OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

Date: Feb. 27, 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Conservative Energy Natural Resources


RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - February 27, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, let it be clear, an overwhelming majority of the members of this House, including this member, strongly support extending the Wind and Solar tax credits. These credits will help begin new investments to create new jobs, establish new industries in this country and eventually create more energy for America.

However, in order to pay for these new investments, this bill will kill thousands of current manufacturing jobs by raising taxes and giving foreign companies a competitive advantage.

Are we willing to sacrifice jobs Americans have right now for the promise or opportunity for future jobs? I would say that we don't have to make that choice. Yet, the Majority clearly believes that is the only choice before us.

Instead of the massive new tax increases in this bill, we could open up development 44 miles off the coast of Florida beside the Chinese companies working with the Cuban government to drill 46 miles off the coast of Florida.

We could open up new opportunities off the coast of California where new rigs could drill for oil and serve as new platforms for generating renewable wind and tidal energy.

We could lease more areas in Alaska, where a sale last month generated $2.6 billion in revenues for America in lease sales and will generate tens of billions in royalties in the years to come.

If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, this bill fails to accomplish that. I would rhetorically ask the Chairman how much of a tax increase in this bill is on oil companies based in Venezuela or Iran? The answer is none. How much of the tax increases in this bill fall on American companies working in Artesia or Farmington, New Mexico? One hundred percent.

We don't have to choose promoting new industries by destroying old industries. This is a case where we could have it all, new energy development and more energy development, unfortunately the Speaker wont let us make that choice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward