. Whether
it be the impact on consumers, where they are going to be paying higher
prices, or whether it be the environment, where, believe it or not, by
the year 2025 this is going to lead to upward of 2 to 3 million new
barrels of oil per day being exported out of our country--that is the
equivalent of building 150 coal-burning plants in our country
and sending those emissions up into the sky.
Having a bill pass on the floor of the Senate in the same week that
the whole world came together in Paris and signed an agreement saying
we were going to have less greenhouse gases going up into the
atmosphere and that the United States was going to be the leader--we
cannot tell the rest of the world to reduce their dependence on fossil
fuels while we announce in the next week we are going to change our
policy and start drilling for 2 to 3 million new barrels just to export
it out of our country and phase out the tax breaks for wind and solar
as we tell the rest of the world they should be moving to wind and
solar. That does not work. You cannot preach temperance from a bar
stool. You cannot preach temperance from an oil rig and tell other
countries to move to renewables. It just doesn't work that way. It
doesn't work that way. They might nod. They might say: Oh, don't worry.
We are still going to honor our commitments. But you know behind your
back as a country they are just going to be saying: I see what they are
doing. We will start doing the same stuff. We will build a few more
coal-burning ones. We will burn more fossil fuels over here. If they
are not sincere, why should we be sincere? If they can preach
temperance on Sunday and then on Wednesday say ``bingo'' in the church
hall, we can do the same thing.
So I am just afraid that on every one of these lines this bill fails:
environment, national security, consumers, and the economy. It is bad
for America. It is bad policy. We should feel better about our capacity
to innovate.
I am especially concerned about wind. I am especially concerned about
offshore wind. There is a reason we call ourselves the Saudi Arabia of
wind. It is because we have the potential to back out the oil from
Saudi Arabia. That is why. That is our metaphor because we know how
much oil they have and how they have controlled the price of oil in the
world every single day since 40 years ago, when they decided to have
their first oil embargo. That is when we put this law on the books that
we would never export our oil again. We would keep it here.
It is 40 years later. The Middle East is in chaos. It is hard for
anyone to even describe what the future for the Middle East is going to
be. How many of these leaders are actually even going to be in place in
5 years? No one in the world knows, but we do have one thing. We have
our own domestic energy source, wind--natural gas, wind, and solar. We
should keep it here to protect ourselves. It will make us a better
partner with the rest of the world. If we are totally strong, we can
project our power diplomatically, economically much better than we are.
So for me this is a historic day. I understand what Big Oil wants to
do. I understand what the Republicans want to do. Our leader Harry Reid
did his absolute best to get the best deal he could for the renewable
energy sources that we have, to stand up as long as he could these tax
breaks. He did a good job, but the pressure was on him from the
Republicans. Unfortunately, in this agreement, the wind and solar tax
breaks will expire. Wind tax breaks expire very soon.
From my perspective, we should have this debate out here soon. We
should have a debate about the Middle East. We should have a debate
about oil, about our national security, about our role in the future.
It is time for us to have the big debates out here, the big debates in
prime time, with everyone participating and everyone understanding that
the rest of this century is going to be about the United States over in
the Middle East. Whether we
[[Page S8715]]
like it or not, from the day we invaded Iraq, that was our destiny. So
let's have those big debates. In the center of that has to be oil and
the revenues that are fueling so much of what is happening over there.
I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the opportunity to speak
today.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________