Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century--Continued

Floor Speech

By:  Debbie Stabenow
Date: March 13, 2012
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Roberts amendment No. 1826.

My friend from Kansas and I work together in the Agriculture Committee, and I appreciate the great bipartisan work we have been able to do. But I stand to strongly oppose this amendment. I believe that when it comes to energy, we should do it all. We need more domestic production of wind, solar, electric vehicles, advanced batteries. We absolutely need to stop our addiction to foreign oil and create jobs here in America at the same time.

Unfortunately, that is not what this amendment does. It includes the Hoeven language that we defeated earlier last week. We shouldn't be building a pipeline from Canada to China. If we build a pipeline, we should use the oil to lower gas prices for American families. It also includes dangerous requirements for drilling in the Arctic and in offshore locations without any safeguards. Worst of all, it ends tax cuts for wind and clean energy manufacturing at a time when families are paying so much at the pump. It doesn't make sense to raise taxes on the businesses that are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it pays for all these changes by adding redtape to working families when they file their taxes, adding more burdens to middle-class families.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to stop the tax increase on American businesses that are creating clean-energy jobs. Especially now when gas prices are going up and families are struggling more than ever to fill the tank, we shouldn't be raising taxes on innovators and job creators who are helping to lower America's energy bills. My amendment extends 19 different tax cuts for innovative businesses that account for 2.7 million jobs.

Let me also say that the oil industry has benefited from special tax benefits for almost 100 years. The cost of this is not offset, it is part of the Tax Code. Yet the tax cuts that will create American jobs to get us off foreign oil have been extended only a year at a time, and they have been subject to different budget rules. This makes no sense.

If we want to see ``Made in America'' again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT