Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008

Mr. President, the American people are very frustrated with the failure of Congress to act on the great problems facing our country, a lot of problems, but I believe they are especially concerned about surging gasoline and energy prices. They are angry. They do not believe we have done enough in this Congress, and I think when they find out the leadership of this Congress, the Democratic leadership, is proposing legislation that will raise, not lower gas prices, they will not be happy.

Indeed, I received a note today from my staff that an experienced reporter at the Birmingham News, Mr. Tom Gordon, today wrote that my home county in Alabama, Wilcox County, again leads the Nation in the percentage of income that its citizens spend monthly on motor fuel, 16 percent, because the county has low incomes and people drive long distances to work.

It is a big deal. It is absolutely a real matter of importance. I think we need to do something about it. They want us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to produce more clean American energy, to show we are taking steps to contain and I think maybe even hopefully reduce the surging prices.

These prices are threatening the family budget. They are threatening American jobs and the American economy. Turn on any news program and read any news magazine. We are on track to spend $500 billion abroad this year to purchase 60 percent of the oil we consume; 60 percent-plus is being imported. This balance-of-trade deficit weakens our dollar, requiring even more dollars to purchase the same amount of oil. With the dollar getting weaker, you need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil. We are creating jobs and wealth in nations around the world with our money when this missing wealth in our country that we send abroad reduces our own jobs.

Families are routinely paying $50, $75, $100 more a month for the same or even less gasoline than they were a few years ago. When this added expense reduces the ability of hard-working middle-class Americans to purchase what they need to get by on, or to take care of their families, and when this reduction in spending on oil reduces spending on things other than oil that the American people need, is it any wonder the economy is struggling, I ask? Is it

any wonder millions of American are struggling to get by? Is it any wonder Americans from the suites in New York to the rural roads of Alabama are worried?

What is it our constituents are asking us to do? I think they want us to get busy doing what we know works. What works does not mean this $6.7 trillion cap-and-trade plan that has been introduced here that will burden the American economy by driving up the cost of gasoline by another 50 cents in the next number of years, 20 years; driving up the cost of electricity by 44 percent; driving up the price of gasoline three times that 50 cents in the years to come in the distant future; and drive business away from America.

It will make our manufacturing industry less competitive than the global marketplace at a time when we are already struggling to compete and stay up. As I have noted, it will drive up unemployment, and we unfortunately saw a very large surge in unemployment last week, to 5.5 percent.

First, it is not a horrible rate of unemployment, but a horrible increase in unemployment of five-tenths of 1 percent. As one economist said, I would not have been surprised to see 6 percent unemployment over the next 12 months. I did not expect to see half of that occur in 1 month.

People know we have a problem and they understand it. I guess the question is, is there anything we can do about it or are we hopeless? Is there something we can do to bring down the price of oil and make more sense in our economy to confront the danger that high energy prices, gasoline prices pose to America's well being?

Yes, there is. There is. Fundamentally we need to do what works, and we know a lot of things work. It is past time to get started in taking the long road back to a sound energy policy that can and will bring down or at least contain the price of crude oil and gasoline.

I propose that we work together on common ground, liberals, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats. It is within our grasp and the people are ready for our leadership. We have an opportunity to address our Nation's crisis. The challenge is truly bipartisan in every way. After all, high energy prices affect Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all in the same way. While conservation and increasing the production of American oil and gas in an environmentally sound way can help contain the surge in prices, we need to do that. We must seek common ground further to develop and deploy technological breakthroughs necessary to solve our Nation's energy crisis.

We must commit ourselves as a nation to the production of clean and affordable energy sources. We must commit to policies that will move us beyond oil in a financially and prudent way. Only by championing national interests over any special interests will we be able to secure the common interests and lower energy prices and have a cleaner environment, both of which I believe are possible.

But we are far behind. Business-as-usual policies crafted to benefit favored constituents are no way to develop sound energy solutions to our Nation's needs. That is why I am proposing legislation to direct the Department of Energy, which I think can do more and should do more, to evaluate the host of national incentives we have now on the books to create alternative sources of energy, some of which have worked well, and to recommend changes based on what is in the national interest.

The national interest is to utilize those incentives to the maximum amount possible to create the most amount of clean American energy. Frankly, there is too much in some areas and not enough in other areas. We need to utilize incentives to jump-start industries that can help build a source of clean American energy. For example, we did succeed in creating an ethanol industry through a very sizable incentive. That has worked. We have drawn it down some now. The Agriculture bill that passed the Senate reduced some of those incentives. Perhaps they should have been reduced more since it has been such a healthy enterprise. That money could have been applied to other areas and other aspects of alternative energy that could jump-start those sources.

Congress also suffers too often from a short-term focus on the pressing issues of the day. Too often, we fail to adequately plan for the future needs of the country. That is why I propose that the Department of Energy develop a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy to anticipate unforeseen needs and to promote continued development of innovative energy sources. In order to achieve these goals, the Department would have to report its recommendations to Congress frequently.

I am not ashamed to say that I have a lot of issues on my plate. I am on the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Energy Committee. The Department of Energy has a huge staff, a large number of personnel. They spend all their time every day working on energy issues. We should have leadership from them. They should tell us what is working and what is not. They should help Congress set good policy. They could do more in that regard. They should not be timid about it. They should help us, step forward, make some proposals, and be more aggressive.

There are many things we can do now to lower the price of gasoline and promote clean American energy. Indeed, progress will be made by a thousand steps, large and small, but they must be smart steps. They don't need to be steps that cost far more than they will ever return in terms of energy per cost. They don't need to be political pork.

In 2005, Congress directed the Department of Interior to study the oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. That is the deep waters off our coast, not right on the beaches. The study found that 8.5 billion barrels of oil are currently known to exist off our Nation's shores. In addition, the study estimated that approximately 86 billion barrels of oil exist in these waters. We spend maybe $5 billion a year on oil. That includes the 60 percent we import. The U.S. Geological Survey and private industry also estimate that approximately 25 billion barrels of oil exist on shore in the lower 48 States and Alaska. This totals approximately 119 billion barrels of oil alone and would be enough to power millions of automobiles for a century--not every automobile in the country for a century, but it would carry us a long way until we continue to work hard to have those breakthroughs that get us off oil maybe completely. The sooner the better for me.

These are not the only reserves known to exist from studies. These are reserves estimated from studies made 30 years ago. Further exploration and modern seismographic work will certainly locate far more reserves.

The question fundamentally is, to the American people and my colleagues, do we import more and more of our oil and gas from places that produce it in the North Sea and the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea off the coast of Africa and South America or do we produce it safely off our own shores, where the money stays at home, where we are not sending $500 billion of American citizens' money to people who build palaces in the desert with nothing more than basically money they have taxed us with? The price of oil today is set in large part because OPEC has reduced production, creating a shortage in the whole world. That is the fundamental problem. There are a lot of others, but that is the fundamental problem. We need to fight back. The way we fight back is to keep more of our money at home and send it less to these countries. How simple is that? But the policies we are having here go the opposite direction. They are not allowing us to produce more oil and gas in America, safely and cleanly.

We have and can move forward a lot of other sources of oil. One could be oil from oil shale. Some estimate those reserves to be approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil--a lifetime of oil in oil shale. There are a lot of things that have to happen to make that be produced. We have to be sure it is done in an environmental way. But we have major corporations that are willing to spend billions of dollars to see if they can produce it in that fashion. We blocked them from doing that last year. When I say ``we,'' I didn't agree to it, but the Congress slipped that in in conference committee and basically blocked that in the dead of night without any hearings to discuss the merits.

For example, Saudi Arabia, which has the largest amount of oil known in

the world, has only approximately 267 billion barrels of oil, whereas we have 1,800 billion barrels of oil in oil shale. It is primarily located in the West in governmental lands.

What about coal? We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 25 percent of the world's coal reserves, which is enough to last approximately 250 years at the current rate. Surely long before then, we will have developed alternatives to carbon fuels. Converting this tremendous resource into liquid transportation fuel using proven technology can bring down the price of gasoline. It really can.

At this very moment, private companies are prepared to convert coal to liquid fuel and sell it to the Air Force for aircraft, sequestering the carbon so it is not emitted into the atmosphere, at approximately $85 a barrel. That is $40 less than the world market price of oil today, which is over $130 a barrel. They are prepared to do that. Somebody slipped in language to block that from occurring, so the Air Force now is in limbo as to whether they can enter into a long-term contract necessary to guarantee domestic sources of clean fuel made from American coal, all the money staying in the United States, helping enhance our national security. We need to repeal that provision. We need to let the Air Force go ahead with this. It would mean tremendous opportunity to affirm the Air Force's initiative and to verify as a practical matter whether this large amount of fuel can be converted from coal. The way they do it, they heat the coal, and off comes the gas, and then you can reconvert that back to a liquid. It comes out cleaner, just spotless clean. It cleans the engine instead of making it dirty. It is a fabulous fuel.

Diesel fuel--let me share this with you. These are some things we can do and get busy now, that we should already have done. Diesel fuel is more efficient than other fuels. According to Popular Mechanics magazine--recently they did a comparison; I can't guarantee everything they said because the numbers are pretty astounding, but in a sense it is good news--the next generation already in existence of clean diesel engines runs approximately 38 percent further on a gallon of fuel than a similar size automobile that is a hybrid automobile. The magazine found that a 2007 Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion diesel automobile travels 38 percent farther on a gallon of fuel than a 2007 Toyota Prius hybrid.

We know for a fact that diesel gets 30, 35, 40 percent better mileage than a gasoline engine. In fact, Europe has 50 percent of its automobiles diesel. Why? Because it gets better gas mileage. We have gone the exact opposite direction. We only have 3 percent of our fleet diesel. Why are we not creating policies that will help Americans move to more fuel-efficient diesel engines and do something about this odd circumstance when diesel fuel is now considerably more expensive? It is about 15 percent more expensive, but it gets at least 30 percent better mileage. It is still a buy, even at the prices at the pump today for diesel. In addition to being fuel efficient, diesel-powered vehicles release fewer CO2 emissions than similar hybrids or gasoline engines; CO2, the global warming gas, less of that from a diesel engine. It is so much cleaner today than people's memory of smoky diesels in the past. It is an entirely new engine, an entirely new procedure.

According to the Popular Mechanics field test, the Volkswagen model tested by the magazine emitted 5 percent fewer greenhouse gases per mile than a Toyota Prius. I was able to drive a Prius the week before last around Alabama. It was very impressive. Why are we not thinking about diesel as we seek to clean up our air and reduce our importing of foreign oil? Diesel engines today run on ultra-low sulfur diesel that is 97 percent cleaner than older diesel fuel. It is the cleanest fuel in the world. It is cleaner than the European fuel--the Europeans are environmentally conscious--and our own regulations require that.

New diesel technology, the Mercedes BlueTec engine--I visited their Alabama facility last week--reduces carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulates.

According to the EPA, if 33 percent of American drivers switched to diesel vehicles, oil consumption would be reduced by approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, which would cut our imports 10 percent. They say if you drill in ANWR in Alaska, an area the size of the State of South Carolina--and they would like to explore for oil and gas in an area the size of Dulles Airport--if it comes in and it is only a little over a million barrels a day, that is about 10 percent of our import amount. So if we had more diesel and production in Alaska, that would reduce our imports 20 percent.

Already Americans are conserving more. They have reduced consumption at least 5 percent this year. So now we are down 25 percent. That is the kind of thing we can do that will make a difference in the price of oil and help make this a stronger country.

Now, ethanol represents a viable alternative energy source, I am convinced. According to the Congressional Research Service, 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year. This amounts to approximately $19.5 billion--let me be sure I get this correct because my mind is probably like some of my colleagues. That is 6.5 billion gallons as opposed to barrels I was talking about earlier. Mr. President, 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year. It amounts to approximately $19.5 billion that stayed in our country to create American jobs and pay good wages here. It did not go to buy oil from some foreign country so that the wealth goes there.

It is estimated that we are on track to produce 9 billion gallons of ethanol this year. So we go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion gallons this year. We are soon reaching the maximum production, I think, for most ethanol that comes from corn, which most of this does. But that has been helpful to us, I submit to you. So this would result in approximately $36 billion that will be invested in America, paying wages to American citizens, who pay taxes to our cities and counties, for schools, and to the Federal Government. We want them to have good jobs with good wages.

According to Renewable Fuels Association, the price of gasoline would rise approximately 31 percent if ethanol was eliminated. Is that right? That is an advocacy group for renewable fuels, but this week Barron's Magazine had an analysis and quoted figures similar to that and noted that consumers were saving several hundred dollars a year as a result of ethanol. Whether it is a great benefit to us in net reduction of CO2, we do not know. Originally, the environmentalists certainly believed so and advocated it. Some now question that. Regardless, as an economic matter and as a matter of national security, it has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, kept wealth at home, and helped protect our national security and create jobs.

But there are limits on ethanol, so that is why we need to seek technological breakthroughs that will allow us to produce cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale. Cellulosic fuel can be produced from sources that do not place strains on other end users.

There is tremendous potential in our country to utilize waste wood from sawmills, paper companies, waste wood that is left in the forest from when the timber is cut and hurricane recovery. I talked to a FEMA hurricane emergency response official today about the potential of utilizing cellulose that is downed and thrown away in landfills after a hurricane, where thousands and millions of trees are blown down, to create energy. I think it is a realistic possibility. Every city and county in the country is constantly hauling out large amounts of wood and trees from their city. It cannot be utilized effectively for lumber or other uses. Instead of going to landfills, this could create energy. I think there is a great potential here.

Auburn University has spent a lot of time on switchgrass, another cellulosic form. They will be bringing up, June 19, to Washington their gasification unit that is portable. It is the size of a tractor-trailer rig. You put wood chips in one end, the wood is heated, a gas comes off, and that gas is converted to a liquid fuel. It is proven it can be done. This is not impossible. What we need to do is accelerate the science to prove whether it can be commercially feasible. I think it can be. I am proud of Auburn. They have won a national award for that. They are No. 1 in the country in that area of research, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The next is the plug-in hybrid technology, which holds exceedingly great potential. By utilizing and improving current battery technology, plug-in hybrids will be able to travel father using less gasoline-- perhaps dramatically less gasoline--than conventional hybrids or any other kind of automobile. In addition to greatly displacing imported oil, plug-in hybrids can reduce the amount of pollutants and greenhouse gases in the air by relying on clean nuclear energy to recharge their batteries.

Let's just talk about this briefly. We will talk a little more about nuclear energy. But if you have a commute each day of 10 or 15 miles and you can create a battery that will run 30 miles without any hybrid engine having to be turned on to charge and recharge the battery, a person could commute back and forth to work every day if that car would only run 30 miles. When they come home at night, they can plug it in and recharge the battery from the power socket. And particularly charging it from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., it will use base load power, often not even being fully utilized. If the power source is nuclear power, it emits no pollutants into the atmosphere whatsoever, and that will completely eliminate the need to utilize any oil or gasoline in the car. Now, that is close to being reality.

Certainly, we will produce more wind and solar power. We support those energy sources. The Congress has provided incentives for that. Few would dispute that large increases in clean American base load electricity in large amounts is essential, and we cannot get there by conservation only because a number of things happen. No. 1 is that our population is going up. By 2050, we will have a substantial increase in the American population. So even if every American used less, the Nation is projected, by every expert I am aware of, to utilize more energy. Another thing that happens: You may well develop new lightbulbs, which I hope every American will utilize and turn off lightbulbs when they are not using them, but we have other things that come up. For example, how many of our people want to give up plasma TVs? They use a lot more electricity than the old kind. And computers. When we projected the increase in the cost of the utilization of electricity in the 1970s and early 1980s, we did not expect the size of the computer revolution and the amount of energy that would add. So there is always something out there. That is all I am suggesting. It is just not smart for us to project in a way that is contrary to the experts that we are going to utilize less electricity.

So after much study--and I have spent a good bit of study on this--it is clear to me that nuclear-generated electricity is the serious solution for a clean energy future and an alternative to a future filled with ever-increasing regulations and more regulators and more lobbyists and more political fights such as this cap-and-trade bill-- all of which produce no energy but drain our American economy. Nuclear power is American based. It is a proven technology. It helps enhance our national security. It is competitive cost-wise. It is not outrageously expensive like some of the ideas that are being floated. It emits no pollutants into the air, neither NOX nor SOx nor mercury nor particulates. And it 100 percent meets our global warming goals, which is to reduce CO2, carbon dioxide--zero, zilch.

Twenty percent of our electricity today is nuclear, and we have not built a plant in 30 years. France produces 80 percent of its power from nuclear power, and Japan is over 50 percent. They are heavily committed to nuclear power, and it is paying off for them. Britain just announced five new nuclear plants. So we are running behind.

But the good news is that after the Energy bill Senator Domenici worked so hard on and the legislation he offered, 30 new applications for nuclear powerplants have been submitted. That is 30--up from zero just a couple years ago. But we must strive to ensure this nuclear renaissance continues and completes.

There is this tremendous possibility that base load nuclear power, particularly in the night, offpeak time, could be utilized to charge automobile batteries so we could run our automobiles without any fossil fuel being burned. Nuclear power is the one energy source that could create large amounts of hydrogen, the hydrogen necessary if we are to develop effectively fuel cell hydrogen automobiles that also favor a clean concept. Both of these are postoil, postcarbon energy sources that can power our automobiles, which is where our crisis is today.

Renewable energy sources also have an important role to play. According to the Department of Energy, renewable energy provided approximately 9 percent of the total U.S. electricity generation in 2005. While this is not large, there is significant room for growth. Wind energy has led this growth, increasing from approximately 3,500 megawatts in 2001 to almost 17,000 megawatts today. Solar power has also increased, although cost and storage remain serious issues. Geothermal energy has not expanded as rapidly as wind has, but it has potential. According to MIT, the United States has approximately 100,000 megawatts of enhanced geothermal capacity which can be developed by 2050.

A few weeks ago, this Senate voted on a plan that would have taken the first steps to produce many of these untapped energy resources by allowing more energy exploration off our coasts and in Alaska. But we do need to move beyond petroleum-based transportation fuels. We need to do some other steps, such as enhancing the batteries for electric cars, as this bill would have done, which could have allowed us to move to plug-in hybrids. I think that is within our grasp right now, and it would help clean up our environment.

Mr. President, I see the majority leader on the floor. I will just conclude by noting that with prices at record highs, I think the American people can be excused for wondering what their Congress is doing. They expect us to get busy--to get busy now--to produce more clean American energy. That will be the only thing that is going to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our ability to be hijacked by prices driven up by OPEC nations that are restricting supply.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

There is objection. I object.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule marks the 60th time that the leaders of this Congress have totally closed down the House floor by refusing to allow any Member of this House to offer an amendment to a bill pending and have it debated and voted upon. This is more closed rules than any Congress in the history of our country, which is exactly the opposite of the promise that the Democrat leaders made to the American people when they promised to run the most open and honest House ever.

The House is not open when no amendments are allowed to be offered and when a Republican alternative is blocked from even a minute of debate and denied a vote on the House floor. And it is not in the most honest House when the Rules Committee Democrats block the Republican plan to prevent tax increases from being considered, using the excuse that it doesn't meet House PAYGO rules, especially, Mr. Speaker, when it was just one week ago that the same Democrats were blatantly violating PAYGO rules by billions of dollars in the farm bill. Under this liberal Congress, it is only okay to break the House rules, apparently, when you are increasing spending by billions of dollars, but not by preventing tax increases on the American people.

The Republican plan that was denied, that the Democrats refused to allow the House to vote upon, would provide the following: 1 year of relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT; a 2-year extension of the State and local sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax; 2 more years for the research and development tax credit; 2 years for the tuition tax credit; and extensions for more expiring tax provisions.

This Democrat bill, for example, does absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to fix the AMT tax for 2008. Twenty-one million middle class individuals will pay an additional $61.5 billion in higher taxes next April if the AMT is not fixed and addressed. That is an average of over $2,800 per affected taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. The Republican plan fully fixes it, but today that fix is not even allowed to be considered on the House floor. Instead, the House is given one choice, and that is a fool's choice bargain to raise taxes by $54 billion in order to simply extend existing tax policies that are due to expire.

Mr. Speaker, current provisions in tax law are expiring, and Congress needs to act to keep these taxes from going up. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that is no excuse to raise other taxes by billions of dollars.

I and many of my Republican colleagues support a great number of the tax relief extensions included in this bill, including the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit, education and tuition tax credits, tax credits for teachers, and several renewable income tax credits. These low tax policies have been law for many years, Mr. Speaker, and they have been extended multiple times, multiple times, and always without raising taxes.

My Democrat colleagues will try to defend their tax-raising ways by invoking the PAYGO rules they ignored just last week. They will claim that this is just being responsible and it is not about increasing the national debt, that it is about government living within its means.

If only that were true, Mr. Speaker. But it is not. All you have to do is to read the final budget plan for next year that this House will vote on later today. Their budget reveals this Congress as what they truly are, and what they truly are, Mr. Speaker, is old time tax-and- spend liberals. In their budget, spending increases by $250 billion over the next 5 years. They increase the debt limit in 2008 by $654 billion, which is the largest increase in history, and they raise taxes by $683 billion, which is the largest amount in American history. More spending, higher debt, record tax increases. That is obviously the plan of this liberal Congress.

Now, my Democrat colleagues will also try to claim the tax increases that are in this bill aren't really that bad. But the facts are the facts, and the facts are that this bill unnecessarily increases taxes by over $50 billion. And that is just the beginning. Remember that their budget would increase taxes by over two-thirds of a trillion dollars. If they aren't raising your taxes this time in this bill, I can assure you, your time is coming. They will get you the next time.

When this liberal Congress imposes the largest tax increase in American history to pay for more government spending, don't think that you can escape permanently their tax-and-spend ways. Their tax increase plans include cutting the child tax credit, cutting that in half; reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax; and a tax increase for every single American taxpayer. It would even levy taxes on low- income workers who currently pay none.

But if there is a ray of sunshine, and there always is a ray of sunshine in bills, there is a newly created tax break, one that will put a big smile on the faces of some in this country, and it is worth over $1.5 billion.

The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this new tax break is only for trial lawyers. So the only people who will be smiling are the trial lawyers and presumably the Democrats that they give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to each year.

Under this bill, the American taxpayers will be subsidizing speculative lawsuits by trial lawyers to the tune of $1.5 billion. This special interest tax break will allow trial lawyers to make special arrangements that essentially allow them to gamble on lawsuits where they get paid on contingency fees if they win. Meanwhile, taxpayers will be footing the bill for trial lawyers writing off the expenses of conducting these ``sue them and see what we can win'' lawsuits. Count me among those, Mr. Speaker, who believe we already have too many lawsuits in this country and that we shouldn't be inventing new special tax breaks that may and probably will encourage more lawsuits. Our justice system can operate fairly, as it has done so for many years, without having to give special tax treatment to trial lawyers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically mention the extension of the State and local sales tax deduction that is included in this bill. For nearly 20 years, Americans who paid State income taxes could deduct those taxes from their Federal tax bill, while Americans who paid State sales taxes but had no State income tax were not allowed to do so.

In 2006, the Republican Congress restored the sales tax deduction after years of bipartisan effort from the congressional delegations of the affected States, including my home State of Washington. The initial reinstatement of the deduction was for 2 years, 2004 and 2005. In 2006, the Republican Congress extended the sales tax deduction for 2 more years, 2006 and 2007. That deduction has now expired, and this deduction does not exist for this year, 2008.

Efforts last year to extend this deduction and ensure it didn't expire were unfortunately blocked by the Democrat leaders. I regret that the extension provided for the sales tax deduction in this bill is for 1 year only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a step backwards. This deduction has been extended 2 years each time in the past, and it should be extended 2 years now. Otherwise, we face expiring in about 6 months from now because, as I mentioned, there is no sales tax deduction for the calendar year 2008. So if we are to pass this and it were to be signed into law, we would have 6 months on it

from right now. The bipartisan Senate bill introduced last month by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee includes a 2-year extension of this sales tax deduction.

The Republican plan that House leaders and the Rules Committee last night blocked from being considered and debated on the floor today provided for a 2-year extension. An amendment was filed with the Rules Committee by Mr. Brady of Texas which also would have extended the deduction for 2 years, but that too was blocked by the Rules Committee from being debated on this floor.

It is very unfortunate that this bill moves sales tax deduction fairness backwards, not forwards. Taxpayers in income tax States have a permanent tax deduction, and taxpayers in sales tax States that have no State income tax deserve, in my view, equal treatment. The sales tax deduction should be made into permanent law. Even though I think a 2- year extension is better than 1, it should be made permanent. At the very least, they deserve at least a 2-year extension.

What really is more upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill could have provided very easily under existing PAYGO rules a 2-year extension. The over $1.5 billion cost of the tax deduction given to trial lawyers could instead have been used to give a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction for those States.

So this bill chooses to create a new billion-plus-dollar tax cut for trial lawyers over tax fairness for the millions of residents in the State of Washington, my State, the State of Florida, the States of Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, I have supported every bill that has passed this House to reinstate and extend the State sales tax deduction, but none of these bills, none of these bills that extended that was being held hostage for another tax cut for another special interest.

Restoring and continuing the State sales tax deduction is a matter of fairness. The residents of sales tax States shouldn't have their fair treatment conditioned upon passing huge tax increases.

The rule that is currently before the House and the underlying bill reveal this Congress for what it really is. The rule is totally closed and does not allow debate or a vote on any amendments or an alternative Republican plan. It violates Speaker Pelosi's promise to the American people to run an open and honest House. The bill itself is just the opening act of a move to impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress the only tax bill allowed on the floor of the House is one that will raise taxes. Under this liberal Congress, tax relief is a myth and tax increases are a certainty. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress, Americans will be sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars to Washington, DC so this Congress can increase spending and the size of the Federal Government.

My colleagues should oppose this closed rule and this tax increase bill. We should demand a clean tax relief extension bill that doesn't include new tax breaks for trial lawyers and over $50 billion in tax increases. This bill we know will never pass the Senate, and it will never be signed into law, if on the slim chance that it should pass both Houses and be sent to the President. Raising taxes right now on the American economy is simply the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to my good friend from New York's response, let's set the record straight. We are talking about tax extenders. By definition, tax extenders mean we are extending existing tax relief for people. These are in law already. They have been extended many, many times in the past and always been extended without raising taxes on the other end.

Now the gentleman says that the provision they have in this bill may or may not have bipartisan support. I'm not going to argue with that point. It probably should be looked at on its merits.

But my point in this and the whole part of this debate is that these are extending existing tax relief for the American people, and you don't have to start setting the principle of raising taxes in other areas to continue tax extensions that are already in law. That's the point that I was making.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, can I inquire of the time on both sides.

I would inquire of my friend from New York how many speakers he has.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we can address the issue of high gasoline prices. But before I make my motion and explain what my motion would be if we defeat the previous question, I want to quote several parts of an editorial that was written by Tracy Warner who is the editorial writer for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Wenatchee, Washington, in my district. He kind of hits some of the issues of what we are doing, or probably I should say not doing, on the head.

[From the Wenatchee World, May 14, 2008]

Irrational Policy Part of the Show

(By Tracy Warner)

The Keystone Cops of Congress wave their truncheons, circle

and bump and wriggle their mustaches, then rush to the paddy

wagon in search of greedy oil companies. In this time of

hardship, this will have to suffice for energy policy.

The goal of the troupe is to somehow make the price of

gasoline lower. High gasoline prices are extremely unpopular.

If they could be forced downward, this would please Americans

at an advantageous time on the political calendar. If that is

not possible, and likely it is not, then complaining loudly

will do. Or, for a real show of statesmanship, you can dole

out financial punishment to the companies that make the

product you want more of.

The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the

government cease stockpiling oil in the strategic petroleum

reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national

emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the

House 385-25, will reduce federal petroleum purchases by

70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil

markets, which are based on global production of 87 million

barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08

percent. We should be grateful.

In a very small way this shows our representatives have

some understanding of economics. Oil markets are mainly a

supply-and-demand issue. Raise supply and the price should

drop, if demand is steady. Raise supplies by 0.08 percent and

the price will drop, maybe by a like amount. We will watch

with great anticipation.

The other legs of the constantly evolving federal oil

policy are not so easily explained. Congress remains adamant

that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a

few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge, where production could exceed 1 million barrels a

day. The reason given is this is part of an ``oil friendly

policy'' and we cannot ``drill our way'' to ``energy

independence'' because the effect of a million barrels is so

small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because

it is so little, and then demand the federal government cease

purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.

Some propose sending the Justice Department to file an

antitrust case against OPEC, because its members scheme to

limit the supply of oil and thus drive up the price. So, we

do not wish to drill ourselves, because that would be wrong,

but we demand OPEC sell us more, and if they don't we will

send lawyers. And oh, we want ``energy independence.''

And with lawyers after OPEC, the cops will still be after

the oil companies. The line is oil companies get ``tax

subsidies'' they do not deserve. So the House has voted to

rescind a tax break for the five largest oil companies. The

``subsidy'' to which these congressmen refer was no special

deal. It was a two-point corporate tax cut given to all

manufacturers in 2004. In the meantime, oil companies pay

taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, based on data from

the Energy Information Agency, it is only in the last three

years that after-tax profits of the oil industry have

exceeded its taxes paid to federal and state governments. In

the last 25 years, oil company taxes were nearly double oil

company profits--government makes twice off oil what oil

companies make off oil.

On we go. Newly popular in Congress is a windfall profits

tax, to collect for government the oil profits government

considers ``obscene.'' Oil company profit margins are less

than many other industries, but setting that aside, what

would be the effect of confiscating them? When this was tried

in 1980, oil companies stopped selling the product from which

only government would profit, and we went from expensive gas

to no gas.'

And, we can make price gouging a crime, even though it

already is a crime in most states. Make it a crime to sell

fuel when prices are high. Won't that increase supplies?

The sum of all this policymaking is astonishing

incompetence. Playing for the crowd usually leads this way.

Let me just make a few points here that he raised that I thought were rather interesting.

He talks about what Congress is doing or not doing, and he says then, and I will quote verbatim, Mr. Speaker, from his editorial, ``The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the government cease stockpiling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the House 385-25, will reduce Federal petroleum purchases by 70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil prices or oil markets which are based on global production of 87 million barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08 percent.''

He then goes on to say, after I quote there, he goes on to talk then about things that we probably are not doing and should be doing otherwise. He goes on to compliment Congress by saying that ``at least they have some understanding of economics.'' If you're going to not put oil in a reserve, you presumably have more supply.

He then goes on to talk about what we haven't been doing, which of course is looking at more known reserves we have in our country to be energy independent. Again I would like to quote, then, verbatim as he makes, I think, a very good point:

``Congress remains adamant that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the production could exceed 1 million barrels a day. The reason given is this is part of an `oil friendly policy' and we cannot `drill our way' to `energy independence' because the effect of a million barrels is so small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because it is so little, and then demand the Federal Government cease purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.''

Mr. Speaker, he goes on to talk about other things here, but they make a very good point. The bottom line is our energy policy is not looking at the supply side of it. We import so much of our crude oil and we aren't energy independent in that sense.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I have an opportunity to amend the rule.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. According to a report from just 2 days ago by the AAA in my State of Washington, the price of gasoline is at a record $3.86 per gallon. That's 24 cents higher than just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.69, which is $1.61 higher than a year ago. In the Tri-Cities where I live, a gallon of gas is $3.83. In Yakima, in the central part of my district, it's $3.84.

[From the Seattle Times, May 19, 2008]

AAA: Average Gallon of Gas in Washington Hits $3.86

The AAA auto club says the average price of a gallon of

gasoline in Washington continues to climb into record

territory at $3.86.

That's up 24 cents in the past month and 42 cents in the

past year. It's seven cents higher than the national average.

The AAA survey for today found that the average price of a

gallon of diesel in the state is $4.69. That's up 29 cents in

the past month and $1.61 in the past year.

The AAA says the highest gas prices in the state are at

Bellingham at $3.93 and the lowest in Spokane at $3.70.

Prices in some other cities, according to the AAA: Olympia

$3.89, Seattle $3.88, Tacoma $3.87, Vancouver $3.84, Tri-

Cities $3.83, Yakima $3.84.

This increase in prices is causing real strain on family budgets, farmers, and for small businesses. This Congress needs to act, and we can't afford to sit and do nothing while prices continue to climb. The American people deserve action.

Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Democrat Congress has done nothing but see fuel prices rise.

One of the most important things that this House can do is recognize a

basic economic principle of supply and demand. Mr. Speaker, the laws of supply and demand cannot be changed by wishful thinking. At times, I get the distinct impression that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that wishful thinking will actually lower gas prices.

I support proposals to invent and to develop new sources of energy. I think we should have a diverse portfolio of energy, and I believe a vast majority of my colleagues do as well. But gas, diesel, and oil are absolutely vital to our economy and our way of life and our future.

The problem we are facing at the gas pump is one of high demand and limited supply, and it's part of a global economy and a global product. With India and China suddenly consuming enormous amounts of oil, the price of it is being bid up around the world. The way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase supply. And yet proposals to increase oil and gas production and exploration in our country have faced years and years in opposition. Mr. Tracy, in his article, points that out as it relates to ANWR.

We've been stymied by Democrats in the House, blocked by Democrat Senators, and vetoed by a Democrat Senator specifically with ANWR. This liberal Congress is continuing to say ``no'' to developing energy in our country, to block any bill from being considered or voted upon that would allow for oil and natural gas exploration in Alaska or in the oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf, while at the same time they pass bills threatening to sue foreign countries to produce more oil. That doesn't increase supply, Mr. Speaker.

We are now paying the price for so many years of repeated refusal to make use of our country's own natural resources. Not only are we seeing gas prices going up and up, but our country is even more dependent on foreign sources of oil. Often the response to this argument from the other side of the aisle is that even if we approve production in ANWR or coastal reserves today, it wouldn't come on line for years and wouldn't really help much.

The hollowness of this argument in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is astonishing. We are paying the price today for their years of opposition to real solutions, and they want to keep saying ``no'' and blaming somebody else.

America can't afford to keep sticking its head in the sand when it comes to building more refineries and developing our own oil and gas reserves. It's time for the House to act. It's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time for the majority to reveal their promised plan.

By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the rule, that would lower the gas prices of unleaded gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. President, may I inquire, has my colleague from Alabama completed his remarks? You have?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to take a few minutes to share with our colleagues the current condition of the housing situation and the steps being taken by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee--the steps we have taken in recent days and what I hope we can continue to do in the coming days over the next week or so, depending upon the agenda the leadership will set for us: our hope is to bring forth one more proposal that will complete the circle of the steps we can take as public policy setters in the area of dealing with the heart of the economic crisis, which is the housing crisis. The heart of the housing crisis is, of course, the foreclosure crisis. So this report I share with my colleagues is both a positive one--which includes the steps we are taking together to address the problem--as well as, unfortunately, a rather negative one in terms of the actual statistics and numbers that people are living with every day.

When we talk about these numbers and statistics, they actually reflect what is going on in the lives of very real people in our country who are struggling economically to make ends meet. Home ownership and the value of homes is at the heart of not only the American family dream but also at the heart of their economic success in many ways. So as I have done regularly over the past several months, I wish to share with my colleagues some of the problems we are facing in our economy and some of the steps we are taking to address them.

Three weeks ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, we were able to pass out of the Banking Committee the Hope for Homeowners Act and legislation to reform the Government-sponsored enterprises--the so- called GSEs. These measures will help reduce foreclosures, strengthening the housing market and ultimately helping to restore our economy to healthy growth. We also added as part of that legislation an affordable housing program which will exist in perpetuity; not a short- term, 4- or 5-year program but one that will be around for years to come to assist those who are in desperate need of adequate and decent shelter, including rental housing.

The committee work in these major areas follows the work that the Senate accomplished earlier this spring when we passed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. That legislation contains several very important provisions to help homeowners, neighborhoods, and communities throughout our Nation. The legislation included $4 billion for communities to use through the Community Development Block Grant Program to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties in their communities. The act also included $150 million in additional foreclosure prevention counseling, on top of the dollars we had already appropriated earlier, to assist in that area. Counseling, I would add, is a proven and very effective program that has helped struggling homeowners avoid the devastating effects of losing their homes. Finally, the act includes legislation that would modernize the Federal Housing Administration so the FHA can play an enhanced role in allowing hard-working American families to pursue and achieve the dream of home ownership through a suitable and sustainable mortgage.

I am continuing to work with our colleagues and the ranking member, Senator Shelby of Alabama, along with other members of the committee-- both Democrats and Republicans--and the Senate to enact comprehensive legislation that includes these and other provisions. These Members include Senators Baucus and Grassley, the chairman and ranking member respectively of the Senate Finance Committee, who have contributed very important tax provisions to the Foreclosure Prevention Act.

There is no question in my mind that the almost daily information we are receiving on the performance of our economy should continue to spur action on the part of this Congress. Our economy has been limping along for the last 6 months, with growth well under 1 percent. If you take away the growth in Government and the buildup of inventories that occurs when the economy enters a recession, our economy grew by three- tenths of 1 percent in the first quarter of this year. In other words, our economy is at best stagnant, and in the view of many economists and others, we are actually in a recession.

Last week we learned that the unemployment rate in April rose by one- half of a percentage point in 1 month. That is the largest monthly increase at that rate in 22 years. We have lost thousands of jobs each and every month this year so far, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This year, our economy has lost just under 400,000 private sector jobs, and most economists expect they will continue to lose jobs as the economy struggles. That is why I think it is critically important that we ought to provide for extended unemployment insurance benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own as part of our response to the economic challenges we are facing. Certainly if we weren't able to do this, it would be the first time in my experience in this body for a quarter of a century that we didn't extend unemployment insurance benefits to people who have lost their jobs during periods of economic hardship. That has never happened before in my tenure here, and it is my serious hope that we will provide those extended benefits to those who deserve them.

The data we are looking at, as sad as it is, also confirms that the housing market continues to be mired in a deep recession as well. Residential construction fell by over 30 percent in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes fell by 13 percent over last year. Now, let me quickly add some new data today for April that indicates sales may have finally picked up slightly, and we welcome that news. Most analysts, however, believe this uptick, if you will, in homes sales occurred only because home prices have continued to fall over the last several months. Regardless of that uptick, the number of new homes that remains unsold continues to rise, reaching the highest number in over a quarter of a century. Joining this growing number of new homes sitting vacant on the market unsold are homes where the previous owner has been foreclosed.

Foreclosures have hit a new all-time record. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association--the MBA--this data shows that almost 1 in every 11 homes with a mortgage in our country is in default or in foreclosure as of March of this year. That is the highest level since the MBA began tracking foreclosures in 1979. Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for some time, and last year alone 1.5 million of our fellow families in this country had their homes enter into a foreclosure.

Each and every day, over more than 8,100 families enter foreclosure. Every single day, 8,100 families on average enter foreclosure. The projections are that foreclosure rates will remain at historic highs for the foreseeable future. The investment bank Credit Suisse just released a report in which they predict that 6.5 million homes will fall into foreclosure over the next 5 years. They state:

The coming flood of new foreclosures could put 8.4 percent

of total homeowners, or 12.7 percent of homeowners with

mortgages, out of their homes.

The scenario they are describing is one in which one out of eight American families with a mortgage could lose their homes. That is a chilling prediction.

Robert Schiller, the widely respected economist from Yale University who helped invent the so-called Case-Schiller Index that is used throughout the country and the markets to measure the change in home values, gave a speech recently in New Haven, CT where he said there is a good chance that housing prices will fall further, perhaps by as much as 30 percent since their peak in the late part of 2006. If that were to happen, it would mean the decline in home prices would be greater now than it was during the Great Depression back in the 1920s and 1930s of the previous century.

These are indeed historic times with historic challenges. Already we have seen home prices decline nationally for the first time since the Great Depression. For the first time since the Federal Reserve began keeping track of home equity in the 1940s, Americans today own less than half the value in their homes.

The effect this is having on our economy cannot be overstated. Martin Feldstein, who served as President

Reagan's chief economist, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The 10 percent decline in home prices has cut household

wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending

and increasing the risk of a deep recession.

That means American families have lost more than $2 trillion of wealth. Losses of that magnitude are staggering. That is almost 20 percent of our Nation's GDP. Put another way, a national loss of wealth of $2 trillion means a typical family of four would have lost over $25,000 of wealth due to the current housing market crisis. This sharp loss in wealth for the average American homeowner comes at a time when they face record high prices for essentials of American life: Food, gasoline prices--as we have heard about today the cost of gas has been increasing every day--health care, and the cost of higher education. So the so-called foreclosure crisis is affecting far more than only those facing foreclosure. It is affecting nearly all of us in every imaginable way. As one home falls into foreclosure, the value of countless other homes in those neighborhoods is falling as well. If Dr. Schiller's predictions come to bear and home prices fall by 30 percent nationally, then the loss to American families will exceed $6 trillion. That is more than half of our Nation's annual GDP. It would mean the typical family of four would have lost approximately $80,000 of wealth. That is more than most American families earn in an entire year.

The nationwide implications of this crisis help explain why consumer sentiment is at historic lows. Americans' expectations for future economic growth are at the lowest level in 35 years since the deep recession of the early 1970s.

