PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to proceed to consideration of measure, under the order of 5/16/2011, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, was withdrawn in Senate. (consideration: CR S3039)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 10, 2011
Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act - Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the President and Administration should be commended for recognizing the severity of high gas prices and for taking appropriate actions to help reduce gas prices; (2) Congress should take additional actions to complement the efforts of the President; (3) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) should contribute to the stabilization of world oil markets and prices and reduce the burden of high gasoline prices by using existing idle oil production capacity to compensate for any supply shortages; and (4) U.S. economic, environmental, and national security depend on a sustained effort to reduce and eventually eliminate the dependence of the United States on oil.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to deny to oil companies with gross receipts in excess of $1 billion in a taxable year and an average daily worldwide production of crude oil of at least 500,000 barrels a year: (1) a foreign tax credit if such company is a dual capacity taxpayer, as defined by this Act; (2) the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or primary products thereof; (3) the tax deduction for intangible drilling and development costs; (4) the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells; and (5) the tax deduction for qualified tertiary injectant expenses.
Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to grant royalty relief (suspension of royalties) for natural gas production from deep wells and deep water oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Dedicates any increased revenue generated by this Act to the reduction of a federal budget deficit or the public debt.
Provides for compliance of the budgetary effects of this Act with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
People & committees
Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure, under the order of 5/16/2011, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, was withdrawn in Senate. (consideration: CR S3039)
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure, under the order of 5/16/2011, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, was rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 48. Record Vote Number: 72. (consideration: CR S3039)
Senate roll call 72 · Individual votesMotion to proceed to consideration of measure by Senator Reid made in Senate. (consideration: CR S3013-3039)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 42.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.940 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.940 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.940 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.940 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.