[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1079-H1082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5351, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY
CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2008
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1001 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1001
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
5351) 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 bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, and any amendment thereto,
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of
rule XVIII, if offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order (except those arising under clause 7 of
rule XVI, clause 9 of rule XXI, or clause 10 of rule XXI),
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5351 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 983 is laid upon the table.
Point of Order
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
consideration of the resolution because it is in violation of section
426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The resolution provides that all points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause
9 and 10 of rule XXI. This waiver of all points of order includes a
waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes the
resolution to be in violation of section 426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of
consideration.
The gentleman from Texas and a Member opposed, the gentlewoman from
California, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of
consideration.
After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration,
to wit:
[[Page H1080]]
Will the House now consider the resolution?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this bill that is the subject of this rule
that is about to come before us includes two tax increases, one on
section 199, which eliminates the oil and gas industry's ability to
take advantage of this provision within the law to increase their taxes
over the next 10 years by some $13 billion. There is also some tweaking
with, and that's an odd word to use when it raises $4 billion, but a
tweaking with the way foreign oil and gas income plays into the
computation of the foreign tax credits that these companies could take
advantage of.
{time} 1030
Both of these violate the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act provision on
private initiatives and therefore are subject to this point of order on
being waived. So I think that favorable consideration of this point of
order is where we should be going with respect to the private sector
mandates that are waived under this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I would also at this point in time like to yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, you could easily say that there are
unfunded mandates in the bill. You could also say there is a particular
earmark in the bill. Because the bill didn't go through regular order
and we don't have a committee report to go along with it, there was not
a certification that came saying that there were no earmarks in the
bill.
Of particular concern is a provision that would allow New York City
to keep up to $2 billion worth of the employer share of payroll taxes
and invest the funds in a transportation project. This is not the first
time we have seen this. The New York Liberty Zone Tax Credit earmark
was included in a previous energy bill passed by the House, but it was
removed by the Senate.
Now, I think we can all quibble about where the benefits go on some
of these things, but it's clear that the target here is New York City.
It's a targeted tax provision, and it's what we typically refer to as
an earmark in the authorizing bill. And I would say that if it looks
like an earmark and acts like an earmark, it is one. And it shouldn't
be in this bill unless there is some kind of certification or something
that is not an earmark. I just don't know how you can call it anything
but that. This is just another example of how little impact Congress's
steps to reform the process have actually had in the day-to-day
operation of the House.
For a point of order against an earmark to be rejected, the chairman
needs to simply insert a statement into the Record saying there are no
earmarks in the bill, and then the point of order can't be lodged. Here
we don't even have that kind of statement, and still we are saying a
point of order can't be lodged in this regard.
So I would say that we ought to reject this bill for many reasons,
not the least of which it's going to blow a $2 billion hole in the
budget here for a limited specific tax provision benefiting only one
group across the country.
With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague for pointing that out.
Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office on a similar, almost
exact, bill, 2776, earlier in the year, clearly stated that these were
unfunded mandates. They breached the threshold appropriate under the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, and a point of order should be sustained
against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and
ultimately the underlying bill. In fact, I would say that it is simply
an effort to try to kill this bill before we even have an opportunity
to debate it. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on this procedural
motion so we can consider this important legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5351 is about investing in clean, renewable energy
and energy efficiency. It is about boosting our economy and national
security while protecting our environment.
It is abundantly clear that our dependence on foreign oil has
skyrocketed with much of it imported from the volatile Middle East with
a price tag today of $102 a barrel. It's time to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil, not only to strengthen our national security but to
support domestic production of renewable energy. We need to take action
now and start by considering and passing the Renewable Energy and
Energy Conservation Tax bill today.
This bill is about the hardworking American families. It is about
creating jobs for the American worker and about protecting their
rights. If we are creating jobs in this bill, which we are, we should
be making sure that workers are making prevailing wages.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors to pay no less than the
locally prevailing wage on Federal contract construction. Davis-Bacon
was adopted in 1931, during the Hoover administration, to protect the
rights of the American workforce. During the more than 70 years since
its enactment, Davis-Bacon has come under fire many times but has
always received support from the Congress and American families who
benefit from it.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act addresses the
priorities of the American people. In addition to tackling our energy
crisis, H.R. 5351 complies with PAYGO rules, which is a priority of the
110th Congress. The bill is therefore paid for. Most of the funding is
by reducing tax cuts to the top-earning oil companies. In order to pay
for the important tax extensions and comply with PAYGO, there had to be
revenue raisers. Our country is facing record deficits, and this
Congress is acting responsibly.
This bill will develop a progressive energy policy that is long term,
not shortsighted. It does away with the tired strategies of the past,
which focused only on producing more oil at the expense of the
environment and of the American taxpayer. We are heeding the calls of
the American people by adopting it.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
I oppose this point of order. I think that the gentlewoman from
California made it very clear that it is appropriate and needed that we
do what we're trying to do with H.R. 5351. And I want to support the
rule for H.R. 5351, and I would like to thank Congresswoman Matsui for
her leadership and Chairman Rangel for their continued work to ensure
these vital tax credits are extended.
This legislation takes many needed steps to ensure the United States
continues to be a major player on the renewable energy stage. This
legislation extends the renewable energy production tax credit which
Iowa and my district have seen firsthand the benefits of. It creates a
cellulosic alcohol production tax credit which will give a 50 cent per
gallon credit for cellulosic alcohol produced for use of fuel, a step
to get us out of bondage to OPEC, and anybody knows we have got to do
this for the salvation of this country. This legislation also extends
the biodiesel production tax credit and creates a new credit for plug-
in hybrid vehicles, among other things.
I'm also pleased to see that components of a bill I introduced, H.R.
5373, the Consumer and Manufacturer Energy Efficient Tax Credit
Extension Act, were also included in this legislation. The underlying
bill, which goes further than mine, would extend and modify the energy
efficient appliance credit for 3 years and extend and modify the energy
efficiency tax credits for improvements to existing homes.
I'm very pleased to see that the chairman, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), and the House leadership recognize these tax
credits are important, not only to the environment but also to the
economy. I believe that all consumers want to make more energy-
efficient choices, and this legislation will help them do that. It's a
win-win situation for the environment and the American consumer's
pocketbook.
[[Page H1081]]
Iowa has been a leader for renewable energy, and I am proud to say in
my district we are leading the State with a new biodiesel plant in
Newton just last year and a new wind turbine plant, which provides the
State with the equipment needed to supply its growing wind energy.
I am also excited that we have the opportunity to make America more
energy independent, create high-tech ``green'' jobs for a ``green
future,'' ensure low-income families have affordable energy costs, and
I look forward to continuing to work for a more energy-efficient
future.
So, again, I thank the gentlewoman for this time. And I would once
again reiterate my support for this rule, that we can move on and
oppose this point of order.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was laboring under a misconception that the debate was to be
limited to the point of order rather than the underlying bill itself.
So since the other side has raised the issues in the bill, I'll take a
couple of seconds to add some gratuitous comments about those as well
rather than strictly talking about my point of order.
At a time when we are clearly dependent on foreign oil, imported
foreign oil, crude oil, and natural gas, and everyone recognizes that
it's a strategic vulnerability to our country, a reduction in domestic
production of crude oil and natural gas seems to be very wrongheaded in
the sense of trying to reduce our dependency on imported foreign oil
and natural gas.
This bill will take $17 billion out of the search for crude oil and
natural gas, domestic supplies in most instances, and put it towards
some very worthy initiatives in terms of trying to find alternatives to
that. There is no rational projection that any of these alternatives
will develop in the next 15 to 20 years to supplant the need for crude
oil and natural gas to drive the economy, whether you're talking about
generating electricity or driving cars and trucks and airplanes. So at
a time when we are fully dependent on crude oil and natural gas, it
seems to make eminent sense that we ought to be encouraging domestic
oil and gas companies to reinvest their profits, reinvest their moneys
back in the ground.
Now, mechanically what happens with respect to the oil and gas
business is when they do find crude oil and natural gas, they find
reserves in the ground and there is value associated with those
reserves. Typically, those producers then go to the bank and use those
reserves as collateral in the ground to borrow more money to spend
additional money going into the ground. So for each dollar that we
increase their taxes, there is a multiple of that dollar that does not
get spent on searches for crude oil and natural gas that would be used
domestically. We do nothing about the restrictions on a responsible,
environmentally sound development of other areas that have proven crude
oil and natural gas reserves, domestic crude oil and natural gas
reserves. We do nothing in this legislation to affect that.
In addition, my colleagues brought up the vaunted PAYGO rule, which
is used almost every day in this Chamber. Quite frankly, these taxes
have been used multiple times already in this Congress to pay for a
variety of things. So if our constituents back home fully understood
how theatrical the PAYGO situations with this bill really are, they
would be probably offended, that that is just the typical Washington
business-as-usual kinds of things that are going on.
So while this bill, I believe, creates an unfunded mandate that is in
violation of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and it should be properly
subject to this point of order, the underlying bill itself is flawed on
a variety of things as well.
I will close, then, by just saying that I believe this point of order
should be sustained and this rule should be defeated.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on the motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important
piece of legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Will the House now consider
the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 186, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 78]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
[[Page H1082]]
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Aderholt
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Gilchrest
Gohmert
Jones (OH)
Keller
LaTourette
Lungren, Daniel E.
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Reyes
Ryan (OH)
Smith (NJ)
Woolsey
Young (AK)
{time} 1108
Mr. KIRK changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SHULER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________