[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17106-17107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         WIND ENERGY TAX CREDIT

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I have two items I would like to 
briefly mention. The Nation is consumed by the fiscal cliff. From all I 
can tell, the Presidential limousine is moving very rapidly toward the 
fiscal cliff with the President's foot on the accelerator. I am still 
hopeful we will get a budget agreement that will help us get the 
economy moving again, but at a time like this, of course, what we all 
need to be doing is thinking about saving every possible penny to fix 
the debt.
  This government in Washington, DC, is borrowing 42 cents out of every 
dollar we spend. That is why I come to the floor to point out a 
proposal that has been made to fleece the taxpayers out of an 
additional $50 billion over the next 6 years. This is a proposal that 
is as brazen as a mid-day bank robbery on Main Street. It is a proposal 
by the wind developers of America to say to the taxpayers: Please give 
us $50 billion or so more dollars over the next 6 years to phase out 
the Federal taxpayer subsidy for wind power.
  Why is this a brazen fleecing of the taxpayers? First, this taxpayer 
subsidy began in 1992, 20 years ago, as a temporary subsidy for a new 
form of energy. Of course, windmills are not really new. We have had 
them for hundreds of years. But the idea was to give them a little 
boost so they could get bigger and perhaps help us supply electricity.
  It was intended in 1992 that this would only be a temporary tax 
credit. But as President Reagan used to say: There is nothing that 
comes as close to eternal life as a government program. So this 
temporary taxpayer credit has been renewed time after time after time. 
It is 20 years old. Now, after billions of dollars and 20 years, wind 
power is, according to President Obama's Energy Secretary, a mature 
technology.
  The Congress has decided that Federal taxpayer subsidies for wind 
power should end at the end of this year. Everyone knows that. This is 
no surprise. It has been out there for a while, so businesses can plan 
on this. In other words, it is time for wind power, the Congress has 
said, to take its place in our free market system and compete with 
natural gas, compete with nuclear power, compete with hydropower, 
compete with solar power---compete with other forms of power producing 
electricity. After all, we produce and use about 20 to 25 percent of 
all the electricity in the world, and we want to make sure we have 
plenty of it and that it is a reliable supply at a low price.
  Yet along came the wind developers who have benefited from this 
giveaway for 20 years--I say giveaway because, according to the Joint 
Tax Committee and the United States Treasury, from 2009 through 2013 it 
has cost the taxpayers $16 billion to subsidize windmills in America. 
Put that in a little perspective. The federal government spends only $6 
billion a year on all energy research. We could be spending it there. 
We could be reducing the debt. Instead, we are continuing to subsidize 
this mature technology.
  But the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway 
money--it is hard to imagine how it could be exceeded by a so-called 
phase-out proposal. They announced: Phase us out over the next 6 years, 
through 2018. In 2013 the credit would be 100 percent. We would have 
the credit for next year at the same level it is this year. That's 
estimated to cost about $12 billion. That is twice the amount of money 
we spend each year on energy research in America. Then, in 2014, they 
want 90 percent of the previous full tax credit, and then 80 and 70 and 
60 and nothing after 2018.
  I have not had a chance for the Congressional Budget Office to 
evaluate how much this phase-out would cost, but it is tens of billions 
of dollars. One estimate is $50 billion new taxpayer dollars at a time 
when we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar to keep doing 
something that is already phasing out on its own terms. We cannot 
afford that. We simply can't afford that. We cannot afford 1 year more 
of the wind tax credit--that is $12 billion--on top of the $16 billion 
for grants and the production tax credit from 2009 through 2013.
  Second, it is interfering with the marketplace. The subsidy to wind 
developers is so great they are actually paying distributors of 
electricity, in some cases, to take their wind power, which undercuts 
other forms of electricity on which we rely. Why is that so important? 
We cannot rely on wind power, because it only works when the wind 
blows. It often blows at night when we really do not need it. We have a 
wind farm in Tennessee. It is the only one in the Southeastern United 
States. Why? Because the wind doesn't blow much in the Southeastern 
United States.
  In Tennessee, somebody has a big contract with extra subsidies by the 
government to put these gigantic towers on top of our scenic mountains. 
And how much electricity does it produce? Not very much. Of course, 
these turbines only generate electricity about 19 percent of the time, 
and it produces even less electricity when we actually need it. You can 
fly over it or drive by these giant windmills at 4 p.m. in the 
afternoon in the summer when everybody has their air conditioning on 
and they need electricity, and not a single windmill is turning. You 
might go at night and it is turning, but they don't need the extra 
electricity at 7 or 8 or 9 o'clock at night. That is the problem around 
the country. It is a puny amount of unreliable, expensive electricity.
  The idea that the United States of America, using 20 to 25 percent of 
all the electricity in the world, would produce the largest amount of 
clean and reliable electricity by windmills is the energy equivalent of 
going to war in sail boats when nuclear submarines are available.
  Let's let wind power, after 20 years, find its place in our market. 
There are clearly places where it should be fine. But there is no need 
to subsidize it from the Federal Government; to cause the ratepayers of 
Tennessee, for example, to pay more to import electricity produced by 
wind from South Dakota when we should be using those dollars either to 
lower our rates, to pay for air pollution control equipment, and to 
build nuclear power plants--of which we have several in the Tennessee 
Valley. They are clean--they emit no sulfur, no nitrogen, no mercury, 
and no carbon. That is the cleanest form of reliable energy we have in 
the United States.
  There may be some places where windmills work, but not along the tops 
of the Tennessee mountains or even in the valleys of Tennessee. The 
idea of continuing to waste $50 billion of taxpayer money over the next 
several years to subsidize a mature technology at a time when the 
government is going broke is as brazen as a bank robbery in the middle 
of the day on Main Street. I hope we put a spotlight on this $50 
billion giveaway. I hope it becomes the poster child for what is wrong 
with spending in Washington, DC. I hope the Congress will come to its 
senses this month and next month and say no to those who come forward 
with their hand out for this $50 billion giveaway.