These negative views about our economic prospects are based on the real experiences of most Americans. The Pew Center conducted a recent survey of Americans' views not only on the economy as a whole but on their personal well-being. The Washington Post characterized the Pew Center's finding as:

Offering the gloomiest assessment of economic well-being in

close to half a century, a new survey has found that most

Americans say they have not made progress over the past 5

years as their incomes have stagnated and they have

increasingly borrowed money to finance their lifestyles.

By almost any measure, Americans are struggling more and more than they have at any time in recent memory. Real median family income has fallen this decade as the cost of gasoline, health care, and college tuition, have risen at levels far outstripping any increases in paychecks. To keep pace with these rising costs, Americans have turned to borrowing from credit cards and their homes. But now, as the crisis in our capital markets begins to threaten sources of liquidity for people, such as mortgages, student loans, and other types of lending, the American economy is in a precarious place, to put it mildly. That is why we need new policies and new action to prevent this recession from becoming more severe, and to lay the foundation for our recovery.

The Federal Reserve is engaged in a series of interest rate cuts as they continue to aggressively use monetary policy to try and deal with the recession we are facing. But the Fed is running out of pages in its playbook to address the growing crisis of credit and confidence that has taken hold of our financial markets and threatens to undermine our Nation's economy. Until we more thoroughly address the core issue behind this recession--namely, the problems in the housing market and the foreclosure crisis--we are unlikely, in my opinion, to put our economy back on the right track. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke understands the seriousness of this problem. In a recent speech on the subject of foreclosures, he said:

High rates of delinquency in foreclosure can have

substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the

financial markets and the broader economy. Therefore, doing

what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in

the interest of lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's

interest.

I pledge to continue to work every day--as I know my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee will, as well as those in the House Financial Services Committee under the leadership of Congressman Barney Frank and as I am confident all of us in this Chamber will--to do everything we can to address these issues from the perspective of what we can do as part of the national legislature. That is why I am pleased to say that through these efforts, what we have brought to the floor of the Senate over the last several weeks has enjoyed broad-based bipartisan support. We will now be coming back again in the coming days. The leader of our Chamber, Senator Reid, has committed that we will get to this as soon as we possibly can, given the crowded agenda he has to deal with. But we cannot, in my view, allow this Congress to continue to move forward in the coming days without addressing the remainder of these issues.

I cannot promise absolutely that everything we have offered is going to change the world dramatically. But there is one thing I hope it does do and that is restore confidence in the American families, whom the Members of this Congress serve, both Democrats and Republicans, are doing everything in their power to try and prevent foreclosures, restore confidence in the marketplace, and make it possible for the American dream of home ownership not to become the nightmare it has for far too many fellow citizens. It is at the core of everything else we are grappling with. We have seen the problem spill over into credit cards, financial services, commercial lending, student loans, and at the heart of all of this is the foreclosure problem.

That is what every single responsible economist, regardless of political ideology, has concluded. They have said there are steps we can take to make a difference--those steps we have created in a legislative manner to bring to this body. Our hope is we will enjoy the kind of broad-based support we have had in our committee. Anybody who has watched this body knows that when you get a 19-to-2 vote in committee on a matter such of this, you get some indication of the willingness of members to work together to make a difference. Senator Shelby and I and the other members of the committee will continue to do that. We hope to put on the President's desk by July 4 this comprehensive financial services Banking Committee proposal, dealing with FHA, dealing with the government-sponsored enterprises, dealing with affordable housing, dealing with counseling, dealing with the community development block grant program, as well as tax ideas that we think could help, and the Hope for Homeowners Act, which is critical to try to put the brakes on this foreclosure problem.

I wished to take some time this afternoon to share with my colleagues that this problem grows more serious. It is growing more troublesome, spreading beyond our national borders, in terms of what the subprime market and the purchase of those mortgage-backed securities has done to the markets, not only in this country, but abroad as well.

This is our major responsibility, in my view and I think we have a commitment to address it. Senator Shelby and I have worked very well together over the past number of weeks to try to fashion this legislative proposal.

I commend Barney Frank, my friend from Massachusetts, who is chairman of the Financial Services Committee in the other body, and other Members for the job they are doing together as well. I hope that in the remaining days, before the July break--hopefully sooner than that--we will be able to present to our colleagues a final proposal bringing together these ideas for their consideration and support as we do our part to try to make a difference in getting this economy and the confidence of the American people back on track.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in voting to proceed to the tax extenders legislation on the floor. This legislation represents a fiscally responsible and balanced approach to ensure that necessary tax provisions for hardworking American families and indispensable small businesses do not expire.

At a time when our economy teeters on the brink of recession--when unemployment increased 5.5 percent last month--the biggest monthly jump in 12 years--when gasoline at the pump is more than $4 a gallon and climbing, when the cost of a dozen eggs has risen 38 percent in the last year alone, when oil costs are set to reach $140 per barrel and analysts are predicting a rise to $150 by July 4th, and when foreclosures have hit historic levels--is there any question that the American people expect--even demand, not just action but action leading to results. We must forge together the results that address these central issues facing the U.S.

economy and the millions of Americans who are anxiously awaiting action from leaders. And while Congress will be forced to make difficult choices on some of these issues in the coming months, this issue-- whether to extend critical tax incentives right now should be, frankly, a straightforward decision.

And now before us is legislation that would extend critical energy tax credits--including the catalyst that caused a 45-percent growth in wind energy last year and energy efficiency tax credits that creates an incentive to reduce energy demand. And we are really debating this question when we saw oil rise by $11 per barrel in a single day to $139? To be blunt, this country must wake up and recognize the ramifications of an energy crisis that we have not addressed for 30 years--and counting. Dr. Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America has estimated that from 2002 to 2008 annual household expenditures on energy increased from about $2,600 to an astonishing $5,300. The impact in Maine, where 80 percent of households use heating oil to get through a winter, is even worse. Last year at this time, prices were at a challenging $2.70 a gallon--for the average Mainer who goes through 1,000 gallons of oil that is $2,700. The price now is $4.70 meaning that it will cost a Mainer $4,700 just to stay warm not even considering gasoline costs. That is the difference between a burden and a crisis.

Indeed, the energy efficiency tax incentives and the renewable production tax credit--critical vehicles for moving our country to self sufficiency--are set to expire at the end of this year and some have already expired at the beginning of this year. This is the antithesis of the energy policy that our nation must be employing to address rising energy costs.

Energy efficiency is singlehandedly the most effective investment that our country can make to address the calamity of our energy policy. It is derelict that we would allow energy efficiency tax credits to expire. In fact, some tax credits have already expired, and as a result, there are currently no incentives to purchase efficient furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about heating bills in June, we must provide the assistance to allow Americans to invest in energy efficient products that will reduce our collective demand for energy, and save Americans money.

For example, included in this package is a $300 tax credit to purchase a high efficiency oil furnace, which would save over $180 in annual savings for an average home--according to calculations based on Department of Energy data and recent home heating prices. In addition, this includes an extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural gas furnaces that saves an individual $100 per year. However, this tax credit ended at the beginning of this year--right when oil prices began their historic climb.

For businesses that are competing against countries that subsidize oil the situation is simply untenable. Two weeks ago, Katahdin Paper Company announced that the cost of oil used to run its boilers has caused the company to consider closing the mill's doors. Now, talks are under way to find alternative solutions to preserve the mill's operations and its accompanying jobs, but make no mistake; we are at the tipping point where our economy could well be in ruins directly as a result of high energy costs.

With jobs being lost because of high energy costs, it is crucial that we invest in renewable energy jobs--that will put our economy back to work and invest in secure energy future. Indeed over one hundred thousand Americans could be put to work in 2008 if clean energy production tax credits were extended. However, because the incentives are set to expire this year, renewable energy companies are already reporting a precipitous decrease in investment due to uncertainty. Projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. Clean energy incentives for energy efficient buildings, appliances and other technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing homes, would similarly serve to stimulate 2008 economic consumption, lower residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency industries, to falter, when the product of these industries are so essential to the future of this country.

Failing to act on these crucial incentives could choke off promising business investment in 2008 and miss an opportunity to address high energy costs, a critical contributor to sinking consumer confidence and our Nation's long-term economic challenges. Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will help ensure a stronger, more stable environment for new investments and ensure continued robust growth in a bright spot in an otherwise slowing economy. This bill presents another opportunity to raise the bar for our future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies, benefitting our economy, our health, our environment, and our national security.

Not only does the legislation address these critical energy tax provisions, but also extends relief for lower and middle-income Americans, as well as small businesses. In particular, there are a number of provisions that I have championed that have been included by the House legislation and Chairman Baucus' amendment.

Fed Chairman Bernanke testified before the House Budget Committee earlier this year that, ``a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible within the next twelve months or so.'' Without a doubt, one way to affect spending and help working Americans meet the challenges ahead of us and provide for the families is providing a tax rebate. Another measure that Senator Lincoln and I have long championed would enable more hard-working, low-income families to receive the refundable child credit by reducing the income threshold for the refundable credit to $10,000 and deindexing it from inflation just as it originally passed the Senate in 2001.

The consequences of inaction are serious for low-income Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, and our proposal will ensure that those low-income, hard-working families that benefit from this credit the most receive it. And, I am very pleased that the House included a version of our proposal, one in which, I might add, would already be putting money in people's pockets had it already been enacted into law providing further economic stimulus during these challenging times.

To ensure that much needed capital investment reaches all corners of the country, the extenders package rightly includes an extension of the new markets tax credit. This program has proven extremely successful in encouraging investment and spurring growth in impoverished areas all across the country, both rural and urban. Senator Rockefeller and I have championed extending this vital incentive with the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act, S. 1239, a bill that enjoys the bipartisan support of 27 cosponsors.

To provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees, I have introduced with Senators Lincoln, Kerry, and Hutchison. This provision would reduce from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. If the motion to proceed passes, I believe that we will have an opportunity to address this inequity given the support for this provision expressed by the chairman of the Finance Committee.

In 2004, I fought for the inclusion of incentives to stop the flow of film productions offshore into the FSC-ETI bill. Consequently, I was very pleased to see the House include an extension of this vital incentive for film production companies planning whether and where to film. The House also included a critical modification to the incentive. Specifically, it would remove the $15 million cap on film productions eligible for the incentive and instead limiting the deduction to the first $15 million as the provision was originally passed in the Senate before being amended in conference. This is an issue that I have also worked on with my good friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, and am so pleased with this provisions inclusion.

So as we can see, this bill provides the Senate an opportunity to consider a number of provisions that are vital in helping our economy weather the recent downturn it is experiencing. The provisions that I have just outlined

will unleash renewable energy projects creating jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families struggling to pay for the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an infusion of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax incentives for retail businesses looking to grow their business, and help keep the jobs associated with film production within our borders. Not to mention, the tax extenders bill also includes provisions such as the R&D tax credit, the tuition deduction and the teachers classroom expenses deduction that are widely supported on both sides of the aisle.

Clearly, this tax extenders package is critical to Congress's ongoing efforts to reverse the economic slowdown that our Nation is facing. For the fifth month this year, U.S. employers have cut jobs including 49,000 in the month of May alone. The number of Americans filing first- time claims for unemployment benefits is at its highest level since October of 2004 and the increase in the rate was the largest since 1986.

The Senate should move forward on extending expiring tax relief. There are some aspects of the House bill that I believe should be improved upon, such as providing an AMT patch to stop the expansion of this mass tax. Some on the other side of the aisle believe we should at least attempt to pay for tax relief, a position I happen to agree with. Others on my side of the aisle believe that shouldn't continue to be a maintenance Congress, continually passing short-term temporary tax relief, a position that I also happen to agree with.

There are differences of opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of? What are we afraid of? To debate and to vote on various positions? Some of those issues and positions I would disagree with. But does that mean to say the Senate cannot withstand the conflicting views of various Members of the Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the political aisle will have differing views. So, I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to proceed. If the motion succeeds, I am hopeful that we can do what the Senate ought to do--that is find some common ground on an amendment process and a way forward to finally dispose of the legislation and enact this legislation sooner rather than later.

I came to this discussion to work on this issue, to debate, which is consistent with the traditions and principles of this institution, which has been its hallmark. That is why it has been considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not living up to that expectation or characterization, regrettably.

Let's have an open and unfettered debate, which is consistent with this institution that is predicated on our Founding Fathers' vision of an institution based on accommodation and consensus. You have to get 60 votes. So let's work it out. Let's clear this first hurdle and proceed to the bill. My side of the aisle will still have another 60 vote threshold to ensure that their concerns are heard.

The Senate is based on consensus. It is based on compromise. It is based on conciliation. It is based on the fact that you have to develop cooperation in order to get anything done. It is not unusual. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance because there are disparate views, so that there would be no opportunity to further discuss or negotiate--we missed our chance? Are we talking about scoring political points? Are we talking about what is the best tax policy for this country?

I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much partisanship and too much polarization.

What's required now is leadership. We need leadership for this country. They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable leadership that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in the Senate but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to work and not cynically say who is winning and who is losing today politically. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a political U-turn. We are returning to it.

This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white, and blue. Fact is that with every day that we delay, there are millions of taxpayers in all 50 States who literally will pay the price for our inaction.

I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote on AMT relief and expiring tax provisions that is so important that a majority of Senators support? Is there anyone in this Chamber who does not think we should extend expiring tax relief?? I know we can build the threshold for the 60. It is imperative we do it. It is inexcusable, frankly, that on the process for debating, we cannot reach an agreement. We are failing the American people on a colossal scale. We are held up by arcane procedural measures that could be worked out, if only we reached across the political aisle.

If my remarks sound familiar, then well they should because regrettably I said much the same thing in February of last year at the start of this Congress on another pressing issue of our time. Sadly as we now approach the end of the first session of the 110th Congress, things seemed to have not changed very much. I would hope when we finally adjourn after hopefully extending this critical tax relief that each and every one of us will return to our homes and when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, that we all make a New Years resolution to make the next Congress a more productive session with Members reaching across the aisle looking for consensus. If we do not, there is one thing that is for certain; the American public is watching.