Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who once wrote that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have today trumpeted forward an energy bill which they claim will promote America's energy independence. As the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee noted, this is a serious issue. But for those of you who are inclined to actually keep track of these things, this is actually the fourth time that the majority has advanced this particular flawed proposal in one form or another. That to me is a foolish consistency, or just like a broken record, this bill clearly is not playing with the American people.

We fear that it will harm consumers, both individual consumers and companies, and it will also hurt the competitive position of the American economy. At a time when that economy is teetering on the lip of a recession and we are passing through this Chamber stimulus legislation, Washington ought to think twice before we go forward with a bill like this instead of embracing an energy policy that meets the needs of our economy now and that anticipates the challenges of the future.

It is clear today that the majority have not chosen this necessary path. In reality, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have presented the House Chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic energy production, will punish American energy companies that do what we want them to, and that is invest their profits in exploration here at home, will encourage greater dependence on foreign oil, and will potentially damage America's manufacturing base.

This bill is not a serious solution. It is ``energy policy-lite,'' and it is clearly intended to appeal more to the blogosphere than to market forces. The Democrat solution to America's energy crisis is to single out what they claim are the five largest oil and gas producers for a tax increase.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not likely to impact oil producers' profits in any way, shape, or form. It is also not limited to the five largest producers, as they claim. The one thing you can be sure that this bill will do is raise prices at the pump for American consumers and create a looming sense of uncertainty which will compound the forces increasing prices today in the marketplace.

Furthermore, it creates disincentives that will erode the supply of domestic natural gas and oil and increase our country's energy imports. While H.R. 5351 not only forces our country to become more dependent on foreign oil, it will also force America's working families to bear the brunt of increased energy costs. The effects of high gas prices will ripple through the economy, increasing prices on everything from electronics to school supplies.

H.R. 5351 is also, I am afraid, an assault against America's manufacturing base. Using nearly one-third of the Nation's energy both as fuel and feedstock, energy production is the very heart of American manufacturing. With such an energy-intensive sector, raising energy prices will make domestic manufacturers less competitive in the world market, forcing more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs to go overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated for a comprehensive energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase Americans' access to clean, affordable, and dependable energy for their cars, their homes, and their businesses. Yet, here again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is moving in the wrong direction. It throws effective incentives for producing renewable energy out the window and replaces them with backward and broken provisions.

In this bill, the wind credit gets a substantial modification that will dramatically reduce its effectiveness for some of its most successful consumers. This will eliminate a critical incentive to increase renewable energy sources, one that has worked.

Mr. Speaker, this version of the Democrats' energy bill is also in an odd way hostile to domestic not only economic interests, but I would argue foreign policy interests. This bill raises taxes on American oil producers while cutting a break for the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, CITGO. In effect, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will take away incentives that have proven to bolster domestic energy production right here at home, while giving more American dollars to, I guess we would call him a tin horn leftist dictator who has threatened to sever Venezuelan energy supplies destined to the United States. Clearly, America's best interests are not in the heart of this plan.

This bill further repeals the domestic manufacturing deduction for domestic oil and gas companies, but allows all other oil and gas companies to receive a 6 percent deduction. This creates a situation whereby foreign-owned companies can claim the U.S. domestic manufacturing deduction, but certain U.S. employers can't.

H.R. 5351 is simply not the answer. It wasn't in any of its three previous incarnations, and it isn't today. This legislation threatens America's investment, threatens Americans' jobs, threatens the American economy, and puts the consumer at a disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat this here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to point out to the other gentleman that some of the provisions that he cited were actually originally written into the law during Republican Congresses when we were in the majority and when we were fighting against their opposition to pursue these important conservation measures.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California and a senior member of the Ways and Means committee, Mr. Herger.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to yield myself 30 seconds to clear the record.

It has been intimated here that somehow Hugo Chavez's CITGO does not get a special break, and yet the definition in the bill, I think, clearly excludes it. Basically this bill would repeal the special domestic manufacturing deduction for major integrated oil companies, but under the strict definition included, CITGO is not defined as a major integrated oil company since it does not produce crude oil itself. Based on this, CITGO would continue to receive the domestic manufacturing deduction while a number of U.S.-based companies will not.

With that I will retain the balance of my time but yield 3 minutes to a very distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a great leader on energy policy who is recognized on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'd yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to the gentleman from North Dakota, who I know is an authentic and sincere advocate of the wind energy credit, that in this bill there is a cap on the wind energy credit which will have the effect of undermining the benefits for many wind energy credit participants. And this is extremely important. By putting a cap on this credit, it will have the effect of discouraging many from participating in the wind energy credit, and for a district like mine that produces windmill technology, this is a real cause for concern.

And with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who has been a strong advocate on energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

I wonder if I might invite the gentleman from New York to perhaps proceed.

Mr. Speaker, now it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a truly distinguished expert on energy policy that serves on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the other side, I would like to reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just yield myself 1 minute to set the record straight.

The underlying legislation is not going to, as the last speaker suggested, reduce the dependency of the U.S. on foreign oil. In fact, every analyst who has looked at this suggests it will increase the dependency on foreign oil. It certainly in the short run, courtesy of its $17 billion in tax increases on energy production, will increase prices. And that's because the tax increases that are in here are not taxes on profits.

We've heard a lot about oil company profits, but in fact what we are taxing here under their bill is any investment in enhanced production. In other words, any time an oil company takes their profits and invests it in new production and doing what we would expect them to do, we're going to hit them over the head. And this should be a cause for concern because we've heard some rhetoric about how energy costs have gone up, but since they took the majority, gas prices have gone up 30 percent. And under the spot market, a barrel of oil has gone from $55 to $100 a barrel. That is not a favorable trend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to note that the Senate has already passed legislation which, unfortunately, has not been brought up by the other side. I attempted to offer that version as an amendment to this legislation, and I'm afraid the Rules Committee did not make it in order.

If we really wanted to move something to the President's desk that would work, the majority had the opportunity to do that and has been quick to fritter it away.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a gentleman who has been a true leader on energy policy in this Chamber through many sessions, who will be retiring at the end of this session, but today I think we have an opportunity to hear him on energy one more time, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the last speech, and I wish I could be as charitable about the underlying product or about the effort that we are making on the floor today. I do want to congratulate the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for having given our Select Revenue Subcommittee the opportunity to explore through hearings what our tax policy should be at energy and policy, and I am hopeful that the day will come when those hearings will yield the results that we would hope. I am afraid today is not likely to be that day.

The crisis we are facing is a real one. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a rising global demand for energy of all sorts as the economies of China and India grow. We are seeing the phenomenon of peak oil playing out. Clearly, we are not going to see the growing reserves that we have enjoyed in the past, and increasingly many of the remaining reserves are being mediated by state-owned oil companies with ideological or nationalistic agendas.

Our consumers, both our individual consumers and our corporate consumers, are facing the consequences of high prices, and yet we are imposing on our production artificial restrictions on new production. That is the wrong policy at a time like this. And we are facing aging energy infrastructure, whether it is a power grid that frankly is facing brownouts or refineries that are now at 92 percent of capacity. So if any one of them breaks down, we face a shortage in energy.

These are real problems. And coupled with them is the legitimate concern about externalities, the fact that greenhouse gases from the consumption of fossil fuels are having an uncertain impact on our climate. And yet in the context of all of that, H.R. 5351 is simply not the answer, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't in any of its three previous incarnations, and it is not now. It is bad energy policy. And it is bad tax policy. There are parts of it that represent a continuity with the policies of past Congresses, and I salute the other side for including the extenders. But just like a car with an empty gas tank, this legislation is a nonstarter. It is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. It is not going to get on the President's desk. And today I would ask all of those who join me with these concerns to join in voting against this wrongheaded bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats took control of this body, prices at the pump were about 30 percent lower. The price on the spot market for a barrel of oil was $55, not $100 the way it was last week. They promised to address the energy crisis that has plagued the economic stability of this country and seek lower prices at the pump for American consumers.

Unfortunately, the bill that stands before us today fails to accomplish this goal and fails to meet the needs of the American people. By taking away the very tax incentives that helped promote oil and gas exploration here at home, this bill diminishes domestic companies' opportunity and incentive to produce gasoline. This in turn will raise energy costs for cash-strapped consumers.

While the majority party has come to believe that handing out new tax credits and new bonding authority to Governors and mayors is a coherent energy policy, there are many of us in this Chamber who are a little skeptical on that point.

These dulcet-sounding bond programs lack effective safeguards to ensure that the money from the newly created liberal slush fund would go toward environmentally sound projects that will promote or improve energy independence in America.

This Rube Goldberg device can't be seriously expected to help the average American cope with today's high energy prices. What's more, these things certainly do nothing to help consumers cope with tomorrow's higher energy prices that the tax increases incorporated into this bill will certainly generate.

This legislation will not help Americans who carpool to work and will not help working moms driving their children to school. It will not bring down home heating costs for families struggling to make ends meet during this winter season, and it will not lower the cost of fertilizer for farmers.

Mr. Speaker, our motion to recommit will help ease the burden of economic hardship for many of these working families. This motion will strike all of the tax increases from the bill at the time when the economy needs more innovative solutions rather than simply stacking tax increase upon tax increase with no help for working families. It will strike the massive haircut that this bill gives to the most effective renewable energy policy in this code, the wind credit. The bill risks undermining the success of the wind credit, which has been the most promising source of alternative energy. This motion to recommit restores it to its full value.

This motion also rids the underlying bill of the egregiously wasteful bond program that, in our view, is nothing more than a waste of taxpayer dollars with no real potential oversight.

We also eliminate something that I know is dear to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and that is the tax incentive for people who ride their bikes to work, and I am sure I will hear about this from my paperboy.

This motion represents a much more rational approach for moving American energy policy forward. As we all know, the pro-growth tax policies enacted by Republican Congresses have been a source of fertility in the American economy, helping tens of millions of taxpayers; and for that matter, millions who don't pay taxes but receive refundable tax credits from the IRS every year.

While Washington Democrats have continued to demonize tax cuts for only helping the rich, the facts speak for themselves.

This motion to recommit preserves two critical pro-growth policies and prevents tax increases for many working Americans.

First, it would prevent the current $1,000 child tax credit from being slashed in half in 2011 through Democrat inaction.

Second, it would prevent a substantial increase in the marriage tax penalty which is set to occur in 2011. According to the Treasury Department, allowing these tax incentives to sunset will force more than 6 million additional taxpayers to become subject to the individual income tax, and 116 million families will have an average tax increase of more than $1,800.

Sunsetting the $1,000 child tax credit and keeping the marriage tax penalty on the books will, without a doubt, subject millions of families to being hit with serious tax increases.

What does the majority's inaction on these tax reforms mean? It means higher taxes on low-income families with children and higher taxes on married couples. What does passing the energy bill in front of us mean? It means higher energy prices across the board and greater dependence on foreign oil. What does passing the motion to recommit mean? It means preventing tax increases.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit and against this badly flawed underlying bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1001, I call up the bill (H.R. 5351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the tax provisions of H.R. 5351. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. This explanation, document JCX-19-08, is currently available on the Joint Committee's Web site.

H.R. 5351 presents a step in the right direction as Congress moves to address the issue of climate change and energy security.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to once again visit this important international and certainly national crisis that our country is facing today. Richard Neal, an outstanding member of the Oversight Committee, working with my dear friend, Phil English, was able to explore how the Congress might be more aggressive in dealing with this serious problem.

It is clear that one day our children and grandchildren will be asking us, during this period of time, what were we doing as relates to climate control. What role did we play to avoid our dependency on fossil fuel? How many lives have been lost as a result of our Nation feeling insecure about oil reserves throughout the world? Did we attempt to conserve? Did we protect the Earth? Did we create the jobs? Did we fulfill our moral obligation?

I hate to see that the record is going to say that here we go again, that we have done this before, that the Senate hasn't acted, or that other Members would take the time to talk about

other pieces of legislation instead of devoting all of their attention as to how we can make this issue one that the President can come to the table and join with us and attempt to resolve.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to find renewable sources of energy, to conserve what we have, to test the winds, the waters, solar, to do all that we can to make certain that we meet the challenges that arise on our watch.

And so I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, but I do hope that the discussion we have today, that Members realize that the whole world is watching, history is being made, and it is our choice as to whether we have made a positive contribution or whether some Members have preferred to be a political impediment to that progress. But no matter how many times we are rejected by the Senate, our Speaker and leadership are committed to be able to say that on our watch, while we were here, we have done all we could do in order to face and resolve this serious problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, referring to the threat of the national security of the oil producers in Venezuela is a clear example of a failed energy policy in this country, whether it is South America or whether it is the Middle East. But it should be pointed out for the record, as compiled by the Center for American Progress, profits during the Bush administration for oil companies have risen from $30 billion to $103 billion. We don't think it is asking too much for them to assist in partnership to find out whether there is a better way to fuel our energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding Member of the Congress and distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas and the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee I think explained why there are such high profits in the oil industry, and if that is the explanation, I assume, if they are looking forward to continuous higher profits as they have been reaping during this administration, that they are in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I would like to yield 3 minutes to an outstanding Member of Congress who has worked so hard on the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though a lot of attention is being given to Hugo Chavez and CITGO and, I guess, Castro and maybe Osama bin Laden, but when the final record is established, it would be that we have a lousy energy policy in this country. We just hope you would join with us in trying to protect our great national security.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to Richard Neal from Massachusetts, the subcommittee chairman of oversight, who has done a fantastic job on this subject, and for this your Nation is thankful.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, when history is reviewed and we see where our Nation is and what bright light we have in not just identifying the problem but providing the solutions, the Speaker has given us all an opportunity to be a part of that great compromise in terms of working with the private sector and working with Republicans and Democrats. And it doesn't make any difference how many setbacks we have, the commitment she made continues. And until we can get a bipartisan ear in the White House, or until the Senate understands that our time has come to face up to the problems in terms of global warming and national security and in terms of the ever-increasing costs of fuel, and to be able to say on our watch we met the challenge and we moved forward, no one voice, no one leader has provided more of an opportunity for us to resolve this serious problem than the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is indeed my privilege to yield 1 minute to her at this time.

I really want to thank the gentleman for the way you have raised the question. Rumor had had it that you intended to attack this provision of the bill.

I want to thank the gentleman for that, and what I was about to say, that it didn't surprise me that you did not attack it. I said rumor had it, but knowing the gentleman that you are and the concern you do have for sound fiscal policy, I want to first thank the gentleman for the way you raised the question and giving me an opportunity to share this provision with you. And if necessary, I will perhaps give myself additional time if you are not adequately satisfied.

First of all, I think we all agree when 9/11 occurred and the World Trade Center was hit----

If you are going to restrict my response, the general explanation for what you ask is in the President's budget. He has supported it in his budget, and the Joint Committee advisory opinion has been superseded by the chairman of the committee, which is me, has been authorized in support of requests by a Republican mayor and a Republican Governor.

Now, the answer to what you want is in the Department of Treasury report, 2008. If you don't want the details, then I yield back to you and I cannot answer any further.

I understand that, but you can't ask serious questions and expect not to get answers.

It is not an official earmark. And it can't be determined that, and the Record would so record that it is not an earmark.

Only because the opinion was considered officially and legally as an advisory opinion.

Let me make this abundantly clear. Earmark or no earmark, our country was hit, it was New York City, came to the rescue. Because of the way the bond issue was created, it expired, and the President of the United States believed, in fairness to the community that was hit, on behalf of the people of the United States of America, that there should be an extension of this. So we're not talking about any new earmark. We're talking about an extension of the compassion that this Congress has given my city and my community.

Let the record establish that the Chair has shared with you, and you can call the Parliamentarian or anyone else you want, this is not considered as an earmark.

But let me say further that even if it was, I would side with the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a part of the Democratic leadership in the House, an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I welcome his being recognized.

I would like to recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Record should indicate that our failed energy policy is due to Hugo Chavez.

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize Mr. Pascrell for 2 minutes.

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

I would be glad to. And I would like to ask that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) be recognized for 2 minutes.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I welcome the opportunity to recognize Mr. Van Hollen from Maryland for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first let me once again thank Mr. English for the diligent way that he addresses the problems that are before our committee. His working with Richard Neal makes me proud to be a member and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. I do hope that at some point that we will be able to get past the barrier of partisanship to deal with a national security issue, a global climate issue, an issue that should challenge all partisanship as we move forward.

It defies common sense to believe that the oil industry that is receiving billions of dollars in profit would even consider the $14 billion that we are talking about. It is almost like grains of sand on the beach. We are asking them to be partners with us, not just for their shareholders, which they know how to take care of, but for their country, to be able to say that our foreign policy should not be directed by where oil is, to be able to say at the end of the day we can tell our kids and grandkids that we tried to protect the atmosphere of this great country, to be able to say that there are alternatives, that we don't have to rely on fossil fuels. We have the genius. We have the creativity. And this bill provides the incentives to see whether we can use the wind, the water, waste, solar, whatever it takes. We have the know-how given the opportunity which this bill will give to deal with it. We can create products that conserve energy. We can increase our surplus in terms of trade by being able to produce products that are far more competitive than what we are doing today. What a great opportunity for us.

And when we talk about potential recession or whatever the President wants to call it, we have to recognize the big role that the increase in the price of oil has played with families who used to consider themselves middle income and now are faced with ever-increasing home fuel costs, automobile costs and all of these things, and to find that we have to give them $159 billion because they don't have the ability to put food on the table or shoes on their kids' feet or to pay their rent or to pay their mortgage. All of this, we can handle these problems if we work together in a bipartisan way. We even go as far as to say in the bill that we don't have all of the answers. We provide tax-exempt bonds for mayors and Governors and people with exciting ideas of how to make greenhouses and increase the efficiency of our commercial buildings as well as our residents.

Why don't we give hope a chance and give the challenge to America a chance, force the Senate to come to meet with us and in a bipartisan way

in the House to be able to say that we are prepared to do these things.

And so I do hope that people would reconsider that did not support H.R. 5351. I do hope and congratulate the leadership and Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, for never giving up and not giving in just because we face political obstacles. The record is going to indicate which side we were on, and it is abundantly clear, were you on the side of Big Oil or were you on the side of change and wanting to make certain that we met the challenges that we are forced to do.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5351.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage our membership to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I have a point of order at the desk and I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to recommit is not germane to the underlying bill, and I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I object. The proponent is not dealing with the question of the point of order but is dealing with another subject matter.

The proponent's speech is not related to the parliamentary question of the relevancy to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the rules of the House are being abused for purposes of calling attention to another piece of legislation, and I insist on my point of order.

I would like to be heard in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I have all the respect for the proponent of the motion to recommit on the subject matter that he is trying to bring to the attention of this House, but the Record has got to indicate that as this great Nation and this House try to deal with the serious problem of global warming, of loss of jobs, of national security, of a variety of things that we should be focused on, that if the rule should be used constantly throughout this debate for a purpose other than the reason why this bill is before this House, it not only violates the parliamentary rules, but the spirit in which we should be looking at this energy bill. So I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Before I speak, may I have a parliamentary inquiry?

Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the sponsor, does this motion to recommit kill the underlying bill?

I am asking what would be the impact if this were to pass. Would it kill the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion, and I am a little embarrassed about an issue that came up during the debate on this bill as related to the unity and the support for my great city, New York. I oppose the motion for many reasons, but the prime one is that this actually kills the bill and prevents us from taking a vote, but I don't think that they seriously would want us to consider the provisions here that they have in the motion.

But having said that, I am embarrassed that one of the issues that is in the motion to recommit is that they not allow the City of New York, with the support of the President of the United States, and have it included in the President's budget, the opportunity to utilize tax- exempt bonds, bonds that were given for the specific purpose of assisting us in recovering from that tragic terrorist attack on September 11.

After study by the administration and conversations which they had with the Republican and Democrat mayor and Governor of our great State, they reached the conclusion that the fair and equitable thing, because of the impediment under which the original tax-exempt bond issue was written, that it was inaccurately written and it would expire if this provision wasn't there. Someone on the other side called it an earmark. Well, if it is an earmark, it is a compassionate earmark that is supported by the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury.

I just ask you, in case somebody of good conscience would ask, Why would you do a thing like that in a motion to recommit? to give you the opportunity to say, I just didn't know that it was in there.

So for all of those reasons, I ask that we defeat the motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

If it was reported back, would it comply with the PAYGO rules of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker?

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1001 provides for consideration of H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 under a structured rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record if offered by Representative McCrery or his designee. The substitute amendment is debatable for 1 hour. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit the bill, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is quite simple: It is about taking action on an important priority of the American people. It is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill will ensure that hardworking Americans can buy affordable energy that is environmentally sound. It restores balance to our energy policy after years of favoring Big Oil.

Mr. Speaker, hardworking American families are struggling to pay their bills in an uncertain economy. They face the growing cost of basic necessities, such as gasoline and heating oil. This is a direct result of rising oil prices.

As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to protect our constituents from big oil companies and countries that are taking advantage of working families. The Renewable Energy and Energy Tax Conservation Act restores balance to our energy policy. For years, we have had a tax structure that favors huge oil companies over the American family.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts speak for themselves. Oil costs today rose to $102 a barrel for the first time in history. It is more expensive for Americans to drive their kids to school, to go to the grocery store, to heat their homes, and to vacation with their families. Americans are paying more than ever to fill up their cars, and big oil companies are reaping the profits.

In my home State of California, the price of gasoline is more than double what it was when this administration came into office. Last year, ExxonMobil posted the largest profit in American history, nearly $40 billion to one company. This equation is simple: Americans pay more; oil companies make more. This is unacceptable for the families we represent.

Unfortunately, it is perfectly acceptable for our President. This is a President who said that we don't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore. That was back when the price of oil was $55 per barrel. It is now almost double that. It is obvious that any system that rewards the top earning oil companies and neglects our constituents and the environment ignores the priorities of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation will correct this inequity. It will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future.

Our scientists have been hard at work researching ways to harness the powerful assets of our planet. We can have a healthy economy even as we preserve our natural resources and our skies. Solar, wind, and geothermal technologies are ready for the mainstream. Our legislation will help get them there.

In the case of solar, we are not just creating new incentives. We are extending successful tax breaks that have helped these industries get off the ground. Our legislation will allow public agencies to issue bonds to pay for clean energy projects. Some of the most effective public energy agencies in the country have put this provision at the top of their priority list.

This bill envisions a future where our country is no longer beholden to the oil market. It will dramatically pump up our domestic production of renewable fuels, such as biodiesel and cellulosic alcohol. The bill also contains a tax break to increase the number of alternative refueling stations so that Americans have options to fill up on the next generation of fuels.

This legislation recognizes that we can and must create the technologies today that we will use in the future. It harnesses our inventive American spirit to tackle our energy problems. It creates a sliding-scale tax incentive for consumers to purchase plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. It encourages investment in solar fuel cells and harnesses the power of cutting-edge technologies that produce energy from landfill gas and marine sources.

It builds on the desire of the American people for a more balanced and progressive energy policy. Making our homes and buildings more energy efficient is one of the most cost-effective ways to save money and power.

Our legislation contains significant incentives for efficiency programs. These changes will save money for constituents in the short and long run. They will also help preserve jobs. If tax incentives for wind and solar production are not extended, 116,000 American jobs will be lost. The legislation before us is critical to the health of our economy.

Most important, though, is that this legislation builds on the desire of the American people for a more balanced and progressive energy policy. The American people want us to take action to modernize our energy supply, and that is what we are doing. This bill will also help to lessen our dangerous dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world.

Earlier this month, our energy markets were disturbed by rumors that Venezuela was cutting off oil shipments. Events like these are a stark reminder that even though we are the strongest country in the world, we are also very vulnerable.

The short-sighted energy policy of the past is undermining our national security. We will only get weaker unless we change course now and invest in renewable fuels that are produced here at home, not in countries that wish us harm.

This House has heard the message that the American people have been sending us for a long time. We must overhaul our energy policy, and this bill is the second step toward this goal. We took the first step late last year when Democrats reached across the aisle. We worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the first increase in fuel economy standards in decades.

We could have done even more to restore balance to our energy policy.

Many of the provisions in today's bill were a part of last year's energy legislation passed by this House. But we were stymied by Republican obstructionism in the Senate.

I am one of the millions of Americans who want to see us do even more. People like Luquita Hutchinson from my hometown of Sacramento. She and her family are the reasons we must chart a new course forward here today.

Because of trying to balance her household budget, Luquita has stopped buying meat at the grocery store because she has to pay so much for gas at the pump. Today, in Sacramento, it's $3.35 a gallon. She has to make a choice between buying food for her family or filling up her gas tank.

It is for the sake of people like Luquita that I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation on the floor today. This bill makes us safer by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It protects the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans like Luquita Hutchinson, and it transforms our energy policy to maximize the benefits of clean, affordable, and renewable energy. If we pass today's bill, this kind of clean energy future is within our grasp.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman that this is a very fair rule. It allows extra debate time so that all Members have a chance to speak.

As is usual for a tax bill, we allowed a Republican substitute amendment to be made in order. Unfortunately, the Republican substitute amendment offered during the Rules Committee did not meet PAYGO requirements. The minority had the opportunity to submit the substitute if they wanted, but they did not.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would just like to say, unfortunately, it is ironic that the minority is coming to the floor with this issue yet again, especially since the minority has refused to come to the table as we are trying to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions. Yes, we have been trying to move forward with the negotiations, but the minority has not been willing to participate.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that one of the most destabilizing forces in the world is the competition for declining oil resources in the world. When we break our dependence on foreign oil with this bill today, we will be safer and our country will be better positioned to respond to the threats we face.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to our next speaker, first I would like to say that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act continues to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to monitor terrorists. The government always has the option of tapping targets immediately and returning to the FISA Court within 72 hours to obtain an order.

Additionally, any surveillance gathered before the expiration of the Protect America Act is in place for 1 year. The FISA Court backlog has been cleared, and the intelligence community can and was always able to do its job.

I would like to remind my colleagues that we are considering the rule for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just say, as I said before, this is just to remind my colleagues that we are considering the rule for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act today.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, just before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to remind everyone that the Protect America Act expiration has not reduced our ability to conduct surveillance.

With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really about the future of our country. Those of us who think that American leadership can create new sources of clean energy will vote for this bill. Those of us who think that high oil prices, economic uncertainty, and dependence on foreign oil are good energy policy will vote against it.

I know where my loyalties lie in this debate. They lie with Americans who are struggling to find the money to drive their children to school. They lie with people in my State of California who are concerned about global warming. They lie with my constituents who want a new direction for energy policy. It is for them that I support this legislation today. It is for them that I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Voting for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act is a way to show our constituents that the energy policies of the past are no longer acceptable. The American people are challenging us to create a new strategy focused on renewable and affordable energy. Those of us who support today's bill are meeting that challenge.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1001

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his very generous remarks, and for his tremendous leadership. Once again, he is providing an opportunity for this Congress to come down on the side of America's families instead of a special interest. Once again, he has come down at a place that talks about energy independence and security for our country.

One year ago, actually a little longer, in January of 2007, Mr. Rangel brought to the floor legislation similar to this. What it did was to repeal the subsidies for Big Oil and to use the funds for research into renewable energy resources

and incentives, tax incentives for that purpose. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly. It again passed as part of our bipartisan energy bill, but it did not survive the Senate because the President threatened to veto the bill if these subsidies to Big Oil were repealed. Imagine that. And so the energy bill, as much of a triumph as it was by having new CAFE standards for the first time in 32 years in the bill, did not have this very important other part, which would be the tax incentive for renewable energy resources.

Again, I thank Chairman Rangel for his persistence and for bringing this legislation to the floor now to give us this very special opportunity.

When Mr. Rangel first brought the bill to the floor last January, since then the price of gasoline at the pump has gone up 75 cents; 75 cents since we first took up this legislation. Imagine what that means to a household income. It is 17 cents, the price at the pump has increased 17 cents just in the past 2 weeks. Just yesterday, oil prices reached another new record at more than $101 per barrel. This is at a time when oil companies are making record profits.

Listen to this, my colleagues. Last year, ExxonMobil earned $40.6 billion in profit; $40.6 billion in profit. The largest corporate profit in American history. And yet, the administration refuses to repeal billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil.

This bill repeals those subsidies and invests in clean renewable energy that will put us on a path toward energy security and energy independence in a fiscally responsible way, by repealing subsidies to Big Oil, only to Big Oil, already making record profits.

With the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act that we are considering today, we have the opportunity to invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and grow our economy, creating new jobs, lower energy costs, strengthen national security and reduce global warming.

This legislation, and it is very important because there are so many people across the country who are being innovators, who are being disrupters, who are making change, and this change centering around energy is very, very important, and this legislation is vital to them. This legislation strengthens and extends the production tax credit which will spur deployment of wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal, and landfill gas. It extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit and offers tax incentives for residential solar, wind, and geothermal technologies. It creates a new production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol and extends the biodiesel production tax credit.

It expands the tax credit for gas stations that install alternative fuel pumps, such as the E85 pumps.

It includes tax incentives to promote greater efficiency for homes and businesses and creates a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

It creates a new category of tax credit bonds to fund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies. I know this has been said before. I reiterate this because this is very, very important and represents real change for our country.

This bill helps create broadly based prosperity with an $18 billion investment in the future. It will spur the production of clean renewable energy resources and provide business with the certainty necessary to make long-term plans to build viable and sustaining markets for these technologies. This is all about answers in the marketplace.

It will ensure that we keep the jobs that were created with the renewable tax credits and create hundreds of thousands more, the next generation of good-paying, green collar jobs that will be right here in America.

Because this legislation is vital for a greener and more prosperous future, it is supported by a broad coalition from business, environmental, and labor communities, from corporations such as Home Depot and Dow Chemical Company, to the Sierra Club, to the United Steelworkers and the National Farmers Union. I have a long list which I will submit for the Record, corporate, labor, Florida Power & Light Company. The list goes on and on. MMA Renewable Ventures, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, National Association of Realtors, National Electrical Manufacturers, Dupont, Earth Justice, all on the same page. The list goes on and on and on.

This Congress has already taken action to send our Nation in a new direction of energy independence, as I mentioned, by increasing fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years. That was bipartisan legislation signed into law by the President. What is missing are these tax incentives that the distinguished chairman, Mr. Rangel, is bringing to the floor today.

Energy independence is an economic issue in terms of budgets for America's families and creating new green jobs. It is an urgent national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is an environmental and health issue to reduce global warming and protect the health of our children, and it is a moral issue to care for our planet. We work closely with the evangelical community on these issues because they believe, as do I, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it.

I urge my colleagues to support the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and, in doing so, take the next step for a green economy, green jobs, and a green future.

February 26, 2008.

Dear Representative: As a coalition of businesses,

environmental groups, investors, labor, nongovernmental

organizations, public health organizations, and utilities we

urge you to vote yes on the Renewable Energy and Energy

Conservation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 5351). The bill would

extend federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and

renewable energy technologies that have expired or will

expire at the end of this year. These incentives must be

extended immediately to avoid significant harm to the

developing clean energy industries in the United States. The

technologies produced by these industries play a vital role

in reducing global warming pollution, creating new high-wage

jobs in our country, and saving consumers and businesses

money on their energy bills.

H.R. 5351 would extend tax incentives for renewable energy

production, energy efficiency in commercial buildings,

investment in solar electric systems, use of efficient home

heating and cooling equipment, production of efficient home

appliances, efficiency retrofits to existing homes, and

consumer purchases of energy efficient products.

The incentives in H.R. 5351 would remain effective for

multiple years, which is essential for the development of the

clean energy technology industries. Congress has historically

extended the clean energy incentives in two-year increments,

which creates a boom-bust cycle for the technologies covered

by the incentives. This cycle undermines the efficient

development of the clean energy technology industries into

mature industries.

Most of the incentives in H.R. 5351 have either expired or

will expire at the end of this year. It is critical for the

sustained development of the clean energy technology

industries that these incentives be continued. A disruption

of the incentives would lead to layoffs and a decrease in

much needed private capital flowing to these industries.

According to a recent study by Navigant Consulting, allowing

the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead to about

116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar industries from

now until the end of 2009.

Although H.R. 5351 was introduced without an extension of

the efficient new home tax credit and certain critical

changes to the energy efficiency and renewable energy

incentives, we look forward to working with you to

incorporate the efficient new home credit and these

enhancements into the bill later in the legislative process.

America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. The

clean energy tax incentives in H.R. 5351 would help our

country make the transition to this economy--an economy

powered by low-carbon technologies that help solve global

warming, reduce energy prices for consumers and create new

high-wage jobs. We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 5351.

Sincerely,

Abengoa Solar; Akeena Solar; Alliance to Save Energy;

Ameresco; American Institute of Architects; American

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE);

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); American

Rivers; American Wind Energy Association; Applied

Materials, Inc.; Apricus Inc.; American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

Inc. (ASHRAE); Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM); Audubon; Ausra, Inc.; Ballard

Power Systems; Best Buy Co., Inc.; BrightSource Energy;

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)

International.

Business Council for Sustainable Energy; California

Energy Commission; California Solar Energy Industries

Association (CALSEIA); CCIM Institute; Climate

Solutions; Conenergy; Constellation Energy; The Dow

Chemical Company; DuPont; Earthjustice; Energy

Conversion Devices; Energy Innovations, Inc.;

Environment America; Environmental and Energy Study

Institute (EESI); Environmental Law & Policy Center

(ELPC); EPV Solar; Exelon Corporation; Florida Power &

Light Company; Friends Committee on National

Legislation (FCNL); Friends of the Earth; Fuel Cell

Energy.

Great River Energy; Greenpeace; GridPoint; The Home

Depot, Inc.; Hydrogenics; Institute of Real Estate

Management; Insulating Concrete Form Association;

International Council of Shopping Centers; Johnson

Matthey; Lowe's Companies, Inc.; Macy's Inc.;

Millennium Cell, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric &

Electronics USA, Inc.; North American Insulation

Manufacturers Association (NAIMA); MMA Renewable

Ventures, LLC; National Association of Home Builders;

National Association of Industrial and Office

Properties (NAIOP); National Association of REALTORS;

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).

National Small Business Association; National Tribal

Environmental Council; National Wildlife Federation;

Natural Resources Defense Council; New Voice of

Business; Northeast Public Power Association; Oerlikon;

Owens Corning; PG&E Corporation; Physicians for Social

Responsibility; Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers

Association (PIMA); Plug Power, Inc.; PPG Industries; PPM

Energy, Inc.; Public Citizen; Q-Cells AG; REgrid Power;

The Real Estate Roundtable; ReliOn; Retail Industry

Leaders Association.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Safeway,

Inc.; SANYO Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation; SCHOTT Solar,

Inc.; Schuco USA LP; Sharp Solar; Sierra Club; SkyFuel

Inc.; Solar Energy Industries Association; Solar

Integrated; Solar Millennium LLC; Solar Power, Inc.;

Solar World; SOLEC-Solar Energy Corporation; Southern

Alliance for Clean Energy; Spire Solar, Inc.;

SunEdison; SunPower Corporation; Suntech America, Inc.;

Target Corporation.

Trane; Trinasolar; Union of Concerned Scientists; United

Solar Ovonic; USA Biomass; US Fuel Cell Council; The

United Steelworkers (USW); United Technologies

Corporation; The Vote Solar Initiative; Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc.; Western Organization of Resource Councils

(WORC); Western Renewables Group; Whirlpool

Corporation; Whole Foods Market, Inc.; Xcel Energy

Company; Yahoo! Inc.

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. I know the majority calls this a structured rule, but it's a closed rule. Technically the majority gave the minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment if the substitute amendment was printed in the Congressional Record before the end of the legislative day. The rule giving the minority the opportunity to draft a substitute was passed out of the Rules Committee at about 5:20 yesterday evening. The House finished its legislative day at 5:57, giving the minority 37 minutes in which to draft a substitute to a very complex tax issue while meeting PAYGO and germaneness requirements. I understand that at the time the House went out of session last night, minority staff from the Ways and Means Committee were talking to the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Joint Committee on Taxation in hopes of drafting a substitute amendment. But since they couldn't get all their work done in 37 minutes, the minority, in fact, was closed out and prohibited from offering any amendments under this closed rule.

What is even more disturbing is that I am informed that during consideration of the rule yesterday, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, informed Ranking Member Dreier that the majority would keep the House in session so that the minority would have ample time to complete work on a substitute amendment. But the question must be asked of the majority at this time: How is 37 minutes enough time to draft legislation, especially on something as complicated as an energy tax bill?

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough time. It is most unfortunate that the majority did not give the minority time to complete its work and that we are now proceeding under this closed process.

Everyone in this body seeks to leave our children and grandchildren a better world in which to live. This great Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but, clearly, we can do more.

From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic renewable energy sources. This included sources such as cellulosic ethanol, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.

I am pleased by the inclusion of the production tax credit, the PTC, in the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today. The PTC provides a tax credit for electricity produced from renewable energy facilities. Sources such as wind, solar and biomass are included under the tax credit. Since its enactment in 1992, the credit has encouraged the development of thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable electric generation facilities.

But we must keep in mind that alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy resources. Without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist, and this bill, the legislation being brought to the floor today under this rule, will do nothing to lower gas prices.

Unfortunately, the majority has included in H.R. 5351, the underlying legislation, more than $17 billion in tax increases, including a repeal of the section 199 manufacturing deduction. This tax incentive in current law is aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. By removing this incentive for the domestic production of oil and natural gas, we would increase the incentive to look overseas for those energy resources. How would that be in our national interest? How does increasing the cost of doing business in the United States decrease the cost of gasoline for Americans? Why would we want to deincentivize investment in a sector of our economy with 1.8 million well-paying jobs in the United States of America?

Removal of these incentives will drive up prices to the American consumer even further and increase our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the buffoon Hugo Chavez, who earlier this month cut off oil sales to ExxonMobil and threatened once again to cut off all oil sales to the United States.

And while the buffoon Chavez makes those threats to our energy supplies, the majority has decided that his company, Citgo, would continue to receive a tax break that the majority in the underlying legislation seeks to take away from American companies.

Yes, under this legislation, three American oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, will lose their current deduction while Citgo will continue to get theirs. That's unbelievable.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished friend from New York pointed out earlier that this rule that we are debating is on the energy bill. She pointed that out because we have been stressing the need to debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues that the rule that we are debating today, this rule lays on the table, it tables H. Res. 983, authority to address legislation concerning foreign intelligence surveillance. So it's quite germane and relevant in discussing and debating this rule to be insisting upon a debate on

I will reserve then.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, it's disappointing that the majority has decided really to waste the time of this Congress with legislation that three times has failed to make it through the Senate and that observers covering Congress have called a rerun. Instead of wasting time on legislation that will never make it into law, we should be considering bipartisan legislation that will protect Americans from international terrorism.

On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a Presidents Day recess and allow the Protect America Act to expire 2 days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. Because of the deliberate inaction of the majority, the United States today is more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And this did not have to happen.

Earlier this month, the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote of 68-29 a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a bill that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee said, `` . . . it's the right way to go in terms of the security of the Nation.''

Mr. Speaker, we would have easily considered that legislation, but the majority decided instead to head home. The House should vote on the Senate measure and we should do it now, instead of debating this legislation which will not become law and is really nothing more than a rerun.

We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, in any way tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into this century is a critical national security priority.

I'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate legislation. The letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives in the United States.''

Today I will give all Members of this House an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all of my colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.

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.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that will help protect American lives from international terrorism.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

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