Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7060) 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.

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

(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7060, the majority's latest extenders package, a bill that will never actually deliver the tax relief it's promising because it will never pass the Senate and it will never be enacted into law.

I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--it's time to be realistic. We are in the waning hours of this Congress, only a day away from our scheduled adjournment, a day or two or three.

Yet here we are, conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules.

Indeed, as the end of the 110th Congress draws near, it's interesting to see the application of PAYGO to expiring tax provisions remain as difficult for the majority today as it has ever been.

Throughout the year, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that PAYGO requires us to find offsets for these tax extensions. Of course, the majority's adherence to PAYGO has been somewhat intermittent. It has been waived to fund unemployment benefits, and on the housing bill passed in July. And PAYGO has never applied to spending, which continues to grow at unsustainable rates. It has also been waived for extensions of some tax provisions, including just Wednesday on the AMT patch. Nevertheless, the majority has steadfastly refused to waive PAYGO for other expiring tax provisions even in the face of ample evidence that the Senate and the President are not in agreement with that position.

On Tuesday, the Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 93-2, to approve a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like.

Is the Senate's package perfect? Of course it isn't. But given the limited time left in this Congress, the Senate's comprehensive package is likely the only option that will lead to enactment of much-needed extensions of expired and expiring provisions, including the AMT patch, the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit which is so critical for restarting our economy, and the extension of the subpart F exception for active financial services income.

Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

The Senate majority leader made that point on Tuesday on three separate occasions. In the morning he urged the House: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

In the early afternoon, he told a reporter that he had talked to House leaders and ``told them how important it is that we get a bill back like the one we sent them . . . If they send us back something different . . . it is dead, sorry to say.''

And then, to make sure that there was no confusion, even later in the afternoon the majority leader said, ``If the House doesn't pass this, the full responsibility of this not passing is theirs, not ours.''

So let's be clear. The Senate's comprehensive tax package, which passed 93-2, is the only clear path for enactment of the AMT patch and the tax extender package we are debating here today. Let me say that as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I don't like being told by the Senate what we should or should not do. This is not how I prefer to legislate, of course. However, with adjournment looming and with a continuing resolution that takes us into next year, it is time to be realistic, as the distinguished chairman said. We are headed down a path that will leave all of these critical issues unresolved well into 2009.

Simply put, the majority's insistence on paying for extenders has painted us into this corner. And, unfortunately, we don't have time to wait for the paint to dry. Failing to act on the extenders this year will be burdensome to businesses and families alike.

It is important to note, Madam Speaker, that the House majority's extenders bill contains no net tax relief. None. That is in stark contrast to the Senate's position. The Senate's comprehensive tax package contains approximately $107 billion in net tax relief after subtracting out the AMT patch, the disaster-related tax provisions and the mental health parity benefits from the Senate's package to account for the House's passage of those provisions as separate freestanding bills. We see that the remaining Senate extenders provisions by themselves provide approximately $35 billion in net tax relief. On the other hand, the House extenders bill provides no net tax relief to American taxpayers because every last penny of tax relief is offset with revenue raisers elsewhere, and that is not a good deal for the American taxpayer.

It is also a bad deal for U.S. businesses and employers that are trying to compete with their foreign counterparts. That is because the House bill provides a long-term delay, potentially until 2019, of the implementation of more rational worldwide interest allocation rules that are currently scheduled to go into effect in 2011. These more rational rules, originally enacted by Republicans in 2004, were good policy then and remain good policy now.

While the majority refers to those as an international tax provision, when implemented, these rules will actually help companies avoid double taxation on their foreign income, and we shouldn't push off for nearly a decade the effective date of a provision that will help American businesses and employers compete.

I would also note, Madam Speaker, that the House bill in many instances provides considerably less generous tax benefits than the Senate bill, including and especially with respect to energy-related tax benefits. For example, the House bill omits entirely a number of Senate proposals, including an extension and modification of the election to expense certain refineries, an energy-efficient home credit, and a special depreciation allowance for certain reuse and recycling property. In addition, the House bill places considerable limitations on a number of the Senate's other energy-related provisions, including a reduction in the maximum credit for plug-in hybrids, a key restriction on the credit for producing electricity from most renewable sources.

Moreover, unlike the Senate package, the House bill does not contain $3.3 billion in funding for the Secure Rural Schools Program.

Madam Speaker, when the 110th Congress convened last January, I had high hopes that these 2 years would be spent working on a bipartisan basis on issues people care about. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have real disagreements about what each side believes in. But, unfortunately, in the face of a bipartisan Senate solution to the extenders debate, and the ticking clock on this Congress, the House majority is still clinging to PAYGO on this bill.

Time is short, Madam Speaker. Whether we defeat the House bill now or whether the Senate rejects it later, this bill's life expectancy is exceedingly short. The sooner the majority sees that, the sooner we can begin debating the Senate's comprehensive package which would actually be enacted into law. I urge opposition to this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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

Well, frankly, in terms of responsibility, if the majority had exercised their responsibility, we wouldn't have let these extenders expire for 9 months and be here at the closing days of the session. We would have dealt with these earlier on in the session.

We've heard a lot of discussion about the House's role and the Senate's role. But as we know, we have three branches of government. And another important point in this discussion is the statement of administration policy, which is, that we have an SAP that says that this legislation, H.R. 7060, if

it were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. And also in the statement, we have that the administration will support the bipartisan compromise in the Senate.

So this isn't just about turf between the House and the Senate and what our responsibilities are. It's also about what is actually going to become enacted into law. Clearly what we're doing today is not going to go very far.

So the question I have to ask is, why do we continue down this path? We've done this before on mental health parity, which we finally did accept the Senate language on. We've done it before on Medicare, where we finally accepted the Senate language yet this year. So there have been other occasions where we've done this. And I would just urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation because its shelf life is very, very short.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'd be happy to say that, first of all, we have three branches of government.

Well, of course not.

We have three coequal branches of government.

Madam Speaker, I see there are a few more speakers on that side so I will reserve my time for right now.

I would yield myself such time as I may consume and just briefly say that we will not see those goals achieved because this bill will not be enacted into law. Not only has the Senate majority leader said he will not take it up, we also have a statement from the administration that his advisers would recommend it be vetoed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to close.

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

We've heard a lot about the principled stand of the majority in terms of PAYGO, but I have to say that to inflict permanent tax increases on the American people to pay for temporary extensions of tax relief is just nonsensical. And let me just say that their application of this principle has been inconsistent at best. It wasn't applied for the unemployment benefits extension that we did; it wasn't applied for the housing bill; it hasn't been applied when they wanted to extend AMT, alternative minimum tax relief; it won't be applied to the stimulus package that's being put through the Rules Committee right now.

So to say that this bill is the only way because it has PAYGO when PAYGO is not applied in any kind of consistent manner across anything that they present to this House I think is an argument that really collapses under its own weight.

Secondly, we have clear indication from the Senate, as the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina so eloquently said, who has stated that they will not take up this bill. They've passed a bipartisan compromise 92-3. We would have bipartisan support for that bill were it to come to this body, were my colleagues to bring that forward.

Not only is it the other body, but it's also the administration. The President has said this bill would be vetoed if it ever reaches his desk. We know it won't get that far.

So recognizing that we have limited time left in this Congress, recognizing that it really takes three branches of government, it really takes particularly the executive and legislative branch to at least get a bill enacted into law, the third branch to make sure it's constitutional; but knowing what the other branch of government has said already about this bill, knowing that we don't have unanimity in the legislative side, it makes absolute sense that we bring forward the Senate bill.

Then on policy grounds, let me just say, the House bill has more tax increases than necessary, and the Senate measure includes a number of key items that are not included in the House bill that some of my colleagues have talked about today, particularly with regard to rural schools, but also especially in the area of energy.

When you look at this bill lacking the credit for small wind power systems, which is going to so help our dependence on foreign oil, the business tax credit for geothermal heat pumps, which is part of our all-of-the-above strategy trying to support wind, solar, alternatives, geothermal, nuclear, whatever we can to help lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and then also the bonds to help municipal and cooperatives to install wind and solar power plants. We see those operating all over the country, efforts to try to get these alternative energy sources up and running. And here we've delayed 9 months to move forward on a bill and then bring a bill forward to this body which is inadequate in those alternative energy methods. Also for refining capacity, for energy- efficient homes, those are critical.

And lastly, which is important to so many Members from the gulf coast still dealing with the aftermath of Katrina, the extension of tax credits for rehabilitating buildings in the GO Zone.

These aren't just minor problems. These are glaring omissions that have received bipartisan support in the Senate. They're lacking in the House bill.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Yes, in its current form.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a very simple debate here. What we'd like to do is replace the text of the bill before us with the bill that the Senate passed this week by an overwhelming vote of 92-3, and there are three main reasons for this.

First, that bill provides more tax relief. It includes fewer tax increases, and it can become law. The Senate measure also has a number of key provisions that are not in the House bill. Most particularly, the research and development tax credit is enhanced in the Senate version, which is so important to getting our economy up and going again. This is just simply an extension in the House bill. It's not nearly enough to do the job.

Also, the House bill contains more tax increases, in addition to those that were in the Senate bill. The House bill further extends the effective date of what we call worldwide interest allocation rules which really make its difficult for our employers to compete in today's global economy.

Finally, I think the most important thing is the Senate bill is a bill that could get enacted this year. It's quite clear that the issues that we're debating today with regard to the House bill will never be taken up by the Senate, as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate has made on many occasions and have been made repeatedly on this floor, including the comment that: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will--we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

So I would urge this House to reject this point of order and move forward so that we can actually have a debate on the issues that we've been talking about all morning, instead of short-circuiting this debate and making it impossible for us to offer an alternative to what the majority is trying to do.

We heard a lot about debate and openness and that the House is place where we shouldn't just say ``yes,'' we shouldn't just agree with what's happening. So I would say to my colleagues, if you're so interested in debate, why are you so afraid of having us bring this motion forward?

Let us have the vote on this motion to recommit, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

I want to thank my colleague and friend from Texas for yielding the time to me at this time.

I'm bitterly disappointed, frankly, that we find ourselves back here on this floor once again without an opportunity even to offer up an alternative. And to put it in perspective for my colleagues who may not frequent the Rules Committee, ``closed rule'' means that the minority has no opportunity to offer up an alternative. Period. No opportunity to come to this floor in this great democratic institution, the finest in the world, and have a chance to have a vote on an alternative to this measure. That's what a closed rule is. You shut it down, you shut out everybody else. You got your way. You run the train, and you ran right over the top of literally half the people in America, nearly, who are represented on this side of the aisle.

So what does that mean? It means the amendment that I hoped would be allowed to at least be debated and considered here will not be.

I appreciate my colleague from Washington's Fourth District, Doc Hastings, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, who offered the amendment. And it was defeated on a strict party-line partisan vote that precludes our opportunity here on the floor when it went down to defeat to even have a discussion about what it means to the 20 counties I represent and the many that he does and the 4,400 school districts and multi-hundred counties in 42 States that have had their revenue sharing cut off because this Congress, this Congress has failed to reauthorize county payments program.

So why are we here?

The Senate had a similar bill to this. It passed 93-2. Huge bipartisan effort trying to get the problem solved for this country. That would have extended these extenders that help on renewable energy, which I'm a big fan of. It also took care of this enormously important issue to the West because it is principally a western issue because, frankly, that's where the Federal lands are is in the West.

Now I know that other counties and other school districts around the country are affected, certainly, and this legislation could have helped them had it been allowed to be offered, but it's not being offered. But nobody is affected more than my colleague from the Fourth District in Oregon and myself, our constituents, some of whom now are out of work.

The largest county in my district had to close all of its public libraries. Most of the road departments in my district have been cut in half, perhaps more. Now in some counties there's one road person for every 100 miles of road. Many of the roads will be turned back to gravel, back to gravel. That's not progress in America.

And the Rules Committee had the jurisdiction, has the authority to prevent that from happening by at least allowing us to have a vote. Not once, not twice, but multiple times they denied that vote.

Now the gentleman from New York raised in the discussion of the Rules Committee about a bill that was brought to the floor that would have reauthorized county schools and roads for 4 years. I was cosponsor of that bill originally under the premise and promise that when it came to the floor it would have a different pay-for because that's what was promised in the Resources Committee, and that payment in lieu of taxes would be included in that bill when it came to the floor--that was the promise, and it was broken. It came to the floor differently.

The gentleman will say, Well, you're in the pocket of Big Oil because we wanted to raise the fees on oil companies to pay for it. Well, please. Under the conservation of resource fee that is allowable under the contract at issue here, the leases, you can add that fee but you can't use it to pay for county payments. The courts have looked at this issue. You can use it to do resource work around the shorelines and all, but you violate contracts when you do it the way you all brought it to the floor.

So, we can argue about that. I happen to believe I'm right. I'm right, I know, in that the promises were broken when it came to the floor.

In addition to that, I also believe that you all have the power to decide how bills come to the floor. You made the decision to bring it under suspension of the rules, had to suspend the rules of the House, requiring a two-thirds majority for that to be passed in this House. And it failed.

And the reason you brought it to the floor under suspension was so that the Republicans could offer no alternative, because that's the issue, isn't it? When you bring a bill under suspension, you and I both know, all of us know the minority has no chance to offer an alternative; it's an up-or-down vote. So we had the up-or-down vote, and it failed.

So then the bill went away, except we also know that you in the majority are most powerful and in the Rules Committee have a 2-to-1 plus one vote. You could craft a rule tonight, just as you have done here, and you could bring that bill back to the floor tomorrow, couldn't you, because you have got 218 votes for it. You didn't get the two-thirds. You got 218. So any day since that bill failed on the floor on suspension, you could have brought it back.

And you could have sent it to the Senate. If you'd had the same pay- for, it would still violate contracts. The Senate's repeatedly refused to accept that pay-for, oh, by the way, I was told repeatedly it was nothing but a placeholder, anyway, and it was never going to be used to fund the bill. So it was never really going to get the job done.

This bill that the Senate sent to us would get the job done. It's honest. It's direct. It would pay for 4 years of county payments in PILT. It would put our people back to work. It would help people deal with the problems in our Nation's forests that are so, so at risk of fire and destruction. It would allow the funding to go back to the communities, to our schools, so that teachers could be hired rather than fired; so we could maintain the roads that lead to our national forests; so that we could pay for search and rescue; so we could actually have collaborative efforts again under title II to go out and bring people together and do what needs to be done in our forests.

You have that power in the majority. We had it when we were in the majority, and those who criticized us for not getting this reauthorized when it just went to expiration, you're right. I was frustrated with our own majority that we couldn't get it done. I take that criticism. I leveled that criticism because I am so passionate about the need to maintain this partnership that's now been broken not for 1 year but for 2.

And this is today. Today is when you make the decision to move forward or not. This is today. It's actually tonight. And we've had two shots today where you could have given us this alternative to at least have a vote on the floor.

So my colleague from Texas, I apologize for my time. I do not apologize for my passion on the need to get a chance to at least have a real vote on a real measure that the President would sign and that the Senate's approved.

So I am bitterly disappointed tonight that for the second time in one day we have been denied on a party-line vote the opportunity to even have this amendment be considered on the floor of this great democratic institution.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. I wonder if the gentleman from New York would yield to a question or be willing to accept a question.

And the question is why, given the status of the majority, did you not bring that bill back under a rule or allow it to come to the floor under a rule to begin with? You're on the Rules Committee.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, but answer me this question. Why did the majority decide it had to come under suspension of the rules, denying the minority to have an alternative?

I'll answer your question very clearly, because of two reasons. One, the majority did not include payment in lieu of taxes in the bill, which they promised when it left the Resources Committee they would do. Two, they also promised that pay-for was nothing but a placeholder that would be removed before it came to the floor. So that wasn't done correctly. And three, you violate contracts, which I didn't come to Congress to violate contracts. I never did it in 21 years in private business. I wasn't going to do it here.

And it's not a royalty fee, by the way, that you had. It was a fee on conservation and resource, which the courts have looked at and said you can assess but you have to spend it for that purpose and that purpose only, and county payments doesn't fit that category. And you have used it multiple times and the Senate has rejected it. So it wasn't going to work.

So now I've answered your question. You answer mine. Why don't you bring it tomorrow to the floor under a rule?

You told me there was a pay-for.

I do.

I'm talking about the bill that came up in June that was defeated on a suspension vote. You could have turned around the next day if you felt so passionately--you're on the Rules Committee--and brought it to the floor under a rule, couldn't you?

Why?

Why? Of course you could. You do it all the time. A bill goes down on suspension--we did it, you do it--you bring it back under a rule the next day or a week later. You had 218 votes on the floor.

Reclaiming my time, you refuse to answer why your majority doesn't bring it back up under a rule. It only takes 218 to pass it under a rule, a majority of those present. You had 218 that day.

You see the point is, you wouldn't bring it up under a rule because you wanted no debate on a real alternative or any other amendment that would be allowed under a rule. You could have passed it the next day and sent it on to the Senate. You chose not to. I don't control the Rules Committee. You all dominate it two-to-one plus one.

So if you care about school kids, you bring it up in a way that doesn't violate contracts, that actually could pay for it, or you allow us to bring it up under this bill or you put it in the continuing resolution or when the Senate sent it over as a 1-year extension--

Or when the Senate sent over a 1-year funding package in the emergency supplemental, why did the House leadership strike it there?

There have been multiple opportunities this year to deal with this issue in multiple ways, and we are told that Sunday night we're going to be done and out of here for the session.

And every time somebody says to me, well, gee, I'm all for it but we've got to do it later on or this bill or that bill or not this bill or that bill. We're out of time. The layoffs have already occurred. The jobs are gone. The communities are suffering. The law enforcement officials have been let go.

I don't know where to go from here. I'm bitterly disappointed that we have these silly arguments when we ought to be passing legislation that actually helps real people in real places.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1503, I call up the bill (H.R. 7060) 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Madam Speaker, before I get into the substance of this important legislation, let me make it abundantly clear that in my opinion, there is nobody in this House that is not concerned with the direction in which this country has gone in the past in relying on fossil fuels.

In addition to that, we, all being patriots, do recognize that probably everyone in this Chamber agrees that many of the important tax provisions should not expire because business can lose confidence in the system and certainly in the Congress. People should be allowed to rely on what we say will be tax incentives, and probably most of us believe that these incentives should even be permanent, rather than 1 or 2 years, but at least they should not be allowed to expire.

Unfortunately, there is a cloud of politics that remains over our shoulders and the other body.

I just heard that the arrogance of the other body has said that notwithstanding what we do here today, that they would not even receive the legislation because they put a time on us. I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat. It is shameful that the other House can hold us in such complete disregard that they can dictate what they are not going to look at.

On the other side, instead of referring to them as the majority and minority, or Republicans and Democrats, I am inclined to believe that they are the gang of 60 that determine what the law is going to be, notwithstanding the intent of the House where the people are supposed to govern. I do hope that somewhere along the line, no matter what our major policy differences might be, that our leadership can get together to let the other body know that it is a two-body Congress, and that this eagle has to work with two wings instead of one.

Another political issue is this: I was shocked and amazed yesterday that when the rule came up, most all of the debate from the minority was the protection and support of our rural schools. We should not have been arguing or debating each other, because education of our young people, whether they come from urban, inner cities or rural areas, is not just important to that community, but really is important to the United States of America, who must compete with the rest of the world.

If we don't have the ability to give access to a decent education for our young people, no matter what great part of our country they come from, then we lose our competitive edge. None of our competitors care whether or not our workforce is black or white, Jew or gentile, rural or in the city. We have to come together as a Nation and recognize that our failure to produce educated people is not a local and State issue, but our support for it is to protect our national security. There is a way that we could do that and not have it divert attention from the important issues that are in this bill.

Where is this rural support bill? Is it in our bill? Did we initiate it in the House? Has anyone in the minority ever asked that it be included in an energy bill or tax extension? No. Why? Because we've got rules over there.

But they don't have rules on the other side, so they put it in the bill. I have told my colleagues on the Ways

and Means Committee, I got their support, the Democratic Caucus, and even made an appeal yesterday. If you are really serious about it, we can't put it in our bill here today, but it's in their bill, and we are willing to accept it. What is it about accepting the rural area bill that you guys and gals don't understand?

But how can we accept it? The only way we can is that if they take the Senate-passed bill and send it over here. So you can talk all you want about your dedication to education, albeit rural or urban. But if you really are sincere about it, the only vehicle that you have for it is to get that bill over here, and my leaders and my committee have given assurance, bring the bill over, and we will accept it.

Why won't they send it over? Because of lack of respect of the House of Representatives. They are holding it at the desk thinking, in the middle of the night, when we have to go home, it's their way or the highway. I do hope we have some pride in our legislative initiatives that we find out our differences. But at the end of the day when the House speaks, they don't have to accept it, but they shouldn't have the arrogance of saying that they are not even going to look at it.

Having said that, here we go again, with the whole Nation looking at us, wondering do we have any concern about the energy crisis that we find ourselves in. The gasoline price at the pump causes everyone to consider what is it going to be for rent, what is it going to be for mortgages, what is it going to be for food, what is it going to be to put clothes on the kids, because we find ourselves in this energy crunch, and God knows how long it's going to take.

The only thing that we can do, as representatives of the American people, is to say how long, how long, and we're doing something about it. It even affects our national security to believe that we are so dependent on countries that we don't even believe in their form of government, but yet we send them money each and every day, each and every year, to consume the oil that they have.

We have put together the bill that just makes a lot of common sense. No one has challenged our bill on the merits. Sure you can talk about drill, drill, drill. Do what you have to do politically. But let's get back to what we can do realistically.

It may take some time. It's not going to bring changes tomorrow, but we will be able to tell our kids and our grandkids that we looked for alternatives, wind, solar, water, anything that's possible. We provide these incentives. We can create a whole new industry in search of some answers to the crisis. We are talking about creating jobs, creating ideas, creating thoughts.

We can't do it as Democrats or Republicans. We have to do it as a Congress. They have accepted all of these things on the other side. We can get together and save the future of our country if we ever got together as one Congress instead of two bodies.

We also have in our bill a commitment that we have made to provide incentives for research and development; for States that don't have income taxes, but we can have them to be able to deduct their local and State taxes for Federal tax purposes; for teachers who dedicate themselves each and every day to help the kids to give them a little help in doing it.

The business sector, the social sector, are depending on us that when we have a law, that we just don't leave it saying it expired because we have differences of politics on the other side. We have done everything that we could to take anything controversial out of this bill, whether it's helping the people that have suffered as a result of a terrorist attack against New York, whether it's providing some protection for people that may work in energy to make certain that they get a decent wage, whether we give lawyers an opportunity to operate their accounting system the same way other professionals do. If it was controversial, we said, We'll drop it. Let's see how we can meet across the aisle.

But if the whole debate is going to be about rural schools, we can take care of that in the Speaker's corridor and not waste the people's time in debate. If the whole thing is going to be whether or not we are going to be fiscally responsible and pay for 2 years of the extension of these things, we will let the people and the business people decide which side is right, whether we are going to increase the indebtedness to our children or grandchildren, or whether at a time when the Federal Government is asking us to provide $700 billion of tax exposure, can we say that where we could control, we did try to control.

That's the major difference between the other side and us. Do we pay for 1 year of the extensions, or do we really just lock horns and not do anything? This is the option. This is the last time this year. I hope we can jump over the hurdles of politics and get something done.

For more specifics to the bill, our distinguished chairman of the committee that has studied this, the one that has done the taxes, the one that has done the taxes for energy, is going to take over.

But you know as well as I do, people on the committee and people not, that what we are saying and advocating makes sense. The only difference between passing a bill and getting the President to sign it is politics. I truly believe, or at least I want to believe, that we can get over that too.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Richard Neal, a distinguished Member from Massachusetts, an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, a great American and a great Member of Congress.

We don't have a lot of speakers. That's why I asked the gentleman to yield.

Madam Speaker, assuming that the majority was persuaded by the eloquence of the gentleman from Michigan and we wanted to embrace the bill that 60 Members in the other House had, and assuming further that we wanted to help the rural schools which is in that bill, the gentleman knows that we can't react on bills that they have passed over there until they send it over here.

So we shouldn't allow the other House to interfere with the process that we have. We don't need a whole lot of harmony. We have different constituents and different policies. It is okay to say their way or the highway, and the minority may say that is the

way they want to go. But even if we yield to that, if we said that 60 votes over there are far more important than 435 votes over here, how could we possibly do anything until they send it over here?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I want to thank Chairman Rangel.

Let me stand in support of this energy and tax extenders legislation we are considering today. I have been here for 20 years. This is a good piece of work. I want to thank Charlie Rangel for his hard work on this legislation again and again and again.

This is the sixth time we are going to send this energy package over to the other body. But they keep moving the goalpost. And every time they move the goalpost a few yards farther, we still pass the bill. We keep meeting their demands, and they keep saying it's not good enough. A clean AMT patch is on the way to the Senate. It's already been declared dead on arrival. It seems in the other body they can't take ``yes'' for an answer.

As my colleagues here know, this bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This has to be done. This needs to get under way.

I want to thank Chairman Rangel for asserting the constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives in moving this legislation and within this body, the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter.

In my home State, 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for their out- of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, 1,000 businesses in Massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on research here in the U.S.

The R&D tax credit is important. Without this bill, 121,000 families in Massachusetts cannot take a deduction on their college tuition expenses.

This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. There are many well-crafted positions and provisions in this bill. There is not enough time to mention them all this morning.

Let me conclude by simply saying that Chairman Rangel has crafted a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

I urge support of this bill, and let's send a strong message to the Senate and to the President. We want this tax relief bill done now, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way.

