Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on May 17th, 2011 :: 0:31:35 to 0:39:15
Total video length: 2 hours 47 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:92 Duration: 0:07:40 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

James Inhofe

0:31:32 to 0:31:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i thank you, madam chairman. mr. inhofe: madam chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mad a.m. chairman -- madam chairman, i understand that i have 10 minutes as if in morning business. i would make that request. the presiding officer: without objection. first of mr. inhofe: first awful we are

James Inhofe

0:31:35 to 0:39:15( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

James Inhofe

0:31:53 to 0:32:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: going to vote on a bill to dramatically increase taxes on americ oil and gas companies. i would only suggest that it's not going to pass. i can recall when the senator from vermont, just a few months ago, had a bill that would have done essentially the same thing, passed the tax these oi oil and gas companies. i rember coming to the floor

James Inhofe

0:32:17 to 0:32:37( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: at that time and -- and -- and give the argument against it and -- and the -- and it ended up we had a vote on it. the vote was -- i had 61 votes against it to 30, however it worked out that were for it. afterwards, i have to say this about senator sanders, he came up and said i think that was probably one of the healthiest

James Inhofe

0:32:38 to 0:32:58( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: debates and more honest debates that i've seen during the years i have been in the united states senate, and i agreed with that. it's just that the idea that you can somehow tax these people and accomplish something, let me -- let me just say that the congressional research service service -- when you talk about c.r.s., that's nonpartisan, it's something that nobody argues with.

James Inhofe

0:32:59 to 0:33:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they look at us. we in the united states have the largest recoverable reserves of oil, gas and coal of any country in the world. there's no reason in the world we can't be completely independent of the middle east. all we have to do is explore our own resources, oil, gas and coal.

James Inhofe

0:33:20 to 0:33:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: now, this same congressional research service has looked at the issues and has told us that raising taxes on energy companies will do two things. it will decrease supply, it will increase dependence on foreign -- foreign countries. in other words, this vote that we're going to have this afternoon, if it were successful, that would increase the -- decrease the supply and increase our dependence on the middle east.

James Inhofe

0:33:41 to 0:34:02( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: now, how do -- in addition to the c.r.s., let's go back to the 1970's under t administration when they had the windfall profit tax. in the windfall profit tax, the same exact thing happened. it decreased supply and increased dependence on foreign competition. so, you know, and the interesting thing -- i know my wife's not the only one

James Inhofe

0:34:03 to 0:34:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: complaing about the price of gas at the pumps, but she is certainly very loud and clear in that position. nobody is saying that by increasing the taxes, the vote we're going to have this afternoon on oil and gas companies, that somehow that's going to have the lowering prices at the pump. it will raise prices at the pump.

James Inhofe

0:34:24 to 0:34:44( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in fact, i think the -- several of the members have come down, senator mendez, the sponsor of the energy legislation, he said -- quote -- "nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices." if it's not about reducing gas prices, what is it for? and the answer of that one is they say oh, it's as -- as the gentleman, the senator from connecticut just stated, this is

James Inhofe

0:34:45 to 0:35:06( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: going to be something that is going to be reducing the deficit. well, our problem is the -- president obama and his democrat support in the house and the senate, the first two years he had a large majority, the democrats in the house and the senate, they increase in his three years of budgets the

James Inhofe

0:35:07 to 0:35:27( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: deficit by over $5 trillion. i can rember going to the floor of the united states senate back in 1995, back during the clinton years, and saying this is outrageous. this is a $1.5 trillion budget. that was the budget to run the entire united states of america. this last budget by president

James Inhofe

0:35:28 to 0:35:50( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: obama was an increase of of $1.65 trillion, just the deficit, just the deficit. now, let's do our math. 365 days in the year. it works out to be $4 billion a day. we have a president and his majority giving us a $ -- giving us a $4 billion a day deficit, and this says it's going to cut the deficit by $2 billion.

James Inhofe

0:35:51 to 0:36:12( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: so we can tax all these oil companies, come up with enough money to reduce the deficit by by $2 billion. that's worth one half day deficit of this administration. i know that the majority of people understand that and they're not going to be duped into -- into doing it. by the way, i have to say that

James Inhofe

0:36:13 to 0:36:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: fortifying me was this morning's editorial in the "usa today." they talked about how ludicrous this whole idea is that you can increase taxes on oil and gas companies, and they say -- quote -- "it's an example of the sort of political gamesmanship that substitutes for serious and deficit reduction." they go on to say -- quote -- "did you in the initiative, it's

James Inhofe

0:36:36 to 0:36:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: also government at its arbitrary worst, further complicating the tax code by singling out five companies -- exxonmobil, chevron, conocophillips, shell and b.p. -- for special taxes not paid by smaller energy concerns." so we have a little class warfare going with it. it's interesting because only yesterday the same "usa today"

James Inhofe

0:36:57 to 0:37:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: was criticizing me in their editorial policy because i don't want to pass a cap-and-trade tax increase. and so the same paper that yesterday was critical of a position that i've taken is now very strongly in position of the position i've taken in -- in

James Inhofe

0:37:19 to 0:37:39( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: avoiding any additional taxes on the energy company or anybody else. now, the last thing i would say, because i am going to stay within my time frame, is if people say they want to do something about the deficit, that's what they say they're doing. this is one half a day's deficit they're taking care of here if they pass these tax creefs, which they won't. but they say there are only two

James Inhofe

0:37:40 to 0:38:00( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: ways to handle the debt. that one would be to decrease spending, the other to increase taxes. i suggest there's a third way, and that way is to go after all these regulations that we currently are -- are operating under right now as a result of this administration. we're talking about cap-and-trade regulations, greenhouse gas regulation,

James Inhofe

0:38:01 to 0:38:21( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: boiler regulation. the ozone. the ozone could create over 600 noncontainment areas. the cost of that is $90 billion. if you add up all of the costs of all of these different regulations, greenhouse gas regulations, $300 billion to to $400 billion a year, boiler

James Inhofe

0:38:22 to 0:38:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: mack, $1 billion. utility, $184 billion. add it all up, it's $1 trillion. if you take the trillion dollars, that is 7% of the the $14 trillion that we would save -- the g.d.p. would amount to. what they say, and c.r.s. says this also, for every 1% increase in economic activity or increase

James Inhofe

0:38:44 to 0:39:07( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in g.d.p., that translates in new revenue $50 billion of each percent. this is 7%. that would be $350 billion. if you want to go after the deficit and after deficit spending in the debt, let's go after the regulations, too. don't let them out. but to think that we can tax oil and gas companies and somehow come up with $2 billion to reduce the deficit, that's one

James Inhofe

0:39:08 to 0:39:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: day's deficit under the obama administration, and this not going to pass it. with that, i'll yield the floor. the presiding

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