[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22987-22990]
[From the U.S. 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.
       Sec. 4. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3221 or 
     H.R. 2776 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the 
     operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
     further consideration of either bill to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.

  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?
  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

[[Page 22988]]

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 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.

[[Page 22989]]

  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. 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.
  Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee supported that 
it be made in order. The subcommittee chairman, Rick Boucher of the 
Energy

[[Page 22990]]

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.

                          ____________________