U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–312—PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–776 

TAX REFORM: IMPACT ON U.S. ENERGY POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Nickles, Hon. Don, chairman and CEO, The Nickles Group, LLC, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 4 

Sharp, Hon. Philip, president, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC ....... 6 

Jorgenson, Dr. Dale, Samuel W. Morris university professor, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA ............................................................................................ 9 

Hamm, Harold, chief executive officer, Continental Resources, Inc., Oklahoma 

City, OK ................................................................................................................ 10 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Hamm, Harold: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 45 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Jorgenson, Dr. Dale: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 62 

Nickles, Hon. Don: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 72 

Sharp, Hon. Philip: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 80 

COMMUNICATIONS

ABM Energy ............................................................................................................. 85 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ............................................ 87 

The American Institute of Architects ..................................................................... 91 

American Public Power Association ....................................................................... 97 

The Business Council for Sustainable Energy ...................................................... 100 

Center for Fiscal Equity .......................................................................................... 102 

Efficiency First ......................................................................................................... 107 

IHS CERA Inc. ......................................................................................................... 109 

Independent Petroleum Association of America ................................................... 141 

Large Public Power Council (LPPC) ...................................................................... 146 

National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO) ................................................. 154 

National Biodiesel Board ........................................................................................ 162 

Page

IV 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association .................................................. 167 

Olson, Pamela F., et al. ........................................................................................... 173 

Residential Energy Efficient Tax Credit Industry Coalition ................................ 220 

Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) ......................................................... 231 

(1) 

TAX REFORM: IMPACT ON 

U.S. ENERGY POLICY 

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Conrad, Bingaman, Kerry, Wyden, Cantwell, 

Nelson, Menendez, Carper, Hatch, Grassley, Snowe, Crapo, Coburn, Thune, and Burr. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Russ Sullivan, Staff Director; 

Ryan Abraham, Tax Counsel; Lily Batchelder, Chief Tax Counsel; 

and Harun Dogo, Fellow. Republican Staff: Chris Campbell, Staff 

Director; Curt Beaulieu, Tax Counsel; and Mark Prater, Deputy 

Chief of Staff and Chief Tax Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

The writer Hunter Thompson once wrote, ‘‘Anything worth doing 

is worth doing right.’’ I could not agree more. Our country is at a 

pivotal moment in energy policy. It is important that we do it right. 

There have never been so many worthy energy options. They are 

worth doing, and they are worth doing right. 

Thankfully, we are already making progress diversifying our energy portfolio. We have an opportunity through tax reform to drive 

that progress further. 

When I first ran for Congress, America was reeling from an oil 

embargo. Gas prices had doubled. At one point in early 1974, 20 

percent of American gas stations had no fuel at all. It was clear 

that we could never again allow America to be so dependent on a 

single source of energy. 

Since then, we have boosted a more diverse, efficient, and productive energy policy. Advances in technology mean more domestic 

oil and natural gas are available than ever before. We also have 

more renewable and clean energy sources. But we can do more. 

We are still, I think, too reliant on fossil-based energy sources. 

Ninety-four percent of the energy used in the transportation sector 

comes from oil. Only 10 percent of our electricity consumption is 

generated from renewable or clean energy resources. 

Our country needs a diverse energy sector like we have in my 

home State of Montana. So I will just brag a little bit. We are an 

2 

energy State. We are one of a dozen States that produces more energy than it consumes. 

In eastern Montana, at the edge of the Bakken formation, next 

to North Dakota—my colleague to my right knows this all too well, 

because the Bakken is even a greater formation in North Dakota 

than it is in Montana—our oil and gas fields are going through a 

renaissance. Technology has unleashed the oil and gas potential 

and created thousands of jobs. 

In central Montana, the wind turbine blades harness the power 

of the Chinook winds. Wind farms in Montana now power 100,000 

homes. Three new wind farms are being built. And in western 

Montana, biomass powers sawmills and adds electricity to the grid. 

Montana also produces 45 million tons of low-sulfur coal each 

year, and we are leading the way on carbon capture and sequestration. 

National energy policy, I think, should replicate a lot of this mix. 

If we do not develop U.S. energy policy, we will continue to be subject to the whims of foreign dictators and sudden spikes in the 

price of oil. We will be one hurricane or one regime change away 

from $6 gasoline. That would be disastrous for our economy. 

A $1 increase in the price of gasoline costs Americans $110 billion a year. We are all too aware of that in our State. 

The tax code is an important driver of energy policy. Tax incentives provide 85 percent of the energy sector’s Federal support. 

These provisions cover almost every conceivable form of energy— 

nuclear, oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, and geothermal. Tax provisions 

also cover a wide variety of energy use, from powering common 

home appliances to running massive factories. 

But these incentives can be improved. Currently, the type and 

level of tax incentives vary for different technologies. Some incentives are temporary, others permanent. In some cases, there are 

multiple incentives for the same technology. The result is inefficiency. 

Provisions that do not create jobs or improve our energy policy 

should expire or be repealed. Right now we are providing direct incentives to select technologies and industries. Perhaps we should 

adopt a more technology-neutral approach and stop playing favorites. That way, we could still help new energy technology develop, 

but let the market decide which ones stick. 

Tax reform is an opportunity for the energy sector to make real 

progress. It can move us further from foreign oil. It can lead us 

down the road to diverse, clean, and secure energy resources. 

So let us seize the opportunity as we develop domestic energy. 

Let us also focus on efficiency and try to make the code less complex. Let us use tax reform to ensure our country has a more secure and diverse energy supply. And, as Mr. Thompson wrote, let 

us find the things worth doing, and let us do them right. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

chairman for once again holding a critical hearing on tax reform. 

We have had a large number of these hearings, and they have been 

very helpful, especially as we go into this next year and the remaining part of this year. 

It is essential that we continue these discussions in pursuit of reforming a tax code which is complicated, unfair, and difficult to administer. We cannot afford as a Nation a tax code that prevents 

our full potential for economic growth. 

Looking at the witnesses, it is clear that we have a good representation of different viewpoints about the various energy 

sources addressed throughout the tax code itself. My hope is that 

this hearing will contribute to our goal of comprehensive tax reform 

in the near future. 

It is important to conduct our examination today with President 

Reagan’s three criteria for tax reform as our guideposts. We will be 

looking at the fairness of the system; we will be looking at the efficiency of the system, with a particular emphasis on its anti-growth 

features; and we will be looking at the complexity of the tax code. 

If we keep these principles in mind, I am optimistic that this committee will be in a position to reform our tax code in a way that 

is better for families, businesses, and our economy. 

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle hope to 

achieve a tax reform that lowers rates while broadening the tax 

base. However, from my perspective, there is another feature that 

will be essential for any successful tax reform. 

Tax reform should be about tax reform, not about deficit reduction. We should be simplifying our tax code and lowering rates to 

create a more fair system that generates the economic growth necessary to generate jobs and revenue itself. It would be a mistake 

to call tax increases tax reform and use that increased revenue to 

achieve deficit reduction rather than pro-growth rate reductions. 

Today we are prospectively focusing on what role, if any, energy 

policy should play in the tax code. Energy policy has been creeping 

into the tax code at an exponential rate. Yesterday, I heard the 

chairman compare the tax code to hydra, the 100-headed creature 

of Greek mythology. Each time you cut off one heard, two more 

grow back. I believe this analogy is particularly apt with respect 

to energy tax provisions. 

I hope today that we can have an open debate about whether, 

going forward, there is a role for energy policy in the tax code and, 

if so, what that role should be. I could keep talking, but there is 

no tax incentive for producing a lot of hot air yet. So I will just let 

the witnesses get to it. [Laughter.] 

I want to thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward 

to hearing from our panel here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. It is now my honor to introduce our panel. I am 

especially honored to introduce our first witness. Don Nickles, currently chairman and CEO of the Nickles Group, for 24 years repVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
4 

resented the great State of Oklahoma and was a valuable member 

of this committee. And I just welcome you back, Don. It is great 

seeing you. I particularly remember your incisive and persistent 

and perceptive points of view. I deeply appreciate your return. 

Next is the Honorable Phil Sharp. Phil is currently the president 

of Resources for the Future, and for 20 years represented Indiana’s 

2nd district in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a matter of 

fact, Phil and I were freshmen in the House, the Watergate class, 

1974. I have very fond memories of that, and especially of you, 

Phil. You were one of the sharpest—no pun intended—members of 

the group. 

Our third witness is Dale Jorgenson. Dr. Jorgenson is the Samuel W. Morris university professor, Department of Economics, at 

Harvard. As it turns out, Dr. Jorgenson and I are fellow alumni of 

the same high school in Helena, MT. 

I might add, a former chairman of this committee, Bill Roth, is 

an alumnus from that same high school. There are three of us— 

Helena High. It is a good school. Two years in a row, we did not 

make the State championship in football, but we were runners-up 

2 years in a row. 

Dr. JORGENSON. They had a great basketball team, though. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great basketball; back in your era, they won. 

They won the championships, that is true. Thank you. 

Finally, we have Mr. Harold Hamm. Mr. Hamm is chairman and 

CEO of Continental Resources, a position he has served in since its 

inception in 1967. 

Thank you all for coming very much. You all know our practice, 

at least we assume you do. Certainly, you do, Don. So speak for 

about 5 or 6 minutes, everyone, and all your statements will be inserted in the record. 

Go ahead, Don. We are glad to have you here. I tell all our witnesses, pull no punches, tell it like it is. Life is short, you cannot 

take it with you. Go for it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

THE NICKLES GROUP, LLC, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And it is a pleasure for 

me to be on the panel and join my colleagues on the panel, especially Harold Hamm, who has built just one heck of a company in 

Oklahoma, Continental Resources, and is doing so much in North 

Dakota and Montana, but also in Oklahoma. And they have added 

hundreds and hundreds of jobs and a lot of valuable resources to 

this country. So it is a pleasure to join him as well. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned talking about tax reform and 

doing it right. I remember being in this body and particularly this 

committee. And in my 24 years in the Senate, I loved this committee, this committee and those who got on it. And it takes a long 

time to get on the committee. But it is a great committee, and you 

are doing really great work, and especially if the Senate works. 

And so I am a big advocate for regular order and marking up, 

and that is the tradition of this committee, marking up bills and 

having lots of amendments and lots of debate. And we did that on 

countless bills. 

5 

I remember that some of the best time in my service in the Senate was when we had tax bills and we considered hundreds and 

hundreds of amendments in the committee and/or on the floor. 

And so I urge you, in the process portion of this, whether you are 

talking about extenders or whether you are talking about trying to 

avoid the calamity of the end of this year, beginning of next year, 

or restructuring the tax code, regular order is the process. And that 

way, the Senate works, and it makes the Senate such a special 

place to be. 

You also mentioned doing it right, and you talked about energy 

taxation. I ran for Senate because of windfall profits tax. Absolutely, if Congress had not passed that in 1979, I would not have 

been here. But it motivated me. 

I was a State Senator at the time, but I disagreed with that so 

strongly. So when I say, do it right, I think we are talking about 

good tax policy, and good tax policy is good economics, it makes 

sense. 

You do not have to pick winners and losers. Windfall profits tax 

discouraged domestic production and encouraged imports. How absurd. We finally got rid of it. But it was a terrible idea. 

There are some other bad ideas that are out there. The administration talked about, well, let us do away with intangible drilling 

costs. They had a comment in their statement. They said, ‘‘The expensing of IDCs, like other oil and gas preferences the administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent expensing encourages overproduction of 

oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is 

also inconsistent with the administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions.’’ What a crazy statement. 

Good tax policy allows expensing—it is not only of wages. Mostly, 

intangible drilling costs are wages. The tax code—you should allow 

any industry to expense their wages that are incurred in the year 

that they are paid. Not necessarily a credit. This is not a credit. 