                             The Filibuster

  Madam President, on Tuesday I spoke about the filibuster. I 
inadvertently made a mistake I would like to correct. When I was 
looking at the history of filling the tree, which is the gag rule that 
the majority leader uses to

[[Page 17107]]

stop Republicans from offering amendments--we just saw it again today. 
We had a banking bill. There was a budget point of order that killed 
the bill. We had a couple of amendments on the Republican side that 
would fix the budget point of order, and then we could have passed the 
bill. But the majority leader imposed the gag rule, he filled the tree, 
and here we are.
  I was talking about that, and I said that Senator Robert Dole was the 
first leader to fill the tree, and I was wrong about that. I was 
reading some information that the Congressional Research Service had 
given me, and I did not read it right. When the CRS went back and 
looked at its information, it would appear that in 1980, Senator Robert 
Byrd used this filling of the tree on the Tonnage Measurement 
Simplification Act, H.R. 1197.
  That reminds me of a story Senator Baker used to tell me when he was 
suddenly elected majority leader in 1981, and Senator Byrd became the 
minority leader unexpectedly. Senator Baker went to Senator Byrd and 
said: Senator Byrd, I will never know the rules as well as you do. I'll 
make a deal with you. I won't surprise you if you won't surprise me.
  Senator Byrd said to Senator Baker: Let me think about it.
  He thought about it overnight and said: It's a deal. And they worked 
that way for 4 years. Senator Byrd knew the rules.
  In 1980, apparently, at least so far as the research shows, he was 
the first one to use this arcane procedure of filling the tree. Filling 
the tree sounds very strange, but it is very simple. It means the 
majority leader can use it to cut off debate over here.
  If you bring up a banking bill, and it has a budget problem, and one 
of us says we can fix that problem, that we have an amendment, if he 
has filled the tree, we cannot offer amendments. If some Senator--let's 
not pick on the majority leader--brings up a bill, and, let's say, it 
is an appropriations bill and it does not include money to rebuild the 
Center Hill Dam or the Wolf Creek Dam--which is not safe at the 
moment--and I want to stand up and say, Madam President, my 
constituents would like to see some money to make this dam safe because 
if it fails it will flood Nashville--if the tree is filled, I cannot do 
my job.
  On our side of the aisle we do not like filling the tree. We are in 
the minority, and we believe the majority has the right to set the 
agenda and that we in the minority have the right to offer amendments. 
The good news is a number of us on both sides of the aisle are working, 
with the knowledge of the majority leader and the Republican leader, to 
see if we can make some suggestions privately to Senator Reid and 
Senator McConnell that they can consider and, hopefully, agree that 
they are good suggestions, and as we begin the new year we will be able 
to move bills to the floor.
  I know the majority leader would like to be able to do that more 
easily, and maybe some of the fault for that is on our side. We on our 
side, then, would have a right to do what the minority especially wants 
to be able to do, which is to offer amendments, because this body is 
established for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority.
  The Congressional Research Service is looking further into the 
record, but we do have a record of how majority leaders have used this 
procedure from 1985 to the present. This data supports my larger point 
which is--what was used rarely is now used too frequently.
  According to CRS, these are the numbers. Since 1985, Senator Bob Dole 
filled the tree, used the gag rule, seven times; Senator Byrd used it 
three times; Senator Mitchell used it three times; Senator Lott, when 
he was majority leader, used the gag rule 11 times--that is, cut off 
amendments--Senator Daschle only one time; Senator Frist 15 times. 
Those are the majority leaders. So since 1985 all of those majority 
leaders used it a combined 40 times.
  Our current majority leader, Senator Reid, has used it, as of 
yesterday, 69 times since he became leader in 2007. This trend, this 
gagging the minority, is the primary cause of the Senate's dysfunction.
  I wanted to correct the record. I made a mistake, and I am glad to 
come and correct it. I don't want Senator Dole to get the credit for 
that when it appears Senator Byrd actually figured it out. I want to 
conclude with an optimistic point. I think most of us--and I would 
include the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire in the chair 
because we have been together in discussions, bipartisan discussions 
where we have talked about this--most of us believe we are fortunate to 
be here. We know we are basically political accidents. Since we are 
here we want to do our jobs. We would like to advocate the things that 
people sent us here to do.
  So if we have a bill, and we are in the majority, we would like to 
get the bill on the floor. If we have something to say, an amendment, 
if we are in the minority, we would like to have a chance to offer that 
amendment. So what a number of us are doing, we have been talking about 
how we can do two simple things: How can we make it easier for the 
majority leader to get bills to the floor? And how can we make it 
easier for the minority especially to be able to offer amendments?
  If we can do those two things at the beginning of the year, I think 
the Senate will begin to function much more effectively. It will be a 
better place to work. We will get our job done in a better way. There 
will be less finger-pointing, and there will be more results. There 
will be a change in behavior, which is what we need instead of a change 
in rules, and it will inspire the confidence of the people of the 
United States about the kind of job we are doing.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________