Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]  CSPAN  June 27, 2009 6:30am-7:00am EDT

6:30 am
let me get to the bottom of page 155. revision of a -- of appraising standards. each federal financial institution regulatory agency shall not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this act revise its standards for the performance of real estate appraisers in connection with federally related transactions under the jurisdiction of the agency to comply with the requirement under the amendments made by paragraph 1 of this section. so now we have to retrain every appraiser in america so that they understand this law, so they know how to properly appraise the value of someone's property. oh. oh, i haven't finished. and they need to meet the requirements established pursuant to subsection f for qualifications regarding consideration of -- consideration of any renewable energy sources or energy
6:31 am
efficiency. so every appraiser is not only going to be retrained but now we're going to send them all to school. let me get to page 157. the appraisal subcommittee, another new part of the bureaucracy, shall establish requirements for state certification of state certified real estate appraisers and for state licensing. of state licensed real estate appraisers to ensure that the appraisers are qualified to consider in determining the value of a property any renewable energy sources or energy efficiency or energy conserving improvements or features of the property. interesting. and the secretary on page 158, shall require the housing assistance council to encourage each organization that receives assistance from the council with any amounts made available from the secretary to provide that
6:32 am
any structures and buildings developed or assisted under projects, programs and activitied funded with such amounts complies with the energy efficiency standards under section 284-a of this subtitle. more power for a lot of unelected bureaucrats. then on page 160, the middle of the page is it says, in general, the secretary shall use amounts in the fund to provide loans to states and indian tribes to provide incentives to owners of single family and multiple family housing, commercial properties and building -- public buildings to provide renewable energy sources and it goes on and gives a hole long list. but there's no appropriation here for it -- a whole long list. but there's no appropriation here for it. and then on page 164 we authorize another $5 billion and there's no idea where this money
6:33 am
comes from. page 165, green banking centers, we're not going to do houses and commercial properties and multifamily housing, now we're going to have green banking centers. the federal banking agencies shall pry guidelines encouraging -- prescribe guidelines encouraging the establishment and maintenance of green banking centers to provide any consumer who seeks information on obtaining a mortgage home improvement loan, home equity loan with additional information. are you kidding me? and i've heard of blackmail but now i know what greenmail really is. on page 170, the top of the page, section 299-f, the general accountability office reports on
6:34 am
availability of affordable mortgages. really? after we drive the price of every mortgage up in america we're going to help them to do a report on affordable mortgages? guess what? they're going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. page 173, the secretary of housing and urban development may make commitments to a guarantee under this section and may guarantee the repayment of the portions of the principle obligations of eligible mortgages that are used to finance eligible sustainable elements for the housing that is subject to the mortgage. so now we're not going to guarantee the mortgage but we're going to guarantee the improvements to the property as well. page 180, and i would direct all of your attention if you have a
6:35 am
copy of this to section 3 of that page. the full faith in credit of the united states is pledged to the payment of all guarantees issued under this section with respect to principal and interest. oh, no, oh, no, no, no, it's here. it's right here. the full faith in credit of the united states is pledged to the payment of all guarantees issued under this section with respect to principal and interest. the term green portion means with respect to an eligible mortgage, the portion of the mortgage principal referred to in subsection 2 that is attributable as determined in accordance with the regulations issued by the secretary. so, we have a new government program and we're going to guarantee this with the full faith in credit of the united states. and on page 184, on april 1 or a later date established by the administrator under
6:36 am
subconnection j of the calendar year in which the term offset credit expires, the owner or operator holds for purposes of filing, demonstrating compliance or allowance or a domestic offset credit. i read it because i cannot tell what you that means. on page 190 at the bottom of the page it talks about aljay. on page 189 we got renewable biomass -- algae. on page 189 we have renewable biomass. this is the third definition of renewable biomass that we have just in the manager's amendment, much less the bill. this caught my attention at the bottom of page 191, section 3, for vintage year 2012, are we talking about wine?
6:37 am
let me get to page 280. carbon derivative markets. we already heard enough about credit default swaps, but i think most of you know that under this section the commodity exchange act is amended by striking or an agricultural commodity and inserting an agricultural commodity or any emission allowance, compensatory allowance, offset credit, federal renewable electricity credit established or issued under this act. so now we're going to let those governed under the cftc trade these credits with others around the world. and on page 209, talks about the affect of derivative regulatory reform legislation.
6:38 am
on passage of this legislation that includes derivative regulatory reform such as 351, 352, 355, 356 and 357 shall be repealed. any idea of the derivatives regulations that we're repealing in this bill? you probably didn't know we were doing it. and on page 210, to prevent an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and other countries -- in other countries other than the united states, i presume that means countries like india and china, to induce foreign countries and in particular fast-growing developing countries to take substantial action with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions. india and china have made it perfectly clear to every one of us that they have no interest and will not go down this path. further goes on to ensure that the measures described in
6:39 am
subpart 2 are designed and implemented in a manner consistent with applicable international agreements to which the united states is a party. in the very structure of the border provisions, however, makes this impossible to achieve andle "wall street journal" said the other day and suggested that this bill really could start a trade war and if we begin to try to impose our bureaucracy on other countries we could just have that. then we get to page 225. distribution of emission allowance repay thes. further down the page it -- rebates. further down the page it says pursuant to the entities in direct carbon factor as calculated under subsection 3-b. can anybody tell me how to calculate an indirect carbon factor or what an indirect carbon factor is? let me get to page 226.
6:40 am
not more than 85% of the united states imports for that sector are produced or manufactured in countries that have met at least one criteria, one of the criteria of that section, then the 10-year reduction schedule shall begin in the next vintage year. so now we're going to try to control imports from countries based on what they're doing with regard to their energy policy. use of data to determine factor, page 231, where it is not possible to determine the ecise electricity emissions intensity factor for the methodology in clause 1. in what instances would this --
6:41 am
would it not be possible it -- to determine what that is? let me get to page 233. in each eligible industrial sector every four years, using an average of the four most recent years of the best availability data, for the purposes of the list required to be published no later than february 1, 2013, the administrator shall use the best available data for the maximum number of years up to four years for which data are available. why every four years? what's this data used for? then it goes on, the administrator should limit the average direct greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output calculated under paragraph 4 for any eligible industrial sector to an amount that's not greater than it was in any previous calculation under this section. so what's the cost of this provision? or on page 234, the
6:42 am
administrator shall use data from the greenhouse gas registry established under section 713. how much is this going to cost? promoting international reductions in industrial emissions. page 236. congress finds that for the purposes of this subpart, can be most effectively addressed and achieved through agreements negotiated between the united states and foreign countries. it is the policy of the united states to work proactively under the united nations framework convention on climate change and other appropriate fora commits all major greenhouse gas emitting nations to contribute equitably to the global greenhouse emissions. the bottom line of all of this is all pain for the united states citizens and no gain. then we get to page 237. the president shall provide a
6:43 am
notification on climate change described in paragraph 2 to each foreign country, the products of which are not exempted under section 768. this is less than a fig leaf here. they're trying to pretend that this notification will satisfy the consultation required by the w.t.o. rules. it won't end there and it's going to result in retaliation against the united states exports. then we get further down on the pages, requesting the foreign country to take appropriate measures to limit the greenhouse gas emissions in those countries. so if they're really nice, they won't have to, but if we can, we can force them to adopt our bizarre regulatory scheme. then we get to page 238, the united states negotiating objectives with regard to multilateral environmental negotiations.
6:44 am
so here we are tellering the administration what they're -- telling the administration what they're objectives are going to be as they negotiate environmental issues with our country's -- with other countries around the world. the the presidential reports, page 239, not later than january 1, 2017, and every two years therefore, the president shall submit a report to congress on the effectiveness of the distribution of emission allowances under rebates part 1 and mitigating carbon leak and in eligible industrial sectors. . let me go to page 260. let's go to page 260. modification of earned income credit amount for individuals with nonqualifying children. why does this bill neglect
6:45 am
middle class families in america? why is it we are only going to help some people who would qualify for the earned income credit for individuals with no qualifying children? further down here it says, the secretary determines experienced a reduction in purchasing power as a result of the provisions of this act. it's a flatout admission that every american is going to pay more for all of their energy. and it goes on and on and on. ladies and gentlemen, does this give you some idea of why the american people think their congress is out of touch? the idea that the federal government can create this giant bureaucracy to try to
6:46 am
control how much co-2 gets into the atmosphere. we know that if we were to do our all-of-the-above energy strategy, we would see renewable sources of energy on the scene available, producing jobs more quickly than under the underlying bill. we know that under our bill you can actually have nuclear energy plants being built, cleaning up the air at a much faster rate than the underlying bill. but there's really a big underlying difference between our approach and the approach of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. that is trusting the american people. you give the american people -- if we give the american people the right incentives, they'll make the right decisions. but that's not what we have on the floor today. what we have on the floor today is typical big government. and a fight we have between the two sides of the aisle really boils down to one word. it boils down to freedom.
6:47 am
the freedom to allow the american people to live their lives without all of these extra taxes and all this bureaucracy. i would just say to my colleagues, i did my best to try to get through the 300-page amendment that was filed at 3:09 in the morning. obviously somebody knew this was coming. but it wasn't filed until 3:09 this morning. this is not the way we should be doing legislation. the american people expect more of us and you know what? they deserve a lot more from us. so i would say to my colleagues, let's not go down this path. increasing taxes on every single american. let's not go down the path of moving millions of jobs to china, india, and other countries around the world. let's trust the american people. let's give them our all-of-the -above energy act and allow
6:48 am
america to flourish, jobs to flourish, and most importantly to allow freedom to flourish. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, the gentleman -- point of order. there is no order in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.
