Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Apr 4th, 2008 :: 0:34:57 to 0:41:34
Total video length: 2 hours 5 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:140 Duration: 0:06:37 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Maria Cantwell

0:32:16 to 0:34:57( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Maria Cantwell

Maria Cantwell

0:34:41 to 0:34:57( Edit History Discussion )

Maria Cantwell: the senator from arizona, senatorat kyl, and myself would, i believe, improve the amendment offered by the senator from nevada and the senator from washington. as i listened to their talking, their concern

Lamar Alexander

0:34:57 to 0:35:12( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: is for emerging technologies, the businesses that are trying to develop emerging technologies to have time to plan. and so they offer a one-year extension of the production tax credit which gives

Lamar Alexander

0:34:57 to 0:41:34( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Lamar Alexander

Lamar Alexander

0:35:12 to 0:35:29( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: a, for the most part, one cent per kilowatt-hour for those emerging technologies. i would propose, along with senator kyl, that we make it a two-year extension for emerging technologies. and the way we

Lamar Alexander

0:35:29 to 0:35:46( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: would pay for that so that it wouold not be any more expensive than the proposal that they have offered is to do with wind what we have already done with solar. take it off the list of two cent per kilowatt-hour

Lamar Alexander

0:35:46 to 0:36:05( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: technologies and put it on the oneent list. in other words, we would be creating a two-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable technologies. and we would be treating wind the same way

Lamar Alexander

0:36:05 to 0:36:21( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: we treat open-loop biomass, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, qualified hydropower, wave and tidal, and wind would all receive one cent. i think it makes much more common sense

Lamar Alexander

0:36:21 to 0:36:35( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: today if we want to encourage emerging technologies to treat them the same. especially because wind has had a preferential treatment since 1992. what has happened, mr. president, is wind has gobbled

Lamar Alexander

0:36:35 to 0:36:52( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: up all the money, most of the money that has been spent through the production tax credit, and very little has gone to any of the other technologies. the taxpayer has spent an enormous amount of

Lamar Alexander

0:36:52 to 0:37:13( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: money to build large wind turbines in this country. according to the joint committee on taxation, we are committed to spend another $11.5 billion over the next ten years for wind power alone. even

Lamar Alexander

0:37:13 to 0:37:28( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: though wind power produces less than 1% of all of our electricity and only -- and less than 3% of our clean electricity. nuclear power produces nearly 70% of our clean electricity. that is no nitrogen,

Lamar Alexander

0:37:28 to 0:37:45( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: no sulfur, no mercury, no carbon, for those concerned about climate change. if we were subsidizing nuclear power at the same rate we subsidize wind power for clean energy, we would be spending $300

Lamar Alexander

0:37:45 to 0:37:57( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: billion or $400 billion over the next four years for nuclear power. so wind has been gobbling up the available money for renewable energies. we have spent an extraordinary amount of money on wind. wind is

Lamar Alexander

0:37:57 to 0:38:11( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: alreadydy proven. where the wind blows it works, it's competitive. and where it does not blow, it's not competitive. in the southeastern, united states, for example, there is one wind farm. because of the

Lamar Alexander

0:38:11 to 0:38:23( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: generous windou subsidies, this wind farm on the top of a lovely mountain, buffalo mountain in tennessee, last august in the middle ofid the drought when we were all sweating and turning upur our

Lamar Alexander

0:38:23 to 0:38:35( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: air conditioners was operating 10% of the time. it makes no sense to pay big subsidies to people in chicago to build wind farms in places where the wind doesn't blow. so what we are suggest ising,

Lamar Alexander

0:38:35 to 0:38:57( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: senator kyl and i, is let's take the available money. let's extend it two years, the production tax credit, and let's let some of it go to open loop biomass, more go to small irrigation, more go to

Lamar Alexander

0:38:57 to 0:39:09( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: landfill trash and gas come pwuplgs and wave -- combustion and wave and tidal. and it would also go to wind. wind would still receive about $1 billion of the $6 billion of this -- $6 billion or $7 billion

Lamar Alexander

0:39:09 to 0:39:21( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: that the ensign-cantwell amendment would consume. so i would ask my friends to seriously consider this not as an unfriendly amendment to renewable energy but as a friendly amendment. i've met with a

Lamar Alexander

0:39:21 to 0:39:36( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: lot of people who say we desperately need some certaint y in business. well, two years is twice as much certainty as one year. and there is no reason that at this stage of development of energy why wind,

Lamar Alexander

0:39:36 to 0:39:50( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: which is well proven where the wind blows and which has been subsidized so heavily since 1992, should2, continue to be subsidized at the expense of all of the other renewable energies. so in summary, mr.

Lamar Alexander

0:39:50 to 0:40:06( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: president, and i'll have more to say about this next week. the alexander-kyl amendment would, we believe, improve the ensign-cantwell amendment by doubling the time that the production tax credit is available

Lamar Alexander

0:40:06 to 0:40:19( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: to renewable, to emerging renewable technologies and the way we would pay for it is to treat windat the same way we treat open-loop biomass, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion,

Lamar Alexander

0:40:19 to 0:40:30( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: qualified hydropower, wave and tidal; they be treated the same, and they would be given the chance over two years to flourish rather than one year. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. mr. baucus:

Lamar Alexander

0:40:30 to 0:40:39( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i'd like to address the underlying ensign amendment. i think most members in this body believe very strongly

Lamar Alexander

0:40:39 to 0:40:50( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: that we need to be much more self-sufficient in the production of energy. we're way too reliant upon opec. we've made several attacks in this congress in the -- several attempts in this congress in

Lamar Alexander

0:40:50 to 0:41:04( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: the last several months to try to pass tax incentive provisions to accomplish that objective. they've not been successful for various reasons. some because they're paid for and people don't like to

Lamar Alexander

0:41:04 to 0:41:19( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: pay for this. and others because it was not paid for. for example, last february we passed an incentive package very similar to the ensign package which was not paid for and that did not survive.

Lamar Alexander

0:41:19 to 0:41:34( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: so we're in a very difficult position here. we all agree with the impetus of senator cantwell and senator ensign here. but we also know that the other body is, is probably not as friendly toward

Max Baucus

0:41:34 to 0:41:44( Edit History Discussion )

Max Baucus: passing this because it's not paid for. not as friendly as this body. we hope the president signs this package. i'm not saying that will happen. but nevertheless, let's at least try and see if the

Max Baucus

0:41:34 to 0:43:59( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Max Baucus

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid