[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9715-H9718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3221, NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, AND FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2776, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
TAX ACT OF 2007
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 615 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 615
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States toward greater
energy independence and security, developing innovative new
technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs,
protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy
production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two
hours, with 15 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of each of the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources, Science
and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, Education
and Labor, Foreign Affairs, Small Business, and Oversight and
Government Reform. The amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule
XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be
in order except those printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such amendments are waived except those arising under clause
9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2776) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives
for the production of renewable energy and energy
conservation. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3221, the Clerk
shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 2776, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 3221;
(2) conform the title of H.R. 3221 to reflect the addition
of the text of H.R. 2776 to the engrossment;
(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(4) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 2776 to the
engrossment of H.R. 3221, H.R. 2776 shall be laid on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is
for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
[[Page H9716]]
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the House is in session on a Saturday, a rare event. And
why we do that, of course, is to finish up the work that is the
culmination of the efforts of our committees that have then brought
legislation to us to consider.
In this past week, we passed important legislation on employment
discrimination, fair pay, an Iraq planning bill, Agriculture
appropriations, and, very important, critical, actually, a children's
health care bill.
Today, we are here to continue the business at hand, and that is to
turn a new course for an energy future in this country that meets the
needs and demands of the 21st century for a pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-
high-tech approach to solving our environmental challenges and our
energy security issues.
H. Res. 615 provides a single rule for consideration of H.R. 3221,
the New Direction For Energy Independence, National Security, and
Consumer Protection Act and H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy
Conservation Tax Act of 2007. This will be a single rule. The rule
provides a structured rule for H.R. 3221. It provides a closed rule as
is customary in tax matters on H.R. 2776.
Today's legislation is about energy independence and creating a new
economy around facing directly the energy and environmental challenges
before this country.
This year more than a dozen of our committees began the challenging
task of drafting energy legislation that, in a wide array of
jurisdictions, can challenge the growing energy crisis. I certainly
commend all of the committee Chairs, all of the Members on both sides
of the aisle, particularly the long-term efforts of men like Chairman
Dingell, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Waxman and others who have presented
to us for the consideration of the whole body this comprehensive
package of energy legislation.
Early in January, as you remember, the House passed H.R. 6. That
repealed nearly $14 billion that were tax breaks granted to oil
companies. Those tax breaks have been granted to oil companies at a
time when they had record profits of $125 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this House has made a different decision. What we have
done is decided to repeal those tax cuts and invest that money instead
in projects that are critical for renewable energy and energy
efficiency incentives. This bill will provide long-term incentives for
the development of renewable energy, and it will set the stage for a
growing industry that requires investment in order to thrive.
One of the debates that we have been having is this: If we undertake
the challenge of energy independence, will that harm our economy? This
bill says that will promote our economy and create good jobs. We have
seen across this country, in every State, entrepreneurs taking on the
challenge of energy efficiency and energy efficiency in new
technologies.
To give an example, in my own State of Vermont, we have a small
company that began about 20 years ago, Energy Systems in Heinsberg,
Vermont. They began developing technologies to help measure wind
velocity for purposes of determining the feasibility of wind energy. It
has emerged as one of our most prosperous businesses, creates good
jobs, high-paying jobs, and it has been very beneficial to the economy
of the State of Vermont, all-clean jobs, all-clean energy.
That example has been replicated across this country. This bill
promotes that effort. The idea here in this legislation is very simple:
If we make a commitment now to investing in our energy future, we can
have that pro-growth, pro-high-tech, pro-environment economy. We can
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and we can protect our
environment.
One of the potential opportunities that we have is the expansion of
renewable energy development through carbon offsets. If that is going
to be successful, it requires that these carbon offsets meet standards
that are real, that are additional, verifiable and enforceable.
This legislation presented by the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is going to allow us to put in place that methodology to help
us offset our carbon emissions and create jobs in clean energy future.
