Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6049) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate purposes only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1212.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1212 provides for consideration of H.R. 6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R. 6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which will not only bring this country into a new alternative energy future, but strengthen our economy by directing fiscally responsible tax relief to middle class families, creating jobs at small businesses in the very towns and rural communities where we need it the most.

The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class families and small businesses, including deductions for State and local sales tax, tuition education expenses, and expanding the child tax credit and research and development tax credit.

During these uncertain economic times, it is also absolutely critical that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term development for tomorrow, including alternative energy like wind and biomass that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and bring the price of gas at the pump to a level families and businesses can afford. The best way to encourage growth and development of new technology is to let businesses invest their own money in ways that expand our economic horizons. Tax credits for alternative energy production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create good paying, highly skilled jobs that can't be sent overseas.

In my upstate New York district, our location, natural resources, renowned colleges and universities and world class scientific and technological companies perfectly poise our community to seize this opportunity to create a new green economy, complete with green jobs.

I have spoken numerous times throughout the debate over how to extend these renewable tax credits and about the new businesses in my district that are utilizing the national investment in alternative energy to create good paying jobs in upstate New York. Those businesses are to be commended, and that is why I am proud to support nearly $20 billion in long-term clean renewable energy tax incentives and investment included in the Energy and Job Creation Act. I hope that doing so will encourage other companies to follow suit, both in our region and across this great Nation.

The underlying legislation extends and modifies critical tax credits for the production of electricity from renewable sources ranging from wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed-loop and open-loop biomass. It would also extend clean renewable energy bonds, efficient commercial building tax incentives, investment tax credit for solar and fuel cell systems, tax credit for energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes, tax credits for production of efficient home appliances and tax incentives for consumer purchases of energy efficient products. Most of these incentives either expired at the end of last year or are set to expire at the end of this year. It is vitally important to sustaining the development of clean energy technology industries that these incentives are extended.

H.R. 6049 also includes an extension of the research and development tax credit that allows companies a tax credit for a portion of their research and development expenditures. Extending the R&D credit is vital to ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of innovation that keeps our companies competitive and working here, not offshore. This credit is of particular interest to the area that I represent because its extension will further the expansion of the microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are beginning to blossom in our region.

American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuity to adequately plan their long-term research projects. I support this 1- year extension to provide that continuity and I will continue to work with leaders on the committee and in this body to seek a permanent extension that would eliminate concerns over expirations and lapses.

The bill also extends important tax credits for individuals, as well as creating new and expanded credits. It extends for 1 year the personal income tax deductions for tuition and education expenses, the State and local sales taxes, and teachers' out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies. The bill creates a new standard deduction for up to $700 for couples to cover State and local property taxes, and expands the eligibility for the refundable child tax credit. Under the child tax credit, certain low-income taxpayers can claim a refundable tax credit equal to 15 percent of their earned income above an inflation- adjusted threshold. In 2008, this threshold is set to be $12,050, but under H.R. 6049 that threshold will be reduced to $8,500, providing increased

relief to more than 12 million families with children nationwide.

Supporting H.R. 6049 comes down to simple common sense. We can create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile regimes, reduce greenhouse gases, spur innovation and provide tax relief to middle class families, and we can do it all--and let me emphasize this--all of those things, without adding to the national deficit.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one point. Some people in this institution tend to talk about trial lawyers and seem to want to point out the things that they do that they think aren't good. But no one talks about the fact that trial lawyers are out there representing people who have been injured. They are protecting people's civil rights. They are defending people on a contingency fee basis who don't have the money to come forward and sue people that have hurt them. That is critically important. And this bill does not give a windfall tax rebate to lawyers. All it does is allow them to claim expenditures that they have put out in the year that they have made that expenditure, no different than any other business in this country can do.

So I think it is unfair to criticize trial attorneys who are out there doing the kind of things that people hire them to do; and that is protecting people's civil rights and ensuring that people who are injured are able to get what they need so that they are not victimized even further.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

This good bill will help us wean ourselves off fossil fuels. It will help us keep good-paying jobs in the energy industry, in the entertainment industry, and a great many other industries, and I urge support.

We have no additional speakers, so I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Washington. It's always a pleasure managing a rule on the floor with you.

I would like to thank him for making a point which I think is a very good point in his closing, and that is we can't drill our way to oil independence. I think that is abundantly clear, especially to Americans. I think they know that.

The fact of the matter is, is that oil is a finite resource. That as much as we want to dream and that as much as we want to wish, it is a finite resource. And while there may be reserves that may last us 5 years or 10 years, the fact of the matter is if we don't deal with the fact that it is a finite resource, then our children and our grandchildren will have to deal with the fact that there is no more oil left.

That's what today's bill does. That's what this rule does. It attempts to take real steps to promote alternative energy because that is the future of our children and our grandchildren.

H.R. 6049, if it passes the House today, it will be the fourth time the House has voted to extend many of these energy tax provisions. In each of the previous three times, the legislation has come under heavy fire because of the revenue-raising provisions that were included to ensure that the extensions were compliant with House pay-as-you-go rules. That is the new Democratic majority's commitment to lowering the national debt by bringing fiscal responsibility back to the House of Representatives.

The debate has not fallen on deaf ears. I applaud the Ways and Means Committee and Chairman Rangel for its tireless commitment to finding less controversial means for paying for this vital tax relief and alternative energy development incentives. Their efforts have been successful judging by the list of organizations and businesses that are supporting H.R. 6049, including the League of Conservation Voters, the National Retail Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, Dow Chemical Company, The Sierra Club, The American Farm Bureau, and the list goes on and on.

Providing tax relief to middle class families and small businesses, providing incentives to promote alternative energy development, and adhering to fiscal responsibility should never, never be a partisan issue.

Too often in this Chamber we hear countless reasons why not to do something, but the fact of the matter is, we cannot afford to allow the vital tax relief and renewable energy incentives in H.R. 6049 to fall victim to Washington politics.

Just to set the record straight, by voting ``yes'' on the previous question and voting ``yes'' on the rule and bringing this legislation to the floor, it will allow 11 million families to deduct State and local sales taxes; it will allow 3\1/2\ million teachers to deduct classroom expenses so they can better educate the children they teach; it will allow 4 million families the ability to deduct education expenses and help put their children through college; it will allow 13 million families to claim the child tax credit and make it a little easier to put food on their table; and it will allow 27,000 domestic businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace by investing in vital research and development.

Clearly we in the majority are working to advance the interests of the American people. I am hopeful we can come together later today, Republicans and Democrats, pass this rule, pass the underlying legislation, and move our country forward.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1212 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the operation of the previous question, it

shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute

which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the

effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of

regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be

considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be

subject to a demand for division of the question in the House

or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against

such amendments are waived except those arising under clause

9 of rule XXI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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