Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 877.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 877 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, and to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options. In short, it's a comprehensive energy bill. The rule makes in order a motion by the majority leader that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the motion except clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader. Mr. Speaker, this is historic legislation. Today, we will move from a policy of dependence on foreign oil, a policy of endless drilling, to a policy of independence and efficiency. It's a policy that is overdue. It's overdue for the health of the American economy, the health of the world environment, and for the strengthening of our foreign policy options. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the American economy is being hit very hard by spiraling fuel prices. Around the country, families are sitting around their kitchen tables wondering how they are going to afford their fuel bills this winter. In December of 2002, just a few years ago, the price of a gallon of gas was $1.48. It's now $3.09. Five years ago, in Vermont it cost a family about $600 to heat their homes. Now, it's about $1,500. Our current energy policy of spiraling costs, environmental degradation, and increasing dependence on people who are not particularly our friends is weakening America, harming our environment, and stretching the budgets of our families. Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses each and every one of these problems. It's fiscally responsible. It starts by repealing some, but not all, of the big oil and gas tax giveaways and reinvests that money to ensure energy independence. It increases fuel efficiency standards, and this is probably the single most important provision of this bill. The last time this Congress increased fuel efficiency standards was 32 years ago, and since that time the American auto industry has lost market share. The cost of operating a car has increased. What this bill does, which is historic, is increase the mileage standards by 40 percent so that the fleet-wide average in 2020 will be 35 miles per gallon. That is the first real step toward fuel efficiency in those 32 years. It's going to save American families $700 to $1,000 at the pump; it's going to produce $22 billion in net annual savings for consumers by 2020; and through the application in this legislation of efficiency standards, which essentially is that you make a toaster that uses less rather than more energy, and other appliances the same, it's going to save consumers $400 billion through 2030. Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue, and it is a declaration of independence from the old energy policy that had us relying on people who were not our friends to supply us oil that we were addicted to, at prices that we could no longer afford. Today, we are going to turn the corner, and the American people are going to see direct results in our economy, in our environment, and in our security as a result of this landmark legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.

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

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas was expressing his concern about the impact on American families with the ever-escalating cost of gasoline, the ever-escalating cost of home heating fuel. Certainly you are no stranger in your job to the impact of that on our budget, trying to find money for the low-income heating assistance program. All of us have constituents that experience the kind of pain the gentleman from Texas is describing. The problem is the policy we have pursued has resulted in endless consumption, endless escalation of prices, and constant dependence on the Persian Gulf folks who are not really our friends. If there is a metaphor for what has been the American energy policy through many administrations, one of dependence, of drilling and drilling, consumption and wastefulness, it was a photograph that appeared in the New York Times in April of 2005. At that time there was an emerging sense that the cost of energy was having an enormously negative impact on our families. The cost of gasoline had risen over $2 a gallon. That price now seems quite wonderful; but in an effort to deal with it, the President of the United States invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Crawford and invited him there for discussions. And the picture on the front page of the paper was of the President of the United States and the Crown Prince holding hands going into the President's home to discuss energy policy. And the request by the President on behalf of the American people to the Crown Prince was that they raise production, in order, theoretically, to lower prices. Well, you know what? That's the same policy that we've pursued for generations, raise production, drill more, leave control in the hands, many times, of foreign countries that have very little regard for the long-term interests of the American people. It's a policy that has not worked and is running into the dead-end reality that there are limits on how much fossil fuels we can drill. There's damage to the environment, and the cost is ever escalating as the demand for this commodity increases with the growth in economies in India, China, and the rest of the emerging world. That was a photograph of dependence. This energy bill is about turning the corner and being the self-confident Nation that we should be, that within our own borders, with the resources and technical skills of our people, with what can be done in the agriculture sector, the engineering sector, that we can actually take resources that are immediately available to us, that are renewable, and we can transform them into the energy that our families need to drive their cars to and from day care, to get to and from work; that we can transform that into the energy that our industries need in order to produce, manufacture, and create jobs for the American people. And the side benefit, and a central goal, is that it can, as it must, dramatically reduce the carbon emissions that are polluting this world and threatening our planetary future. That is a real crisis that requires immediate action. We have a responsibility to the families that the gentleman from Texas mentioned to do everything that we can to make it affordable for them to do what they have to do to raise their families, to get to work. And we all jointly have a responsibility to the environment because it is our obligation, very simply, that we leave this planet as clean, hopefully cleaner than, as when we found it. The path that we're on has been one of further degradation. The path we're choosing is one of renewal and redemption. This is good for jobs. It's good for the environment. It's good for securing America's foreign policy independence. Mr. Speaker, 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. 