Crane Conservation Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us today and urge all of my colleagues to vote against it today.

Most critically, the bill claims to be a package of tax extenders, but fails to deal with the biggest and most pressing extender in the code, the AMT patch, the alternative minimum tax patch. This is a missed opportunity. We should have included that in this bill of other expiring provisions in the code.

The majority's failure to extend this patch for 2008 would mean an additional 21 million--mostly middle class--individuals and families would be ensnared by the alternative minimum tax. As a result, affected families will pay an additional $61.5 billion in taxes for this year. This oversight--this neglect, I think--is the single largest flaw in the bill.

The majority, I'm sure, will claim during today's debate, just as they did during committee markup, that they will address the AMT before adjourning this year, just not now. Surely our experience from 2007, when the AMT patch wasn't enacted until the day after Christmas, suggests that maybe we ought to begin acting on this now and not just run down the shot clock. Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense to vote to extend dozens of tax provisions, some for several years, without also dealing with the biggest and most far-reaching expiring provision, the AMT patch.

The bill also clings to the mistaken view that the House's PAYGO rules require us to raise taxes in order to prevent tax increases. I was pleased last year that, when the House finally did pass the AMT patch, we recognized the foolishness of applying PAYGO to expiring tax provisions, and I'm disappointed that that bipartisan approach is not being followed here today.

Simply put, we shouldn't have to pay to extend current law. This is not paying for a new tax cut in the main. Most of this bill is extending current law.

As we stare at the prospect of a more than $3.5 trillion tax increase baked into the budget by the majority's misguided PAYGO rules, I think it will become even more obvious in the years to come why Congress should not have to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase.

If the majority was ever willing to offset tax provisions with spending cuts, I might view this a little differently. But this bill shows once again that the only tool the majority has to meet its PAYGO requirements is the hammer of tax increases. It's little wonder, then, that to them every problem looks like a nail.

As I documented many times last year and during our committee markup last week, Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. We're getting enough revenues. We're already collecting more in taxes as a percent of our GDP than the historical average of revenues coming into Washington. That's not the problem. The problem is spending. So how many times have we had PAYGO rules be adopted and followed in this House using spending cuts to pay for extending current tax law? Zero.

Mr. Speaker, the continued use of tax increases to pay for extending current law is unacceptable to this ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I hope will be objectionable to a majority of the Members of this House. In fact, this bill not only contains tax cuts, it actually does increase spending. There are items in this bill that score as spending--expanding refundable tax credits, the New York Liberty Zone project. Those score as spending. So we're increasing spending in this bill, and we're paying for that with tax increases.

In addition to those two provisions, the bill contains numerous other new temporary and permanent provisions, undermining the claim that the bill is merely extending current law. Some of the new provisions might be meritorious, but a few of those I think deserve closer examination.

For example, some of my colleagues may be surprised to know that there is a nearly $1.6 billion special tax break for trial lawyers in this bill. The provision overrides developing case law and lets lawyers using certain types of contingency fee arrangements to deduct sooner their expenses. CBO's Joint Tax Committee scores this as costing the taxpayers $1.6 billion over the next 10 years. Now, this provision was not the subject, that I'm aware of, of any hearings or examination by the committee, and yet it's in this bill today.

I would hope that before we make such a significant change in tax law costing taxpayers $1.6 billion, all going to one very narrow set of people in this country, trial lawyers, that we would want to have a hearing on that and flesh it out to see if maybe it could be crafted better, or whether, in fact, it's of any value at all to the country.

This bill also revisits the ``green pork'' tax credit bonds that were much discussed during the energy debate in 2007. These are the same bond proceeds, remember, that could be used for all sorts of dubious projects, maybe hybrid snowmobiles in Aspen, or maybe a new Wal-Mart with a couple of solar panels out front.

State and local governments using the bond proceeds don't even have to certify that the projects will reduce fossil fuel consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the majority rejected a sensible fix for this oversight when this was offered last year.

We know how this is all going to end. It will end with the passage of an AMT patch without offsets, like last year, and probably many extenders being approved without tax increases. More than 40 Senators have signed a letter pledging to oppose a package such as the one before the House today. And even if it somehow squeaks by the Senate, the President has indicated he would veto this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the majority has chosen against moving a bill on expiring provisions that could have had bipartisan support and instead have opted for the measure before us.

Given that its fate has already been sealed--it won't become law--I am comforted to know that we will have another chance to consider this legislation this year. I hope it's sooner rather than later so that we're not here in December once again scrambling to deal with these issues.

We can do better than what's before us today. Let's get rid of this, start over, and bring a good bill back.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I agree with much of what the gentleman just said. I'm happy to hear him endorse many provisions that we, I think wisely, put into the Jobs bill several years ago when we were in the majority. So it's not those provisions that I oppose, it's the tax increases in the bill to pay for just extending current law that I'm opposed to. And I want to make that clear. I like the provisions the gentleman mentioned.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I assure the gentleman from Illinois that despite the fact there might be 9,300 permits to drill out there that aren't being utilized, I am sure there are good reasons for not utilizing those permits. I can assure the gentleman that if we opened up ANWR, if we opened up the Continental Shelf and more parts of the Gulf of Mexico, we would have domestic oil companies taking advantage and drilling to produce.

I would be happy to yield.

I don't agree with that.

Reclaiming my time, I don't quarrel that that may be correct. But it's beside the point. There may be legitimate reasons why those particular permits are not being utilized. But the fact is, by law our companies cannot drill in ANWR, they cannot drill in the Outer Continental Shelf beyond a few areas in the Gulf of Mexico. And that is wrong.

Look, my 14-year-old son this morning, I am driving him to school and the radio report came on that oil hit $130 a barrel, and my son says, Dad, why don't we just tell OPEC to produce more oil? Well, he's a pretty smart kid. That would help. But I said, Son, if we told OPEC to drill for more oil and then they turned it around and said, Well, why doesn't the United States drill for more oil.

No, I've already given you some time.

What if they told us, Why doesn't the United States drill for more oil, what would our answer be? We don't know, because Democrats for years have blocked every sensible environmentally sound plan to explore and develop known resources here in this country, and that is a shame. We ought to have a balanced energy policy. Yes, alternative sources that we Republicans put in legislation several years ago, passed the bill, I believe, in 2005, and began a lot of these credits that we are extending today. We agree with that.

Let us develop the resources we know we have, the proper fuel resources that can help immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if my good friend Mr. Larson's description of the tax increase in the bill were correct, I wouldn't have any quarrel with it. However, the provision affects more than just offshore hedge fund managers. It affects any employee working for a company based offshore in any business. So it is much broader than the gentleman described, and that is the main reason that I oppose that provision in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the majority has so much more time left than the minority, I would reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would reserve the balance of my time to close on our side.

Mr. Speaker, let me close today by simply saying that we don't object to the main body of the bill, the extensions of the expiring provisions of the Tax Code. After all, those were provisions that we put in the Tax Code when we were in the majority. That is not the point.

The point is that if we follow the PAYGO rules that require these existing provisions of law to be paid for if they are extended just amounts to a built-in tax increase. If we are already bringing in to the Federal Government more money as a percent of GDP than we historically have with all these provisions in place, what sense does it make to raise taxes just to keep them in place? It doesn't make sense, unless you simply want to raise more revenue for the central government in this country, grow the government even more.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to those who have spoken so eloquently on the merits of the expiring tax provisions, I agree with that. But to hold to the PAYGO provisions that require the offsets in this bill would lead us to a huge tax increase over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward motion that offers Members of this House a simple choice. Are you in favor of long- term extensions of these expiring tax provisions and extending the all- important AMT patch, without raising taxes?

As we have discussed at length here today, the majority's bill unwisely adheres to their ill-advised PAYGO rules. Thus, they have once again found themselves boxed in a corner, scouring the Tax Code for ways to fuel their agenda. Whether that agenda involves additional spending, new tax incentives, or even just extensions of the low-tax policies that Republicans originally enacted during our time in the majority, the Democrat solution seems to always be the same: tax, tax, tax.

Today's bill is no different. While there is virtually no disagreement in this House that the expiring tax reductions contained in the underlying legislation need to be renewed, the two parties seem to have a major disagreement about whether revenue-raisers should be necessary to pay for them. The majority's bill represents a clear choice in favor of higher taxes. Our motion to recommit, on the other hand, represents a clear choice in favor of extending current tax relief, without offsetting tax increases.

Unlike the bill brought forward today by the majority, Mr. Speaker, which contains $55.5 billion in revenue-raisers, our motion contains no--repeat, no--tax increases. Democrats were wrong to propose these sorts of offsetting tax hikes last year, and they're wrong again today. If they stick with their misguided PAYGO rules, they'll be wrong again in 2010 as well, when a huge number of critically important tax policies, ranging from the expanded $1,000 child credit to the lower rates on dividends and capital gains and lower individual rates will expire. And the majority's PAYGO logic will then require more than a $3.5 trillion tax increase simply to maintain current law. But that's where PAYGO will take us.

This motion to recommit offers us a different path, Mr. Speaker. Not only does our motion reject the majority's tax hikes, it extends the bill's positive provisions for considerably longer than the underlying bill does. Indeed, our motion extends the package of expiring provisions, including all the expiring energy tax provisions, through 2013.

So if you support the deduction for State and local sales taxes, here's your chance to extend it for 6 years, not just 1. If you support the research and development tax credit, here's your chance to extend it for 6 years, not just 1.

In short, if you want to extend all of the important low-tax policies that expired last year--as well as the energy extenders that are set to expire just months from now--on a long-term basis, here's your chance.

This motion also gives Members the opportunity to extend one final crucial provision that has gone completely unaddressed by the majority: the AMT patch. As we've highlighted throughout today's debate, the majority's legislation is deafeningly silent on the urgently needed AMT patch. Their bill's failure to patch the AMT for 2008 means that more than 25 million middle class individuals and families are in line for a $61.5 billion tax hike next April, an average tax increase for those families of more than $2,400 per taxpayer.

Our motion does what everyone knows must be done. It patches the AMT for 2008, and it does so early in the year to help ensure that we avoid a repeat performance of the legislative meltdown engineered by the majority last year, which prevented the 2007 patch from being enacted until the day after Christmas. We need to patch the AMT and we need to patch it now. This motion gives us that opportunity.

I will close, Mr. Speaker, with just a word about process. I suspect that we'll hear from our friends on the other side that this motion will kill the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that you can't kill a bill that's already dead. This bill is dead on arrival in the other body, Mr. Speaker. Forty-one Senators signed a letter last month pledging to oppose tax bills that contain revenue-raising offsets.

On the very same day that our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, reported out this bill last week, our colleagues across the Capitol passed a motion on the Senate floor instructing Senate conferees on the budget resolution to reject the House's plan to raise $110 billion in taxes in order to pay for the extension of expiring provisions, including the AMT patch.

And, Mr. Speaker, even if this legislation somehow got through the Senate, the President has indicated he would veto the bill.

You can't kill a bill that's already dead, Mr. Speaker. So let's use this motion to recommit to revive this bill, send it back to committee so that we can do our work in a bipartisan way, and get a bill passed and to the President that he will sign.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1212, I call up the bill (H.R. 6049) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friends and colleagues, we now have an opportunity to reverse the trend that this great Nation has bound itself to, and that is, the addiction to oil as well as the lack of will to do something about it.

This great country has faced up to many crises, and the oil shortage just happens to be one. The question is do we have the will to look and to research and to find alternative means in which to meet the needs of this great Nation.

Under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, I think today is the day that all of us are going to be proud of the initiatives that we have taken, the opportunities that are going to be given, the jobs that are going to be created, and the excitement in being able to say that the United States need not look to any Nation because of their vast resources in oil because we have the ingenuity and the ability to find alternatives.

It is endless the possibilities that this will pursue in encouraging the production of electricity from renewable sources, using the wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste.

We even go as far as to have coal electricity plants.

It is a great opportunity for us and the world to explore these new areas that we just were too lazy or found no need to do, encouraging energy efficient products such as plug-in hybrid cars and incentives for conservation of energy in our buildings, whether they're residential or whether they're commercial. And I find it very exciting that we allow local government, that knows their communities better than we ever could, to issue tax credit bonds to further explore how we can conserve energy.

I think this is merely a beginning, but it is an historic beginning that defies party lines. I do hope that we thank the Speaker and the chairman of the committee, the staffs who came together after working years on this project, to come together with a bill that's the beginning of the one that could be a new day for America, a new day for the world as we release our addiction and dependency on fossil fuel.

There is another part of this bill that I come to you with mixed feelings and yet ask your support. It's called the extenders. What are the extenders, for the new Members? It's when people want bills passed, but they put expiration dates on them in order to hide the real cost of the bill.

I think that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and I agree that we have so much garbage in this bill that soon I hope someone would have the courage to take a look at the tax bill that we have and strip it of the preferential treatment and get down to making the bills that we want permanent, and those that should not be permanent, just to kick them out.

I think it's a disgrace that we have a stimulus package and we have to target the middle class in order to be given handouts because they don't have enough money under our tax system to put food on the table, to provide tuition for their kids and put clothes on their back. We target them as being people who cannot afford to save and plan for the future. I think it is a disgrace for the Congress to have a tax system that way.

But because we make commitments and because some of these laws are good and efficient and because we don't have the money at this point in time to make it permanent, we come to you and ask you to support the extenders. These extenders include research and development, standard deduction for property taxes for non-itemizers. We have provisions in here to help Katrina. Expanded child credits. We make it more equitable how attorneys can write off their investments before the end of a case. We also make it equitable for the moving picture industry to get the same benefits that other industries get as relates to job credit.

This is one heck of an opportunity, I think, for us to move this forward in a short way. It's only a 1-year extension, which means that the next administration hopefully will be more progressive in terms of cleaning up the code and making permanent what should be made permanent. It is not paid in controversial taxes. We remove preferences for income that is made overseas and avoid tax liability, as well as tax benefits yet to be received. So there is no pain there.

I ask unanimous consent at this time to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott, for purposes of managing the bill, and to thank him and so many others on the Ways and Means Committee for their leadership, their patience, and being able to bring this bill to the floor. I'm fairly confident that we will have very little problem in the Senate and have this passed into law.

So remember the date. It's historic in nature. And remember the role that you played in supporting this revolutionary approach to avoid the dependency on fossil fuel for our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in outrageous opposition to the motion to recommit that has been offered to this House.

One, the outrage concerns my love for the Congress and the Constitution. And to think that this great House and the committee which I'm proud to chair would even have to consider what they're thinking, if they're thinking at all on the other side, to decide what we're going to legislate outrages me.

Two, whatever the President says he's going to do or may do--we understand that he's addicted to veto, but that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

And why do I think basically it's the right thing? Well, it has to be if you want to extend it for 5 years. So your vote on this, after the motion to recommit dies on this floor, is going to be very interesting as to if you want it for 5, why wouldn't you want to extend it at least for 1?

Lastly, I wish that I had some time to share with my friend, whom I've enjoyed working with as the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, to ask him how much money do you think they have in Japan and China to loan us? There must be some limit to their capacity.

Our bill costs about $125 billion altogether, I think. $54 billion for the energy provisions as well as for this. So I assume that you want to add another $200 billion to that. And I don't remember you using the creative language that you used when you and the Senate--that you and the other body, whatever they call themselves--decided that you don't have to pay for the alternative minimum tax.

First of all, if I understood that, I'll take it home to my wife and explain that there are ways that you can lose revenue and not renew it and still not change your lifestyle. And if it works at home, I will come here, and at least for the next Congress, ask Mr. McCrery, if he can't stay over there, come on our side and explain how, if the President puts in the budget that we should be expecting money from these 25 million hostages that shouldn't have to pay the tax, that we don't have to make up for the money.

So I assume that you have now extended this to cover the extenders. And I hope really that you would stick around a little while so that you will be able to work with me and the next President, not to explain why in the last 8 years we haven't reformed this doggone tax system. Most of this stuff shouldn't be in the Tax Code. You know it and I know it. And the things that should be in the Tax Code should be made permanent. The stuff that shouldn't be in there should be taken out.

