Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7201) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7202) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding me the time, and I want to thank him for the very thoughtful arguments that he has made.

It's no wonder that we have the lowest approval rating among the American people in the history of this institution. I don't know where it stands right now, maybe it's 12 percent, I remember seeing several weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago, that the approval rating for this institution was at 9 percent, 9 percent.

I think that this measure right here is a perfect indication as to why the American people have such a low opinion of the United States House of Representatives and the Congress overall.

We have been presented with a measure which would allow us to provide incentives for alternative energy sources, an opportunity to address the very, very unfair tax that has been imposed since 1969, started out taking on 155 people, now it's over 22 million Americans who are unfairly facing the alternative minimum tax, mental health parity, the research and development tax credit, which is very important to my State, a litany of important items. Unfortunately, we are not doing that.

How do we do it? Just as our friend from Dallas said so thoughtfully, the majority leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, was able to move through the Senate by a 93-2 vote, 93-2 vote, the measure that would have allowed us to address these very important issues.

Unfortunately, we have decided to pull a stunt, and it really can only be described as a stunt, because we know that what we are doing here is going nowhere, and we are doing this at 9:22 when the Philadelphia Eagles are playing, and we have got people focused on a lot of other things. But most important for this institution, we have the responsibility of trying to deal with the very serious credit crisis that exists in this country. We have chosen to waste time on something that is going absolutely nowhere, as everyone knows.

Now, I will say that I feel very strongly about the need to ensure that we do not provide a $700 billion blank check to those on Wall Street who have played a big role in exacerbating the credit crisis that we have in this country. I have been hearing from the people whom I am privileged to represent in Southern California, and they join me in expressing their outrage, as I know Americans all across this country do.

Why? Because there are people who are responsibly paying their mortgages. There are people who are responsibly meeting their financial obligations. To take their hard-earned tax dollars and utilize those dollars to bail out people who have been less than responsible is something that is outrageous.

That's why, when we know it is essential that we take action and do something to deal with this credit crisis, we need to do it in a very deliberative nature, and we need to ensure that there is accountability, transparency, disclosure. We need to make sure that a blank check is not provided to those people who have engaged in such terrible, terrible behavior.

That's what we should be dealing with at this moment, rather than proceeding with this measure that is going nowhere. I have to say that even as we look at this measure that is going nowhere, it is flawed in an important way. It's flawed in an important way in that it actually ignores a very important energy alternative.

What is it that I have got in this vial? I would say to my friend from New York, it's something called green crude, green crude, which was developed by some professors from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, through a company called Sapphire Energy. Frankly, over the last couple of decades, a lot of effort has been put into looking at the development of algae as an energy source.

Our colleague from San Diego, Mr. Bilbray, has just provided this to me. We have the potential to take algae, what people see growing in swimming pools, if those swimming pools aren't being cleaned, algae, and turning that through existing oil refineries, into gasoline to power automobiles to deal with the environmental challenges that exist out there. Guess what: This bill has no incentive whatsoever for pursuing the very important alternative energy source the people of California, and I believe the people around the country would like to see us pursue, that being so-called green crude.

My point is, we have a very flawed measure before us, a very flawed measure, but at least we should be able to deal with the alternative minimum tax, the research and development tax credit, and some incentives for alternative energy, and mental health parity, by taking the measure that has passed the Senate by a 93-2 vote and just be done with it and expend our time and energy and effort deliberating over the very pressing credit crisis that exists in this country.

My friend from Dallas is absolutely right when he says that we are going to call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. The reason that we want to defeat the previous question is that we will be in a position, if we defeat the previous question, to do exactly what 93 of our colleagues in the other body have chosen to do, and that is take up a clean tax extenders measure.

Now, I know, and I had an exchange with the distinguished majority leader, my friend from Maryland, a couple of days ago and the fact that there is a desire, even though Mr. Reid has said that he does not want to take up the measure out of the House, to deal with having this tax extender bill paid for.

But the fact is, exactly 1 year ago, this coming December, when we looked at the extension of the alternative minimum tax, what happened, we chose to proceed basically as the United States Senate has today.

I know that time and time again we hear arguments about how measures should be paid for. Yet if you look at what has been paid for and what hasn't been paid for, it's fascinating. The farm bill, for example. No pay-fors whatsoever, as we proceeded with the farm bill.

