Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Energy bill and, particularly, a very important and missing part of the Energy bill. But before I turn to that subject, I want to particularly note, with our colleague Senator Stabenow on the floor this afternoon, that I think she is doing extraordinary work on behalf of Flint and the people of Flint. I commend her and also her colleague Senator Peters for trying to tackle this issue.

It seems almost unconscionable that in this age, when there is all this information and technology at our fingertips, a community is put at risk the way Flint has been put at risk. The idea that innocent children would suffer this way is why it is so important that we move now to address this issue. This is urgent.

There are questions we deal with in the Senate that if we take another few months or a half a year even, Western civilization isn't going to exactly change, but what my colleague from Michigan has said is that what we know about youngsters--and particularly brain development--if we don't get there early and we don't get there quickly, we play catchup ball for years and years to come, everything we know about neurological development. My friend knows that my wife and I are parents of small kids. We are so lucky they are healthy and have what a lot of youngsters in Flint aren't going to have. They are not going to have the kinds of problems that my colleague has brought to light here.

I saw one report in the news--it is almost beyond comprehension--that a State nurse told a Flint patient, ``It's just a few IQ points. . . . It is not the end of the world.'' The idea that a health professional-- who I guess has been in a number of the national publications--just highlights how important it is that this Congress move, and move now.

My colleague and Senator Peters, who is also doing a terrific job on this, have indicated there are some procedural and constitutional questions for the Finance Committee on which my colleague serves so well. I want her to know I am with her and the people of Flint every step of the way--not just this week and this month. This is going to be a challenge that is going to go on for some time. I just so appreciate what my colleague is doing. I am with her every step of the way.

Mr. President, I turn now to the Energy bill before us. I also want to commend the chair, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, who have put together a bipartisan bill in the Energy Committee, which is something I know something about because I was the chair of the committee. I think my chairmanship began and ended before we had the opportunity to work more directly with the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Colorado. I look forward to working with him in the committee and very much appreciate our colleagues putting together this important package.

If there is one backdrop to this debate, it is the extraordinary challenge of climate change. In order to meet that challenge and beat back the threat of irrevocable damage that has climate scientists ringing such loud alarm bells, there are going to have to be some serious changes in energy policy. The legislation in this bipartisan bill moves in that direction, the details of which I intend to get into in a minute.

I do want to first discuss a part of this bill that frankly is missing. It is missing to this debate. That is because the reality is the heart of America's energy policy is in the Federal Tax Code. The last big energy tax proposal to become law passed in 2009. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 5 of the 7 hottest years in recorded history have come since then. On the books today is an outdated, clumsy patchwork of energy tax incentives that in my view is anti-innovation and nothing short of a confusing, incomprehensible policy that does our country a disservice at a time when we have these great challenges.

There are 44 different energy tax breaks, and they cost about $125 billion each decade. Some industries--the oil and gas industry in particular--have some certainty about their taxes with permanent provisions. The fact is, renewable energy sources don't have that certainty. Some technologies get a lot of support. Others get little or none. It is a disjointed system that has far outlasted its sell-by date, and it is ripe for simplification.

The amendment Senators Cantwell, Bennet, and I submitted replaces this tattered quilt of tax rules with a fresh approach, an approach I hope will appeal to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The Presiding Officer and I have talked about energy policy being more market oriented. The kind of proposal we have made here does just that. It supports innovators with fresh, creative ideas. Particularly, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because we talked about it often when I was chairman of the committee and also on the Finance Committee--concern about subsidies, a big concern about subsidies, and I am very concerned about that as well. The amendment we will be offering cuts the $125 billion pricetag in half. So when colleagues say we ought to be cutting back on tax subsidies, that is exactly what this proposal does. It replaces wasteful tax rules with a new, simple group of incentives that have just three goals: cleaner energy, cleaner transportation, and greater energy efficiency. Gone would be the system where oil companies get a direct deposit out of the taxpayer account each year while expired renewable incentives just sort of hang in limbo. For the first time, fossil fuel-burning plants would have a big financial reason to get cleaner by investing in high-tech turbine or carbon-capture technology. So that means everybody benefits by getting cleaner. Everybody in the energy sector--renewables, fossil fuel industries, everybody gets the incentive to be cleaner under the amendment I am offering.

The amendment is all about harnessing the market-based power of the private economy to reward clean energy, promote new technologies, and attack climate change. My view is this Congress ought to be doing everything it can to fight the steady creep toward a hotter climate. When we have legions of scientists lining up to warn the American people about the dangers of climate change, and when we have policymakers, business leaders, and investors worldwide saying that clean energy is the 21st century gold rush, this is a bold energy policy transformation. The proposal I offer with Senators Bennet and Cantwell ought to become law.

This may not happen in the context of the Energy Policy Modernization Act. I think we all understand the rules of the Senate, but I am very much looking forward to working with my colleagues to build support for this proposal in the days ahead. In my view the lack of tax provisions in this legislation is unfortunate. They ought to be in there. Tax policy is right at the heart of energy policy, but it certainly doesn't undermine my support for a great deal of what is in the overall package. That includes several provisions I authored and my colleagues and I on the Energy Committee included.

One focuses on geothermal energy. It is a proposal that is all about bringing the public and private sectors together to figure out where geothermal has the most potential in getting the projects underway. Another proposal in the package is the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act, which says that with the right investments and innovations, our oceans, rivers, and lakes ought to be able to power millions of homes and contribute to the low-carbon economy. Note those words because we talk a lot in the Energy Committee about these issues. My view is there is an awful lot of bipartisan support for a lower carbon economy in this country, particularly one that grows jobs in the private sector, and this legislation does that.

In addition to promoting low-carbon sources of energy, the legislation will help communities be significantly more energy efficient. It will spur the development of a smarter electric grid that cuts waste, stores energy, and helps consumers save money on their utility bill. Finally, it will permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and that in my view is a win-win for the rural communities of my State and rural communities across this country. The Land and Water Conservation Fund brings more jobs and more recreation dollars to areas that need an economic boost, and it ensures that future generations of Americans are going to be able to enjoy our treasures for years and years to come.

I noted my concern about help for the city of Flint. I think it is so important that in the days and months ahead, when we come back to talk about important public health legislation--because that is really what this is, a public health crisis--I hope what we will say is we made a start, we made a beginning. We said it was too important to just delay moving ahead to address these enormous concerns that the families and the children of Flint are dealing with this evening. We have to ensure that this Congress takes action on this public health crisis quickly. I am committed to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and as a member of both the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee I will have two opportunities to do it. I think we need to make this bill bipartisan and bicameral as quickly as possible.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source