This is not a credit against taxes. It is expensing. So it is expensing 

of non-recoverable business expenses. You ought to be able to expense that. So I defend that. 

They also call 199 a subsidy to big oil. Hogwash. Now, I was on 

the committee when we created section 199, a lower corporate rate 

for manufacturers. And some of you may remember, I was a manufacturer before coming to the Senate. 

But I argued against it, and I still think it is bad policy. I think 

you ought to have it uniform. So, when you are reforming the tax 

code, have it be a uniform corporate tax rate, not a lower rate for 

manufacturers versus service companies or other companies. It is 

very confusing, very difficult. 

And then in past law we said, well, all manufacturers get it except for oil. Oh, we are not going to give them the full benefit of 

section 199, which is basically a 3-point reduction in the corporate 

rate. Big oil only gets a couple of points of it. 

But it is bad policy. So I urge you to have a uniform corporate 

rate. And I might mention too, there are some companies that have 

both. They are manufacturers, they are financial companies, they 

6 

are one and the same. They have both. And so, then they have all 

this accounting challenge trying to figure out what is what. 

Anyway, where you are trying to come up with a more uniform, 

lower, more competitive rate—and I think everybody, Democrats 

and Republicans, is talking about that, God bless you, keep it up— 

a lower rate, a more competitive rate, a competitive international 

rate, which probably means going to a territorial system, makes 

good common sense. And to eliminate exemptions and credits along 

the way, I think, makes sense. 

Tax all income once. We have a lot of income that is not taxed. 

So you can help lower the rate by doing so. 

There is also a proposal for eliminating dual capacity. And I 

would just say, if you want to have U.S.-headquartered oil companies, if you eliminate that, you are going to double-tax their foreign 

earnings and, as a result of that, the net result is Total, British Petroleum, other foreign companies are going to want all their international deals, and that would just really be a dumb thing for us 

to do, very short-sighted. 

And I could go on, Mr. Chairman. I just think making good tax 

policy is not good energy policy, it is good tax policy. Good tax policy would apply to all industries, and I would encourage the committee to advance its work. 

I encourage the committee to do that, and I encourage you, for 

as much as can be done this year, to avoid the end-year challenges. 

And for totally reforming the system, I encourage you along that 

way. I think is very exciting, and, hopefully, you will be successful. 

For it to be successful, this committee has to lead, and I hope 

and pray that you do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Don. We would like to have you 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nickles appears in the appendix.] 

Mr. NICKLES. Thank you. Good to be back. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would be a great addition to this committee. 

Congressman Sharp? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP SHARP, PRESIDENT, 

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted 

to be here. And I must quickly say that, as the head of Resources 

for the Future, it is an independent think tank, a nonpartisan, nonlobbying organization, and the people in it are a lot smarter than 

I am. And so these are strictly my comments from my experience 

on a variety of commissions, as well as here in the House of Representatives. 

Let me quickly say my plan is just to provide a few contextual 

things about where we are in public policy on energy, as well as 

where the markets are. This committee—many of you are way 

ahead on these issues, and this is probably not particularly relevant, but I think it is very important in the public discussion that 

we try to get a better perspective on what really goes on with energy policy and with our markets. 

Now let me say, obviously, as everyone here knows, energy is absolutely essential to our modern economy and to any economic 

7 

growth that we want to have. It also has implications for our national security, and it also has consequences for health, safety, and 

the environment. 

And our practical problem is, there is no policy, there is no set 

of policies, that will serve all of these goals. So we are always in 

conflict over it, and it comes right here into this committee and everywhere else. And, frankly, the American people and others 

should reduce some of their expectations about what can be accomplished and how it can all fit together logically. This is a vast country, this is a vast problem, and we are going to come at it over time 

in many different ways. 

Let me quickly indicate, however, that while there are many 

things that we have done and tried—and some failed and some 

worked—it is very important to remember that one of the fundamentals about our energy policy, which is true through Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses, is that we 

rely overwhelmingly on private capital to build, produce, and distribute our energy in this country, and nobody that I am aware of 

wants to stop doing that. 

And what that means is, it is a major challenge to what the government can actually efficiently do, because you are always trying 

to change, incentivize, or restrict behavior by investors or by consumers. And many of the initiatives that are taken do not pay off 

because they involve millions of decisions by consumers and thousands of decisions by investors under pressures and with other values at stake. 

With this limitation in mind, nonetheless, there are many things 

that do work and do help. But let me quickly give you a piece of 

the picture that the chairman already outlined, which is: our picture on energy continually changes, and we have a new picture 

today compared to where we were 10 years ago. And it is very important that we recognize this change, partly to recognize that it 

is going to continue to change and that policy has to accept and 

work through those changes. 

First, we have a vast array of new technologies that have come 

into the marketplace in this decade. I do not care whether it is in 

oil production, gas production, solar, nuclear, or efficiencies in technologies and vehicles, it is amazing. And most of it was not predicted to happen by academics, by industry, or by government 

when the turn of the century came about. Many of these things 

were quite well-known, but nobody expected them to take hold the 

way they did. 

Second of all, we have a radical change in our supply of natural 

gas, and the projected supply of natural gas, again, was unanticipated at the beginning of the decade. 

Third, we have a decline, again unpredicted, in oil imports, 

which is viewed as very positive from a security standpoint, with 

a projection that it will continue, if we do not mess it up. 

Fourth, we have, actually, a decline in our carbon dioxide emissions in this system, with a projected minimum growth over the 

next decade. This is a positive development. Some of it, of course, 

is just the consequences of the unfortunate slowdown in the economy, but it also represents, actually, improvements in efficiencies 

and fuel-switching and other things that have gone on. There is 

8 

more to be done, in the view of many people, on this front, but this 

is progress. 

Now, why did this happen? Let us remember the power of price 

at the outset, because we almost always want to deny it in public 

conversations in this country. First, we had a very high rise in natural gas prices at the turn of the century, less than a decade ago. 

It was followed within a few years by a very high rise in oil prices, 

and, by the way, again, neither academics, the government, nor the 

industry predicted this—a few individuals probably did, but they 

ended up writing their books and getting rich after the fact. 

Whether they actually knew it ahead of time is not clear. 

The truth is, that had a powerful impact on the behavior of consumers, investors, and government policy. 

Second of all, obviously, the entrepreneurial risks that people are 

willing to take, like Mr. Hamm and others, have been powerful, 

whether it is in oil, in the new natural gas supply, in the new nuclear plant that is about to be built in this country, in solar, in a 

whole bunch of resources. We require that entrepreneurism across 

the board if we are going to be effective. Nobody in this group, I 

am sure, would deny the importance of that. 

The third reason for this change is because many of these technologies that came in the marketplace for production or for demand 

reduction were actually the result of decades of research, some of 

it by the private sector, much of it supported at some level by the 

public sector, some in the public sector, like our national laboratories. It is very hard to unsort that mix of which is which, but nobody should misunderstand that both are important, and government policy and government expenditure help advance these technologies that now we have sucked into the marketplace. 

And the fourth, finally, there of course have been policies at the 

State and Federal levels that have helped incentivize innovation, 

and this committee itself has been very active in that, helped both 

the efficient technologies and promoted adoption in the marketplace. 

Many of these policies, I would suggest to you, actually followed 

on the price increases that drove the incentives for the marketplace, as well as the political incentive for Congress and others to 

make decisions. 

Now, let me suggest to you that, while this picture is, in my 

view, a very positive development compared to where we were 10 

years ago, obviously, it was marred in the past couple of years by 

that massive blowout in the Gulf of Mexico and marred by the 

events at Fukushima. These are high-risk operations. We are in a 

position around the world where we do things big. We are going to 

be taking big risks, and we have to be smart about how to mitigate 

those, to the extent we can. I am not one who thinks we can just 

walk away from all these risks, but I do think we have a serious 

responsibility, governments and industry, to minimize their impact. 

Now, this new natural gas supply is the overwhelming development in our energy picture that was certainly unanticipated, and 

many people believe, and I certainly believe, this is a powerful economic benefit to this country. But we cannot mistake that there are 

major challenges in this development that have to be taken seriously, whether they are impacts on air, on methane leakage, on 

9 

water—and some in the industry are being extremely responsible 

about this and, frankly, some are not. 

We have many players in this new and dynamic field, and government has to be smart and careful in the way it regulates. But 

we have to take it seriously, as the National Petroleum Council 

study of last summer makes very clear—this is very much of an industry, along with other NGOs and others involved in this. It is a 

Federal advisory committee, as you folks well know—which said, 

you have to have responsible development, and you have to take 

these issues seriously for us to be able to capitalize and maintain 

a good thing. 

There are other challenges—excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I will 

stop with one more challenge, and that is, this is not just changing 

the natural gas picture. This is changing the picture of all other 

major energy sources in this country. And, as you make policy, you 

need to think through what is going to be undermined and what 

is not by this enormous development. 

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No problem. Thanks very much, Congressman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharp appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Jorgenson, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DALE JORGENSON, SAMUEL W. MORRIS 

UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA 

Dr. JORGENSON. As the chairman stated, I am a professor at Harvard University. I have taught in the Department of Economics 

there since 1969. I have devoted a good part of my relatively 

lengthy career as an economist to the topics that we are here to 

debate today, and it is a very great privilege for me to participate 

in this panel and to join you in your deliberations. 

I would like to discuss three issues. To fix ideas, I am going to 

associate a number with each one of them. And the first number 

that I would like you to remember is 1.5 percent of the GDP. What 

is this? A system of environmental taxes on fossil fuel combustion 

would generate revenues equal to 1.5 percent of the GDP. This 

would be mainly a very substantial tax on coal, a much more limited tax on oil, and a minimal tax on natural gas. There would be 

no taxes on renewable forms of energy like wind or solar. The 1.5 

percent of the GDP does not—I want to emphasize—does not include any additional revenues from limiting or eliminating tax expenditures, like the ones that you are going to hear about today. 

Let me proceed to the second issue that I would like to discuss. 

That is the Federal Government budget. 

You have been told by dozens of economists inside and outside 

the government that we will be going over a fiscal cliff at the end 

of this calendar year. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are finally scheduled to sunset as we welcome in the new year. There 

is also the threat of sequestration, which was legislated by the 

Congress in August of last year. And beyond that looms another 

fight over the debt limit. 

Douglas Elmendorf, the highly respected Director of the Congressional Budget Office, has told you that all of this will produce another recession. So the number I would like you to remember here 

10 

is 2 percent of the GDP. This is the difference between the Federal 

revenue of 17 percent of the GDP in 2011, which is the last year 

for which we have real numbers, and 19 percent, which is a longterm average of Federal revenue of the GDP for the last 30 years. 

This is the minimum that I think we can expect that revenue will 

contribute to closing the budget gap that looms ahead of us. 

The third issue is comprehensive tax reform. Ranking Member 

Hatch has reminded us that that is the subject of these hearings. 

The number there I would like you to remember is 7 trillion. To 

paraphrase that great U.S. Senator after whom this building is 

named, a trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you are 

talking about real money. 

So what is the 7 trillion? This is the cumulative impact of a carefully designed system for comprehensive tax reform. Seven trillion 

is more than sufficient when added to our national wealth of $60 

trillion to put our labor force back to work and to resolve our fiscal 

crisis. In short, it would enable us to achieve a fiscal policy that 

is sustainable. 

Let me summarize. We are not here to debate energy policy 

alone. We are not here to debate comprehensive tax reform alone. 

We are not here to debate the Federal Government’s budget alone. 

We are here to see how all three can be fitted together to solve our 

budget problem, to clean up our environment, and to give a positive 

thrust to the growth of our long-ailing economy. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. Within time, too. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jorgenson appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hamm? 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD HAMM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 

Mr. HAMM. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking 

Member Hatch, and members of the committee. It is an honor and 

a privilege for me to be here today. I will be speaking on my own 

behalf, not as a representative of Continental Resources. I am not 

here on behalf of the Romney campaign, for which I serve as an 

energy advisor. 

It has been 20 years since I was here speaking before this committee. Senator David Boren, at that time, was co-chairing the 

committee, I believe, and I spoke to him about a couple things that 

were mostly unknown and totally unconventional at the time. One 

of them was horizontal drilling, and the other was the aspect of 

drilling into the source rocks themselves, the shales, that might 

produce a vast amount of natural gas. We were talking about a 

temporary trigger, a tax trigger, to advance that theory. 

Well, that was not given. We did not get a tax trigger. But over 

the last 20 years, we have seen those technologies developed, and, 

thank God, we have come a long way since then. 

Continental is a top 10 petroleum liquids producer. We are 75 

percent oil with last year’s production. We focus on oil. 

The Bakken Play, Senator, started in Montana, and that is 

where we started with Elm Coulee Field, and, of course, the deep 

11 

end of the pool is over in Senator Conrad’s State, over in North Dakota, and we were one of the original players over there. 

I might say that only here in America can a 13th child of a 

sharecropper turn a 1-man 1-truck operation into one of the Nation’s largest oil companies. But having discovered that field at 

Continental, we have been able to do that. 

Today, I am going to talk to you from the perspective of the seasoned petroleum geologist, explorationist, who has been in this 

business buying oil, from my own account, for about 45 years. 

I first started speaking on oil about 2 years ago. At that time, 

it was being severely disparaged, and people were trying to get 

market share. So I thought someone needed to stand up for oil, and 

I started talking about that. It is a very important segment of our 

energy picture. Nearly all transportation runs on it. There is hardly a jet plane anywhere that burns anything besides oil products. 

I am also here to talk about these Federal tax provisions that 

will allow us to continue the job of the viable American dream of 

energy independence that we have begun. These are very important for America. 

There are 18,000 independent producers today that drill 95 percent of the wells in America. We produce 67 percent of the oil, 86 

percent of the natural gas that is produced today. We typically invest all that we make, borrow about 30 percent more, and I am 

afraid our company falls in that same lot as well. 

We are in the exploration and production business, that is what 

we do; we have no refining operations. And I will not get into the 

tax consequences. Senator Nickles covered that very well. Section 

199 foreign tax credits could then affect us a whole lot. But certainly the IDCs do, and, if we do away with those, we will stop this 

march to energy independence that we have begun. 

These same tax provisions not only allowed us to survive the terrible times, the disastrous years of the 1980s and 1990s that eliminated about 50 percent of the independents within our ranks, but 

also allowed one other really important thing, and that was to 

allow us to try and fail and try again, and, certainly, that is what 

it took with the Bakken. 

We drilled about 18 commercial wells up there before breaking 

the code on producing this mighty oil field that is somewhere over 

24 billion barrels. Without that ability, we would not have been 

able to do that. 

And also, let me talk about some other players. You know that 

Barnett shale field, George Mitchell’s quest down there, George 

worked 16 years breaking the code on the Barnett. This is the largest natural gas field today in Texas. It took 16 years to break the 

code to get that done. So try and try again, he was able to do it. 

I might just talk about a new era that we have entered into in 

American oil. It is fair to say we are transitioning from an era that 

was mobile. That oil moved. What we are entering into today is an 

immobile portion of the oil in America, and this is estimated to be 

at least a third larger than the mobile portion was that we have 

been producing in this world for 160 years. 

We are now able to do that through one thing, and that is precision horizontal drilling, where we will go down 2 miles, turn right, 

go 2 miles, and hit that lapel pin with a drill bit. It is that preciVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
12 

sion that we have developed. The independents are largely responsible for that development, myself and others. And so we are able 

to do that precision drilling, and that is what unlocked this new 

era that we are into. And it is certainly a great era. 

We have had tremendous success in these new resource plays 

across the country. Somebody aptly described the new natural gas 

supplies that we have unlocked. Some say 100 years’ worth—I 

think it could be even greater than that. It is tremendous. And we 

have seen the imports go down as new productions come on here 

in America. They have gone down to about 42 percent right now 

from 60 percent, a high of 60 percent. We are down to 42 percent 

now. 

And it is estimated—Marshall Adkins, who is a renowned analyst with Raymond James, he has estimated that it will fall to 26 

percent by 2015—that is just around the corner—and also will cut 

our trade deficit by 82 percent by 2020. So it is tremendous where 

we are headed and what it has done. 

Most importantly, we are into a cheaper price regime, that is, a 

discounted price regime for both oil and gas for the consumer; so, 

lower cost to the consumers here in America. That $15-a-barrel difference right now between us and bench price—we are talking $2 

natural gas here, and we are talking $12 natural gas in China 

today. So it is a tremendous difference. 

But what the impact of this new production to America is, is better national security, drastically reduced deficits and budget deficits, jobs creation, good-paying middle-class jobs. We have seen 

that in Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, Kansas, Montana, wherever oil and gas is. So what we are doing is—it is estimated by API 

we could add 1.2 million jobs to the 9.3 million jobs that are currently in our industry today by 2030. 

And then the American wealth creation, and we are talking 

wealth creation to our own Federal Government—$18 trillion of 

value in oil and gas on Federal lands. That is the estimate that is 

out there. We are not talking about creating other rich Arab 

sheiks. We are talking about at home. We are talking about 10 million royalty owners right here in the States. North Dakota does not 

have a deficit; Montana does not have a deficit. These States where 

this is going on do not have a deficit. 

But I think primarily—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have to ask you to sum up, if you 

could, Mr. Hamm. 

Mr. HAMM. The big thing is the psychological impact in America, 

the self-sufficiency in America, of producing what we need right 

here at home and saving American lives. 

So the unintended consequences, if we are not careful, of changing these rules could be devastating. We could stop this energy renaissance. We certainly do not want to do that. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. I have a couple of questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamm appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. First, as prompted a bit by Congressman Sharp’s 

point, all the new technology is unpredicted—natural gas unpreVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
13 

dicted, prices unpredicted—and the basic question is the degree to 

which tax policies really matter. 

The fracking technology was developed. Nuclear technology is 

being developed. Lots of other energy technologies are being developed, partly because of the entrepreneurial spirit in America. People see how they can make a buck. And the basic question is, how 

much do these tax incentives really matter, really? 

A side question there is, what do other countries do and does it 

matter, or are we just responding to political pressure, when really 

a lot of the results are the result of people figuring out how to do 

a better job? 

And I have, actually, a third question, if you could wrap them 

together. As this committee works to pursue tax reform, the argument is, why don’t we have a more technology-neutral credit, 

technology-neutral deduction, some incentive to help boost energy 

production, domestic energy production, but in a way so we are not 

picking winners and losers? 

I know it is a complicated question, but if anybody wants to take 

a crack at it, those are some of the things on my mind. 

Dr. Jorgenson? 

Dr. JORGENSON. The leading point that I would like to make, Mr. 

Chairman, is that the opportunities are not so much on reducing 

the tax expenditures that you just enumerated. That is an important issue, but this committee over the years has worked to limit 

these tax expenditures. 

The things that we are talking about here in terms of expensing 

development and the percentage depletion and so on, I certainly 

agree with you, those should be reconsidered. 

The big issue, though, is on the side of the utilization of energy, 

in other words, a use of energy, and that is where energy taxes 

really have to play a role. We have an opportunity to raise revenues equal to 1.5 percent of our GDP, and those are entirely on the 

side of using. They have nothing to do with technology or 

technology-neutrality. That is another range of issues that I think 

is secondary relative to energy utilization. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you focus some more on—what do you 

mean by energy utilization? 

Dr. JORGENSON. I mean burning fossil fuels, Senator. So I am referring to combustion of coal in the generation of electricity. I am 

referring to the combustion of oil products, as Mr. Hamm reminded 

us, in transportation, and the use of natural gas. 

The tax for energy would be primarily—you are a Senator from 

Montana, so you are well-aware of this—on coal. It would be a 

modest tax on oil and a very modest tax on natural gas. 

That would lead to the substitution that is underway right now 

away from coal, which is the most polluting energy source, toward 

natural gas in the generation of electricity. That is the great environmental opportunity of our time. It just turns out that it produces a lot of revenue. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it is a cousin to a carbon tax. 

Dr. JORGENSON. This is not a carbon tax. 

The CHAIRMAN. A cousin, I said a cousin. 

Dr. JORGENSON. It is a kissing cousin to the carbon tax, let us 

put it that way. This is a tax on the six criteria environmental polVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
14 

lutants which have been identified for years by the Environmental 

Protection Agency, going back to the Clean Air Act of 1970 and enhanced by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, and so it would 

focus specifically on the pollution that is associated with these criteria pollutants. 

So what are those? Well, there are coarse particulates, smoke. 

There are fine particulates, also in smoke, but less visible. And the 

list goes on. You can fill out the rest of the list. 

We have to have taxes that limit this pollution. This is conventional pollution. We are not talking about climate change here. We 

are not talking about saving the planet. We are talking about saving lives, reducing illness. 

That is what environmental protection is about, and we have a 

job that is still undone that turns out to be a potential source of 

revenue equal to 1.5 percent of the GDP on the side of utilization. 

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Sharp, do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. SHARP. Very quickly, to put out one sliver. When you were 

talking about new technologies, and I talked about them, while entrepreneurs are very important in imaginative work all around this 

country—very important—the truth is the government has been 

very important here too. 

And the tax credit on research and development, which you, I am 

sure, are more familiar with than I am, is intended to keep our private sector entities working, to keep our great research institutions 

like MIT, to keep our national laboratories figuring ahead, because 

we do not know which ones of these will work. 

Now, let us understand this extraordinary work by Mr. Hamm 

and others was facilitated by the Federal Government. I mean, 

seismic 3D, which allowed much greater visualization into the 

ground to advance us, was a major industry achievement, but it 

had Federal backing to help figure out how you do that, as well as 

some of these other technologies. 

And I think we have to be a little careful about just ripping all 

this out and thinking that it is all going to be done out there without somebody who will see this through because it was not worth 

it to anybody. There was no immediate return for a lot of these 

technologies. The return only happened after several decades. 

The second thing I would say is, it is the same with the production of new kinds of energy sources like wind. I doubt we would 

have anything like the wind industry we have today if the Federal 

Government had not engaged in research to bring down the costs 

and upgrade the efficiencies—not to take anything away from private sector activities—or if you had not adopted the 1992 or whenever it was, I think, in the Energy Policy Act, the production tax 

credit. 

Now, the issue is whether that is really still necessary to sustain 

this. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. It expired some time ago. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. I have really enjoyed this panel. And 

this particular question is for the entire panel. 

A number of tax policy experts believe that the tax system 

should simply be used to raise the revenue necessary to fund a constitutionally limited Federal Government and not get involved in 

15 

social engineering through the code. These experts suggest that the 

energy policy should not be run through the tax code. 

Now, as part of the tax reform exercise of lowering tax rates by 

broadening the tax base in a revenue-neutral manner, this is one 

approach to dealing with energy tax provisions. 

I would just like to have your thoughts on such an approach with 

regard to energy tax reform. We will start with you, Don. We are 

grateful to have you back, and grateful to have all of you here 

today. 

Mr. NICKLES. Senator Hatch, just a couple of comments. One, tax 

policy does make a difference. In partial response to your question 

and Senator Baucus’s question, if you no longer allowed intangible 

drilling costs to be expensed, you would shut down the shale revolution, the oil revolution that is happening in the Bakken and in 

every major play. 

I am on the board of a couple of companies. That is a big deal. 

If you do not allow people to expense, and they have had expensing—the independents have had it, frankly, since, I think, 1913 or 

something. 

Senator HATCH. Like 18 dry holes in Bakken before you hit 

the—— 

Mr. NICKLES. Absolutely. Senator Hatch, in response to your 

question on overall tax policy: absolutely, getting a lower rate, a 

more competitive rate, competitive internationally, is important. 

This committee has not done a lot on the international tax front. 

We have always talked about it, but it is really about time. And 

I think a greater consensus is building towards a territorial system. It makes sense. 

We are becoming a smaller world in international competition, 

and, frankly, we should not be giving advantages to our international competitors over our U.S.-based companies. We want more 

U.S.-based companies to be successful internationally. 

And then finally, Senator Hatch, kind of in relation to your comment and overall, the tax rates you want to have and, to some extent, to be as efficient and maybe raise as much money as they can 

without doing harm, when we reduce capital gains and corporate 

dividends to 15 percent, we actually raise more money for the Federal Government. I am very concerned about the cliff that is coming on cap gains. The rate at January 1st, if the committee does 

not do something, if Congress does not do something, it is going to 

go from 15 to 25 percent. 

Senator HATCH. Or higher. 

Mr. NICKLES. And on corporate dividends, it goes from 15 to 44 

percent—15 to 44—the ordinary rate, 39.6, 3.8 on top of that for 

the President’s Obamacare, and then maybe another 1.2 on elimination of PEP and Pease. So you go from 15 to 44.6. That is tripling the rate on corporate dividends for individuals. The corporation has already paid 35 percent. 

So this committee really needs to do some work. And from your 

vantage points and from trying to raise money, if a lower capital 

gains rate actually raised money—if you would take capital gains 

from 15 to 25 or corporate rates and triple them, I am afraid the 

government is not going to raise money. I am afraid you are going 

16 

to lose money, and it is going to hurt real estate, and it is going 

to hurt banks that loan for real estate. 

Senator HATCH. You are preaching to the choir here. It was the 

Hatch-Lieberman bill that brought the rates down to begin with. 

Mr. SHARP. Senator? 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Sharp? 

Mr. SHARP. Just a comment. I was around, but not on the relevant committee, in 1986 when this theory was very popular about 

just not using the code for any social engineering. I think it is a 

good one, if we could all subscribe to it. I just do not know any faction in America that really believes it enough to act on it. 

I cannot imagine this committee will be able to not be inundated 

with everybody—we already heard one appeal to why some critical 

provision is necessary in the code. We are certainly a lot better off 

economically if we can get this simpler, if we can get the rates 

down, if we can get rid of some of the tax preferences. 

But I think it is a pipe dream of some outsiders who think that, 

in this complex economy, that any business organization, let alone 

the U.S. Congress, can follow that philosophy. 

Senator HATCH. Professor? 

Dr. JORGENSON. Senator, nobody is talking about eliminating 

things like percentage depletion or the deductibility of exploration 

and development. What we are talking about is bringing those tax 

provisions into line with fundamental economics. 

That is what the concept of tax expenditures is all about. So we 

are not talking about getting rid of incentives. We are talking 

about making them neutral, which is your point, as I understand, 

Mr. Ranking Member. 

Secondly, as I emphasized in my written testimony and in my 

oral remarks, 19 percent of the GDP as the revenue contribution 

to the Federal budget seems to me to be a reasonable target. We 

are below that level now. We are at 17 percent or below. 

As I said, 17 percent is the number for the last real data we 

have. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that for this 

year, this calendar year, that is, the number is going to be lower. 

So we need to have some kind of consensus. I am talking about 

unanimity. I would like to see everybody subscribe to this around 

a number like 19 percent as a starting point for our debate. 

But I agree with you entirely that we should have a neutral tax 

code. That is the purpose of comprehensive reform, as I see it. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamm, we will make you the last one. 

Mr. HAMM. I mentioned unintended consequences in the government’s quest to raise more money and equalize things. I just want 

to caution that this tax could be one that vaporizes if the IDCs are 

taken away, if we stop the renaissance. And we are still going to 

raise a lot of money. 

There is $4 billion lost if drilling ceases or slows down considerably. We have examined our company and, absolutely, a third less 

drilling would take place without the IDCs. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Conrad? 

17 

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. Thanks for the excellence of this panel. 

I remember very fondly serving with Senator Nickles. We led the 

Budget Committee together for a number of years. One thing I 

learned about Senator Nickles is his word is absolutely gold. Even 

when it was hard to keep his word, he did, which I always admired. 

Congressman Sharp, it was always good to serve with you. You 

were a thoughtful member. 

Dr. Jorgenson, a wise man, we are fortunate to have somebody 

of your quality and character before the committee. 

Mr. Hamm, thank you for what you have done for the country. 

Thank you for what you have done for our State. 

I just want to point out what has happened to dependence on foreign energy. Since 2005, we have gone down from 60-percent dependent to 45-percent dependent last year. We believe we will be 

42-percent dependent this year. 

So we have seen dramatic reduction in our dependence on foreign energy. Still, we are spending $1 billion a day on foreign sources. 

And it is incredibly important to the economics of the country that 

we make further progress. 

Let us go to the next slide and show what has happened to domestic production. And, again, I thank Mr. Hamm. Thank you for 

making the investment. Thank you for taking the risk. Thank you 

for having faith that what you and your people saw as an opportunity was worth pursuing, because you have helped turn around 

our domestic production in a very dramatic way, and I believe it 

is entirely in our Nation’s interest, in the national security interest, 

in the national economic interest, and we have to pursue it. 

That takes us to the question of incentives. Mr. Hamm, you have 

focused on intangible drilling costs. Can you just tell us again why, 

in your view, that is so critical? 

You have testified here that if that were taken away, in your 

company alone, you believe there would be a one-third reduction in 

drilling. Is that what your people have concluded? 

Mr. HAMM. It is. I am not a tax accountant. I am an oil finder. 

But we do have a lot of tax accountants who work for us, who are 

on staff, and we have done a study on it, and that has been our 

consensus that, in our company, it eliminates about 34 or 35 percent of our drilling activity right off the bat. 

It takes about 7 years for us to get back to normal, some normal 

type operations. 

Senator CONRAD. If that were taken away. 

Mr. HAMM. Yes. 

Senator CONRAD. Let me just say that I have served on the 

Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Group of Six, tried to be part of 

efforts to get us back on track, because when you are borrowing 

$0.40 of every $1, that cannot continue much longer, and we have 

to get a hold of it. 

Part of our issue clearly—almost every bipartisan group that has 

looked at this has said that tax expenditures have to be part of the 

solution, because they are now $1.2 trillion a year. That is more 

being spent through the tax code than all of the appropriated accounts. 

18 

So I personally believe we are going to have to reduce tax expenditures, broaden the base. I personally believe we should lower 

rates in conjunction with that to help America be more competitive. 

We need to lower the corporate rate to be more competitive. 

But we also need to generate some more revenue to help with the 

deficit, on top of reforming entitlements, on top of cutting spending 

in the discretionary accounts, all of which is going to have to be 

done, and none of which is really popular. But we have to be careful we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

And what I hear you saying, Mr. Hamm, is that, as you move 

toward these reform steps, first of all, do not throw out intangible 

drilling costs, because that would have unintended consequences. 

Mr. HAMM. Yes. 

Senator CONRAD. Is that what you are trying to tell us here? 

Mr. HAMM. That is correct. Again, I am not a tax accountant, but 

that is—we have done the study. We have provisions right now 

that encourage us to invest, and we need to invest heavily in the 

Bakken. 

For instance, up there right now, there is about, we estimate, 

900 billion barrels of oil in place in this whole petroleum system. 

Senator CONRAD. Nine hundred billion barrels. 

Mr. HAMM. Nine hundred billion. We right now can get, we 

think, about 2 to 3 percent of that, 2.5 maybe, 2.5 percent or something like that. If we could move that needle up to 5 percent, everybody here can do the math, I mean, we are talking about doubling 

our crude reserves in America. So it is that significant. 

So we have a job to do and a very significant one, and we need 

the ability to do it. This gives us—this encourages us to do it. 

Senator CONRAD. Just a last statement, if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

I have just been up talking with Secretary Salazar about some of 

the wells being drilled in North Dakota, and I will tell you, it is 

extremely impressive. It is being carefully done. It is being professionally done. It is being done in an environmentally sensitive way. 

It is being done with extraordinary technology. And so we thank 

you for that, as well. 

I tell you, I do not think any one of us would go there and not 

come away impressed with the professionalism of how it is being 

conducted. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. I agree. In fact, a guy took 

me out to one of the rigs in Montana. It was the same person who 

took you and Secretary Salazar up to Riggin, ND. 

If you could answer, if I might, in just 1-sentence. What does it 

take to move that needle up to 5 percent? What is a 1-sentence answer of what it would take to move the needle to 5 percent? 

Mr. HAMM. Well, I think it can be done over time. There are a 

lot of things we have to—we have to figure out the next step of enhanced oil recovery. That is going to play a big factor, whether that 

is C02, just normal secondary water flooding, or whatever it is. We 

have to do that. That is going to move the needle on up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks a lot. 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. As we begin to consider what comprehensive 

tax reform would look like, it is important to discuss goals and obVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
19 

jectives other than revenue collection and what the tax code should 

accomplish. 

We had testimony before our committee in December 2011 on incentives for alternative energy. Ms. Sherlock of CRS notes, ‘‘The income tax code has long been used as a policy tool for promoting 

U.S. energy priorities.’’ 

So it makes sense to consider whether or not our tax code of the 

future should further energy priorities. Those who want to isolate 

Federal tax incentives for alternative energy and put them on a 

chopping block need to remember that the oil and gas industries 

have received massive permanent tax breaks for 100 years. 

In contrast, tax incentives for alternative energy have existed 

only a few decades and have always been temporary. These incentives first appeared in the 1970s in direct response to the oil crisis, 

and they helped to level the playing field for renewable resources. 

These incentives reduced the cost of capital investment for those 

fledgling industries that were not yet able to raise capital. 

Any argument made for eliminating renewable energy tax incentives is intellectually dishonest if it does not include a review of all 

energy tax incentives. Those opposed to incentives for alternative 

energy often fail to consider that a key reason to support renewable 

energy resources should be energy independence. The United 

States spends more than $400 billion each year importing oil. 

Now more than ever, the United States needs to ramp up domestic production of traditional energy, including oil, natural gas, coal, 

and expand alternative fuels and renewable energies, including all 

of them, and I will not name them because you know them. 

America imports almost 50 percent—I think it is a little bit less 

than 50 percent now—of our oil. The U.S. Treasury pays out an average of $84 billion a year to defend shipping lanes to bring that 

oil here. These costs are never included in the discussion of costeffectiveness of tax incentives for oil and gas as compared to alternative energy. 

For sure, we need a tax system that is less complicated, fairer, 

and will make us more competitive in the global economy. However, there is a long history of using the tax code to promote energy 

policy, starting with intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion provisions that are almost 100 years old. 

Experts in favor of these provisions argue that these provisions 

are not tax expenditures because they just represent ordinary business expenses and are similar to research and development. Yet, 

the expensing of research and development costs and the intangible 

drilling costs are exceptions to the rule that such expenses should 

be capitalized and deducted over years. 

It seems a primary benefit of intangible drilling cost provisions 

is that they provide more cash for additional drilling operations, 

which results in more jobs. Retaining this provision then would 

seem to indicate that the tax code should play a role in our energy. 

