tv [untitled] CSPAN June 26, 2009 5:30pm-6:00pm EDT
madam speaker, a future of clean energy is well worth the price. a republican governor inaugurated in the state of maryland in his inaugural address said that the cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress. the cost of failure for the last three to four decades has cost this country. progress will be far less expensive than failure. my children, my grandchildren and the generations to come will be either the beneficiaries of our stewardship or the victims of our neglect. i urge my colleagues this day to reject this substitute not because it is bad for the words
-- words that it incorporates, because its effect would be to stop action so desperately needed by this country and this globe. i urge my colleagues, defeat this substitute, pass this bill, take this historic opportunity for our children, our grandchildren and generations yet unborn. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: madam speaker, could i request how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 10 minutes remaining. mr. forbes: madam speaker, i'd ke to yield myself 1 1/2 minutes, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: madam speaker, the distinguished minority leader just said that americans must
lead and lead they must. he also indicated that the cost of our failure would be passed onto our children and grandchildren. as one of only 17 members in this body that's voted against every bailout bill and stimulus bill we have passed, i ask the american people who are watching here, what has been the enormous cost of our fail pour that spending all of those dollars and what -- failure for spending all of those dollars and what did you get from it? the american people can lead, they're not stupid. only 33% of them approve what we're doing. we have a choice. only in this body could they believe that we could say words like we're going to create jobs by destroying jobs, we're going to reduce your taxes by increasing your taxes, we're going to come in here with all our parochialism and we're going to create a plan for you that's better than the brightest experts on energy could do by having this amendment. we prefer taxation over innovation of the american people, or we'll have a bill like this that only sits a 20% goal in 11 years for renewable energy where in this bill we set a 50% goal of -- on foreign oil
in 10 years and 100% in 20 years and finally that in this bill we know we're going to spend $800 billion that probably won't work. in our bill and this amendment, madam speaker, we know he that we only pay $24 billion and we only have to pay it when we get the results and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i understand that our side has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. waxman: so i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. boehner: let me thank my colleague for yielding and, madam speaker, congratulate you on your upcoming marriage and your new job and all of us on the republican side of the aisle thank you for your service to
this institution, your service in the chair and good luck to you. my colleagues, we've been through a very difficult time in our economy. we had the great economic shocks of last fall and we've seen unemployment climbing month after month after month. now at some 9.4%. earlier this year we passed a 1,100-page bill that no one had read that was supposed to be about putting the american people back to work again. it was supposed to be about stimulating our economy and all we heard during that debate was about jobs, jobs and jobs. it's pretty clear that what the bill really ended up being was nothing more than spending, spending, and more spending. because since that bill passed, some $1 -- 1.7 million americans have lost their jobs. and so when we look at the
legislation that continues to go through here, the american people are seeing an awful lot of spending, an awful lot of money going to government, but they're not seeing new jobs. and now we come to what i believe is the most profound piece of legislation that has come to the floor of this house in the last 100 years. it's hard to say in the first six months of a new congress that this could be the defining vote and the defining bill for this congress, but i really truly believe that this is the defining bill. the problem that this bill attempts -- the problems that this bill attempts to go after are the issue of climate change and cleaning up our air. secondly, to build a new alternative energy industry in the united states.
those are really the two issues and i guess the third issue would be jobs. those are the goals that this bill attempts to go after. but when you look at the structure that's being built, it defies anyone's imagination to believe that the federal government could create such an lab rat process -- elaborate process to deliver on those three goals. i've got a chart here. a chart here that goes through all of the agencies involved, all of the structure that is created under this bill. it's all being done, of course, in the middle by the environmental protection agency. they're at the center of this. but if you look at all the different agencies involved, you'll see that we have the federal energy regulatory commission involved. we've got the united states department of agriculture that's
going to be involved. the internal revenue service will be engaged in this bill as well. the department of treasury. i wish i could tell you what f.w.s. was but somebody could probably tell me. we have the commodity futures trading commission that's going to be involved in helping to regulate this. the national ocean weather service, basically. the department of health and human services is going to be involved in putting this together. how about the department of state? play a big role in making sure that we get cleaner air and green energy. we got the department of energy, of course, the department of labor, the u.s. army corps of engineers, the bureau of indian affairs, the bureau of land management, all these federal agencies are going to take part in trying to put this bill into action. but that's not all. not even close.