6:49 am
the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, the gentleman, the minority leader, was yielded 2 1/2 minutes. could you tell us how much time he consumed? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman used the customary amount of time yielded to the minority leader. mr. waxman: madam speaker, the 2 1/2 minutes was extended to over an hour. and this is from the same party that had a 15-minute roll call extended into three hours while they tried to twist arms of their own people. madam speaker, i would like order in the house.
6:50 am
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> i withdraw. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: to close the debate i wish to yield the remainder of our time and i presume it will not be an hour or two, to our distinguished speaker who -- because of whose leadership we have the attempt to do something that the republicans neglected and that's to help our country deal with our energy problems. mr. speaker, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. i want to join those who have sung your praises as a distinguished presider over hundreds of hours of of debate in the house of representatives. your service here, your leadership here will long be remembered and be an inspiration to us. katherine will be very missed, but now she's off to college. thank you, ellen tauscher, for being such a great chairwoman
6:51 am
and presider over the house of representatives. the speaker: madam speaker, i also wish to acknowledge the leadership of our chairman who so ably brought this important legislation, this historic and transformational legislation to the floor. chairman waxman of the energy and commerce committee, chairman markey of the energy security and climate change committee. congressman rangel, chairman rangel of the ways and means committee. and chairman peterson of the agriculture committee. we thank them for their leadership and for giving us this opportunity today. madam speaker, no matter how
6:52 am
long this congress wants to talk about it, we cannot hold back the future. and so in order to move on with the future, i want to yield back my time, submit my statement for the record, urge my colleagues -- urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. when you do, just remember these four words for what this legislation means -- jobs, darren samuel sohn is on the phone. what did democrats have to do to get this bill passed? they were working the hallways, the house floor, president obama got involved early this week, calling
6:53 am
members, inviting members up to the white house, freshmen and sophomores primarily, and basically they had the energy and commerce committee, democrats, going one by one to members trying to convince them that what they had passed out of the committee about a month ago was a bill that had taken their interest of the microcosm of the larger house because of how many coal and oil house democrats were there. a lot of concessions were made. then they had to make a lot more to the farm state democrats, probably got 20 democrats from rural america to go along with the bill because of the negotiations with david pierce, the minnesota democrat anding a cum tour -- agriculture chairman its was an opportunity, i think, as markey called it, a fishing
6:54 am
pole expedition of some kind where he was able to personally get some republicans as well. >> speaking of those who crossed the aisle, there were party switchers. a number of republicans voted for the bill. 44 democrats voted against it. what about those party switchers? >> the republicans, 8 altogether, mary bony know mack, chris smith from new jersey, franklin bianda from new jersey were the three we most likely expected. the other republicans we had on the fence and a couple moved over. david reiker from washington state was one. he is in a tough district. he has had close re-elections. that was a tough vote for him. the other two interesting republican votes for the bill, mike castle from delaware and mick kirk from illinois both are weighing senate bids in 2010.
6:55 am
those are both states that trend blue, so a vote for the environment for these two could help them down the line. the other yeses were leonard lance, and also from new jersey, and i might have left one or two off. those were surprising on the republican side. on the democratic side, there were probably a larger number that wanted to vote no an nancy pelosi was able to hold on to some of them. some of them were in tight districts like kathy dellhamper from pennsylvania, she was struggling throughout the week and turned down invitations to talk to obama officials. john salazar from western colorado was a no vote, despite lobbying from senator mark ewe daw who came over from the senate side to work him, a former colorado congressman trying to win one of his former
6:56 am
colleagues. >> what was minority leader john boehner up to late in the house process sort of mounting a house filibuster? >> yes, people were wonder iting if he had a patch on his shoulder to sustain himself because he is a smoker. it was an hour an ten minutes that he was talking, reading through the bill. hey points with respect to the bill. henry waxman and company didn't roll in until 3:00 in the morning, it seems like forever ago, but that bill came out and a lot of questions about what was in it and who read it. john boehner went page by page reading around what those pieces were and kind of just, i think, it was an opportunity for him to just extend the debate and make sure his points were heard. as the votes were being counted later, you heard the republicans
6:57 am
chanting "b.t.u." on the floor, a reminder of the 1993 energy tax vote that the democrats in the house took under the president's urging, and a lot of people say that vote in 1993 went to the republican takeover in '94. the republicans are trying to bring back some history. the john shad ok said this was the first step for the democrats to go back into the minority in 2010. >> thanks for bringing us up to speed with the p process so far on the energy and climate change bill. >> happy to do it. take care.
6:58 am
public funded. >> donations, maybe. i don't have any idea.
6:59 am
>> government. >> c-span gets funning through the taxes. >> i don't know. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> this morning we'll talk with sir richard dalton, former brittish ambassador to iran about the latest and the implications of the crisis that has followed the contested june 12 election and former world bank economist explains why he thinks when the current economic crisis is over the reputation of american-tile capitalism will have been significantly diminished because of the gap of what washington practices and preaches. in an hour, ron fair chiel talks about his group's efforts to improve summer learning among


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on