If you look at the other items that have come forward, there is a pick-and-choose standard for what is going to be paid for and what is not going to be paid for. We know that the American people, 22 million- plus who are saddled with the penalty of the alternative minimum tax, very much want relief. We can do exactly what we did last year and take this unfair tax and make sure they are not saddled with that burden.

We also know that the majority leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, has said very clearly that he is not about to take up this flawed measure from the House of Representatives. He has made it clear. I am standing here, as a Republican, making the argument that has been propounded by the majority leader, the Democrat, in the United States Senate.

What we need to do is defeat the previous question. When we do so, we will be able to bring up the Senate measure, and we will be able to send that then to the President's desk, because I am convinced that we will have strong bipartisan support for that measure to deal with these important issues, not just the alternative minimum tax, but tax incentives for alternative energy sources, wind, solar and other very important items that my constituents in California and people across the country want, mental health parity, another important issue. Then, again, in our State of California, I know in the State of Maryland and other States in the country, all kinds of innovative, creative ideas are coming forward, and that with a measure that by a 93-2 vote passed the Senate to deal with the research and development tax credit, we will be able to move forward.

Then we will be able to expeditiously proceed with the very important question of dealing with our Nation's credit crisis.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, in this quest to defeat the previous question. If by chance the previous question passes, then I do urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. And I would just like to say that Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, said two thinking individuals can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.

If the gentleman would continue to yield.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would say the answer is yes.

The last point that my friend just made had to do the with issue of regulation. And if one looks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the fact that there have been calls from this side for adequate oversight, which raised consistently by our friends on the other side were arguments against that.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just take on this issue of regulation, if I might, Mr. Speaker

If the gentleman would yield.

I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say, that if you take, obviously, a static period of time, I'm not going to dispute that. But my friend has also talked, Mr. Speaker, about a decade. And if one looks at the challenges that we have gone through with September 11, the corporate scandals of the past and Hurricane Katrina and a wide range of challenges, the sustained economic growth that the United States of America has enjoyed over the past several years, overcoming these tremendous hurdles, has been something that I believe, very sincerely, has been brought about by responsible economic policies.

Now, my friend raised the issue of stimulation, Mr. Speaker.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I see my good friend, the majority leader, is leaving the floor, but I would simply like to say on this issue, I do very much appreciate my good friend having yielded me time for our exchange. But I would like to say that, as the gentleman just said, there is the prospect of pulling this rule. It would be my hope that tomorrow, which is when suspension authority under the rules of the House will begin once again, that the measure that has passed by a 93-2 vote in the United States Senate, again, Democratic majority leader Harry Reid has moved this measure and----

I will in just one moment.

But what I would like to ask the majority leader is if we would be able to, under suspension of the rules, bring up that measure so that the very important energy incentives for alternative sources, the alternative minimum tax, mental health parity, and the issue of the research and development tax credit, that those items could, in fact, see whether or not, by a two-thirds vote, Democrats and Republicans could come together to deal with that need that the American people want, especially relief of those 22 million Americans who are unfairly saddled with that AMT.

I am happy to yield, of course, to my friend, the majority leader.

If I could reclaim my time, I will say that I don't know exactly where that stands at this point.

Let me just say, and I know that's obviously the position of the majority leader, but I would hope very much that if we would agree to bring that measure up under suspension of the rules, that we would be in a position to have that bill. And I know the majority leader would be able to do that.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that on the issue of regulation, which my good friend from Maryland raised, there is a lot of talk about the fact that there has not been enough regulation. I will say that I believe that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is something that was very important and has played a role in exacerbating the economic challenges that we have, number one.

Number two, my friend referred to Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. And we, today, Mr. Speaker, continue to live with what is little more than a Band-Aid approach to dealing with very antiquated, early, 20th century regulation that was put into place following the Great Depression. And much of that regulation played a role in exacerbating the Great Depression. And while we have attempted, Mr. Speaker, to deal with changes, it is very, very apparent that the marketplace has moved dramatically ahead of the regulatory structure.

And so what we need, and I know what Senator McCain and what we believe is essential, is that we have a 21st-century regulatory structure to deal with the 21st-century economy and 21st-century markets that exist

today. That is something that I hope will be the silver lining to emerge from the very dark cloud of the economic challenges that we have today.

