[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 218 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7922-S7923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNITED STATES-MEXICO ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the 
Senate the message to accompany H.R. 133.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the following 
message from the House:
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, that the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 133) entitled ``An Act to promote 
     economic partnership and cooperation between the United 
     States and Mexico,'' with an amendment to the Senate 
     amendment.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 133.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that there be 60 minutes of 
debate, equally divided between the leaders or their designees; and 
that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote 
on the motion to concur without further motions or amendments in order 
and that 60 affirmative votes be required to adopt the motion to 
concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. HOEVEN. North Dakota is an energy powerhouse, and our late-night 
producers work around the clock to ensure homes and businesses in the 
Midwest have affordable and reliable access to power when it is needed 
most. But the PTC, the wind production tax credit, is creating 
artificially low prices in markets for power generation.
  Qualified wind projects are receiving up to 2\1/2\ cents per kilowatt 
hour from the taxpayer. These subsidies distort the market and are 
forcing out the critical coal-fired baseload generation we need to keep 
the lights on.
  Since Congress established a wind production tax credit in 1992, wind 
power has been able to transition from an emerging technology to a 
multibillion-dollar industry that is clearly commercially viable. That 
is why we worked on a bipartisan agreement in 2015 to phase down and 
sunset the wind tax credit at the end of 2019.
  We had an agreement to do the phaseout, and the wind industry agreed 
to it. I worked with Senator Thune and AWEA, the American Wind Energy 
Association, and others to do it. And they agreed. We had an agreement. 
That is why we are opposed to extending the PTC and offer an amendment 
to strike it.
  We saw what happened in California over the summer, and we can't 
afford to have blackouts and brownouts during the coldest of winter 
weather months. We, instead, must strengthen grid resiliency and 
reliability by keeping diverse sources of generation available at all 
times, including when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. 
That means baseload.
  Instead of extending the production tax credit, we should be working 
on making technologies like carbon capture and sequestration 
commercially viable.
  The American Wind Energy Association states on its website that 
``growth in the wind industry is expected to remain strong when the PTC 
is fully phased out.'' Why, then, are we considering another extension 
of this credit when the leading trade association expects to see strong 
growth for the wind industry without the credit?
  We need to bring back a level playing field for competition in our 
electricity markets and reverse the trend of taxpayers continuing to 
subsidize a mature, multibillion-dollar wind industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure that the 
wind production tax credit sunsets.
  With that, I would like to ask for some words from my cosponsor on 
the amendment, Senator Cramer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Hoeven 
in offering this amendment and urging our colleagues to support the 
amendment to strip the wind protection tax credit from this massive 
bill.
  I feel like I am living in an episode of the ``Twilight Zone,'' and I 
wish I could say that I am surprised. But I am not, because here we go 
again. Despite numerous requests and appeals and deals with the leader 
and the chairman of the Finance Committee to not jam this body with a 
13th extension of the wind protection tax credit, here we are with 
another one in front of us.
  Since the credit's inception in 1992--and for a lot of those years I 
was a utility regulator--it has always been promised that it would be 
temporary and would expire. Last year, we got jammed at the last minute 
with another extension, and, rightfully, the people back home are 
really, really upset with us. And it didn't sit very well with me 
either.
  That is why, in April of this year, I led a letter to Leader 
McConnell with colleagues from West Virginia, Wyoming, and Georgia 
saying it was time to finally level the playing field and get rid of 
this market-distorting atrocity.
  In July, I led another letter to Chairman Grassley with even more 
colleagues--from West Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and 
Pennsylvania--with the same message: Let this credit expire.
  Yet here we are again. The requests have fallen on deaf ears, and we 
have simply been given another pill to swallow with the extension 
today.
  Some in this town have pointed to an extension in carbon 
sequestration credits like 45Q and 48A, as if they were an equal trade. 
They are not. Despite years of pleading, the Treasury Department--yes, 
this Treasury Department--still has not finalized regulations. So an 
extension of 45Q is moot if there is no way to actually monetize the 
credit.
  Of equal importance, financial investors have said if renewable 
credits are extended, they will absorb whatever tax appetite exists 
because they are predictable, and those deals have been done many 
times.
  Just to reiterate, they can't even utilize 45Q because Treasury 
hasn't finished the regulations 3 years after Congress expanded the 
credit.
  More to the point, while there are some great proposed carbon 
sequestration projects planned in North Dakota, their benefit is 
targeted, while in contrast, hundreds of miners and the local 
communities they have built are being hurt by the extension of the 
production tax credit. I strongly support carbon sequester projects, 
but to assume that the potential benefits of 45Q or 48A are equal to 
the unilateral harm of the wind credit is disingenuous at best.
  I have heard from utilities who actually use the wind PTC, but they 
said they don't need it because the market is so awash with wind 
credits, they can't even monetize them. It is completely upside down. 
In fact, the PTC credits are actually taking money away from other 
clean energy projects like nuclear clean coal, taking emissions-free 
energy right off the grid.