So, to Senator Nickles and to Mr. Hamm, does this conflict with 

the key objectives of tax reform to lower the rates and broaden the 

base? Would not lower tax rates also provide more cash for additional exploring and drilling? And also, if the R&D and accelerated 

depreciation provisions are reviewed in the context of tax reform, 

20 

do you agree that intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion 

provisions should also be reviewed? 

Mr. NICKLES. Senator Grassley, you have not changed a bit. 

[Laughter.] 

I remember having this debate for about the last 30 years. 

A couple of comments. One, intangible drilling cost is expensing 

out-of-pocket business expense; that is, wages. You compared it to 

R&D. R&D is a credit. There is a big difference. 

R&D credit is dollar-for-dollar off your income tax, and the other 

one is a deduction for an out-of-pocket expense—wages. And I mentioned earlier, before you arrived, I think for tax simplicity, you 

should allow every business to be able to expense certainly its 

wages. 

So I do not compare the two. I am in favor of putting basically 

everything on the table. It is exciting to think what you all are getting ready to do in very significant tax reform, and you should put 

everything on the table. 

But, if you do not allow industries to expense their out-of-pocket 

expenses, as Harold Hamm said, you are going to have some real 

negative consequences. You will not have $2 gas. 

So I do not think this committee or Congress wants to do something that is going to have adverse economic impact. This happens 

to be—the shale gas revolution, as well as the oil revolution, is one 

of the best things that has happened in this country economically 

in years. Congress does not want to mess it up. 

But I think you ought to look at every credit, because that is— 

any credit is—by nature, it is Congress saying, we think this is 

even more valuable than the $1 you spend. You spend $1, and we 

are going to reduce your taxes by $1. 

So I am all in favor of putting a lot of credits and deductions and 

tax-exempts on the table. You have a lot of tax-exempts that are 

not taxed. Tax them. Tax everything once. You broaden the scope 

a bunch by doing so. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Hamm? 

Mr. HAMM. I agree. We capitalize all of the tubers, all the hardware out there, we capitalize all of that. We do write off the wages 

in regard to drilling, and the debt was in that regard. And it is a 

provision that encourages new exploration. 

And we need to look at what is going to happen down the road. 

Right now we are using 91 million barrels of oil per day. Here in 

the U.S., we are producing about 10 percent. 

If you add to the chart the petroleum liquids, to that chart, we 

are about 9 million barrels a day. So we are producing about 10 

percent of our petroleum needs today, and that is estimated to go 

up by 2035 30 percent more to 112 million barrels. 

If we are going to produce our part of that in the future, we are 

going to have to have incentives like we have in place to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Bingaman? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you all for being here. And first, I 

congratulate Mr. Hamm and all those in the industry who have 

been so successful at increasing production. I think it is a good 

thing for our economy. Obviously, it is strengthening our economy. 

21 

I have always thought that there are three primary goals that 

we have as a country with regard to energy. One is, we want to 

have an ample supply at reasonable cost; second, we want to have 

diverse sources of energy so that we are not dependent upon any 

one source; and third, we want to have an energy policy that does 

the least damage to the environment, does the least damage to the 

health of the citizenry. And so those are the three goals that we 

have out there. 

Now, on tax expenditures, I know there is a lot of talk about reducing tax expenditures, and strong arguments have been made as 

to why those that relate to the oil and gas industry, at least intangible drilling costs, ought to be maintained. 

I gather Senator Nickles’s view is we ought to repeal section 199 

for everybody, not just for the oil and gas industry. 

Mr. NICKLES. I would think you—when you are doing corporate 

reform, having a uniform corporate rate, not a lower rate for manufacturers, would make sense. That is what I argued when I was on 

the committee, and I have not changed my position. 

Senator BINGAMAN. One of the things that has complicated our 

discussion of energy tax expenditures is that we have some that 

were adopted prior to the Budget Act of 1974, and we have others 

that have been adopted since the Budget Act. And by and large, 

those that were adopted prior to the Budget Act which relate to the 

oil and gas industry are permanent parts of the tax code. 

Those that have been adopted since the Budget Act are very limited in time in most cases, and they keep expiring. And those that 

relate to renewable energy have expired and come back, and we 

put them in place again and then we let them expire again. 

I would just be interested in the panel’s view as to whether— 

whatever we do with these expenditures, would it make good 

sense—it seems to me it would make good sense to put them all 

on an equal playing field in terms of their permanence. And, whatever we decide makes sense for the wind energy sector, if the production tax credit or some lesser version of the production tax credit ought to be a part of our tax code, then we ought to put it in 

place and leave it there for a while, just as the intangible drilling 

cost provisions that relate to oil and gas production are a permanent part of the tax code. 

I do not know. Dr. Jorgenson, did you have a thought on any of 

that? 

Dr. JORGENSON. Well, as I said in response to Chairman Baucus, 

I think we need to focus on the environmental issues that really 

count, Senator, and those issues have to do with the utilization of 

energy. They do not have to do with energy technology. 

There is something that has not been mentioned that I think we 

need to focus on. Senator Baucus, I think, alluded to this, but let 

us put it front and center. 

In December 1998—I am reading from a publication of the Energy Information Administration—the cost of a barrel of oil in 

Cushing, OK—this is West Texas Intermediate—the spot price 

FOB was $11.35. In April of this year, which is the last year for 

which we have data, April of 2012, that number was $103.32, 7 

times greater. We have had an energy price crisis. You are all familiar with that. Everybody here has lived through this. 

22 

That peaked with the price in June 2008—again, Cushing, OK, 

West Texas Intermediate—of $133.88. 

Now, what is the difference between this experience and our previous experience? These prices have not declined. In 1973, it was 

followed by a price collapse. In 1979, it was followed by a price collapse. In 1981, it was followed by a price collapse. 

This has not happened. Something has changed in the world petroleum markets. These prices are permanently higher. This is the 

basis for the incentives that are driving the Bakken. You can talk 

all you like about tax incentives, and I am not against treating 

these symmetrically with every other form of production. I am talking about oil and natural gas. 

But the point is that, once you do treat them symmetrically, you 

have to reckon with the fact that we have seen a sea change in the 

world petroleum market. We have prices that are 7 times as high 

as they were as recently as 1998. That is the most relevant fact 

about incentives that we are here to discuss. 

Senator BINGAMAN. My time has—— 

Mr. HAMM. Could I respond? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Go right ahead. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. HAMM. Dr. Jorgenson picked the lowest year in history almost. In 1998, if anybody here remembers, that is when our friends 

from Venezuela were dumping oil into America, trying to put all 

the stripper producers, particularly, and high-cost producers of 

America, out of business. 

Prices before that had been in the $20 range, twice that. After 

that, they responded and came back to that after that point. The 

procedure was changed and the administration was changed in 

Venezuela. So that is how that happened. 

When the Bakken began in early 2000, the price of oil was about 

$25 a barrel. So, yes, we have seen prices spike at $147 for 1 day 

and then they came back. 

So right now, we are at about an $80 price range, close to that. 

We are about $15 under the Brent price, which is considered a 

world price here in the Midwest. 

So prices go up and they go down. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamm. 

Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the individuals testifying. 

I am having trouble getting this. Senator Enzi and I are the only 

two accountants on this committee. And the thing I cannot figure 

out is what we—the obvious is not being seen. 

If you eliminate intangible drilling costs, actually, you decrease 

revenue to the Federal Government, and here is why. You take 

away the capital for exploration, and you thereby decrease the 

amount of revenues and the exploration in this country. 

If you had no change in exploration and no change in discoveries, 

the tax revenue to the Federal Government would be the same over 

10 years as it is with intangible drilling costs. There is no difference to what the government takes in. One is a delayed tax 

versus a fully captured tax at the time of the expensing. 

23 

So I do not get what the debate is. What I do not understand is why, when we are sending $400 billion a year out of this country 

and we have the potential to have a stimulus in this country of 

$400 billion a year by having the money that we would have sent 

out spent here, tax-free, not borrowed to create a stimulus, totally 

tax-free, and energy independence for our country, why would we 

not do everything we can to do that—still within the parameters 

that Dr. Jorgenson set out in terms of the clean environment? I do 

not get it. 

We have the opportunity of a lifetime in this country to reinvigorate this country in terms of natural gas and propane and ethane. 

We are building new cracking plants. Conoco is going to do another 

one. They are employing 10,000 people in Texas right now to build 

a big cracking plant. It is going to put us at a major advantage 

over everybody in the world in terms of raw materials for almost 

everything that is made in this country, from plastics to chemicals 

to you name it. 

We have an opportunity to expand our dominance in the world 

as manufacturers on the basis of what has happened in oil and gas 

exploration. And when we talk so foolishly about short, little bitty 

things, not looking at the big picture, I have trouble understanding 

that. 

There is no question there will be no increase in revenue to the 

Federal Government by eliminating intangible drilling costs, no net 

revenue increase to the Federal Government, because you are going 

to shut down a third of the exploration. And by the way, they pay out $100 billion a year. The oil and 

gas industry is the largest payer to the Federal Government in 

terms of taxes that there is today. They pay, on average, 9 percent 

more against earnings than any other industry in the country, and 

now we are talking about lessening that. But more importantly, we 

are talking about stealing the one thing that can renew America’s 

dominance in terms of productivity and in terms of manufacturing 

edge. What has happened in the oil and gas industry is giving us 

an opportunity to regain our mojo. We must be very careful in how 

we approach this. 

Amortization is something that my colleagues need to learn 

about, what it means in terms of the accounting rule. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, we amortize expenses. What 

we have done with intangible drilling costs is said, we are not 

going to amortize those, we are going to allow those to be written 

off, just like we did with the 100-percent write-off that we gave in 

terms of new investments this last year. 

And what has come about from that? What has come about from 

that is a tremendous increase in jobs, but, more importantly, a dynamite opportunity for this country to get back to where it was 20 

years ago in terms of leading the world in terms of production, innovation, and efficiency. We should be careful. 

I have one question for Dr. Jorgenson. If we had $400 billion in 

stimulus every year coming into this country that was not borrowed money and not directed by the Federal Government, but was 

in the market, what would be the net effect to our economy? 

Dr. JORGENSON. Senator Coburn, you are going to be very surprised to hear this answer, because I am going to agree with everyVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
24 

thing you said. This is not a debate about tax expenditures. That 

is second-order. Let us get the big picture in mind. 

We are not talking about big revenue here. These expenditures 

have been limited for years to the independents. That is what Mr. 

Hamm discussed with us in his written testimony. So I think we 

are all on the same page here. 

What we are not apparently on the same page about is essentially what the price system is doing for the energy sector. You are 

an accountant, or were, Senator Coburn, and you know that when 

you evaluate a project for a client like Mr. Hamm, if you ever had 

such an outstanding person as your client, I would simply say, if 

you ignore the price of energy, if you ignore the dynamism of our 

economy and the energy independence that is going to result from 

the new structure of oil prices in the world economy, you are fired. 

You are no longer Mr. Hamm’s accountant, if you have done project 

analysis ignoring energy prices. And that is what we need to absorb. 

Our market-based economy is working. It is working toward energy independence, and it is working toward a more effective allocation of energy resources toward the domestic sector, which you 

have emphasized in your question, Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. I would just say that as we—if the chairman 

would allow me. We have the opportunity to see oil prices go down 

if we become totally independent of outside resources, which gives 

us another boost in terms of our productive capacity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Menendez? 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

Senator Nickles, as we look at all of these different provisions 

and think about what is the right tax policy, I look at the big five 

oil companies and, from my perspective, they are avoiding U.S. 

taxes by disguising what we would do here in the United States, 

which is a royalty payment, and instead of having a foreign royalty 

payment, having those countries charge them a tax and, in doing 

so, allowing themselves to write off these foreign taxes as a tax 

credit in the United States, and in turn, in my view, shortchanging 

the American Treasury and the American taxpayer. 

Why should the American taxpayer be in the business of subsidizing foreign oil exploration? Why should we not close this enormous loophole as we have seen the Senate vote, a majority of the 

Senate vote, to force these giant oil companies to pay what they 

owe? 

Senator NICKLES. Senator Menendez, I could not disagree with 

you more. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I am not surprised, but I still want to hear 

your rationale. 

Senator NICKLES. Well, I do. You are talking about dual capacity. 

You are talking about the ability to be able to deduct overseas 

taxes against the tax amount paid. 

I think if your proposal was successful, we would not have international oil companies based in the United States. You would give 

such a tax advantage to Total, BP, Lukoil, other international oil 

companies that would not be facing this tax penalty. Double tax 

25 

would be the result of your proposal, in my opinion, so that they 

would not want to be headquartered here. 

I am speaking for myself, not for anybody I work with, but tax 

policy has consequences. The windfall profits tax had consequences. 

This would have tax consequences. You would put us at such a 

competitive disadvantage internationally that the growth in international exploration would not be done by U.S. companies. 

Senator MENENDEZ. But you would not deny that, in essence, 

what is happening here is that the same company in the United 

States drilling on Federal lands or water would pay a royalty, and, 

in essence, they are paying a royalty. The only thing is, they are 

disguising that royalty as a tax. 

Mr. NICKLES. Well, I would not agree with that characterization 

one iota. Treasury has worked—IRS has worked for years with 

companies to figure out the complicated—and they are complicated, 

I will grant you that—I am going to say allocations. You are talking about royalties, you are talking about taxes, you are talking 

about all kinds of fees—we have all kinds of fees, as well—and trying to come up with a system that works. I think they have done 

that over years and years and years. 

But I think if you are not careful, you could have a lot of unintended consequences. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I would be happy to get involved in 

talking about how we tax all U.S. companies’ foreign income. I 

think that would be great. But what you criticized in your testimony, as I read it, is the administration’s attempts to force the big 

five oil companies to play by the current rules that all other U.S. 

companies play by. 

Now, it seems to me that no matter how wealthy or powerful the 

company, they should pay their fair share. The reality is that the 

big five will make $1 trillion in profits over the next decade. 

I think the marketplace—I think Mr. Hamm said in his testimony that—I think he rightfully points out that oil subsidies going 

to the big five oil companies are ‘‘not providing the capital that is 

fueling America’s march to energy independence.’’ I agree on that 

view. 

The reality is the marketplace has dictated that they will make 

more than enough money to continue to pursue their exploration, 

whether here or abroad. It does not seem to me that they need $24 

billion of our collective money as taxpayers when they will make 

$1 trillion in profits, not proceeds, over the next decade. I do not 

think they are going to deter their march towards oil exploration 

if they lose those $24 billion over the next decade. 

Mr. NICKLES. One, I do not think it is a subsidy. Two, I think 

they should be treated fairly. And three, if you tax U.S.-domiciled 

international companies punitively compared to other international 

companies, those other international companies will win in the 

leasing, the bidding. 

The competition is fierce all around the world, and you will 

have less jobs, less jobs in the United States, and the U.S.- 

headquartered companies will become smaller, and the other nonU.S. companies will become much bigger, and I think that would 

be a terrible result. 

26 

Senator MENENDEZ. It is hard to believe $1 trillion in profit is 

not enough for a company to pursue their own interests. 

One final question. You seem to be, from all the testimony I read, 

and someone can correct me if I am mistaken on that—the one witness who is willing to defend the fact that the big five oil companies receive the domestic manufacturing tax deduction—I can see 

how some might consider oil refining to be manufacturing—but 

other than a hole in the ground, do oil drillers actually manufacture? 

Mr. NICKLES. Well, one, I do not defend 199, period. I think Congress—when you are rewriting the tax code, you should have a uniform corporate rate, not a lower rate for manufacturing. Some companies do both. Some are manufacturers, some are service. 

But to single out five companies and say, ‘‘We are going to have 

a lower manufacturing rate except for you,’’ I think, is absurd. Congress should not be picking winners or punitively picking losers 

and saying, ‘‘We are going to give a lower rate for everybody but 

you. You are too big.’’ That is just bad tax policy. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I agree. I will close, Mr. Chairman. 

Look, other than—sometimes we do want to incentivize an effort. 

Manufacturing may be one of them. I just do not understand how 

extracting oil from the ground is manufacturing, because that 

would make everybody who owns a well with water a water company that should be subject to getting the same deduction. 

I do not think it makes the type of tax policy we would like. But 

I thank you for your answers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Before I turn to Senator Wyden, there is just one observation I 

would like us all to consider. Section 199 was enacted, as we all 

know, to replace something called the Foreign Sales Corporation 

and Extraterritorial Income exclusion, or FSC/ETI. FSC/ETI was 

in the law to counter the advantage that VAT countries had because the VAT that, say, a European country had was rebated back 

to the company. They gave them a subsidy for exports. So VAT 

countries had an export subsidy. 

We took our regime, FSC/ETI, to—it was taken to WTO. It was 

ruled, at WTO, illegal. So we then came up with our 199 manufacturing incentive. It was very crude, but it was a very rough offset 

to deal with the ability of VAT countries to get a subsidy on exports. 

That is the origin of 199, which obviously raised the question of 

the degree to which we should try to enact something that deals 

with that VAT advantage. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it has been 

a good hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I think we have sort of had a 

wakeup call for just how tough this is going to be to actually write 

a bill. 

And let me start, if I might. For the last 5 years, I have worked 

with two very thoughtful conservatives here in the Senate, Senator 

Gregg and now Senator Coats, and another Democrat, Senator 

Begich, and we produced an actual tax reform bill. 

It is modeled after the 1986 legislation, where you clean out a 

lot of the clutter, hold down the rates, keep progressivity, and it 

27 

has been scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation as essentially 

generating revenue. 

One of the toughest parts of actually sitting down—and Senator 

Gregg and I spent week after week after week for almost 2 years— 

was dealing with these issues we are talking about here today, the 

energy question. And I came to those discussions saying—highlighting a point we have heard this morning: that natural gas is 

a huge strategic American advantage. People ought to understand 

that right at the get-go. 

And we ought to be talking about renewables, and some renewables that hardly ever get mentioned around here like hydropower 

and geothermal and other promising renewable sources. And yet, 

at the same time, we were actually able to write a bipartisan bill. 

And two of the principles that we have touched on today I think 

are going to be key, as Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch lead 

us now into tax reform, and one of them is that we cannot have 

a double standard on tax breaks. We cannot have a double standard on energy breaks. And today the oil and gas production side 

gets a permanent tax break, while renewable energy gets a temporary tax break, and often those expire. So we are going to have 

to get rid of the double standard. 

The second issue that we have sort of touched on a little bit this 

morning is the idea that we ought to ‘‘get rid of everything.’’ But 

when you say get rid of everything, it sort of has an asterisk after 

it, because then we say intangible drilling costs ought to be able 

to go forward as well. 

So let me ask you four, because you have given us thoughtful 

and valuable testimony: what would a level playing field on the energy side look like so we can advance the cause of energy independence, but also move us away from the double standard and this 

question of let us get rid of everything, without putting an asterisk 

by it? 

Just go down the row. Level playing field. And, Senator Nickles, 

you have been at a number of the discussions that took place on 

tax reform, and you and I have talked particularly about the effort 

I started with Senator Gregg. 

So let us hear your thoughts—level playing field. 

Mr. NICKLES. A couple of comments. One, I think you kind of 

threw in tax breaks, and then you said, well, renewables. There is 

a difference between deductibility and subsidies. Most of the renewables get subsidies. Wind, you are talking about, what, $0.02 

per kilowatt hour multiply. 

So there is a difference between a subsidy and a deduction. And 

I think allowing deductions makes sense. Tax credits do not. Tax 

credits are basically a deduction off your taxes. So I would make 

that kind of assessment. One is much more of a subsidy than the 

other, which is basically normal operating procedure. You could go 

into greater detail, but there are lots of both throughout the tax 

code, not just in energy. I am talking about throughout the tax 

code. 

And I would also say, kind of since you are talking about a 

broader theme, tax all income once. There is a lot of income that 

is not taxed. 

28 

So the tax code allows deductions. Expenses—you have a business and you write off your expenses, but in some cases, you get 

tax credits. And then in some cases, you do not have to report the 

income. You are not taxed on some income. 

Tax it. So that way, you broaden the base and unify—or the simpler way is to allow deductions, but not the credits. 

Senator WYDEN. Congressman Sharp? 

Mr. SHARP. Well, first of all, I wish you well in finding the answer to that. I do not pretend to have it, and I know everybody in 

the country wants a level playing field in every policy area, and we 

have never seen one. So I am a little skeptical of our capacity to 

reach that. 

Let me say something, though. I think the harder question that 

you have been dealing with is, what is the purpose of what you are 

trying to accomplish with the nature of the provision? That is partly what Senator Nickles is getting at. 

These provisions are not all equal in the way they operate. And 

I do not pretend that I know this, but you folks are more sophisticated on it, but let me give you an example of a production tax 

credit. 

I think it was extremely important in this infant industry of 

wind. I do not have any doubt about that. What I do not know is 

how important it really is in the future and how much you can justify it at what level, because the goal was to buy down costs, to get 

an infant industry going, and that has happened. 

Now, I cannot tell you, I do not have the information on, have 

we reached that sort of level? That is a very useful thing for the 

future of this country and its international competition and our environment and everything else. I do not have any doubt about that. 

But I do not think it deserves a permanent, long-term guarantee 

that every kilowatt hour gets subsidized. In fact, that just means 

we are subsidizing energy consumption, which, in the long run, is 

not the smartest policy. 

The same applies to the ethanol tax credit. Once you went to a 

mandate, why would you engage in double policy that subsidizes, 

as well as mandates? In wind, we have a number of mandates in 

a number of States, the Renewable Portfolio Standards. 

So one of the practical problems you have is, not only do you 

need to look at these comparative things, but you need to see what 

other policies at the Federal or State level are in place. 

Now, frankly, at the moment, all of these policies are politically 

under attack by various forces in various States and around here, 

and so I do not know what the outcome is going to be. So I have 

only made the answer harder, but I do not honestly believe that 

the notion of whether it is permanent or impermanent is the answer. Frankly, I think all of these things need a radical and intense review about every 5 years anyway. 

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Jorgenson? I know my time is up, and just 

if you two can give me an answer—— 

Dr. JORGENSON. With the chair’s permission—— 

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. On the level playing field. 

Dr. JORGENSEON. With the chairman’s indulgence. Senator 

Wyden, I would like to commend you and your colleagues for your 

excellent work on tax reform. I think we all need to keep in mind 

29 

that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the result of another bipartisan effort. 

And I would like to commend to you the consideration of taxes 

on energy use, which is not part of what you just described. 

In order to have a pretty level playing field, we need to recognize 

the environmental hidden costs associated with the combustion of 

fossil fuels. Taxes based on energy use are going to favor renewables permanently. They are going to favor natural gas permanently. They are going to provide a fair tax on petroleum permanently. And they are going to recognize the hidden costs associated 

with coal. 

We are talking about 1.5 percent of the GDP for that kind of 

level playing field. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Hamm, quickly? 

Mr. HAMM. Good question on the double standard. Things have 

always been double standards, I think. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly, Mr. Hamm. I have Senators who 

want to speak. 

Mr. HAMM. We brought a trade case here in DC at the Commerce 

Department one time when we were being dumped on by Venezuela and some other countries that were dumping oil here below 

their cost of production. And it was rejected, even though steel, cement, everything else could have gone forward, but not with oil. 

They ruled against us. 