And I also have to say in response to an argument propounded by the distinguished majority leader, that if we believe that the economy is in great shape today, take no action.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the majority leader, that no one, no one believes that the economy is in great shape today, and we all are trying to work in a bipartisan way to make sure we deal with this credit crisis. And while I am virulently opposed to any measure that would provide a $700 billion blank check to those on Wall Street who are, in many ways, responsible for this problem, I do believe that it is essential that some action be taken to ensure that ATMs are able to get their cash out, so that small business men and women will be able to have credit so that their businesses can thrive, so that we are able to get our economy growing again.

So I will say, Mr. Speaker, that economic growth is absolutely essential. And it is true that we are in the midst of an economic slowdown today, but it is also apparent that, following the tremendous challenges that existed in the early part of this decade that began with the tragedy of September 11 of 2001, we have enjoyed strong, bold, dynamic economic growth up until recently.

And so the notion of arguing that all of the policies that have been put into place, tax cuts that have stimulated economic growth are somehow responsible for the economic slowdown today is preposterous.

We need to look at the fact that we have had an antiquated regulatory structure that should have been providing adequate oversight in dealing with this issue, and I join with my colleague in urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can bring up the Senate bill. And if that passes, a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these new record-breaking 65th and 66th closed rules being offered by this Democrat-led Congress under their ``anything goes'' martial law and to this process which continues to elevate politics over good policy and which continues to produce legislation that even Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has referred to as an attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

These last few hours that we're here, this Democrat majority continues to do that because it guts a carefully negotiated and bipartisan compromise reached in the Senate, leaving many of the deal's most important provisions in limbo rather than addressing them responsibly today.

Earlier this week, the Senate passed a comprehensive tax extenders package by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 92-3. This legislation included an $18 billion, fully offset energy tax policy proposal as well as a partially offset tax relief package, including an AMT patch to prevent middle class families from being hit with an unprecedented and unintended tax bill, along with important extensions of current tax policy, disaster-related tax provisions for the victims of the Midwest floods and Hurricane Ike, and mental health parity legislation.

Understanding the delicate balance in his Chamber, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid begged Speaker Pelosi not to send the Senate back a different bill, he said, ``because it won't pass'' and that, if the House ``messes with our package, it will die.''

Rather than heeding these dire warnings from their own party leader, this Democrat leadership has decided to chop the legislation up into a number of separate pieces, making substantive and negative changes to many of them, engaging in a game of legislative chicken with the Senate rather than doing the responsible thing in making sure that important measures like help for victims of natural disasters, tax relief for middle class families who are at risk of being unintentionally caught by a tax created for the super wealthy and fairness for our Nation's rural schools are passed by this Congress before we leave town.

I am disappointed that this Democrat majority thinks that scoring political points on the eve of an election is more important than passing these measures.

But, unfortunately, this kind of political gamesmanship has become all too common in what Speaker Pelosi once promised would be the most honest, open and ethical Congress in history. This new House Democrat package, just introduced as a legislative package at 5:30 this evening, includes much of the same legislative trickery that Democrats have already employed this week. Just before that, the Senate had already pronounced it dead on arrival, making it a pointless and wasted endeavor, and also making it yet another missed chance for this Democrat House to do the right thing for American businesses, families and for rural schools.

Since this legislation was just introduced, neither I nor most of my colleagues in the House know what is actually included in this legislation. If this rush to the floor with tax legislation feels familiar to some Members, it should. They have seen this in the past, and we have had enough. My colleagues and the colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remember that earlier this week, when this legislation was first rushed to the floor without proper review, it contained a $100 million disparity that forced the House to pull their first rule from the floor and amend it to correct their work in the Rules Committee.

According to the Democrat staff, the legislative gimmick now being used consists of bringing two separate bills to the floor. The first includes a number of energy tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, which along with the upcoming October 1 expiration of the ban on drilling for American energy will go a long way towards fulfilling the House Republicans' long-term commitment to making sure we have an all-of-the-above strategy to achieve America's independence.

The second bill includes important tax provisions for America's families trying to make ends meet and for American businesses trying to create jobs here in America, and to be competitive with companies around the world. Measures like the research and development tax credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers are particularly important for families, schools and businesses in my home State of Texas, and I am sure it would be true across the country.

I strongly support their inclusion in this legislation.

I do not support, however, the inclusion of measures to permanently raise taxes on the American economy during a time when the economic crisis is so great. To simply extend these, they could have simply extended tax policies, which would give people more money back home. Instead, we see what we have on the floor tonight.

I ask all of my colleagues to vote with me to defeat this rule so that this House can end this political charade and cover vote for its vulnerable Members and take up the better Senate option, which has already passed, to provide American families and businesses with the tax relief they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague from New York if he has any speakers on his side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do enjoy having our colleagues come down and debating the issues at hand. I have heard over and over that there is really nothing objectionable in this bill, except there is a new billion dollar permanent tax that is in the bill.

I object to that. I object to that because what this is about is to tax employers a billion dollars more over a period of time than what they pay today. That's how you lose jobs.

The gentleman wants to suggest that tax cuts is the reason why we have this horrible economy. Oh, not true. It is because we spend too much. We spend too much money.

What we ought to be doing is we ought to be having more and more tax cuts to spur this economy, just like these tax cuts are doing here. We need to have a real energy plan, not a fake energy plan, and the plan we need supplies more gasoline and the availability for America and Americans to have more energy prepared and ready for us rather than having to seek what we need from overseas.

We need to quit paying an extra incremental $400 billion to our friends across the ocean who we buy oil from. They are using this $400 billion to build new cities and new countries. That is what Dubai is about. So it is not just a matter of blaming this on tax cuts. It is a reality that today what we need to do is to have a comprehensive plan that deals not only with energy and the tax cuts that are on the floor tonight, but to make sure that we quit spending so darn much money. That's what the problem is.

If we would approach that from a perspective that the American people understand, just like they do in their own homes, then I think we would get a better sense of things.

The bottom line is we are here. We are here on a weekend, after we should have been at home, because we are dealing with a national crisis, a national emergency. There is no question about that. But the way you deal best with it is not to then have new tax increases to take care of and pay for the tax cuts that you wanted that would offset each other.

So on the one hand you say sure, we are for you having a tax cut, but somebody else has to pay for it. In this case it is the employers. The employers in this country are the people who employ people. We should not be placing the tax on employers.

This is a similar plan to what has taken place all around the country. Many States tax employers. We can take one, for example, Illinois. The State of Illinois, 48 out of 50 in job creation because they enjoy doing what the bill does tonight, taxing employers. That is not a way to run a railroad.

It is very difficult for me to hear people say it is just a de minimis tax, but we are providing all of these tax cuts for business and research and development and all these things, and then turn around and say on the other side, it is not much of a tax. It is just de minimis. Well, it is equal. It is equal. That is what happened, they equaled this out. It is a offset. And the offset is a big tax on employers. That's a problem.

The Republican Party is pleased to be here tonight. We are pleased to argue the important issues of the day. But we are going to vote no on raising taxes. We are going to vote no on the things that will hurt employers and employment in this country.

It is a very difficult thing for the country to look up and know who to believe any more. That is why this Congress is at a 9 percent approval rating. You can't say on one side you've just got to do this and help out all these people, and then call whatever you did a de minimis tax on the other side because it is equal, it is harmful,

and it hurts people and it hurts employers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding the gentleman is going to pull the bill, and that's okay. I can understand that. And I appreciate the gentleman letting me know that.

As best I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, you have heard very eloquent discussions tonight by both the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives, from the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, former chairman of the Rules Committee.

I would have added that there is one common denominator between the good times and the bad times, and that common denominator is the House of Representatives that was run by the Republican Party.

If you look at the first 4 years of President Clinton's tenure, it was a horrible economy. Once Republicans came in, it was all about getting a balanced budget. And we did achieve a balanced budget. We had to fight to do that. That's what 1994 was all about; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001--until 2001, surpluses. During that period of time, we doubled the size of the economy in 12 years. Doubled the size of the economy in 12 years. That was a goal. That's growing the economy.

We did that because we need to do that in the face of world competition.

During our first 219 years, we went from a zero to a $6.5 trillion economy, and then in 12 years doubled it to $13.8.

