Consumer and Manufacturer Energy Efficiency Tax Credit Extension Act of 2008

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).

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1001 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.