Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
Floor Speech
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1001 provides for consideration of H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 under a structured rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record if offered by Representative McCrery or his designee. The substitute amendment is debatable for 1 hour. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit the bill, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is quite simple: It is about taking action on an important priority of the American people. It is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill will ensure that hardworking Americans can buy affordable energy that is environmentally sound. It restores balance to our energy policy after years of favoring Big Oil.
Mr. Speaker, hardworking American families are struggling to pay their bills in an uncertain economy. They face the growing cost of basic necessities, such as gasoline and heating oil. This is a direct result of rising oil prices.
As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to protect our constituents from big oil companies and countries that are taking advantage of working families. The Renewable Energy and Energy Tax Conservation Act restores balance to our energy policy. For years, we have had a tax structure that favors huge oil companies over the American family.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts speak for themselves. Oil costs today rose to $102 a barrel for the first time in history. It is more expensive for Americans to drive their kids to school, to go to the grocery store, to heat their homes, and to vacation with their families. Americans are paying more than ever to fill up their cars, and big oil companies are reaping the profits.
In my home State of California, the price of gasoline is more than double what it was when this administration came into office. Last year, ExxonMobil posted the largest profit in American history, nearly $40 billion to one company. This equation is simple: Americans pay more; oil companies make more. This is unacceptable for the families we represent.
Unfortunately, it is perfectly acceptable for our President. This is a President who said that we don't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore. That was back when the price of oil was $55 per barrel. It is now almost double that. It is obvious that any system that rewards the top earning oil companies and neglects our constituents and the environment ignores the priorities of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, today's legislation will correct this inequity. It will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future.
Our scientists have been hard at work researching ways to harness the powerful assets of our planet. We can have a healthy economy even as we preserve our natural resources and our skies. Solar, wind, and geothermal technologies are ready for the mainstream. Our legislation will help get them there.
In the case of solar, we are not just creating new incentives. We are extending successful tax breaks that have helped these industries get off the ground. Our legislation will allow public agencies to issue bonds to pay for clean energy projects. Some of the most effective public energy agencies in the country have put this provision at the top of their priority list.
This bill envisions a future where our country is no longer beholden to the oil market. It will dramatically pump up our domestic production of renewable fuels, such as biodiesel and cellulosic alcohol. The bill also contains a tax break to increase the number of alternative refueling stations so that Americans have options to fill up on the next generation of fuels.
This legislation recognizes that we can and must create the technologies today that we will use in the future. It harnesses our inventive American spirit to tackle our energy problems. It creates a sliding-scale tax incentive for consumers to purchase plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. It encourages investment in solar fuel cells and harnesses the power of cutting-edge technologies that produce energy from landfill gas and marine sources.
It builds on the desire of the American people for a more balanced and progressive energy policy. Making our homes and buildings more energy efficient is one of the most cost-effective ways to save money and power.
Our legislation contains significant incentives for efficiency programs. These changes will save money for constituents in the short and long run. They will also help preserve jobs. If tax incentives for wind and solar production are not extended, 116,000 American jobs will be lost. The legislation before us is critical to the health of our economy.
Most important, though, is that this legislation builds on the desire of the American people for a more balanced and progressive energy policy. The American people want us to take action to modernize our energy supply, and that is what we are doing. This bill will also help to lessen our dangerous dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world.
Earlier this month, our energy markets were disturbed by rumors that Venezuela was cutting off oil shipments. Events like these are a stark reminder that even though we are the strongest country in the world, we are also very vulnerable.
The short-sighted energy policy of the past is undermining our national security. We will only get weaker unless we change course now and invest in renewable fuels that are produced here at home, not in countries that wish us harm.
This House has heard the message that the American people have been sending us for a long time. We must overhaul our energy policy, and this bill is the second step toward this goal. We took the first step late last year when Democrats reached across the aisle. We worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the first increase in fuel economy standards in decades.
We could have done even more to restore balance to our energy policy.
Many of the provisions in today's bill were a part of last year's energy legislation passed by this House. But we were stymied by Republican obstructionism in the Senate.
I am one of the millions of Americans who want to see us do even more. People like Luquita Hutchinson from my hometown of Sacramento. She and her family are the reasons we must chart a new course forward here today.
Because of trying to balance her household budget, Luquita has stopped buying meat at the grocery store because she has to pay so much for gas at the pump. Today, in Sacramento, it's $3.35 a gallon. She has to make a choice between buying food for her family or filling up her gas tank.
It is for the sake of people like Luquita that I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation on the floor today. This bill makes us safer by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It protects the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans like Luquita Hutchinson, and it transforms our energy policy to maximize the benefits of clean, affordable, and renewable energy. If we pass today's bill, this kind of clean energy future is within our grasp.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman that this is a very fair rule. It allows extra debate time so that all Members have a chance to speak.
As is usual for a tax bill, we allowed a Republican substitute amendment to be made in order. Unfortunately, the Republican substitute amendment offered during the Rules Committee did not meet PAYGO requirements. The minority had the opportunity to submit the substitute if they wanted, but they did not.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would just like to say, unfortunately, it is ironic that the minority is coming to the floor with this issue yet again, especially since the minority has refused to come to the table as we are trying to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions. Yes, we have been trying to move forward with the negotiations, but the minority has not been willing to participate.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that one of the most destabilizing forces in the world is the competition for declining oil resources in the world. When we break our dependence on foreign oil with this bill today, we will be safer and our country will be better positioned to respond to the threats we face.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to our next speaker, first I would like to say that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act continues to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to monitor terrorists. The government always has the option of tapping targets immediately and returning to the FISA Court within 72 hours to obtain an order.
Additionally, any surveillance gathered before the expiration of the Protect America Act is in place for 1 year. The FISA Court backlog has been cleared, and the intelligence community can and was always able to do its job.
I would like to remind my colleagues that we are considering the rule for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really about the future of our country. Those of us who think that American leadership can create new sources of clean energy will vote for this bill. Those of us who think that high oil prices, economic uncertainty, and dependence on foreign oil are good energy policy will vote against it.
I know where my loyalties lie in this debate. They lie with Americans who are struggling to find the money to drive their children to school. They lie with people in my State of California who are concerned about global warming. They lie with my constituents who want a new direction for energy policy. It is for them that I support this legislation today. It is for them that I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Voting for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act is a way to show our constituents that the energy policies of the past are no longer acceptable. The American people are challenging us to create a new strategy focused on renewable and affordable energy. Those of us who support today's bill are meeting that challenge.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1001
Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
SEC. 4. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before consideration of any order of business other than one motion that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
(The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.)
he Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source