Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Montana.

Mr. BINGAMAN. So we have $1 trillion of profits over the next 10 years. This package calls for raising $27 billion over the next 10 years. So that is something in the range of 2.5 percent of profits, a much smaller percentage of revenues, of total revenues. So I point out that is not an undue burden on anyone, and I think all of these screams that this is the end of the world for the oil and gas industry are not founded on any kind of basis in fact. I think the whole purpose here is to do some very good things in the Tax Code, which I compliment the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa for proposing, and to do so by--under our pay-go rules, find revenue where it will reduce production at the very least, and I think they have done an excellent job in accomplishing that. I urge my colleagues to support the tax package and vote for cloture on the tax package when it comes up for a vote following the Kyl amendment, and obviously I urge all Members to oppose the Kyl amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to work with my colleague from Arkansas to improve this bill, and will work with her on this issue following the passage of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, through the President, if he is in agreement with me on a matter of some importance. I offered an amendment last week to require that 15 percent of the electricity sold in the Nation come from renewable energy resources by the year 2020. We have not been able to get an agreement to have a vote on this amendment, or on other forms of it that might have provided more flexibility to States in meeting the goals of the amendment. We would have been agreeable to accepting a supermajority threshold for passage of the amendment. We still could not reach agreement. That implies, to me, that opponents of the measure believe that 60 or more Senators support the amendment. I believe that they may be correct in assuming so. This amendment would have been as significant an amendment as we could have added to the bill. Such a standard would increase the generation of renewables in the Nation from something over 2 percent to a much greater share of our generation supply. We have tried again and again to provide, in law, mechanisms to allow renewable energy technologies to take the place in the market that they deserve. The Senate has passed similar amendments three times. This provision would result in cleaner electricity generation, be the source of extensive creation of new jobs, enhance our energy security, lower the price of natural gas, and could even result in lower electricity prices. Given the importance of this provision of the Nation, and the clear, strong support for it in the Senate, I would ask if it is the intention of the majority leader, should we conclude business on the Energy Bill without passing it, to seek another vehicle for the passage of the renewable electricity standard?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en bloc the list of cleared amendments at the desk that have been approved by Senator Domenici and his staff and myself and my staff, that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that Mark Wenzel, a fellow in Senator Dodd's office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 6.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the DeMint amendment as described by Senator DeMint creates a 60-vote point of order in the Senate on any legislation or part of legislation that would ``result in an increase in the national average fuel price for automobiles.'' By legislation, that is usually interpreted to mean a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment, a motion, or a conference report. The determination of whether any of those enumerated items would result in an increase in the national average fuel price for automobiles would be made by CBO in consultation with the Energy Information Administration. This is another piece of ``feel good'' legislation that would have the probable effect of making a great deal of what we do here in the Senate subject to a 60-vote point of order. Frankly, world oil prices and domestic fuel prices are swayed by all sorts of influences and psychological factors in the market. To think the Congressional Budget Office would be able to analyze price effects of legislative proposals might play in this complex stew of what traders and producers and major refiners think will happen is not realistic. This point of order would give a tremendous amount of influence to the petroleum industry. Most anything we do up here causes them to complain we are likely to raise gasoline prices as a result. For example, they are saying that right now about the antimanipulation and consumer protection provisions in the bill that were voted out of the Commerce Committee. If there were a 60-vote point of order their complaint could trigger, they would certainly be in constant contact with Member offices and with the Congressional Budget Office trying to boost the minimum votes necessary for these proposals to 60 votes. Let me give you a few examples of amendments to the bill Members want to offer that might be caught up in this kind of a point of order. Senator Cochran has an amendment he wants to offer to increase the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Any purchase of oil for the SPR would take that oil off the market and potentially raise fuel prices. That would trigger the DeMint point of order. Another example is the provision in the amendment that was adopted in the Senate by over 60 votes yesterday that is referred to generally as NOPEC, which essentially says U.S. courts will be open and available and have jurisdiction to consider antitrust claims against foreign governments that are getting together and trying to conspire to set oil policies. That legislation could clearly affect the price of oil and thereby the price of gasoline at the pump. We have an interest in creating reserves of products for refined gasoline. We already have a heating oil reserve. Legislation to establish new product reserves or to increase the size of the heating oil reserve would likely trigger this point of order my friend is suggesting we ought to put into our procedural law. Our military posture in the Persian Gulf has a great deal to do with the world price of oil. We might find that amendments or other legislative proposals dealing with sensitive military or diplomatic issues in that region would have an effect on automobile fuel prices under this amendment and could thus trigger the point of order. We might see the whole Defense bill annually subjected to the DeMint point of order on the claim that what we are proposing to do in the Defense bill could increase the price of gasoline at the pump. It is worth focusing on the fact that the point of order is triggered by ``an increase'' found by the Congressional Budget Office. That increase could be less than a penny a gallon and still the 60-vote point of order would be triggered as the amendment is drawn. Another example would be any legislation that might be considered on the Senate floor related to Nigeria and our relations with Nigeria. Clearly, we are heavily dependent upon oil from Nigeria to meet our energy needs. Any instability in that relationship could affect the price of oil or the price of gasoline as a result of increases in the price of oil. People are always complaining it is hard to get things done here in the Congress. We have too many procedural wrangles here in the Congress. There is an abundance already of procedural hurdles that any legislative proposal has to surmount in order to get passed. We have been pleading with various Senate Members in connection with this exact bill to try to get permission to bring up different amendments, even agreeing that we would be bound by a 60-vote point of order or a 60-vote requirement to do that. So we already have procedural hurdles in place in abundance. We should not be inserting into Senate procedures a requirement that will come back to haunt both Republicans and Democrats in completely unforeseen and unforeseeable ways just in order to say we did something about high gas prices. I strongly urge that we not agree to the DeMint amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, part of our debate has involved the question of whether we have too many procedural hurdles already impeding the work of the Senate and keeping us from conducting up-or- down votes on things. I strongly believe we do have too many procedural hurdles. Obviously, the purpose of the DeMint amendment would be to put more procedural hurdles in place so that a 60-vote point of order would be required in many circumstances in the future where it is not required today for the Senate to act. I am informed that one of the procedural hurdles already in law is under the Budget Act and that the pending amendment deals with matter within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction in that the DeMint amendment would direct CBO to take a variety of actions. That is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Hampshire has an amendment he wishes to offer at this time. He has agreed to a time limit wherein we would have 40 minutes equally divided, half to be controlled by Senator Gregg, the other half to be controlled by Senator Grassley, or their designees. It would be 40 minutes prior to any vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We will have 40 minutes of debate and then at some point we will have a vote. We may not have it immediately at the end of that 40 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am suggesting we go ahead and vote at the end of 40 minutes. So we will have 40 minutes of debate equally divided and then we will have a vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Senator Domenici and I have been working to get some amendments cleared. There are four that are now cleared. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc: Bingaman-Domenici No. 1528; Bingaman-Domenici No. 1529; Menendez No. 1533; and Cantwell No. 1551, as modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the order now is for the Senator from New York who wishes to offer an amendment. I yield to my colleague to see if he is in agreement with that course of action.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think the better course is for the Senator from New York to go ahead and explain the amendment, offer the amendment. Then during the course of his debate, we will see how persuaded we are and whether a voice vote is adequate or whether a rollcall vote is required.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. He has persuaded me of the merit of his amendment, but I am not in a position to procedurally move to actual disposition of the amendment at this time. So if the Senator has completed his statement, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since we seem to be unable to move ahead and actually dispose of amendments for a few minutes, while we get the procedural circumstance untangled, let me speak briefly about the tax package that has been reported from the Finance Committee. The energy tax package that is now a pending amendment to this bill represents a dramatic shift in the direction of our national energy policy from fossil fuel dependence to one that promotes diversified domestic sources of clean energy. The package the Senate will consider as part of this tax package contains three times the incentives for energy efficiency and renewables and other clean energy than we were able to enact in the 2005 Energy bill--three times more clean energy. The energy tax provisions are intended to complement and augment the authorizing legislation. These vitally important energy measures include: First, a 5-year extension of the section 45 tax credit for producing electricity from wind, geothermal, biomass, and other green resources; an extension of the section 48 investment tax credit for business investments in solar, fuel cells, and microturbines for a total of 8 years in the package that has now been reported to the Senate; extending the newly proposed residential wind credit; extending several residential and commercial energy efficiency tax incentives; expanding the section 48 A and B investment tax credits to fund the development of clean coal facilities, with a particular requirement that CO2 be captured and sequestered; expanding the program for clean renewable energy bonds by up to $3.6 billion; adding $3 billion to a newly established program for clean coal bonds; extending the advanced vehicle consumer credits and adding a category for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles; and an important new incentive to encourage the production of cellulosic ethanol. These are important provisions individually, but combined I think they will play a major role in moving our country along toward a path of forward-looking energy policy. The Finance Committee amendment also contains a severance tax on all oil and gas production from the Federal Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. This severance tax proposal needs to be viewed in the context of the larger energy tax title in the Energy bill that is before the Senate. By including this OCS severance tax in the Energy tax bill, we are able to secure the revenue that is vitally needed for these energy measures I have detailed. This OCS severance tax has been carefully crafted to raise revenues while doing the least possible to discourage production. First of all, it applies to oil and gas production on the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico only. We carefully considered where the tax should apply. The Alaska OCS is an important frontier area, and additional costs on those operations could truly impact leasing and development activity. The only other area with production in the OCS is California, where production is minimal and no new leasing is occurring. However, the industry in the Gulf of Mexico is robust--particularly with the price of oil where it is today--and the lessees and operators there tend to be large: either the major oil companies or large independent producers. This is in contrast to the Rocky Mountain region, where many small independents operate. Additional taxes or fees in that region could make the difference between production occurring or not occurring. Thus, this tax would only apply to oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. In addition, the tax is designed to ensure that it is not overly burdensome. The tax would be levied at a rate of 13 percent of the value of production with a credit against the tax for royalties paid on each lease. The Government Accountability Office recently completed a study comparing the combined tax and royalty costs imposed on the oil and gas industry in the United States versus elsewhere in the world. I note the GAO found the climate for doing business in the U.S. is very favorable, with the U.S. having one of the lowest combined ``government takes'' in the world. Using this construct of considering the combined tax and royalty costs, we designed the severance tax with a credit for royalties paid to ensure no lessee would be required to pay more than 13 percent of the value of their production in combined severance taxes and royalties. Of course, any lessee who is paying a 16\2/3\-percent royalty--that the President has now established as the appropriate royalty on Federal leases going forward--any lessee that is subject to that royalty will pay no tax. Any lessee paying a 12.5-percent royalty will pay an effective rate of 0.5 percent for the severance tax, and lessees paying less than a 12.5-percent royalty rate will pay the tax at an effective rate of the difference between the 13 percent and the royalty rate being paid. Furthermore, I believe the 13-percent tax rate is extremely reasonable. Earlier this year, the White House did announce the royalty rate for all new leases in the Gulf of Mexico would contain terms requiring that royalties be paid at a rate of 16\2/3\ percent. This was met with little, if any, opposition from the industry. Again, I commend Senators Grassley and Baucus. Senator Baucus has been our leader on this issue from the beginning of putting this entire package together. He and his staff have done yeoman's work. I also have been proud of the work my staff has done on this important issue as well. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the comments the Senator from Louisiana made. Procedurally, we are not able to bring up or consider the amendment he has talked about today. I have explained to him the reason for that is there is a Republican objection to us bringing up and considering a great many amendments that Democratic Members would like to bring up and consider at the same time. So I regret that. On the substance, I am not in a position to indicate right now whether this kind of change would take place. I would assume that to make that judgment, we would have to know something about the hurricane assistance that has been provided and whether there are still adequate funds available for some of this wetland assistance that was the purpose of the original legislation in 2005. Obviously, I think the entire Senate has been anxious to be of assistance to all of the gulf coast. This legislation he is referring to, the wetlands protection part of the 2005 Energy bill, was part of that. There have been several things that have been done since the devastating hurricanes hit that region. But I do not know enough about the specifics of those assistance programs to pass judgment on the contents of his amendment. I commend him for offering it, but I am not in a position to support it or oppose it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I object.