877 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall he considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 5, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall he considered as read and shall be separately debatable for forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as follows: Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following: (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding the following at the end: ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective item in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration.''. (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows: ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to the proposition. The question of consideration shall he debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise he decided without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from New York. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, that all of the Senators from the New England States, all of the Members of Congress from the New England States join in support of this resolution. Their legislatures and their governors all support this, as well as the legislatures and the premiers in the provinces of Canada that have been mentioned. That is because we need each other in a moment of weather disaster. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) referred to, there was a severe ice storm in 1998 and this response that we had in those New England States, with the help of the provinces, was helpful to alleviate some of the suffering, but not all. This is fundamentally important in order that we be able to cooperate to the mutual benefit of folks in the New England region and in the Canadian provinces. I want to express my gratitude to the Foreign Affairs Committee, my gratitude to my friend from Texas. I am sorry that Texas isn't part of this because then we would really be in good shape. And I want to thank Mr. Crowley and the members of the leadership staff and the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee for moving this forward on such an expedited basis. The more we can cooperate to help each other, the better all of us are going to be. And as my friend from Texas would say, ``That's just the way it is.'' We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern provinces of Canada. Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how challenging the task. The IEMAMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the adjacent Canadian provinces, causing massive damage to the electrical and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance. The compact allows for international sharing of resources and expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. The IEMAMOU compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers in times of cross-border emergency. This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating member, whether State or province, to formulate plans and programs to facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil emergency. All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed legislation adopting the compact under State law. The premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have similarly approved of the compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member State and province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and should be supported by Congress. The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The joint resolution introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under the agreement. This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States and our Canadian provinces to the north. Congress should support their cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States in the compact. It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation across this country.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I am here to say thank you to the good work of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, but also for making an adjustment in the bill that is going to make a real difference to small Vermont insurers. This bill calls for a study instead of an imposition of an obligation for the NBCR. That's the right thing to do. Second, it lowers the trigger when the TRIA program will kick in from $100 million to $50 million. That is enormously helpful to cash-strapped companies that are on the small size. So, I thank the chairman, I thank the members of the committee, Republican and Democrat, on behalf of small businesses and small insurance companies.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor). But before I do, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona; I would like to thank him for the good work that he has done on earmarks that he did when he was a member of the majority and now as a member of the minority. But I would also remind the gentleman that, in fact, under the leadership of the current Chair of the Appropriations Committee, there has been a massive change in direction on earmarks. In fact, it's been a reason why some of the budget bills took longer than last year because there has been an exhaustive effort to go through and identify anything that can be called an earmark to allow Members who wish to address it to raise their points. What I've said to the gentleman is that we are unaware of any earmarks in this legislation. And I appreciate your late-night work at finding provisions that, as you have presented them, you're characterizing as possible earmarks. I am aware of absolutely no earmarks. The so-called unfunded mandate, there is language in a letter, Mr. Speaker, from the CBO that suggests that there may be a slightly above the threshold under the rule, but that's a decision that this body can make and will make. It's incidental, not significant, to the overall policy. So having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 846.