Providing for Consideration H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2008
Floor Speech
Providing for Consideration H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2008
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. I know the majority calls this a structured rule, but it's a closed rule. Technically the majority gave the minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment if the substitute amendment was printed in the Congressional Record before the end of the legislative day. The rule giving the minority the opportunity to draft a substitute was passed out of the Rules Committee at about 5:20 yesterday evening. The House finished its legislative day at 5:57, giving the minority 37 minutes in which to draft a substitute to a very complex tax issue while meeting PAYGO and germaneness requirements. I understand that at the time the House went out of session last night, minority staff from the Ways and Means Committee were talking to the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Joint Committee on Taxation in hopes of drafting a substitute amendment. But since they couldn't get all their work done in 37 minutes, the minority, in fact, was closed out and prohibited from offering any amendments under this closed rule.
What is even more disturbing is that I am informed that during consideration of the rule yesterday, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, informed Ranking Member Dreier that the majority would keep the House in session so that the minority would have ample time to complete work on a substitute amendment. But the question must be asked of the majority at this time: How is 37 minutes enough time to draft legislation, especially on something as complicated as an energy tax bill?
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough time. It is most unfortunate that the majority did not give the minority time to complete its work and that we are now proceeding under this closed process.
Everyone in this body 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 included sources such as cellulosic ethanol, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.
I am pleased by the inclusion of the production tax credit, the PTC, in the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today. The 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. Since its enactment in 1992, the credit has encouraged the development of thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable electric generation facilities.
But we must keep in mind that alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy resources. Without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist, and this bill, the legislation being brought to the floor today under this rule, will do nothing to lower gas prices.
Unfortunately, the majority has included in H.R. 5351, the underlying legislation, more than $17 billion in tax increases, including a repeal of the section 199 manufacturing deduction. This tax incentive in current law is aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. By removing this incentive for the domestic production of oil and natural gas, we would increase the incentive to look overseas for those energy resources. How would that be in our national interest? How does increasing the cost of doing business in the United States decrease the cost of gasoline for Americans? Why would we want to deincentivize investment in a sector of our economy with 1.8 million well-paying jobs in the United States of America?
Removal of these incentives will drive up prices to the American consumer even further and increase our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the buffoon Hugo Chavez, who earlier this month cut off oil sales to ExxonMobil and threatened once again to cut off all oil sales to the United States.
And while the buffoon Chavez makes those threats to our energy supplies, the majority has decided that his company, Citgo, would continue to receive a tax break that the majority in the underlying legislation seeks to take away from American companies.
Yes, under this legislation, three American oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, will lose their current deduction while Citgo will continue to get theirs. That's unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished friend from New York pointed out earlier that this rule that we are debating is on the energy bill. She pointed that out because we have been stressing the need to debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues that the rule that we are debating today, this rule lays on the table, it tables H. Res. 983, authority to address legislation concerning foreign intelligence surveillance. So it's quite germane and relevant in discussing and debating this rule to be insisting upon a debate on FISA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, it's disappointing that the majority has decided really to waste the time of this Congress with legislation that three times has failed to make it through the Senate and that observers covering Congress have called a rerun. Instead of wasting time on legislation that will never make it into law, we should be considering bipartisan legislation that will protect Americans from international terrorism.
On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a Presidents Day recess and allow the Protect America Act to expire 2 days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. Because of the deliberate inaction of the majority, the United States today is more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And this did not have to happen.
Earlier this month, the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote of 68-29 a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a bill that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee said, `` ..... it's the right way to go in terms of the security of the Nation.''
Mr. Speaker, we would have easily considered that legislation, but the majority decided instead to head home. The House should vote on the Senate measure and we should do it now, instead of debating this legislation which will not become law and is really nothing more than a rerun.
We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, in any way tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into this century is a critical national security priority.
I'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate legislation. The letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives in the United States.''
Today I will give all Members of this House an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all of my colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that will help protect American lives from international terrorism.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source