A bill called the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007 was considered. During the debate, one of he amendments presented was to clarify the bill regarding local housing authories that go into receivership. It would protect tenants by continuing to abide by agreements that had been made previously, and protect them from being homeless in such a situation. Democrats and most Republicans supported the amendment. While time was claimed for opposition, no one actually spoke up and stated why this amendment should be opposed. Adrian Smith voted against the amendment. It's really rather bizarre. Why would he vote against it?
But Republicans decided to hijack the bill and propose a Motion to Recommit. In that motion, they wanted to erase the current bill and replace it with the text of the FISA Bill passed in the Senate. Smith supported the idea. In the end, the Motion was ruled not to be germane. Then, per the rules of debate on the bill, the Speaker decided to postpone further consideration of the bill. It is on hold at this point.
Another bill that was considered was the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. This bill laid out many tax credits that would encourage the use, expansion and investment of renewable forms of energy (wind, solar, ethanol, biodiesal, etc). To help pay for this, Big Oil would not be able to deduct their income from oil and gas production. Once again, Republicans tried to replace the text of the bill with the FISA Bill passed in the Senate. The Chair ruled it was not germane to the bill being considered, and a motion to table their appeal was upheld. Smith supported the actions of his fellow Republicans. Republicans then tried to remove many of the tax credits, and to restore the corporate welfare for Big Oil. They also tried to make some of the Bush tax cut permanent in the process. They blame Democrats for raising energy costs and wanted to maintain investment in oil and gas. The attempt to make these changes failed, but Smith supported all of them. When the final version was voted on, Smith voted against it. The bottom line is that Smith is all for tax credits, but only when they benefit the very few, the wealthy and Big Oil.
Smith made a brief statement on the floor regarding energy, but it didn't take place during the debate on the bill. He basically took the stance that it would create a greater dependence on foreign oil, would send jobs overseas, and would raise costs overall. The fact is that energy costs are rising all over the world, not just here. The longer we put off investing in and moving toward the regular use of renewable energy sources, the greater the cost. Not just in a monetary sense, but in cost to health, safety, and to our planet. We should have started moving away from oil and gas a long time ago.
Smith also decided to submit a statement on National Engineers Week. The funny thing is that the resolution had been voted on nearly two weeks before he submitted his statement for the record. Way to be on the ball there!
Finally, Smith again failed to submit any new bills as a sponsor. He signed onto 4 bills, 2 of which have been out for nearly a year already.
ROLL CALL VOTES
One of the first votes was to Approve the Journal from the last session
Since there had been all the issues over FISA and the contempt of Congress vote, Republicans demanded a vote.
The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 226-183-1-18
FOR: 205 Democrats, 21 Republicans
AGAINST: 15 Democrats, 168 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 8 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST approval.
H.RES.974 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This sets forth the rules for consideration of H.R.3521. As per normal, there were 2 votes, both party-line, with Republicans voting against it.
H.R.3521 - To improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This bill is known as the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. Per the CRS Summary:
- Prohibits the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from imposing restrictions or limitations on the amount of management and related fees for a public housing project which the public housing agency (PHA) determines reasonable, unless such restriction or limitation:
(1) is determined pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking convened by the Secretary no earlier than April 1, 2009, with representatives from interested parties; and
(2) is effective only on or after January 1, 2011.
- Allows any PHA that owns or operates fewer than 500 public housing units under the United States Housing Act of 1937 to elect to be exempt from asset management requirements imposed by the Secretary.
- Prohibits the Secretary from imposing any requirement, regulation, or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits in any way the use by PHAs of amounts for Capital Fund assistance for costs of any PHA central office.
- Requires the Secretary to ensure that PHAs encourage the reasonable efforts of resident tenant organizations to represent their members and of tenants to organize.
- Requires guidance issued by the Secretary to encourage participation by residents in the implementation of asset management and the development of local policies for such purposes.
There were 2 amendments that were debated and voted on.
H.AMDT.956 - Clarifies the intent of an amendment offered by Rep. Velazquez and adopted by the Financial Services Committee by ensuring that public housing authorities that apply to HUD for "stop-loss" do not have their applications rejected on the basis that the management and related fees they establish pursuant to this bill are not reasonable as defined by HUD. Additionally, the amendment is a restatement of current law with respect to the ineligibility of illegal immigrants for assistance.
The amendment PASSED by on a vote of 415-0-18.
H.AMDT.957 - Holds HUD responsible, in the case of receivership, for performing the same responsibilities that the local housing agencies have in respect to working with tenant associations before building public housing. Additionally, in the case of receivership, before building new public housing HUD must honor any formal agreements entered into before the commencement of such receivership between the local housing authority and the tenant association.
Those who supported this amendment wanted to ensure that, should a dispute arise with HUD and a local housing authority, and should that housing authority fall into receivership, that all agreements with tenants will be honored. It would be protection against forcing people into a situation where they are homeless.
While opposition time was claimed, no one stood up to speak as to why this would be opposed.
The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 337-77-19.
FOR: 223 Democrats, 114 Republicans
AGAINST: 77 Republicans
NO VOTE: 11 Democrats, 8 Republicans
Adrian Smith voted AGAINST this amendment, while Lee Terry and Jeff Forteberry voted FOR it.
A Motion to Recommit was then made by Republicans:
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SMITH of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3521, to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of the bill H.R. 3773 as passed by the Senate on February 12, 2008.
That's right: Republicans came back to start playing their political games. They tried to get rid of this bill and replace it with the FISA Bill as it was passed in the Senate.
Democrats raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, as it had nothing to do with asset management. Republicans accused Democrats of using a "procedural objection" to block consideration of the FISA Bill. Of course, they didn't admit they were using partisan, political, procedural actions to play their games. Just who is playing politics here? Here was the dialogue that occured on this motion:
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill H.R. 3773 has nothing to do with the asset management bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, once again, the Democratic majority is insisting on a procedural objection to block consideration of the Senate-passed FISA modernization bill. This motion to recommit adds the bipartisan bill passed 2 weeks ago by the Senate, 68-29.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the gentleman from New Jersey's point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, there is nothing more germane to the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible.
Now I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate reform bill.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment consisting of the text of an entirely different measure that falls outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. The instructions are therefore not germane. The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.
When the decision was appealed by the Republicans, a motion was made to table (not consider) that appeal.
The Motion to Table PASSED on a vote of 218-195-15. Democrats for, Republicans against. Smith joined his party as usual.
Further consideration of the bill was then postponed per Section 2 of H.RES.974:
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3521 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The next day, the Journal had to be approved, and vote was again demanded.
The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 217-185-1-25
FOR: 205 Democrats, 12 Republicans
AGAINST: 15 Democrats, 170 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 15 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST approval.
H.RES.1001 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.
This set forth the rules for consideration of H.R. 5351. There were 3 votes: To Consider the Resolution, Ordering the Previous Question, and Approving the Resolution. All 3 votes were party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against.
H.R.5351 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.
This is known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.
It extends tax credits through 2011 for production of electricity from renewable resources. A limit is place on credits based on investment in renewable resource facilities placed in service after 2009. It extends tax credits for investment in solar and fuel cell property through 2016. An offset is allowed against AMT liability for certain energy tax credits. It allows public utilities to qualify. Extends credits for energy efficient property upgrades through 2014. A new tax credit is provided for production of plug-in hybrid vehicles. It extends a tax credit for installing nonhydrogen alternative fuel refueling property to 2010, among other adjustments for alternative fuel properties. It extends through 2010 the income and excise tax credits for biodiesel. A tax credit is provided for cellulosic alcohol fuel. Energy conservation bods are authorized to finance local government conservation and greenhouse gas reductions projects (a national limit of $3.6 Billion). A five-year recovery period for depreciate of energy management devices (measures and records electricity usage data) is set up. Oil Companies are denied a tax deduction for income from oil and gas production, while individual taxpayers' deductions are reduced by 3%. Increases the estimated tax payment for large oil corporations by 3% in the 3rd quarter of 2013 for assest over $1 Billion. A study is to be done to determine tax provisions that have the greatest affect on reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. A scientific finding is also to be made in regards to current and future biofuels production and the domestic effects of a dramatic increase in productivity. Finally, it applies labor standards under the Davis-Bacon Act to projects financed with new clean renewable energy bonds.
There were no amendments set forth for this bill, and after the debate was held on it, Republicans made a Motion to Recommit.
Once again, they tried to remove this bill and replace it with the pending FISA Bill as approved in the Senate. Democrats objected saying the motion was not germane to the bill (FISA is not energy tax credits!). The Chair sustained the objection, and Republicans demanded an appeal of the decision. Democrats moved to table the appeal.
The Motion to Table was PASSED on a vote of 222-191-15. It was party-line, with Democrats for, Republicans against.
Another Motion to Recommit was made, asking to promptly report back (which in the House ends all debate before passage and delays considerably). The motion was to remove several of the tax credits. They then wanted to add in entensions for the marriage penalty relief and child tax credits.
Those for the motion decided to blame the Democrats for the rising oil prices, and failing to address it effectively. They then say this bill, by taking away some of the corporate welfare Big Oil receives, will only make things worse for Americans and not promote ongoing exploration for oil and gas. They call the bonds a "liberal slush fund".
Those opposed point out that this motion would essentially kill the bill, or at the very least, render it ineffective.
The Motion to Recommit FAILED on a vote of 197-222-9, nearly party-line. Republicans were for it, Democrats were against it.
H R 5351 was then PASSED on a vote of 236-182-11.
FOR: 219 Democrats, 17 Republicans
AGAINST: 8 Democrats, 174 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Democrats, 7 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST the bill. So, while he's all for tax credits that usually benefit only a very few and usually the wealthy (individuals and corporations), he's against this one. Shows where his priorities really are.
----------------------------------------------
The remaining bills that received votes were passed with little or no opposition:
H.RES.978 - Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7, 2008, as "School Social Work Week" to promote awareness of the vital role of school social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole, in helping students prepare for their future as productive citizens.
H.RES.930 - Supporting the goals and ideals of "Career and Technical Education Month".
H.RES.944 - Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States.
S.2272 - A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service known as the Southpark Station in Alexandria, Louisiana, as the John "Marty" Thiels Southpark Station, in honor and memory of Thiels, a Louisiana postal worker who was killed in the line of duty on October 4, 2007.
H.R.3936 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 116 Helen Highway in Cleveland, Georgia, as the "Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office Building".
H.R.4454 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3050 Hunsinger Lane in Louisville, Kentucky, as the "Iraq and Afghanistan Fallen Military Heroes of Louisville Memorial Post Office Building", in honor of the servicemen and women from Louisville, Kentucky, who died in service during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
FLOOR STATEMENTS
Smith submitted the following statement for the record. Funny, but it was submitted on February 25, but was for the resolution passed nearly 2 weeks before:
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS WEEK
(Extensions of Remarks - February 25, 2008)
SPEECH OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise to salute the engineers, past, present, and future, of the United States of America. Engineers have shaped our history, from aiding the colonists to win our independence to designing our advanced, modern technologies. They impact our daily lives from the first ring of our alarm clocks in the morning to our late-night, online shopping.
In my home State of Nebraska, engineers aid agriculture with new and more effective agricultural chemicals and better equipment and technologies. Nebraska engineers help secure our Nation's energy independence by supporting the ethanol industry. Nebraska engineers ensure our roads, bridges, water-works, and other infrastructure are well designed, functional, and safe.
Engineers are key to a prosperous and productive future for all Nebraskans and Americans. There are nearly 150 engineering companies in Nebraska's Third District. Every day I hear about the need to attract talented, educated young people to fill technical, engineering, and science positions in small communities and rural areas in the Third District. I have been, and continue to be, an enthusiastic supporter of the America COMPETES act which encourages American competitiveness in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. I am optimistic this initiative will help Nebraska's engineering businesses attract and maintain native talent in engineering.
Smith then made the following statement on the floor. It did NOT occur during the Energy Tax Credit debate:
ENERGY TAX HIKE MEANS HIGHER GAS PRICES
(House of Representatives - February 26, 2008)
(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will, for the third time, debate an energy bill which actually raises gas prices for the American people, sends manufacturing jobs overseas, and increases our reliance on foreign energy. This energy tax hike will raise taxes on domestic energy producers, in essence making it more difficult and expensive to produce American energy for American consumers.
As you know, oil has reached and broken the previously untouched benchmark of $100 a barrel, and the average national price of gasoline has gone up 16 cents in just 13 days. In my State of Nebraska, gas prices are hitting $3.14 in Grand Island, and in Scottsbluff they're hitting $3.08.
The American public is deeply worried about the rising cost of energy, yet we stand on the verge of making it worse by stubbornly going forward with this legislation. It's simple, really; raising taxes on American energy leads to higher gas prices and a greater dependency on foreign sources of energy.
The longer we put off working to switch to new forms of energy, specifically renewable forms, the worse it will be for all of us. Does Smith propose we just ignore that fact?
BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED
Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week. The last time he introduced a bill as the lead sponsor was on 7/24/2007 (H.R.3143 - to eliminate meth kingpins). He's only sponsored a total of 6 bills.
He signed on to 4 bills as a cosponsor.
H.RES.951 - Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.
This was introduced on 1/29/2008. Smith signed onto it on 2/26/2008.
H.R.1576 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions.
This bill would make permanent the tax deduction for charitable contributions by individuals and corporations of real property interests for conservation purposes.
It was introduced back on 3/19/2007. Smith signed onto it on 2/27/2008, nearly a year later.
H.R.1767 - To amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.
This bill was introduced back on 3/29/2007. Smith signed onto it on 2/28/2008.
H.R.5134 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland to encourage the continued use of the property for farming, and for other purposes.
This bill has been titled the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Act, and was introduced on 1/23/2008 by Rep. Lee Terry (NE-2). It would exclude 100% of the gain, up to $500,000, from the sale of farm property to first-time farmers who will use the property for farming for 10 years. There would be a 50% exclusion for all farm sales to those who will use it to farm for 10 years, and a 25% exclusion for all other sales.
Smith signed onto the bill on 2/25/2008.
0 comments:
Post a Comment