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 846 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act. The rule provides for a motion by the majority leader to concur in the Senate amendments with the House amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the majority and minority leaders, or their designees. Mr. Speaker, many Members of this body have worked long and hard to change the direction of energy policy in this country. I can't mention them all, but I would be remiss not to pay special acknowledgment to the Speaker, to Mr. Dingell, and to Mr. Markey. Mr. Speaker, this House in a very short time will have an opportunity to turn the page on generations of energy policy. Perhaps the best way to characterize what has been the U.S. policy on energy is captured by looking at a photograph that serves as a metaphor. What it shows is the United States hand in hand with OPEC producers, on whom we have become increasingly reliant and dependent, pursuing an energy policy of drill- and-drill, consume-and-consume, spend-and-spend; all with ever- escalating and budget-busting expense inflicted on our families and businesses; all with reckless denial, reckless denial, to the environmental damage that we are doing by this policy to the Earth we all share; and all with cavalier disregard to our national security by depending on regimes that are not our friends. Mr. Speaker, this bill brought before you does two fundamental things in changing the direction of energy policy. It says that we are going to consume less by taking practical steps, long overdue, to increase mileage standards, to allow American families going to and from work, picking up their kids, going to daycare, bringing them to soccer games, to travel in safe vehicles manufactured by American workers that get 40 percent more miles per gallon. Mr. Speaker, that will save the average American family $700 to $1,000 a year. Second, by making a strong national commitment to renewable energy, to having energy that we produce, that we keep our American dollars and our American jobs here at home, and by investing in cellulosic ethanol, wind and solar and technologies that have shown promise to give us the energy we need, the jobs we require and the environmental improvement that is essential, this turns the page on what has been an overdue time for change in our energy direction in this country. Mr. Speaker, the current system just ain't going to work. The ever- escalating cost to our families is not sustainable. In December of 2002, the price of a gallon of gas was $1.48. Today it is about $3.09. Five years ago it cost an average Vermont family about $600 to heat their home during the winter. It is over $1,500 to $2,000 now. The environmental damage is indisputable. With 4 percent of the world's population, we are still consuming about 20 to 25 percent of the world's energy, and we generate roughly 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to be sending so many American dollars abroad; $500,000 every minute from the pockets of American consumers and American businesses go to countries that provide us with the oil that we need, when they are not particularly good friends of ours. That is $500,000 every minute, $30 million every hour, $5 billion every week. This energy bill turns the page from a country that has been excessively dependent on oil consumption to a country that is going to be self-confident in its people, in its resources and its ingenuity, to take on the energy challenge and turn it into energy opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), appreciate his arguments, and will close on behalf of our side. There are two arguments that I heard in the course of this debate. One was about process and procedure. I happen to believe that process and procedure is important. It's important not in its own right; it's important for what it can do to help us in this body create better legislation. But process can be abused. It can be abused when the goal is not to make a better bill; it's to obstruct the passage of any bill. And the choice that had to be made by leadership on this side, particularly in view of the decision in the other body to refuse to go to conference, was whether to accept that use of process that obstructed consideration of energy legislation this country needs or to move ahead. They made the right choice. Second, this legislation, a thousand pages, as Mr. Diaz-Balart and others mentioned, they had some fun holding up the bill. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of that 1,000 pages contains provisions that have been considered in many cases passed by this House of Representatives. What this bill is is a compilation of the work that many people in this body have been doing for years. What's different is that it is actually coming to the House floor for a vote. Substantively, this legislation does turn the page on energy policy. I showed a picture in the beginning. It's a metaphor really for the energy policy that we have had in this country for generations. It's the American administration hand in hand with OPEC leadership, OPEC countries, pursuing a policy of drill-and-drill, consume-and-consume, export our dollars and import their oil. If we turn the page, we are going to have a new picture. We are going to have a picture of the American Congress and the American administration hand in hand with American farmers who are driving their tractors, creating energy alternatives. It is going to be a picture of the American Congress with young engineers who are creating better, more efficient appliances. It is going to be a picture of the American Congress and American families who are driving to and from their soccer games, to and from work, to and from day care in safe vehicles, manufactured by American workers, that get 40 percent higher mileage, saving that family $1,000. We know, we know that this is a hat trick. If we change our energy policy and we act like a confident Nation, not a dependent Nation, we can protect the planet, reverse global warming. We can create good jobs and keep American dollars at home, and we can increase our national security by reducing our dependence on regimes that have no particular interest in the security of the United States but whose primary interest is in the dollars from American consumers and American businesses. 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. 846 Offered By Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida Strike all after the resolved clause and insert: ``That upon adoption of this resolution, the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's table. A single motion that the Mouse concur in each of the Senate amendments with the respective amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as pending in the House without intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendments 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 or demand for division of the question. ``Sec. 2. The amendments referred to in section I are as follows: ``In lieu of the. matter proposed to be inserted for the text of the bill, H.R. 6, insert the following: