RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - August 04, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Frankly, I think that the American people are looking for some common sense when we talk about an energy plan. I don't think there is any disagreement among my colleagues in this House that we certainly ought to be looking at ways to diversify our energy sources. There is no question.
But I think that the imperative, and that most Americans would agree, that we must first look to securing our energy independence. I would dare say there aren't many experts out there who would predict that we can establish our energy independence through the tax benefits allowed through this bill.
I think most Americans would agree we do have a fossil fuel economy. And given the instability around the globe today, it is imperative that we do all we can to support our domestic production industries so that we do not, do not find ourselves on the receiving end of the global pricing structure or from other countries that we rely on for our global energy supplies.
With that, I would posit, Mr. Speaker, that $14 billion in taxes on our production industry will do so much to damage the incentive to see an increase in domestic production, much less do anything to help our constituents and the people of this country when they go to the pump and see prices nearing $3 a gallon.
So I don't see the common sense in this bill. My colleagues have already talked about the $6 billion in taxpayer funds that are going to flow to localities unfettered. These are taxpayer dollars. These are not our dollars. This kind of allocation of funds deserves some transparency. This reminds me of some of the hidden funds that we see in many of the other bills, and that somehow this money is going to show up and add to our energy independence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT