[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1565-1569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 66 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                               H. Res. 66

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) 
     to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing 
     in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, 
     promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing 
     greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative 
     energy, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     the bill and against its consideration are waived except 
     those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate, with 60 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
     60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Science

[[Page 1566]]

     and Technology; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
my friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 30 minutes, pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 66 is a closed rule that allows the House to 
consider the final piece of the first-100-hours agenda. This rule, as 
has been mentioned, provides 3 hours of debate in the House, with 60 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on 
the Committee on Science and Technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will hear a great deal from my friends 
on the other side of the aisle about process, and they will be upset 
that this is a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats campaigned on changing the culture in 
Washington. We campaigned on ending the culture of corruption and on 
draining the swamp, and we have done that. We campaigned most 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, on doing what is right for hardworking 
American families whose priorities and whose concerns have been ignored 
for the last 12 years.
  Over the last 100 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House has voted to clean up 
the ethical mess in Congress, to strengthen homeland security, to 
combat the Federal deficit by instituting pay-as-you-go rules, to 
invest in lifesaving stem cell research, to make college more 
affordable by lowering the interest rates on student loans, to reduce 
prescription drug prices for seniors by allowing the government to 
negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and to increase the minimum 
wage for millions of hardworking and underpaid workers in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that each of these initiatives 
not only has passed the House of Representatives, but has enjoyed 
strong bipartisan support.
  And in a difference in approach to legislation compared to the 
Republican majority in the past, who used to subscribe to the rule that 
they would only bring measures to the floor if a majority of the 
majority on their side supported it, I am happy to report that 
yesterday's vote on making college tuition more affordable for our 
young people not only enjoyed a majority of the majority in terms of 
support, but a majority of the minority actually voted in support, and 
that is refreshing.
  Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to the American people that we would 
achieve these goals quickly, and that is what we have done. And in 
order to keep that promise to the voters, we have utilized an expedited 
process.
  With the passage of this rule, the House will consider H.R. 6, the 
CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, 
I am proud to stand here in support of this initiative.
  The voters sent us a message in November. They called us to account 
for bill after bill of kickbacks to special interests like Big Oil. We 
were not sent here to allow huge corporations to continue to reap the 
benefits of tax breaks while gouging their customers at the gas pump. I 
commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for holding true to 
their commitments and listening to the American people by bringing this 
legislation to the floor for a vote.
  The distinguished chairmen of the Committees on Ways and Means, Mr. 
Rangel, and Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, crafted this legislation to 
balance fiscal responsibility with our Nation's growing energy needs.
  At long last, Mr. Speaker, Congress is putting its money where its 
mouth is and increasing our investment in renewable energy. We are not 
just talking the talk; we are walking the walk. We promised no quick 
fixes. It took years of failed legislative policy to dig us into this 
hole. But the bill before us today will set us on the path toward 
energy independence.
  For years, experts have warned of an impending energy crisis. They 
pointed to the Nation's increasing oil and gas consumption and called 
attention to our limited supply of these natural resources. 
Unfortunately, Congress and the Bush administration failed to heed 
these warnings. In fact, under the Republican-controlled Congress, 
Federal investment in alternative energy sources actually decreased 
over the past decade. And at the same time, the administration 
prescribed more of the same, giveaways to the oil and gas industries.
  During the 109th Congress, President Bush heralded the Republican 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a necessary approach to the Nation's 
energy crisis. In all, it provided $8.1 billion, let me repeat that, 
$8.1 billion in tax incentives for the entire energy industry. And 
despite their record profits, oil and gas companies took 93 percent of 
these tax breaks, $7.5 billion.
  Now, I suppose that that shouldn't be a surprise to many people here, 
given the fact that in the 2006 elections the oil companies gave $17.5 
million to candidates running for Congress. $14.5 million of that money 
went to Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, all that money going to the oil industry did not leave 
very much money for alternative and renewable energy supplies. So, Mr. 
Speaker, when that energy bill was debated, many of us on this side of 
the aisle voiced concerns that the bill would do nothing to ease the 
price of gas at the pump or decrease our dependence on foreign oil or 
provide significant investment in renewable sources of energy.
  I should say, Mr. Speaker, there is study after study after study, 
news article after news article after news article which support our 
concerns, unfortunately.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is a critical step in the right direction. It 
closes the tax loophole for oil companies which provided Conoco 
Phillips $106 million in 2005, even as that company enjoyed profits 
totaling $13.5 billion. It rolls back tax breaks for geological studies 
for oil exploration and repeals five royalty relief provisions from the 
2005 energy bill.