Madam Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, provides tax relief by extending generally for 2 years various energy tax incentives and other temporary tax provisions. I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX75-08. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov. Madam Speaker, the Senate has not sent a bill over to us. None of us got elected here to defer to what the other body happens to think on any given day. We have repeatedly sent them good legislation over the course of the last year and a half, only to have it summarily rejected.

I want to submit today, I bet you during the course of Mr. Camp's career, along with mine, that will be the last time he quotes the majority leader of the United States Senate on a piece of legislation.

This is a responsible bill, and it is the constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate this legislation. What is the sense of being on the Ways and Means Committee if you defer to the other body on these matters? We have separate responsibilities for good reason, and that's what we are entertaining today.

A reminder--there is no Senate bill to consider. They have not sent one over. How about the idea that they have said if they don't have the paperwork by 11 o'clock, they're not going to consider this bill. Why be on the Ways and Means Committee? Why be a member of the House of Representatives?

We have done a good job with these legislative matters and sent them back to them responsibly. We have rules here, and we adhere to them. That is the fundamental difference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a grim reminder: There are 4,000 businesses in Mr. Herger's district and State that employ high- tech researchers who need the R&D tax credit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, my friend and a long-time member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

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

I yield myself 1 minute and will ask the gentleman a question: Do Members of the House of Representatives serve under the President of the United States?

I would yield.

Would you answer the question yes or no from our constitutional perspective: Do Members of the House of Representatives serve under the President of the United States?

We serve with the President of the United States.

I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Doggett.

I yield the gentleman 15 more seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and a very good member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pascrell.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada, a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Berkley.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut, a member of the Appropriations Committee and my friend, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I understand it's the opportunity for the minority leader on the Ways and Means Committee to use his time to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 20 years. I want to tell you something today. This is a good piece of legislation. This deals with the energy needs of the country, and I want to say to my friend, Mr. Camp, I consulted with him on major portions of this legislation. There are provisions in this legislation that Mr. Camp and I worked hand-in- glove on.

We are here this morning where the minority side says, ``Well, we have to check with the President.'' We didn't get elected to be members of the executive branch; we got elected to be Members of the legislative branch. Every

school child in America knows that. Since when do we submit here without asking any questions of the executive to the whims of what they might want to do?

I want to say this today. The reason that historians will write about the last 7\1/2\ years being as difficult as it has been for the American people, including what is in front of this Nation today, is because the minority today, who were the majority for the first 6 years of the Bush administration, they abdicated their responsibility.

The job of this body is to occasionally ask a question of the President of the United States. Instead, it was, ``Yes, Mr. President.''

``Can we move quickly enough, Mr. President?''

``Weapons of mass destruction? Yes, Mr. President.''

``Invasion of Iraq? Yes, Mr. President.''

``$2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts? Yes, Mr. President.''

``Regulations thrown out the window? Yes, Mr. President.''

Since when do Members of this body ask themselves is it okay with the United States Senate? Is it okay with the President of the United States?

Our job here is to help the 660,000 people that sent us here, and that means occasionally clearing your throat and saying, ``No, Mr. President.''

This bill addresses many fundamental issues for the American people. The R&D tax credit is very important. When the Senate says to us they're not going to act on our legislation if we don't get it over there by 11 o'clock, they haven't even submitted a bill to us to act upon.

This deference all of a sudden to the United States Senate surprises me. We have a separate responsibility here to move forward with what we believe to be in the best interest of the American people and not to accept automatically what the executive branch says or what the Senate says.

I've been associated with some good legislation, and from time to time perhaps in this body over two decades, some not-so-good legislation. This, Mr. Speaker, is a good piece of legislation, and the minority was included in the writing of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I make a point of order.

I make a point of order that the gentleman's motion to recommit includes provisions within the jurisdiction of other committees, and, as such, is a violation of clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1502 provides for consideration of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule because American families and small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today or tomorrow that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and in creating jobs with small businesses but also help to bring this country into a new alternative energy future.

Madam Speaker, 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.

I do appreciate the passion of the gentleman from Oregon.

This is an important issue. It's so important that when this bill came to the floor back in June when Congressman DeFazio offered it, I supported it. I guess it's about priorities, Madam Speaker. And the priorities are what do you do to pay for it.

Now, first off, this bill is about energy, it's about tax extenders.

First off, the proposal, the amendment that the gentleman is talking about, is not germane to this bill, first and foremost.

Secondarily, there is no pay-for-it in it.

Now 2, 3 months ago when there was a pay-for in it, we couldn't get it passed because not enough people on the other side of the aisle would support it. And the fact of the matter is,

you know, we did pay for it with royalty payments from oil companies.

And for me it's very easy. Let's look at what our priority is. Let's see: the priorities of large oil companies or the priorities of rural school districts.

No. You had your time, and I was courteous to you, and I would appreciate if you would allow me to finish my thoughts.

It's pretty easy for me when you look at oil companies and you look at school districts, that's a no-brainer. Yet people on that side of the aisle voted against it because it had a pay-for in it.

Well, Madam Speaker, I just think, one, this is not germane; two, it's not paid for. Clearly I will support it with the pay-for that was in it last month, but I think clearly without any question it's unfair for the gentleman to characterize it the way he has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Is the gentleman asking me a question?

I guess I would return and ask you the question. Why wasn't it passed when we brought it? Why didn't you get more people on your side of the aisle to support it? I mean, it's a legitimate question. I voted for it. I think it was a good idea.

Nor did you answer my question. I think it's a legitimate question I asked. Why wasn't it supported?

Because there's not a pay-for for it.

No, there's not a pay-for in this--do you want to ask me the question?

There's not a pay-for in the amendment you are offering.

No, we could not have done that in the Rules Committee.

We could not have just brought it up in the Rules Committee.

I think the question is what is your priority--

I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the gentleman is very concerned with the real people on the ground. There's absolutely no doubt. It is the gravest concern to all of us.

The fact of the matter is, when you weigh the needs of the individuals against the needs of oil companies, how can you call that a bunch of baloney? If the royalties, the taxes that we're placing on oil companies are going to be there to help people in rural schools, that's nothing? That's not baloney. That's the real thing. That's what we're doing to help children, and yet they forget about that.

Yet he doesn't even mention it. He talks as if that doesn't exist, that it's just a bunch of baloney. It's not baloney. It's the real thing. That's what we came to Congress to do. And yet they want us to put the needs of oil companies ahead of the needs of individuals. It's just not the right thing to do.

This bill's not about that. This bill is about renewable tax credits so that we can become energy independent, so that we could stop being reliant on the big oil companies and on foreign oil so that we can develop renewable energy. That's what this bill is about. That's what this rule is about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, if what the gentleman says is true--and I have no reason to doubt that--that means that he voted against it despite the fact it would have helped all the other rural school districts in the country because it didn't do anything for his State.

And I certainly can sympathize with the fact that he would be upset that it didn't do anything for his State, but the bill would have done a great deal for the rural school districts throughout the rest of the country at the expense of large oil companies.

So again from my way of thinking, when you weigh the overall good of rural school districts versus oil companies, the rural school districts win every time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I do not.

I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.

You know, I used to be an attorney. And when I used to practice, I tried a lot of cases. And when we would start our cases and we would make our opening arguments and we would proceed through the closing arguments, I always knew how good the case was on the part of the other side, especially during openings, because when the other side talked about the facts in the case, you knew they had a very good case. But when they talked about everything else except the facts, you knew they didn't have a very good case. Such is what we are seeing here tonight. They're talking about everything but what this rule is about. This rule is about creating a rule so that we can have tax extenders, so that we can promote alternative energy in this country, something that everyone says

that we need to do, and we are doing it in a responsible way with a pay-for.

Now, it's great they talk about things that they would like to do, other proposals, other amendments, but no one says where the pay-for is going to come from. So where is that pay-for going to come from? Are we going to just borrow and spend our way to it? I mean, we're borrowing $700 billion now, what's a little bit more? We had a pay-for in it when the bill was offered 2 weeks ago, yet it wasn't voted for. But what are they talking about? Everything but what we're here for today.

Now they want to bring up oil again, as if the Democrats don't care about oil prices, as if the Democrats hadn't just passed a bill that did a number of things to bring energy prices down in the short term, in the middle term, in the long term; but that's not enough. They don't want to talk about what we're here for today because then the American people might look at it and say the Democrats have the right idea; they want to create tax incentives so we can have real alternative energy in this country and not be dependent on foreign oil, not be dependent on our big oil companies.

No, Madam Speaker, we do not have anything against the big oil companies, we just think our priorities should be here on this particular bill with a pay-for and with creating tax incentives so that we can produce renewable, green-collar jobs right here in this country, jobs that cannot be outsourced or shipped overseas. That's what this rule is about.

Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives for middle class families, spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time. And we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner, pay for it today, not spread it out on our children and grandchildren.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

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

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