we've got the offsets integrity advisory board. we also have the carbon market oversight interagency working group. that are going to try to help control who gets these carbon credits and who doesn't, how they can be traded and how they can't and where in the world these offsets are going to be. don't have to be in the united states. we're going to see billions of american tax dollars being shipped around the country, around the world, whether it's replanting forests in other parts of the world, they're going to help clean up our air. i'm sure our constituents want our money sent overseas to help plant trees. but that's not all. we have the consumer refund fund that's going to be outlined here. we got the international reserve
allowance progress here. how about the domestic offset providers? we've got the offset traders and the national offset providers. we got the clean vehicle technical advisory board. we have the carbon capture board. and it goes on and on and on. this lab rat -- elaborate government structure that will cost the american people several trillion dollars over the next 10 years, all in an effort to clean up our air, help build a new alternative energy industry in the united states and to help create jobs in our country. i don't believe there are hardly any people in america who believe, when who believe that this giant government bureaucracy is going to be able to deliver on the three goals that you outlined.
and it's not just the cost and it's not just the bureaucracy. listen, there's not a member in this body that doesn't want to improve the air quality in our country and around the world. there isn't a member in this body who doesn't believe that speeding up the development of alternative sources of energy isn't good for america. no one, there's complete agreement on that. but do we need to go through all of this? do we need to have a national energy tax on every person in america who would drive a car, who would flip on a light switch or who would buy an american made product? because virtually every american made product has an awful lot of energy in it. that's not enough. if you look at this bill and you look at the analysis of this bill, you'll see that $2 1/2 million jobs on average -- 2 1/2 million jobs on average will be
lost each year as a result of this bill. some of those people reside in my district, in middletown, ohio, where a.k. steel is headquartered. they make steel the old-fashioned way. they bring in iron-ore, coal, they bring in limestone. you get it hot enough, you've got steel. the cost of their steel will increase 30% to 40% if this bill were to pass. and in a time when we're trying to help the american automobile industry get back on its feet, the last thing they're going to do is pay 30% or 40% more for their steel. so what are they going to do? they're going to bring it in from china. they'll bring it in from india, who are not burdened under this regulatory scheme, nor are they burdened under our current environmental regulations. so what happens is high energy jobs in america are going to get shipped overseas. exactly the -- at exactly the wrong time. the american people sent us here to help this economy, to help get them back to work.
this is the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the house of representatives, right here, this bill. and i don't think that's what the american people want. but if our goal, if our goals are to clean up the air, to build an alternative energy business in the united states, a thriving one and to create -- one, and to create jobs, there's a better way to do this and it the all of the above strategy that we've been talking in this chamber about for nearly a year. and that is to say we need to have more alternative sources, whether they be solar, wind, geothermal. we can produce those additional types of energy and help renew them, but in the meantime america needs energy to grow our economy. so we need to have more drilling for oil and gas in the united states. there's no question about it. we need to increase the supply of american made energy so that
we bring down the price. and what we do in our bill is we take all the royalties from the development of additional oil and gas reserves in the united states and we plow it back in to renewable sources of energy. and as a result our bill puts more money into renewables and speeding up the development of renewables at a faster pace that be the -- than the bill on the floor of the house today. that's not enough. we need to do all of the above. we need to develop clean coal technology, we need to be serious about nuclear energy. there's nothing in this bill before us that's going to allow us to produce nuclear energy in any kind of a quick way or, frankly, none at all. but we all know it's the cleanest source of energy that we can have in the united states. and so why shouldn't we do all of the above? because here's what all of the above does for us. it gives us cleaner air, it gives us lower energy prices, it
foreign sources of oil that we and it will do more in a very simple way than this big complex bureaucracy that is being outlined in this bill. above? why do we have to try to establish this giant structure that attempts to put some cap in do something simple that will help lower prices for americans while cleaning up the air and moving us to alternative sources of energy? no, that's not what we're dealing with here today. you know, if all of this wasn't enough, i woke up this morning 3:09 a.m. a 300-page manager's amendment was dropped into the
hopper, at 3:09 a.m. i have spent most of the day trying to look at this 309-page bill, trying to come up with and understand what this 3-page amendment to the 1,200-page bill, what does it really do? and so as i started to go through this, i mean, i didn't get past the first page where on page 16, line 5, strike 1992 and insert 1988 and on line 13 strike 1992 and insert 1988. this appears to deal with the hydropower and i'm trying to figure out, what is the impact of this day change? -- date change? nowhere in this manager's amendment can i find out what the impact of that is.
then we get to page two. components of the national wilderness preservation system, inventoried road areas or old growth stands and late successional stands. does this mean renewable biomass is not defined by what it is, but rather where it comes from? and why was this change made at 3:09 a.m. this morning? then page nine. the president shall ensure that the total amount of electricity federal agencies consume in the united states during each calendar year, the following percentages shall be renewable electricity. we're going to mandate to every federal agency how much electricity they buy that comes from renewable sources.
in here we've got this year, 2012, 6%. 2013, 6%. 2014, 9 1/2%. 2016, we go to 13%. 2018, we go to 16 1/2%. and 2020 through 2039, 30% -- 20% of electricity that goes into every federal agency has to come from renewable resources. do we have any idea whether this is possible? i can't find the answer here. or on page 10, it says contract for renewable energy. a contract for the acquisition of electricity generated from a renewable energy resource for the federal government may be made for a period of not more than 20 years. 20-year contracts. what if the price of renewable energy goes down?
are taxpayers going to be stuck with a contract written today as opposed to what that contract could be negotiated for 10 years from now? i can't tell because there's no answer here. or again on page 12, renewable biomass. the term renewable means any of the following. it goes through all this language. nothing -- there's nothing renewable in a national wilderness preservation system or inventoried road growth areas except for dead, severely damaged or badly infested trees. wasn't this the same language we had on page two? why it being repeated again? i can't tell as i read through this. so we get to page 16. so that the vehicle or engine is capable of alternative fuel. we're going to require on every car sold in america, it has to have an engine that's capable
of operating on an alternative fuel. so if operating -- what if you have a car that doesn't operate on a renewable fuel? are we going to buy the car back from the american people? rewe going to reimburse them for their costs? i can't tell because again, this was dropped at 3:09 a.m. and no one, probably, has had a chance to read it. how about on page 24. there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this paragraph. sounds like a blank check to me. or on page 26. this section applies only to states located in the western interconnection and does not apply to states located in the eastern interconnection to the states of alaska or hawaii, or ercot. are we going to have different
rates for different parts of the country under this amendment that was filed at 3:09 a.m. this morning? then we get to page 30678 the federal energy regulatory commission shall act as the lead agency for purposes of coordinating all applicable federal authorizations and related environmental reviews. so now we have ferc is in charge of all reviews. >> parliamentary inquiry. mr. boehner: i have the time. page 34. page 34 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. boehner: after gust 8, 2005. mr. boehner: does the gentleman yield for parliamentary inquiry.
mr. boehner: i'd be happy to yield for the gentleman. mr. waxman: the republican leader was yielded the balance of the time which i think amounted to four or five minutes. he's talked for around 20. i know we have this magic minute that gives leaders a lot of extra time to speak, but i'm just wondering if there is some limit under the rules on the time that a leader may take, even though the time yielded was not 20 or 30 minutes? the speaker pro tempore: it's the custom of the house to hear the leader's remarks. mr. waxman: further parliamentary inquir rhythm mr. boehner: i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. mr. waxman: i know it's the custom of the house to give a little extra latitude, is there
any outside limit to the time a leader might take? do we have historical records that might be broken tonight? or is this an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote. the speaker pro tempore: the custom of the house is to listen to the leader's comments. mr. boehner: reclaiming my time. the gentleman has had his 30 years to put this bill together and the house is going to spend a whopping five hours debating the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in 100 years. and the chairman has the audacity to drop a 300-plus page amendment in the hopper at
3:09 a.m. this morning. so i would ask my colleagues, don't you think the american people expect to understand what's in this bill before we vote on it? so we get to page 34. not one year after august 8, 2005 -- wait a minute. one year later, one year after august of 2005. wasn't that three years ago? i'm just trying to understand what the gentleman has in his amendment. let me get to page 36. high efficiency gas turbine research and development. now -- i'm trying to figure out who inserted this broad new section of the bill that is covered nowhere in the underlying bill. then we get to page 39.
$65 million for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2014. $65 million for three years, and who is going to get this money? i can't tell in this amendment. as we go through this, page 41, determine any geographic area within the contiguous united states that lacks a federal power marketing agency. we can't move power around the country without a federal marketing agency. we do it today but now can't do it. page 41, the establishment of any new federal lending authority without authorization of additional lending authority not to exceed $3.5 billion per geographic area identified in
subsection a/one. this is $3.5 billion in loans for each geographic area, but we don't know how many geographic areas are included or how many billions in total we're talking about. how about page 42? any source of funds including federal funds provided through the robert t. stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act shall qualify as the building's owner's 50% contribution. let me make sure i get this straight. you can use federal money for nonfederal matching requirements. how much is all of this going to cost. page 45. remember, this is the amendment. not the bill, the amendment, filed at 3:09 a.m. page 45. this section shall apply only to construction beginning after the date of enactment of this bill. for those who don't know it,
all california housing standards are now going to be imposed on every american community. you don't have the right to have your own building standards in your community or state. hell, no, the federal government's going to tell you what they are. and guess what, we all get to have california standards. who is going to pay the price for those new homes? how are we going to do affordable housing when we're pushing up the cost of housing? while i'm at it, we have to have an energy rating for every home in america. in this bill. we require every home to have an energy rating. and if you go to sell your house, guess what? you have to have review, bring people in, have them check out your windows, your appliances, your hot water heater, your door, make sure that your house is energy efficient. and guess what if it isn't?
you've got to bring it up to standards before you can sell it. now what kind of bizarre notion is that? well, let me get to page 47. 46. at the bottom. a plan for local government actions to be take ton establish and sustain local building code enforcement administration functions without continuing the federal support at a level at least equivalent to that proposed in the grant application. you all get that? it doesn't explain it, but here's what it is. federal government's going to mandate all these new standards on every house built in america, it's going to cost your local building department all kinds of money to enforce this and revise their code, and when money runs out, we'll allow them to apply for a grant to the united states government. i'm sure my constituents would
love that. page 48. each building code enforcement department receiving a grant under subsection a shall impanel a code administration and enforcement team consisting of at least one full-time building code enforcement officer a city planner and a health planner or similar officer. now i've got some big towns in my district. hamilton, middletown, west chester they can probably afford this. new enforcement. but i can take you to chickasaw, mercer county in my district. they don't have one full-time person that works for the village. not one. look at the mandate on every city, village in america, right here in this bill. so that we're not only going to tell you what the codes are going to be, but we're going to tell you how many people you need to hire to enforce this in this section of this code.
i did take time, most of today, trying to understand what was in here. how about page 53. solar energy systems building permit requirements for receipt of community development block grants. so, what are we doing here to amend the community block grant program? we're going to impose global warming requirements on all the cities who get cbdg moneys from us? that's what it appears to say to me. or page 54. any met propoll tan city or urban county during such fiscal year, the cost of any permit or license for construction or installation of any solar energy system for any structure required by the metropolitan city or urban county or any political subdivision of any county complies with paragraph county complies with paragraph two.