There are many other parts of this legislation, since we have had 12
committees that have been involved: the Renewable Energy Worker
Training Program, to help create a workforce of green jobs; the $2.5
billion investment to help rural communities, farmers and small
businesses by reducing their energy costs through efficiency; the new
efficiency standards for appliances, which require more efficient
lighting and promotes green buildings in the public and private sector;
and, of course, we have an effort under way here in Congress to green
the Capitol and offset our carbon footprint by the year 2030. That is,
at this stage, a bipartisan effort reflecting the mutual commitment to
use less rather than more.
{time} 0930
The committee has done a very good job in crafting a bill that we can
be proud to support. It doesn't do everything. The CAFE standards are
not a part of this, as that continues to be a debate. Renewable
electricity standards are something that the body will be able to
consider in an amendment that has been made in order.
But, taken together, all of the components of this bill mark a very
serious and perhaps seminal change in the approach by this Congress
towards energy, moving away from our excessive dependence on fossil
fuels and moving towards a self-sustaining renewable energy future.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to finishing the job
that we have started here today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my friend, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the majority on the Rules Committee passed a
rule that in an extreme fashion limits debate on our national energy
policy. The rule only allows for debate on 23 amendments to H.R. 3221,
out of 106 amendments sought to be debated by Members of both parties
in this House. And out of those 23 amendments made in order, only five
are Republican amendments.
What is even more unfortunate is that in the same rule they
completely shut out both Republicans and Democrats from offering any
amendments to H.R. 2776. Between the two bills, Mr. Speaker, a total of
94 amendments were prohibited from being considered by this House. And
to add insult to injury, the majority also denied the minority the
opportunity to offer a substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh the majority of a campaign
promise they made. The distinguished Speaker said, ``Bills should
generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full
and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the
minority a right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''
They promised openness. They promised bipartisanship. Some openness.
Some bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in this body, I firmly believe, seeks to leave
our children and grandchildren a better world in which to live. This
great Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the
environment, but clearly we can do more.
From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12
billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic
renewable energy sources. This includes sources such as cellulosic
ethanol, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell
technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear
technologies. But we must always keep in mind that alternative fuels
will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and,
without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put
pressure on prices are going to persist.
Mr. Speaker, that is something that I must say our friends on the
other side of the aisle seem to not grasp. Ignoring this lesson will
result in our continued dependence on foreign supplies, using U.S.
dollars to line the pockets of thugs and dictators like Chavez in
Venezuela as he spreads anti-American
[[Page H9717]]
propaganda and actions throughout this hemisphere and the world.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, by inclusion of the production tax credit
in H.R. 2776. That PTC provides a tax credit for electricity produced
from renewable energy facilities. Sources such as wind, solar and
biomass are included under the tax credit.
Since its enactment in 1992, the credit has encouraged the
development of thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable electric
generation facilities. Florida, for example, Mr. Speaker, is home to
Florida Power & Light, owner and operator of two of the largest solar
projects in the world and the Nation's largest wind energy company.
Because of the long-term commitment to renewable energies by this
Congress, companies like FPL have made significant, needed investments
to advance non-emitting forms of energy, and that is the kind of work
that we must continue.
Now, the majority, Mr. Speaker, promised that it would run the House
in an open and bipartisan manner. If this is an open and bipartisan
process, I would hate to see a closed one. Later today I fear the
majority will break precedent again and come to the floor to close the
open amendment process on the Department of Defense appropriations bill
as well.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a difficult week for both sides of the
aisle, but moving forward with restrictive rules such as this on
important issues only makes matters worse. It is most unwise, as well
as unfortunate.
This rule is unnecessarily unfair and should be soundly defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I rise in
support of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule today lays the framework for a historic
debate, a debate that will talk about the energy future of the United
States of America, an agenda that has not been discussed out here on
the House floor, although there has been a pent-up demand by the
American people that we move to this new renewable energy agenda for
the 21st century.
Climate change has now become a problem, not only for the United
States, but for the whole world. We must be the leader.
In 1986, we imported 27 percent of our oil. Today, we import 61
percent of our oil. Today, we begin the effort to turn that around, to
unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, to unleash a
technological revolution that can capture the solar, capture the wind,
capture the cellulosic future for our country; make our country more
efficient, have the devices which we use to consume energy infinitely
more efficient. That is the debate that we have been missing here in
America, and today we begin that debate here on the House floor.
This is what the American people want. This is what the world has
been waiting for, a debate on the energy future of the United States;
unleashing its technological genius, and as a result, making it
possible for the rest of the world to gain access to these
technologies.
This is the day, and we have to be the leaders. This rule is now
constructed in a way in which we can begin the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule that is
bringing this legislation to the floor today, because what we have is
768 pages of a bill, H.R. 3221, and, guess what, it doesn't do a thing
about producing one drop of energy. It does not get the price down at
the pump.
And that is what the American people continue to ask us, what are you
going to do about high home heating bills? What are you going to do
about the price at the pump? And, yes, indeed, as my esteemed colleague
just said, alternatives are important. Looking to the future is
important. R&D, all of that. We have to have emphasis there.
But at the same time, we have to realize production, American
production and American solutions are important to this debate, and we
have got 768 pages that do not put the emphasis on American production
to address this.
What we do have is increased regulation. We have got a section in
this bill that would put the Federal Government more into the process
by which States develop and enforce their own building codes.
Regulation is not going to get us to further conservation. We know
that efficiency is important. We know that conservation is important.
But we also know if you overregulate and if you overtax, you are going
to be killing jobs.
We know for a fact that if you get in here and you tax something
more, you are going to get less of it. If you incentivize it, you are
going to get more of it. The American people want to see the price down
at the pump. That is not what they are going to see in this bill that
is brought before us today.
Conservation and efficiency is important. It is not the total answer,
and we are missing a great opportunity to incentivize American
production of American fuels that will move us towards energy
independence. We are not doing that with this legislation.
In the portion of this that deals with the tax, one of the things
that we have seen happen here is that we have more taxes. They put
cigar taxes in place. They put health insurance taxes in place.
I tell you, this new majority, if it is moving, if it is shaking, if
it is waving in the wind, they are going to tax it, because they need
money to pay for the programs that they are putting on the books. And
it is the American taxpayer that is paying more at the pump that is
watching their gas tax go up. They are watching cigarette and cigar
taxes go up. When they get their statement for their health insurance,
they are going to see a tax on that, because they had to find a way to
pay for all these new programs.
Mr. Speaker, they are just addicted to putting a tax on everything
that is moving. We are seeing the same thing take place in this lack-
of-energy bill that is brought before us today.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time until the
gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is
my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my comments on
the substance of the rule, I want to put to rest a rumor. My good
friend Mr. Markey is hobbling around on crutches. My good friend
Chairman Dingell is also hobbling around on crutches. It is not because
of anything the Republicans have done on the Energy and Commerce
Committee. We actually like each other. It is just one of those years I
guess for being in the majority and the burdens of leadership, is all I
can say.
We have a rule before us today on an energy bill. There is not a lot
you can say positive about it except that it is a rule. It is a
modified closed rule. There are some amendments made in order. There is
not a substitute made in order.
Now, somewhere I have a press release from the chairwoman of the
Rules Committee, the distinguished Congresswoman Slaughter of New York,
and I also have a press release from the distinguished Speaker, Speaker
Pelosi of California, and they were talking about an open process, and
when we had major bills on the floor, that it would be normal procedure
for the minority to have a substitute.
So we took them at their word. Denny Hastert, the former Speaker, and
myself and Ralph Hall, the ranking member of the Science Committee, and
Don Young, the ranking member of the Resources Committee, and Mr. Mica,
the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, we prepared a
comprehensive alternative substitute. We took it to the Rules
Committee. We asked that it be made in order.