                              {time}  1030

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I think most importantly, for a lot of us 
who believe that we need to do more to achieve energy independence, it 
reinvests those funds into clean, renewable energy and energy 
efficiency. Certainly, there are no easy solutions to remedy our energy 
crisis.
  But we know one thing for certain, if we fail to pass this bill and 
make the necessary changes and investments now, our dependency on 
foreign oil will continue to worsen. The time to is now. For those who 
want the same old, same old, who are married to the status quo, vote 
the rule down. But for those who are tired of being dictated to by big 
oil companies, for those who believe that we should reinvest in 
renewable energy, for those who believe that citizens matter more than 
campaign contributions, vote ``yes'' on this rule.
  Chairman Rahall said in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 
days ago that what we are considering today is just the first step. We 
have much more that we need to do. I look forward to working with him 
and other Members of this Congress and moving this country forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Rahall, for 
their work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and 
supporting the supporting bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 1567]]

  I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.
  Fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, bipartisanship, those are 
just some of the words that the new majority used to describe the way 
they were going to run the 110th Congress. But today, as we begin 
debate on the sixth bill of the Democrats' ``100 Hours for 6'' or 100 
hours agenda, we have seen all too clearly, Mr. Speaker, the truth 
about those promises.
  They have been, at best, hollow promises.
  On Tuesday of this week, the Committee on Rules met to take testimony 
and report a rule on the legislation that has been brought to the floor 
today. Before any testimony was even taken, the distinguished 
chairwoman of the committee announced that the committee's majority 
would report out a closed rule.
  After the chairwoman's declaration, there really was not any need for 
testimony or debate on any amendments. The Rules Committee had been 
closed for business. The majority had already made up its mind to block 
amendments despite any merits of all possible amendments that could be 
brought before the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how you can claim an open and 
transparent process when you block all amendments before they are even 
brought before the committee.
  During consideration of the bills that comprised the Contract with 
America in 1995, we Republicans allowed consideration of 154 Democrat 
amendments; 48 Democrat amendments eventually passed the House and were 
included in the Contract with America bills that passed the House of 
Representatives.
  But that is not what we see happening today, Mr. Speaker. Today as we 
consider the last of the new majority's 100 hour agenda, we have not 
had the chance to debate one amendment, not even one.
  From either party, they have been consistent, they close out their 
Members as well. They promised openness, they promised transparency. 
Some openness, some transparency.
  According to the majority leader's office, Mr. Speaker, we have over 
65 hours left in the so-called 100 hours for 2006. The reality is that 
we have more than enough time, more than enough time to debate some 
thoughtful amendments. What does the majority plan to do with the rest 
of their 100 hours? Are we to expect more closed rules?
  The 100 hours for 2006 campaign means that six people make all the 
decisions, apparently. I would imagine it is the Speaker, the majority 
leader, the whip, the caucus chairman and two others, six for '06 and 
six for '07 and six for '08, but then the American people get to speak 
again.
  Now, Democrats claim that Congress already debated the bills last 
year, the bills that are being brought forth to the floor. While it is 
true that some provisions have come before the Congress in other 
legislation in previous Congresses, provisions that may be in 
legislation brought before us under these closed rules that shut out 
all the amendments, there are many aspects of the bills, including the 
bill today, that have never seen the light of day. Even more important 
is that our 54 new colleagues, they were not here for any of our 
previous debates. Four committees of jurisdiction have jurisdiction 
over the bill that the majority brings to the floor at this time, Ways 
and Means, Resources, Budget and Rules. Yet the majority did not allow 
any of those committees of jurisdiction to hold any hearings or debate 
the bill.
  I am honored to serve as the ranking member on the Rules Subcommittee 
on Legislative and Budget Process, which has jurisdiction over parts of 
this underlying consideration. The subcommittee has never held a 
hearing on the bill. The majority decided it was better if the bill 
never saw the light of day in any committee process.
  I think it is important to recall why we have committees, why we have 
a committee process. The committee process allows Members to understand 
the merits and implications of bills and to vet, refine and amend 
legislation. Completely shutting out committees of jurisdiction is 
certainly not healthy for the democratic process.
  This year we have already seen what happens when you bypass the 
committee process and blindly bring legislation to the floor. We get 
outcomes, such as the one in the minimum wage bill that ends up 
exempting companies from paying the minimum wage in American Samoa. If 
