Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
Floor Speech
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there are few Members on this floor whom I respect more than the gentleman who has just spoken. JIM MCCRERY from Louisiana is going to be a loss to this House and to our country. He is a thoughtful, fair, and considerate legislator. He represents his State well. He has represented this House well. And I congratulate him for his service. But people of goodwill can disagree, and I want to make an observation on this punitive measure.
In 2004, the Republicans passed a tax bill. Historically, manufacturers had gotten a tax break to incentivize keeping jobs here and trying to grow jobs in America. The oil companies were not included in that law, as the gentleman knows so well, but the Republicans added oil companies into the category of manufacturers. Now they are being taken out. So he says we added them in and now it would be unfair to take them out. They weren't in originally; we are taking them out.
Mr. Speaker, this important legislation is an explicit recognition that our great Nation must make critical investments today in the development of clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency; energy investments that will strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security for generations to come.
I appreciated Mr. McCrery's observation that part of this bill was a good bill. He disagrees with other parts. That's understandable. But we must simply begin to break our addiction to fossil fuels, not because the oil companies are bad. They're not. They produce a product that's absolutely essential and they create jobs, good-paying jobs. So this is not about trying to take it out on the oil companies, but it is to say that fossil fuels are a wasting resource. That is to say, we're going to use it up, it's going to go away, and we need to look to alternatives.
This morning's headline in the New York Times states that the harsh reality is ``Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to Family Budget.'' The fact is the nationwide average for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.14 this week, an increase of 19 cents in just the last 14 days. Some energy experts fear gas prices could hit $4 a gallon by this spring. Diesel prices are hitting new records daily, and oil hit a record high of $100.88 a barrel on Tuesday.
This, again, is not about the bad oil companies. What this is about is America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and on oil generally. Either it's going away or we will be in the grasp of OPEC, of nations who are not particularly friendly to us: Venezuela; Saudi Arabia sometimes, sometimes not; Iraq; Iran; other oil-producing states that can go away in a second. We are vulnerable, and we need to look to alternatives. That's what this bill seeks to do.
To be clear, this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices. But it is a vital step forward and may bring down gas prices 3 years from now or 10 years from now or 15 years from now. This bill is nothing less than a critical investment in the low carbon economy of the future that will result in the creation of millions of new jobs.
It extends the production tax credit for wind, geothermal, and other renewables to 2011 and renews the investment tax credit for individual homeowners and businesses to maintain incentives for solar energy through the end of 2016. Without the prompt extension of these tax credits, renewable energy project work stoppages could cost 116,000 jobs at a time when we're trying to stimulate the economy.
Furthermore, this bill will spur the commercialization of the next generation of automobiles by establishing a $4,000 credit for the purchase of a plug-in hybrid. Tax credits, tax incentives, are to get something that you need and might not otherwise get unless you get an incentive. I'm going to speak to that with reference to the oil companies in just a second.
It will encourage investments in cleaner fuels, creating economic incentives to invest in biofuels, including biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. And it will close the so-called ``Hummer'' tax loophole, which encourages taxpayers to buy gas-guzzling SUVs. That makes no sense.
In addition, this legislation will create incentives for the construction of energy-efficient buildings and the retrofitting of existing homes, which will reduce pollution and energy use.
Finally, the energy conservation bonds included in this bill will spur investments in efficiency, create jobs, and reduce carbon emissions.
I would think all of those objectives are objectives that this House, in a bipartisan way, would seek to achieve.
Now, in keeping with this Democratic majority's commitment to fiscal responsibility, this legislation will not add to the deficit. I will tell you that your previous bills dealing with tax incentives could not make that comment. Rather, the tax incentives contained in the bill are offset by repealing $18 billion in unnecessary tax subsidies over the next 10 years that otherwise will be enjoyed by the largest oil and gas companies in America. Mr. McCrery referenced a discussion about that.
Last year alone, the five largest oil companies had a combined profit of $123 billion. God bless them. But it only provokes this question: Do these companies need taxpayer subsidies to look for new product?
I'm a big proponent of the free market system. Supply and demand works. The demand for oil is high. The prices reflect that demand, and they are the highest they have been in history. They don't need any incentive to look for new product. The incentive is the free market system which is buying their product for the highest prices they have ever sold it. So it is foolish to ask the taxpayers to not only pay those high prices at the pump but also to pay additional taxes because the oil companies aren't paying the same kind of level of taxes that they are. Last year alone, as I said, they made the highest profits they have made.
The answer, of course, to my question, do they need incentives to get new product? They do not. They do not. There is not an oil company executive in the world who's going to say let's not look for new oil when their product is getting the highest prices they have gotten in history.
Even President Bush, and I want all my Republican friends to hear this. There aren't very many of them on the floor. There aren't very many Democrats on the floor. But I hope they are watching on television. President Bush, a former oil company executive, said in 2005, and I want you to hear this quote, George Bush, President of the United States, former oil executive, 2005: ``I will tell you, with $55 a barrel oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' I'm sure all of you got that. At $55 a barrel, the President of the United States said we don't need incentives for the companies to explore.
Prices now are almost 100 percent above that dollar figure which the President of the United States said would obviate the need for incentives. With the price of a barrel of oil hovering around $100, do we really believe that this incentive is justified? The President of the United States said no. Hopefully, this Congress today will say no.
This legislation is a thoughtful effort to set our Nation's energy priorities and thereby strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security.
Last year when we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, the President and Senate Republicans removed a package of economic incentives, including the extension of tax credits for wind and solar energy and biofuels. We must move towards those alternatives. With this bill, we continue the fight for this critical aspect of our energy policy.
I thank the chairman for his leadership on this very important piece of legislation, and I thank the Republican colleagues on the committee as well for working on this product.
We may have differences, but this is a critical issue for the future of our country and for generations yet to come. Vote for this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source