[[Page H9718]]
Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee supported that
it be made in order. The subcommittee chairman, Rick Boucher of the
Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, to their credit, said that it
should be in order. It is not in order.
{time} 0945
So you have an energy bill before you that doesn't have any energy.
Nothing on coal to liquids, nothing on alternative fuels, nothing on
oil and gas. There is a little bit of a cleanup section on loan
guarantees for nuclear power plants, but that is kind of offset because
you have to use Davis-Bacon to build them now.
So, all in all, what we have got is a big bill. Congresswoman
Blackburn pointed it out and held it up. But it is kind of a where-is-
the-energy energy bill. If they had just made our substitute in order,
you would have had a chance to actually have a bipartisan coalition
come together on energy.
There is a majority on the House floor on both sides of the aisle for
a comprehensive energy package. We put it together in the last
Congress, ``we'' being John Dingell and Joe Barton and others. We had
an energy conference report that is now law that almost all of the
Republicans voted for and almost half of the Democrats. Chairman
Dingell signed the conference report, as did several other Democrats
who are now chairmen and subcommittee chairmen in this Congress.
So if you want lower gasoline prices, if you want more refineries
built, if you want LNG facilities sited, if you really want to see
alternative fuels jump-started in this country, don't look in that bill
that we are going to vote on because of this rule. We will send you a
copy of the Republican substitute which isn't going to be considered,
and you will find all of those things in our substitute.
I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on the rule, send it back to
the Rules Committee, make in order the substitute, come out on a
bipartisan fashion and actually vote on a comprehensive energy package.
What is in the bill is mandatory building codes preempting the
States, something called green energy which is good in concept but
which would require every building in this country by 2050 be a
consumer on a net basis of zero energy, regardless of the cost; a
preemption of building codes for manufactured housing which will
probably put the manufactured housing business out of business in this
country. And, oh, yes, if you are a small mom-and-pop air conditioner
repairman, you are probably going to be put out of business, too,
because there is a standards section on appliance standards which
requires more efficient, which is not a bad idea in concept of air
conditioning, which is probably going to be very difficult to implement
and put at risk many, many of our small mom-and-pop air conditioning
repair businesses in this country.
So what you have is no comprehensive energy package. Instead, you get
a Federal Government, big brother, preempt the States, preempt the
local governments on building codes and telling people what kind of
light bulbs to use and what kind of air conditioners to use.
This is not my grandfather's energy package. Please vote ``no'' on
the rule.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
A major component of the Democrats' energy legislation and the
Democrats' answer to our energy crisis is, hold on, wait one minute,
wait one minute, it is promoting the use of the bicycle. Oh, I cannot
make this stuff up. Yes, the American people have heard this. Their
answer to our fuel crisis, the crisis at the pumps, is: Ride a bike.
Democrats believe that using taxpayer funds in this bill to the tune
of $1 million a year should be devoted to the principle of: ``Save
energy, ride a bike.'' Some might argue that depending on bicycles to
solve our energy crisis is naive, perhaps ridiculous. Some might even
say Congress should use this energy legislation to create new energy,
bring new nuclear power plants on line, use clean coal technology,
energy exploration, but no, no. They want to tell the American people,
stop driving, ride a bike. This is absolutely amazing.
Apparently, the Democrats believe that the miracle on two wheels that
we know as a bicycle will end our dependence on foreign oil. I cannot
make this stuff up. It is absolutely amazing.
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th
century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don't like it, ride
a bike. If you don't like the price at the pumps, ride a bike.
Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy
efficiency by the horse and buggy.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
I want to read one thing. ``Every person has a right to have his or
her voice heard, respectful of both the wishes of the Founders and the
expectations of the American people. We offer the following principles
for restoring democracy in the people's House, guaranteeing that the
voices of all the people are heard.'' That quote is from Speaker Nancy
Pelosi; yet the Republican substitute to this bill was not allowed.
____________________