So in 8 years, the President is now talking about vetoing. Why didn't he take enough time to say, Let's straighten out the code, let's attempt to balance the budget, let's do the right thing for energy and whatever has to be in an extender that expires, help us to get rid of it without being charged with raising taxes. Any extender that expires, we would say that it raises taxes.

I know and Secretary Paulson knows, and we'll be hearing more from him probably after he leaves the administration, that this House has the responsibility of having a Tax Code that is simple, that is economically inspiring, and is something that can be confident and things shouldn't expire. If they expire, they shouldn't be in there in the first place. If it is good, it should stay in the Tax Code so there's reliability.

And if you're going to say that we're not going to get revenues as a result of extending this, we say for 1 year, we will raise the money, we will do it the right way, we will be proud of it, and in a small way attempt to stop this deficit.

But be kind to the people in Japan. Be kind to the people in China. They can't forever support everything that the Republicans want.

We're going to have to make sacrifices if we want to make changes. So this war is one against ignorance and not having the research and development. It's one in trying to have research and development for our corporations, but, more importantly, to find alternatives to this addiction that we have.

So you have been there for 8 years. Please don't try to change the things in 10 minutes here. Join with us. Let's work together in a bipartisan way, and let's mark down this day that is a day that House Democrats and Republicans said, stop the addiction, move to the alternatives, and dedicate ourselves to having a reformed Tax Code, if not this year then certainly next year.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, I want to say how much respect I have for Mr. McCrery. I think he is one of the most positive Members of this body. I think he has worked productively with Chairman Rangel, and I have great respect for my colleague. He will be leaving, and that will be a loss for the Congress. I wanted to say that before I begin.

Let me say that we have disagreements. However, and on the overall issue that he raised in closing about paying for this, he is accurate. Now, some of these extenders even pre-date the time when the Republicans were in the majority in 1995 and through 2006. But I think there is consensus on extending them. The difference is, should we pay for them? There are only a number of options, a few options available to us. We can pay for them, or our children can pay for them. Somebody will pay for them. There is not a free lunch.

My view is this supply side economics pretends there is somewhere out there where the tooth fairy is going to deliver the money. There is not a tooth fairy. It is the parent who delivers the money under the pillow when the tooth is lost. But we are the parents, and we need to act as adults. We need to pay for what we buy. And if what we buy is giving somebody a tax incentive because we believe that they will do something good that will advantage our community and our country, then that is fine. I am supportive of that. But we ought to pay for it, because that is our decision.

One of the gentlemen spoke about his two children. I have three children. I have three grandchildren, and I have one great- granddaughter. I'm equally concerned. I'm concerned about the $4 trillion in debt that we've added over the last 6-plus years, and now some $400 billion this year alone. But that is the general philosophy.

The specific philosophy here is we need to be energy independent. We need to be sure that our policies that we pursue do not continue to make us hostage to those who have petroleum products.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend Chairman Charlie Rangel and all of the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this very important, farsighted legislation, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.

This week the American people are paying, on average, $3.79 per gallon for gasoline. Mr. Hensarling observed that I was laughing when he said the Democrats have been in charge and look what's happened to gas prices. I was laughing because the absurdity is rejected by the American public, that somehow policies that we've adopted over the last year, when the President vetoes anything he doesn't want, has affected those gasoline prices to me is patently absurd and clearly rejected by the American people. It was, I thought then and think now, a laughable proposition to make.

Motorists are paying $4 per gallon, more than $2.50 per gallon more than they were paying when the current administration took office.

To show you the difference, when Bill Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001, gas prices rose from $1.06 to $1.46, 40 cents, or a nickel a year, a nickel a year during those 8 years. During this President's administration, prices are rising a nickel a week.

There is no doubt that this explosion in gasoline prices is squeezing hardworking families who live in every one of our districts who also are coping with the rising costs of food and groceries, health care and education.

This legislation is not a panacea to those immediate concerns. Would that we had one. But it does represent an important step in our continuing effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Among other things, the bill will establish a new tax credit of $1.01 per gallon for cellulosic biofuel production from now through 2015, so that we can rely on the Middle West and perhaps other parts of our country, rather than the Middle East. It will extend this $1 per gallon biodiesel tax credit, and makes it available to all potential sources of diesel that can be made without petroleum. And it allows jet fuel produced from biomass to qualify for the credit as well.

Furthermore, this legislation will reduce our dependence on imported fuel for our electricity sector by extending and expanding tax incentive for sources of renewable energy including wind, solar and biomass.

It also will encourage the use of plug-in hybrid cars and provide incentives for energy conservation in residential homes, commercial buildings and appliances; all of which, I think, the American public applauds.

Additionally, this bill will help create hundreds of thousands of ``green jobs.'' It will spur American innovation and business investment, which will strengthen our economy today and in the future. And it will provide tax relief for millions of Americans, expanding the child tax credit for the families of 13 million children, helping 4.5 million families better afford college through a tuition deduction, and saving 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses, so when they buy something for their classroom, like a business expense, they'll be able to deduct it.

Now, many on the Republican side object to this bill because the Democratic majority, in keeping with our commitment to fiscal responsibility and pay as you go budget rules, insists that this legislation be paid for and not add to the national debt.

That's a fundamental difference between our two sides. One believes that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves. Mr. Bernanke doesn't believe that, Mr. Greenspan doesn't believe that, but our Republican colleagues clearly believe it, and they've pursued that policy, which has, as I said, put us over $3 trillion in additional debt over the last 82 months.

To them I simply say: It is long past time that the Members here insist that our Nation pay for the things it buys. To not do so takes the discipline out of the democratic process, because if we can simply charge that which we buy, there will be no discipline on the part of the electorate to say no, we don't want to be taxed to buy that. And I guarantee the system would stop buying it. But if there is no discipline, if we're not paying, my grandchildren will not be able to vote and exercise that discipline.

History, I suggest to my colleagues, is littered with the stories of formerly great nations that began their demise through fiscal profligacy. It is within our power to ensure that the United States of America is never added to that list.

The method by which Chairman Rangel and the committee have paid for the cost of this bill is laudable. Important. This legislation closes loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investments overseas. And because our obligations do not stop, average working Americans, therefore, must pay more if the wealthiest among us who can seek tax havens do not pay their fair share.

This legislation is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our environment, create thousands of jobs and strengthen our economy, and provide tax relief to millions of hardworking Americans.

I commend Mr. Rangel, Mr. McDermott, the members of the committee, and I commend Mr. McCrery for his responsible stewardship as the ranking member and his working to try to bring consensus. We have not reached it in this instance, but I do commend him for his efforts.

And I urge my colleagues, support this important legislation which moves us towards energy independence and a fair and equitable tax system.

Madam Speaker, for the information of our colleagues and my constituents, I want the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes I missed this session.

On rollcall 338, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1212 providing for consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 339, on agreeing to the resolution providing consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 340, on ordering the previous question providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization of 2009, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 341, on ordering the previous question providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 342, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res 70, the Congressional Budget Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 343, on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 344, passage of H.R. 6049, The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 345, to suspend the rules and pass as amended H.R. 1771, The Crane Conservation Act of 2008, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 346, passage of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act objections of the President notwithstanding, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 347, to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 3819, Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2008, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 348, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5826, Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living adjustment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 349, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5856, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 350, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1218, providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 351, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 352, on motion to table H. Res. 1221, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 353, to suspend rules and pass H.R. 6124 to provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 2012, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 354, to suspend rules and pass H. Res. 1194, reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon, under Prime Minister Fouad Sinoria, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 355, on the Akin amendment to H.R. 5658, to cut military pay, benefits, and healthcare by $163 million. I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 356, on the Franks amendment to H.R. 5658, that would take $719 million from high priority R&D programs outside of the Missile Defense Agency, in order to eliminate the committee's targeted reductions to the missile defense budget, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 357, on the Tierny amendment to H.R. 5658, to reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by an additional $996.2 million beyond the $719 million already reduced, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 358, on the Pearce amendment to H.R. 5658, to cut $10 million from the Department of Defense Energy Conservation Improvement Program in order to restore RRW funding, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 359, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 5658, requiring that any security guarantee, arrangement, or assurance between the US and Iraq would have to be ratified by the Senate or approved by the full Congress, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 360, on the Braley amendment to H.R. 5658, requiring an extensive report on current and future war costs, including direct war costs and veterans payments, to try to capture the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 361, on the Price amendment to H.R. 5658. prohibiting agencies under the Department of Defense from using contractors to perform interrogations, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 362, on the Holt amendment to H.R. 5658, requiring that strategic intelligence interrogations of Department of Defense detainees being conducted in theater interment facilities, and not on the battlefield, are video-taped or otherwise electronically recorded and stored according to guidelines that the Secretary of Defense will promulgate, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 363, on the McGovern amendment to H.R. 5658. requiring the secretary of defense to remove recently imposed secrecy and return to the previous practice of releasing the names, upon request, of the students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 364, on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 365, on passage of H.R. 5658 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 366, to suspend the rules and agree, as amended H. Res. 986, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 367, to suspend rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 138 supporting National Men's Health Week, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 368, to suspend rules and agree on H. Res. 923 recognizing the State of Minnesota's 150th Anniversary, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 369, to suspend rules and agree to H. Res. 1114 supporting the goals and ideals of the Arbor Day Foundation and National Arbor Day, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6049.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my distinguished colleague from Michigan that this bill is headed for nowhere.

Are you talking about the White House?

No, I'm going to let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have 2 minutes.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are going to approve a plan that will produce significant new energy resources for the American people. We have passed this bill four times. Mr. Brady is right. There is nothing new here. We keep passing it and passing it and the oil companies keep killing it.

What you're hearing today, just the last speaker says, let's drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or go hat in hand to OPEC and say, Please produce more oil. Or let's have some more secret meetings down in the White House with the Vice President and design a new tax policy that will get our oil prices even higher. They met in the first months in the White House and decided how to drive up the oil prices for the oil companies.

We are going to implement a tax plan that uses the Tax Code to produce renewable energy to put us on a path to providing our children with an energy-independent future. The plan creates incentives for America to apply technology and use practices to use energy more efficiently than the way we are presently doing.

There was a time a long time ago when the United States led in alternative energy. But now Denmark, Japan and Germany are far ahead of us because of 8 years of this present administration and their attitudes toward alternative energy.

With this legislation, we'll take a big step toward regaining our leadership in the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy. This legislation will not only create jobs in what may be the world's largest emerging industry, but it will be a blueprint for the energy policy for the 21st century.

We need to end our addiction to oil, and that's what this bill is about. I urge my colleagues to support it this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Missouri that during the 6 years that the Bush administration had a rubber-stamp Congress up here, they put it out 1 year at a time. Now you want us to make it long. We will see.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from the managing director of Credit Suisse that says, ``I am writing in support of H.R. 6049. We fully support your efforts to use the revised deferred compensation measure as a revenue raiser.''

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,

New York, NY, May 15, 2008.

Chairman Charles Rangel,

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel: On behalf of Credit Suisse, I am

writing to express our support for H.R. 6049 the Energy and

Tax Extenders Act of 2008. The bill's deferred compensation

provision is of particular interest to us and we very much

appreciate the efforts of you and your staff to ensure that

this measure does not create any unintended consequences.

We are aware that issues have been raised regarding the

need to offset the bill and with the deferred compensation

provision specifically. As you are aware,'we are generally

cautious as it pertains to revenue raisers and always look to

work with the Committee to guard against unintended

consequences. However, in this instance we fully support your

efforts to use the revised deferred compensation measure as a

revenue raiser in H.R. 60491 Given the House rules on pay-go,

we recognize that without offsets the bill is not likely to

be enacted this year, thereby causing a series of tax

provisions to expire which in our opinion would not be a good

overall outcome.

I reiterate our support for the measure and thank you again

for your willingness to work with us on the deferred

compensation provision. I look forward to working with you

again in the future and please let us know if we can be of

any assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas Prevost,

Managing Director.

I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time to close, using the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader to close the debate.