[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2588-2591]
[From the U.S. 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: 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).

[[Page 2589]]


  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. 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.
  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

[[Page 2590]]

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
     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)

[[Page 2591]]



                              {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.

                          ____________________