it had gone through the committee process, at least we would have known 
about that aspect of the bill. If we had held hearings on the 
underlying bill before us today, we would learn some of the 
consequences of this bill.
  For example, some bill would cut back on incentives for domestic 
production of oil and gas. Those incentives are aimed, and the existing 
incentives, are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 
encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. 
Removal of those incentives will drive up the cost, obviously, for 
those who search for oil and gas and thus increase our dependence on 
foreign suppliers, such as Venezuela and Nigeria. Those countries, I 
would maintain, are not reliable sources. In the case of Venezuela, its 
government is clearly anti-American. Do we really want to rely on those 
countries? Apparently the majority today is saying yes.
  Republicans are committed to increasing clean energy supplies and 
increasing our domestic energy sources. Since 2001, we have seen the 
investment of nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more 
reliable domestic energy sources. This includes the development of 
biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, 
hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, 
wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.
  You know, we hear my friend from Massachusetts talking about the fact 
that some tax breaks or unfair tax breaks were given to the oil and gas 
companies. It is interesting, because I was seeing a report from the 
Congressional Research Service that talks about despite the fact that 
there has been a lot of talk and there continues to be a lot of talk 
over the tax breaks given to big oil in the energy bill that we passed 
in 2005, in reality, that energy bill substantially raised taxes on the 
oil and gas industry $300 million. There was a $300 million tax 
increase, according to the Congressional Research Service, while at the 
same time, giving more than almost $9 billion in tax incentives for 
alternative clean and renewable energy resources.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not be considering 
closed rule after closed rule after closed rule and systematically 
bypassing the committee process. This constant bypass operation that 
our friends on the other side of the aisle have become enamored to, the 
constant bypass operation, it really constitutes an affront, I would 
say, to the democratic spirit as well as, obviously, to the promises 
that were repeated and repeated by our friends on the other side of the 
aisle before they arrived and constituted and instituted the 
continuous, constant bypass operation, bypass the committees, bypass 
the Members, bypass the possibility of amendments, and go straight to 
the floor with legislation that no one has seen. That is not healthy. 
That is not healthy, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida 
for voting with the Democratic majority in support of increasing the 
minimum wage and for voting with us to make it more affordable for 
students to go to college. We appreciate your support. Judging from his 
statement on this bill, I get the sense that he is opposed to the 
underlying bill.
  Let me just say if you are opposed to the underlying bill, vote 
``no'' for everything. If you are for the same old, same old, if you 
want more, if you support tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, if you 
are against investing more in renewable energy, vote ``no'' on the 
rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I mean, that is the way this 
place works. That is your right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the 
Rules

[[Page 1568]]

Committee, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago we passed legislation to end the culture of 
corruption in Congress. Today we consider legislation to reverse some 
of the harmful consequences of that corruption. H.R. 6, the CLEAN 
Energy Act, will repeal $14 billion in tax reduction subsidies and 
other outrageous benefits given to the big oil companies.
  Many of these measures were included in legislation that was written 
in backroom and late-night meetings. With the passage of our ethics 
reform in this bill, we are fulfilling our responsibility to the 
American people to clean up Congress and reverse the past lapses that 
led us to where we are today.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only repeals the excesses given to 
oil companies, our bill uses the money to create a Strategic Renewable 
Energy Reserve. This will invest in clean renewable energy resources 
and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater 
efficiency and improve energy conservation. Investing in alternative 
and renewable energies and efficiency is not only about protecting the 
environment and homeland security, it is about promoting new industry 
and creating jobs.
  This type of new investment will help create jobs and support 
industries in northeast Ohio, where we are already working on new 
energy technology through organizations like the Ohio Fuel Cell 
Coalition, which is working to strengthen Ohio's fuel cell industry.
  I am proud to say that this coalition includes the University of 
Akron and the Lorain County Community College in my congressional 
district. This investment in new energy technology, combined with new 
incentives and initiatives to make higher education more accessible 
recently passed by this Congress, will help ensure that our students 
have the education and the skills necessary for the jobs of the future.
  That is what we are doing here today, eliminating the abuses of the 
past and investing in our Nation's future. Let's pass the CLEAN Energy 
Act.


Making in Order At Any Time Consideration of H.R. 475, House Page Board 
                          Revision Act of 2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be 
in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to 
consider in the House H.R. 475; the bill shall be considered as read; 
and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: 30 minutes of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on House Administration, and one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reserving my right to object, Mr. 
Speaker, and I may not object, but I don't have a copy of what the 
gentleman, my friend, was talking about. If the gentleman would explain 
the motion, because I was not shown a copy before.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This is on the Page Board issue, and the explanation is 
here. My understanding is that your side has had a copy of this.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I have received it now. I 
certainly see no reason to object, and I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is the seventh 
bill that has come to this floor that has not gone through committee, 
that has not had ample opportunity for amendment in subcommittee or 
full committee, no opportunity for an amendment on the floor on any of 
these bills, nor the opportunity for our side of the aisle to offer a 
substitute.
  I am encouraged that the Rules Committee this week has organized and 
met, but I would note that as the Rules Committee opened, the first 
debate on the first rule where there was going to be a rule on the bill 
yesterday, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee made it clear before 
there were any witnesses before the Rules Committee, before there was 
any testimony, before there was any discussion, that this would be a 
closed rule, there would be no amendments, and there would be no 
substitute offered to the Members on our side of the aisle.
  I come here today to talk to my colleagues. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts who is managing this rule for the majority knows exactly 
what I am talking about. We have had this discussion here for a long 
time.
  I understand the need for the majority party to want to make its 
move, to make its first impression; and I understand the first couple 
of bills had to come flying right to the floor. But we are short-
circuiting democracy here, and I think my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle understand that.
  On the opening day, when I handed the new Speaker the gavel, the 
first woman in the history of our country to be Speaker, I said that 
the House needed to work in a more bipartisan way. Over the course of 
the last several years, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle talk about the need to work in a more bipartisan way.
  I said also on the opening day that we do have different ideas about 
how to solve America's problems and that we should cherish the 
differences that we have, we should debate them, that we can disagree 
here without being disagreeable. I also said that we should be nice.
  What I didn't say is that we shouldn't be silent, and I won't be 
silent on behalf of our Members on this side of the aisle.
  I think that there is a lot to be gained in bringing legislation to 
the floor that has been through the subcommittee process, that has been 
through the committee process, that has an opportunity for a real Rules 
Committee debate and an opportunity for Members on both sides of the 
aisle to offer amendments, to allow the minority the opportunity to 
offer a substitute. That is what the American people want. Our Members 
represent some 48 percent of the American people, and we are being 
silenced in this process.
  I understand it is in the process. The new majority has only had the 
majority for 2 weeks. But I am here today to ask my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to live up to the promises that were made, to 
live up to the desire to be treated fairly.
  When we took control of this House in 1995, we had a lot of Members 
in the new majority then who said we ought to treat the Democrats the 
way they treated us, and I argued vociferously that that was not the 
right thing to do, that we should treat the new minority as we had 
asked to be treated. We worked and I worked to be sure that we were 
living up to our commitment to treat the then-Democrat minority as we 
wanted to be treated back in the early nineties when we were making an 
awful lot of noise.
  Over the last year, there has been an awful lot of conversation 
coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they were 
in the minority to make things more fair.
  Let me quote one of the pledges: ``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 the 
right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''
  What we are asking for here is fairness, fairness in this process, so 
that all Members can participate in a deliberative process on behalf of 
our constituents. Our constituents are just as important as your 
constituents, and they have a right to be heard and their Members have 
a right to participate in this process.

[[Page 1569]]

  So I ask my colleagues, when? When is the time going to come to live 
up to what you asked for, to live up to your promises, and to live up 
to your commitment?

                          ____________________