And subsidies, just one short comment. You want to talk about 

credits and subsidies, I have drilled 17 ground holes in a row and, 

let me tell you, Webster says that subsidies are a payment. And 

I must have got to the wrong window, because nobody paid me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Snowe? 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing. And I want to welcome our former colleagues, 

Senator Nickles and Congressman Sharp—with whom I served in 

the House of Representatives—who have had distinguished careers 

and contributed much to the issues that we are discussing here 

today both on energy and on tax policy. And we are very fortunate 

to have this extraordinary panel with such broad expertise in this 

critical area, though it is regrettable that we do not have a national 

energy policy. 

In fact, I was thinking, the last time we marked up an energy 

bill was in 2007 here in the Finance Committee when oil per barrel—the cost of oil per barrel was about $60. And today it averages 

$86. Last year it was upwards of $95, which is the issue that I 

want to get to today with respect to tax reform. 

And to what degree do you believe that we should have any tax 

credits for—incentives for energy efficiency and conservation? Because I happen to think that you can maximize, I think, the investments in this country, and certainly on the part of the consumers, 

if they have the ability and the opportunity to make those investments in weatherizing their home, providing insulation, providing 

new forms of technology to conserve. 

30 

It certainly has proven to be very beneficial. Consumers last year paid the most for energy in the history of our country, $650 billion. 

And so, while we see the highest levels of oil and natural gas production in 14 years, we are also seeing the highest consumer costs 

in the history of our country, and I know that is true in Maine. 

The New York Times, a few months ago, did a front-page story on a couple who had virtually a very low income, $1,200 a month, 

and yet their home heating bill was $3,600 for the season. And a 

company came in and volunteered to insulate their house, and they 

were able to improve the efficiency by 46 percent. It saved more 

than $1,200 with respect to their energy bill. 

The point is, I think that we need to provide some type of tax 

credits. Or, on the other hand, when you have overall tax reform, 

which I hope we will, because it is long overdue, how low do the 

tax rates have to go so that it would benefit consumers to make 

these investments otherwise if they did not benefit from tax credits? 

We have had tax credits for energy efficiency, and, unfortunately, they were reduced to $500. In the stimulus plan, they were up to 

$1,500 and a 20-percent tax credit of the overall costs, and it was 

a huge bonanza for many people in Maine, because we have the 

oldest housing stock in the country. And so people did make those 

investments because it was precisely that incentive. And I happen 

to think we should be encouraging that. 

But I would like to hear from you. If we do not have these types 

of tax credits, then how low do the tax rates have to go in overall 

tax reform to accommodate this? 

We could write 80-percent tax credits for companies, for production for oil and gas companies, and yet only 20 percent essentially 

of any type of tax credits for individuals. 

Senator Nickles? 

Mr. NICKLES. You do not really want my answer, do you? 

Senator SNOWE. No. [Laughter.] 

Mr. NICKLES. I am not a big fan of tax credits, but the difference 

would be, one, you mentioned comparing companies to individuals. 

One is certainly a subsidy for individuals. You are writing the 

check for the individual, you are paying 20 percent of the cost. We 

are not asking the government to pay 20 percent of the cost of drilling a well. 

We are allowing individuals to expense the cost of drilling a well. 

There is a difference. That is not a subsidy, in my opinion. 

But the good news is, Senator Snowe, I think help is on the way. 

I think the lower natural gas prices—the Marcellus field in the 

northeast is one of the most productive fields in the world. It will 

grow. It will grow substantially. Natural gas will have a competitive advantage in the United States. 

I believe Harold Hamm or somebody, or maybe Congressman 

Sharp, mentioned the fact that natural gas is selling for the equivalent of about $12 to $20 per barrel or $2 per MCF or $2.50 per 

MCF compared to Europe, which is like 5 times as much, 6 times 

as much, 8 times as much. 

So we have a competitive advantage for your industries now, natural gas being much, much cheaper. And I know a lot of your 

homes in the northeast and in Maine are on fuel oil, not natural 

31 

gas, but my guess is conversions will be taking place and there will 

be a significant savings that homeowners will enjoy for decades. 

Senator SNOWE. We are very limited in Maine, and it costs about $1 million a mile to run the pipeline. So we have to have incentives 

in that regard. 

There are some areas in which they are making those decisions 

to do it, but, obviously, it is not pervasive. We are the most dependent State in the country on home heating oil. 

Mr. NICKLES. I can remember your many, many efforts for lowincome energy assistance over the years and wrestling with you on 

some of those issues on the Budget Committee and so on, and I 

compliment you for your effort and for your representation. 

I do think, though, the network expansion through the distribution lines is increasing the connections so more and more people 

can take advantage of this very abundant, plentiful, cheap resource 

that we have in the United States. 

Senator SNOWE. Congressman Sharp? 

Mr. SHARP. Well, Senator, I certainly, one, believe it is important 

in this Nation for us to put an emphasis on efficiency for economic, 

as well as environmental reasons. And certainly, if we are going to 

have a tax code—as it is today, it is stacked full of all kinds of incentives—this is a good thing to do. 

But I do not think that is the best long-term strategy. One thing 

is, we need to help Americans understand that there are going to 

be radical shifts in price and they need to prepare for them as they 

make home decisions and all kinds of others, and to pretend otherwise undercuts them. And that is not what you have been doing, 

but I am suggesting that is what often happens. 

The second thing is, if we are going to look at these incentives, 

you know better than I do that there are quite different impacts 

on different homeowners and different consumers. It depends on 

where you are. Did I buy my home already upgraded and I have 

already paid for all these upgrades, or am I the one who gets the 

taxpayer to pay for my upgrades? 

And then we get into the incentives—I think they have all now 

expired—for purchasing vehicles that are huge, from an individual’s point of view. I do not think they can be justified in terms 

of helping the consumer in that case. I think the only legitimate 

justification is the effort to try to bring some new technologies into 

the market or to bring an infant industry into place. 

But to be frank about it, I prefer the general approach that Dr. 

Jorgenson has been recommending, which helps us answer some of 

these broader questions. 

Dr. JORGENSON. Senator, I think we have to recognize that efficiency is an engineering concept, a technical concept. And I think 

this committee ought to shift its focus to cost-effectiveness; in other 

words, making the best use of every taxpayer dollar. 

Now, addressing the question you raised about efficiency and 

conservation, the price system works. It produces massive energy 

conservation. Oil use in this country has plummeted over a period 

extending over decades. It is now 50 percent of what it was as recently as the 1970s. That is all due to energy prices. 

Prices work in the home fuel market, as Congressman Sharp just 

reminded us. 

32 

I am reading from a publication of the Energy Information Administration, which I quoted earlier. I am looking at U.S. Henry 

Hub natural gas price histories. My geography is not all that great, 

and it certainly is not very recent. I believe that Henry Hub is in 

the State of Oklahoma. 

That is an area where prices of natural gas were as high as 

$12.30 per 1,000 cubic feet as recently as 2008 in the midst of the 

oil price run-up. And as Senator Nickles reminded us, it is now 

$2.43. That is the figure from May 2012, which is the latest figure. 

We have to use the price system. That is the whole idea of using 

a tax-neutral approach in order to achieve our energy goals, just 

like our other goals, and the price system is working, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can go back, if you want another round. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say to Senator Nickles, my old compadre—young 

compadre—and Congressman Sharp, a good friend from the House: 

it is just great to see both of you. 

Dr. Jorgenson, I do not know either you or Mr. Hamm well, but 

if each of you is half as good as I am hearing from my colleagues, 

this is a great panel, and we are delighted that you are here today. 

I want to just follow up a little bit on what Senator Coburn was 

saying earlier. I think there is reason to be optimistic about the future of our country for a number of reasons, but one of those is— 

and he alluded to some—we have become Saudi Arabia. We are 

and have been for some time the Saudi Arabia of coal. We are now 

apparently the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. 

I understand that we have become a net exporter of oil, and, 

while we are not the top producer of oil in the world, I think we 

might be number three or so. But we apparently have more drills 

going today, more wells producing today, than I think maybe the 

rest of the world combined, which is pretty amazing. 

I chair the subcommittee that deals with nuclear safety, and we 

have four brand-new nuclear power plants being built in this country for the first time in 25 years, and I am encouraged with the 

technology and the safety of the technology it provides. 

CAFE, we had adopted CAFE legislation, fuel efficiency for vehicles, in 2007. Congressman Sharp, that was something I know you 

had a whole lot of interest in, and we appreciate your help on that 

legislation. But we are ramping up fuel efficiency standards for 

cars, trucks, and vans to I think about 36 miles to a gallon by 

2016, and I think by over 50 miles per gallon by about a decade 

after that. 

Our friends from GE, I think, are online for building a new solar 

energy product out in Colorado that is going to be at grid parity, 

we are told, by 2016. And we actually have the ability to use natural gas, I think, to not just supplant coal and make emissions of 

utility plants cleaner and safer, more environmentally friendly, but 

also to use it to supplant the use of diesel fuel in a lot of our large 

33 

vehicles. That is all pretty encouraging stuff, very encouraging 

stuff. 

We have seen across the country windmill farms deployed. They 

are producing a lot of electricity. Senator Snowe and I have been 

working on an idea to try to incentivize the building of windmill 

farms off of the east coast to capture the wind and use a lot of that 

to supply some of the hybrid vehicles that are being built, and 

going to be built in the decade to come. 

One of our ideas is, rather than just providing a production tax 

credit, which is what we use to incentivize the building of windmills onshore, what we are suggesting is a different kind of investment tax credit, which would be good for a limited period of time— 

a limited offer. And it would basically say the first 3,000 megawatts of generating capacity developed off of our coast, or however 

many windmill farms were developed that would use it—first one, 

second one, third one—when you get to 3,000 megawatts, that is 

it, that is when the tax credit goes away. 

But the idea is just to get it started, show that we can do this, 

and we can do it successfully. 

I would just ask, if I could, Dr. Jorgenson, would you and Congressman Sharp just respond to that idea? If we just did rely on 

the production tax credit, we are not going to build any windmill 

farms off of the U.S. anytime soon. 

The investment tax credit is what is needed, and this is a different kind of approach, not a permanent one, but as I said, again, 

a limited time offer. What do you think? 

Dr. Jorgenson or Congressman Sharp? 

Dr. JORGENSON. My only question, Senator, is how you are going 

to pay for this. That is all. I think that we have to recognize the 

fact that the budgetary climate, like the world oil market, has undergone a major change, and we need to take that into account 

when we are discussing tax policy, when we are formulating tax 

policy, and when we are enacting tax policy. 

And so I think we need to ask ourselves, is the market doing the 

job? Is it sufficient to bring forward these resources that you are 

talking about? And I think the fact is that it is bringing forward 

enormous resources in oil, in natural gas, and in renewables. 

There are many applications of renewables, mainly wind energy, 

which you and the Senator from Maine have been focusing on, 

which are cost-effective independently of any sort of tax breaks. 

And higher oil prices will make them cost-effective for a very, very 

long period of time. 

Senator CARPER. Congressman Sharp? 

Mr. SHARP. Senator, I am a great admirer of all your considerable work on these issues. I am not really prepared to comment on 

what you are asking, because we know that it is a lot higher cost 

to do offshore than it is to do onshore, and I think there is a serious cost-effectiveness question that I am sure you are looking at as 

you consider just how far we ought to go. 

Of course, you have already taken into account that you assume 

this is an infant industry that you are only trying to get—— 

Senator CARPER. Just get them started. 

Mr. SHARP. But I am not sure how much we really have to learn 

about offshore, since so much of it is going on in Europe. What we 

34 

see happening in China, what we see happening in Denmark, what 

we see happening in Great Britain, these can be of benefit to us— 

they are not always competitive to us—and we can let them subsidize and buy down the cost of technologies, and then we can buy 

up the technologies earlier. 

So I am not as quick to endorse that everything has to be done 

in America, much as I love this country and believe we ought to 

be the source of a lot of the technology. 

Senator CARPER. With respect to nuclear power, one of the reasons why we are building some new nuclear power plants, as you 

know, is because we provide some financial assistance and encouragement through the Federal Government. 

Let me go back to something that you said, Dr. Jorgenson, if I 

could. I think you said we have seen a sea change in the price of 

oil. And here in this country, I think we produce about 2 percent 

of the world’s oil. However, about 2 percent of that is in oil reserves, and we use about 20 percent on a daily basis of the oil that 

is consumed in the world. 

When you look forward, if we look at China coming online, we 

bought 11 million, 12 million cars last year, with this year expecting to sell maybe 14 million, maybe next year 16 million, in China. 

I think last year they caught up with us, and they have a whole 

lot more people, as we know. 

What are the implications for that consumption of oil in those 

countries? What are the implications there for the price of oil 

across the world? 

Dr. JORGENSON. China is not alone, but the point is that China 

and India and many countries which have finally discovered the 

key to economic growth are going to be the source of growth of demand for a very, very long time to come. That is what is behind 

the sea change that has occurred in world petroleum markets. 

And we need to respond to that, and we will respond to it. We 

will respond to it by having more energy efficient vehicles. We will 

respond to it by using hybrid vehicles when that is appropriate. 

And we will respond to it, as I said to Senator Snowe, by energy 

conservation. 

That is exactly what the price system is going to do. It is also 

going to push us very strongly in the direction of domestically produced fuel, natural gas that is available now in large quantities 

due to the very highly skilled work that has been done by Mr. 

Hamm and his colleagues in the oil and gas industry. 

Senator CARPER. Now, when the U.S. auto industry and others 

who sell cars, trucks, and vans here look at the ramp-up in fuel efficiency standards in the next 10–15 years, I think they have a concern that since we do not have a very high tax—at least Federal 

tax; our State tax is really on motor fuels—they are concerned 

within the auto industry that there is not going to be an incentive 

for people, and the price of oil will go down, and there is not going 

to be much of a market incentive for people to buy energy-efficient 

cars. So we need to keep in place the tax credits that we have to 

incentivize some of those purchases. 

Would your message to the auto companies be, ‘‘Chin up?’’ 

Dr. JORGENSON. Well, let me just say, on tax policy—let us just 

focus on that—my proposal that I described here for an environVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:09 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81312.000 TIMD
35 

mental tax system would raise the taxes at the Federal level on 

motor fuels by about $0.39 per gallon at the pump. We are talking 

about an incentive to conserve. We are talking about an incentive 

to use more efficient vehicles. We are talking about achieving those 

goals, not just writing them into the law. 

Senator CARPER. Over what period of time would that be? 

Dr. JORGENSON. This is a period of time—well, this is an incentive that is going to be permanent, and we know that that—— 

Senator CARPER. In terms of a ramp-up, it would be implemented 

all at once or over a period of months or years? 

Dr. JORGENSON. I would certainly put it—we are not talking 

about big numbers here; $0.39 per gallon, I think that is something 

that could be introduced in the code tomorrow. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Mr. NICKLES. You probably do not want to introduce it, not before November. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask a question that came to my 

mind, Dr. Jorgenson. You keep talking about letting pricing determine technologies and development, and I understand that is a big, 

huge driver. And I agree that oil demand has pushed up commodity 

prices significantly, whether it is China, India, or other developing 

countries. 

But the question comes down to price volatility. Essentially, I 

presume you are saying there is not much the tax code can do 

about price volatility. If prices are going to be volatile, they are 

going to be volatile. 

Look at coal. The demand now is soft with demand for natural 

gas rising. It is just that the world is so complicated. There are so 

many different dynamics worldwide, many of them unexpected. 

So I presume when you say, let price decide, you are saying, let 

the price be what it is and let entrepreneurs and developers just 

do what they can and develop whatever they can given the price 

signals they have seen. 

Dr. JORGENSON. Well, I would like to go back to a point you 

raised earlier, Senator. You said that we need to have a diverse 

source of energy supply, and we do in this country. That does not 

mean it has to be the same diverse supply every year or every decade. Things change, including technology and supply and tax policy. And so we need diversity. That is something that contributes 

to low volatility. 

But this country has, as Mr. Hamm would be the first to tell you, 

a very competitive industry on the supply side of the fossil fuels. 

We are a very competitive industry in the supply of renewable energy sources, both solar and wind, and, therefore, you should think, 

as you just suggested, in terms of relying on these very, very wellstructured markets. 

But they are not going to do the job by themselves. That is where 

we come to the hidden costs of energy combustion that I have 

harped on over and over in this hearing. And so we should not say 

that free markets are the answer, but nobody here has said that. 

I have not heard a single voice in support of that on the panel or 

from the Senators here who are present. 

36 

So we need to let markets work, but we have to recognize the 

fact that the government has a role, and I have tried to spell out 

what that should be. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hamm, what should the government do 

with, to use Dr. Jorgenson’s term, externalities, that is, those costs, 

environmental costs, associated with fossil fuel? 

Mr. HAMM. Well, certainly, I think the marketplace will let it 

work, and it has worked. More supply brings down the price of oil. 

We see that that is coming on. 

The CHAIRMAN. But the environmental costs of fossil fuels. 

Mr. HAMM. The environmental costs of fossil fuels, as I see it, in 

our business at least, are minimal. We are drilling up there with 

eco pads, we are not disturbing much of the land. We are very good 

stewards of the land. We have small costs of production of these 

fossil fuels as far as environmental issues go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. I want to thank all four of you for being here 

today. I have been listening very carefully, and I want to compliment you, Mr. Hamm, for having the guts to do what you have 

done. 

I agree with you on the intangible drilling and development cost 

deduction. It has been a tremendous benefit for the oil industry, at 

least the independent oil industry in this country, without which 

I do not think we would be as far along as we are. 

The real question that we have is, should we have any of these 

tax expenditures or deductions in lieu of the fact that we might reduce corporate tax rates low enough so that that would take care 

of it? 

But in your industry, it is a special industry, there is no question 

about it, and there is a lot of risk involved, a lot of money involved. 

You can go broke easier in your business than almost any business 

I know, and I just want to compliment you for what you have been 

able to accomplish and the guts that you have had to get the things 

done. 

We would like you to weigh in and help us to understand what 

we really do need to do with regard to tax reform. 

Professor, I have enjoyed your remarks very much today. 

Dr. JORGENSON. Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. And of course, Phil, it is great to see you again, 

and Don. We appreciate all that you have had to say, both of you. 

And this has been a very interesting hearing for me. 

So with that, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. I might say, though—and I 

do not know who first coined this phrase—there is no such thing 

as a free lunch. But I am thinking of the tremendous gas development in eastern Montana, but also the very significant impacts on 

the community—schools, waste water treatment, clean water, housing, huge adverse impacts. 

Now, there are some very positive impacts, the revenue and so 

forth, but there are huge adverse impacts to these local communities. Law enforcement just cannot keep up with the boom-andbust that is developing in, let us say, eastern Montana. 

So I do think we all have a role to play together to kind of help 

each other with respect to those provisions. 

37 

Let me ask this. Is there anything else that anybody wants to 

say, or has anybody said anything so outrageous that it needs a response, from either side of the table? 

Dr. JORGENSON. Could I correct an error? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Dr. JORGENSON. The Henry Hub is in Louisiana. I realize everybody else here knew that. I had to read it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Everybody knew that. [Laughter.] 

Thanks, everybody. This is, obviously, a very complex, extremely 

important subject. It is not the last time we are going to be dealing 

with it. So, I would just urge us to keep working together as we 

solve it. 

So thanks very much for taking the time. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


81312001.eps
40 


81312002.eps
41 


81312.003
42 


81312.004
43 


81312.005
44 


81312.006
45 


81312.007
46 


81312.008
47 


81312.009
48 


81312.010
49 


81312.011
50 


81312.012
51 


81312.013
52 


81312.014
53 


81312.015
54 


81312.016
55 


81312.017
56 


81312.018
57 


81312.019
58 


81312.020
59 


81312.021
60 


81312.022
61 


81312023.eps
62 


81312.024
63 


81312.025
64 


81312.026
65 


81312.027
66 


81312.028
67 


81312.029
68 


81312.030
69 


81312.031
70 


81312.032
71 


81312.033
72 


81312.034
73 


81312.035
74 


81312.036
75 


81312.037
76 


81312.038
77 


81312.039
78 


81312.040
79 


81312.041
80 


81312.042
81 


81312.043
82 


81312.044
83 


81312.045
84 


81312.046
(85) 

COMMUNICATIONS


81312047.eps
86 


81312.048
87 


81312.049
88 


81312.050
89 


81312.051
90 


81312.052
91 


81312.053
92 


81312.054
93 


81312.055
94 


81312.056
95 


81312.057
96 


81312.058
97 


81312.059
98 


81312.060
99 


81312.061
100 


81312.062
101 


81312.063
102 


81312.064
103 


81312.065
104 


81312.066
105 


81312.067
106 


81312.068
107 


81312.069
108 


81312.070
109 


81312.071
110 


81312.072
111 


81312.073
112 


81312074.eps
113 


81312.075
114 


81312.076
115 


81312.077
116 


81312.078
117 


81312.079
118 


81312.080
119 


81312.081
120 


81312.082
121 


81312.083
122 


81312.084
123 


81312.085
124 


81312.086
125 


81312.087
126 


81312.088
127 


81312.089
128 


81312.090
129 


81312.091
130 


81312.092
131 


81312093.eps
132 


81312.094
133 


81312.095
134 


81312.096
135 


81312.097
136 


81312.098
137 


81312.099
138 


81312.100
139 


81312.101
140 


81312.102
141 


81312.103
142 


81312.104
143 


81312.105
144 


81312.106
145 


81312.107
146 


81312.108
147 


81312.109
148 


81312.110
149 


81312.111
150 


81312.112
151 


81312.113
152 


81312.114
153 


81312.115
154 


81312.116
155 


81312.117
156 


81312.118
157 


81312.119
158 


81312.120
159 


81312.121
160 


81312.122
161 


81312.123
162 


81312.124
163 


81312.125
164 


81312.126
165 


81312.127
166 


81312.128
167 


81312.129
168 


81312.130
169 


81312.131
170 


81312.132
171 


81312.133
172 


81312.134
173 


81312135.eps
174 


81312.136
175 


81312.137
176 


81312.138
177 


81312.139
178 


81312.140
179 


81312.141
180 


81312.142
181 


81312.143
182 


81312.144
183 


81312.145
184 


81312.146
185 


81312.147
186 


81312.148
187 


81312.149
188 


81312.150
189 


81312.151
190 


81312.152
191 


81312.153
192 


81312.154
193 


81312.155
194 


81312.156
195 


81312.157
196 


81312.158
197 


81312.159
198 


81312.160
199 


81312.161
200 


81312.162
201 


81312.163
202 


81312.164
203 


81312.165
204 


81312.166
205 


81312.167
206 


81312.168
207 


81312.169
208 


81312.170
209 


81312.171
210 


81312.172
211 


81312.173
212 


81312.174
213 


81312.175
214 


81312.176
215 


81312.177
216 


81312.178
217 


81312.179
218 


81312.180
219 


81312.181
220 


81312.182
221 


81312.183
222 


81312.184
223 


81312.185
224 


81312.186
225 


81312.187
226 


81312.188
227 


81312.189
228 


81312.190
229 


81312.191
230 


81312.192
231 


81312.193
232 


81312.194
233 


81312.195
234 


81312.196
235 


81312.197
236 


81312.198
237 


81312.199
238 


81312.200
239 

Æ 


81312201.eps