  Just a few days ago, POLITICO said this: The simplest option for tax 
extenders would be to let all 33 that are scheduled to expire at the 
end of the year to be renewed.
  I have a simpler plan. Let them all expire. K Street wouldn't like 
it, but it would be one less section in this giant package.
  One final point, in all of my time in Congress--and that has been 8 
years

[[Page S7923]]

now--the wind production tax credit has never been extended through 
regular order or an open discussion or even hearings. Despite our 
objections or promises from the wind industry that it should expire, in 
the 11th hour with the government shutdown looming, it gets dropped 
into the Members' laps. That alone should be a red flag that the only 
time it has enough chance to pass is when it rides the coattails of our 
national defense and the government operations. It is shameful.
  I support the amendment from Senator Hoeven, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it as well. Let the wind PTC expire
  I yield my time.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Cramer and 
turn to my colleague Senator Lankford.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I will be brief. I did what many of us 
did today. We spent the day digging through a 5,600-page bill, trying 
to find out what is in it. We broke it up into hundreds of pages of 
chunks and separated it among our staff and just started reading 
through it as quickly as we could, trying to be able to pull out the 
details.
  We found a lot of things that we really like. We found a few 
surprises as well. So help us, we found, right in the middle of the 
document on tax policy, a zombie--the wind production tax credit. 
Something that we had heard had died--in fact, something that we had 
heard died 2 years ago; in fact, something that we had heard died 6 
years ago when all of us agreed it should die. In fact, the plan was to 
take it down a little bit each and every year until it finally got to 
zero. The problem was, when it got to zero, some lobbyist helped 
somebody get it back in last year, and it suddenly, after going to 
zero, reappeared. And then, so help me, it reappeared again.
  So this temporary credit that distorts the market, that literally 
changes the prices in all of our energy--whether that be oil or gas or 
coal or solar or hydroelectric or nuclear--gives a special perk to one, 
and all of the rest of them get furious. But for whatever reason, this 
simple credit can't seem to go away.
  When we agree to something, we should probably stick to it, and we 
agreed years ago to phase this out. But yet this zombie keeps 
reappearing and walking the halls of the Senate.
  Our simple challenge is this. Let's put this zombie in the daylight. 
Let's have the real argument over it and determine: Is this distorting 
the energy market for everybody else, including all of our renewables? 
Is it something we need to keep?
  I live in Oklahoma, and if you know our song, you know ``the wind 
comes sweeping down the plains.'' We have been called the Saudi Arabia 
of wind power. I promise, you can't drive very far in Oklahoma without 
seeing a field of windmills. We have lots of wind power, and we think 
it is a great energy source. But it is a mature energy source, and it 
does not need the wind production tax credit. So let's sunset it.
  With that, I yield
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague Senator 
Lankford. Also, we would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator 
Barrasso, and others who support this legislation.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that our motion to concur with the 
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I will be brief. I want to 
give the Senate a sense of where we are with respect to this issue. In 
front of us right now is a bipartisan agreement to extend a variety of 
provisions to promote clean energy and reduce carbon emissions.
  When I talk to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there is 
enormous support for the effort to reduce carbon emissions. Now, I can 
look around this Chamber and point out colleagues who have worked with 
me on the renewable energy provisions that are part of this bipartisan 
agreement, which includes not just the credit for wind but also solar 
and other renewable energy. I would submit this is the best approach we 
have today, which is to make sure that we don't miss out on critical 
investments right now.
  For the future, I have a plan to move to a technology-neutral system 
that would avoid picking winners and losers, take this mess of a Tax 
Code, with more than 40 separate energy provisions, throw it in the 
trash, and say we are going to focus on one thing--reducing carbon 
emissions. We aren't there today. What is here today is climate change. 
That is why it is so important that we pass this bill and reject this 
amendment.
  With that, I want to thank my colleagues from North Dakota. I 
remember enjoying going to North Dakota with the sponsor of this 
amendment. I will tell you, if you are over 6 feet tall, make sure to 
exercise before you go to North Dakota because you will be in the 
smallest airline seat in the history of aviation.
  John Hoeven is a very good and caring man. I am looking forward to 
working with him on these issues in the future.
  And with that, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would ask my colleague from Oregon--and I did have him 
in North Dakota. We had a great time, and I appreciate his coming out 
to see the energy we produce in our great State.
  I would ask the gentleman for his help on carbon capture 
technologies. We put funding in place to advance those carbon capture 
technologies, and I ask for his help and his colleagues' help in that 
endeavor.
  Mr. WYDEN. I would say to my colleague, I am always interested in 
working with him in the future. After we pass this bill, with these 
important provisions to meet our immediate needs, let's set as our 
lodestar reducing carbon emissions.
  When you and I served on the Energy Committee together, that was an 
approach that brought together Republicans and Democrats.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank my cosponsors on this amendment and our efforts 
will continue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________