I do admit, and I'm sorry, and I have to take the blame for it, we have had too much spending under Republicans not last year and this year, but for the years prior to that because we did things that were necessary to protect this country. Finally secured our border, made sure that we had, within this country, a safe airline system, the Department of Homeland Security. Lots of spending. Lots of money. Lots of employees. We've avoided getting an attack on this country since 9/ 11/2001.

I'm proud of what we're doing, and we need to keep giving confidence to the American people that the United States Congress can debate the ideas, and present them to the American public.

Mr. Speaker, we hear these debates and they sound so simple on both sides. The public must be very confused. They want low taxes. And the gentleman from Texas talks about putting taxes down. The problem the gentleman from Texas has is he is a member of a party that has controlled this country's government at the Federal level for almost a decade. The President has a veto pen, and he has not allowed any spending that he didn't like.

The problem, of course, is for a decade their premise has been that they can spend money, and they spent money at twice the rate that was spent under the Clinton administration for 8 years. Spending. But they didn't pay for what they bought, because they call that taxes. And they are correct. If you buy things and you pay for them at the Federal level, you pay for them with tax revenues. Now we have a very simple solution, you can stop buying things. But they didn't stop buying things, they doubled the rate of growth of spending from about 3\1/2\ to 7 percent. And they cut revenues.

Now you don't have to be much of a mathematician or an accountant to know what happens: Budgets, deficits, spiraled.

Now, of course, they didn't worry about that because the Vice President of the United States, the Republican Vice President, said debt doesn't matter. That's what he said. And you could see that they really meant it because they have added $1.6 trillion, and that is with a ``T,'' to the debt, deficit, spending.

And by the end of this year, they will have doubled the national debt, and they have been in control of everything and could stop spending in its track with a Bush veto.

And they said if we did that, the economy would blossom and of course their candidate for President says the underpinnings of our economy are sound.

I will tell you, my neighbors don't think that is the case. They are paying more for groceries and they are paying more for gasoline. They are losing jobs. They are having a tough time.

My constituents are better off than most. But this country is having a tough time. And all of the things that they said their tax cuts would produce and their economic program would produce, just like Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, proved to be dead flat wrong.

Employment, we were going to spur employment, spur growth. Under Bill Clinton, the average monthly addition of jobs was 216,000 per month. Under this President, under your economic program, I don't know whether any of you know how many jobs you have produced over the last 90 months, but I will tell you, 38,000 per month. What is the problem with that? The problem with that is you need 100,000 jobs per month to stay even.

Bill Clinton in the first 8 months of his last year, which is analogous to this year, added 1.4 million jobs in the job market.

Under your economic program, President Bush has lost 600,000. That's a net turnaround of 2 million jobs lost in this economy; not producing 1.4 and losing 6.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're here on Sunday, at a quarter of 10 at night. Why? For the worst financial disaster that we've seen in this country since the Depression, or the Coolidge and Hoover years. Debt didn't matter then either under Mr. Coolidge or Mr. Hoover. Debt doesn't matter, said the Vice President of the United States.

We're here on this rule because we believe debt does matter. And I understand what the gentleman from California said. We have a philosophical disagreement. That philosophical difference of agreement is we want mental health parity, but we know it's got to be paid for. We want energy independence and alternative energy research and wind and solar, but we know somebody's got to pay for it. The average American family knows that. They want solar heating in their home they know somebody's got to pay for it.

Now we're here, because right now, as a result of failure of this economic program, they can't get a loan because we've incurred so much debt that people have locked up because they're not sure loaning money is a safe thing for them to do. That's why we're here tonight, because of the failure of an economic program that was fiscally irresponsible and was, from a regulatory perspective, neglectful. No oversight. No fiscal responsibility.

I will yield for a brief minute.

If I could reclaim my time, are you disputing any of the facts that I have recited?

I yield to my friend.

What facts are you disputing that I have articulated?

I understand. Reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman, I'm sure he knows this, April 20, 2007, 4 months, actually 3\1/2\ months after, as a result of the election of 2006, the American public gave us the responsibility of leading, we passed regulatory legislation through this House 4 months into our term, after 6 years.

Very frankly, as you recall, Mike Oxley, the chairman of the Banking Committee under the Republican leadership, we passed regulatory legislation then. It was opposed by the administration. And Mike Oxley said, and I won't say what he said, but essentially he said, in a different way, that the administration gave them the back of his hand.

Let me just make one continuing point. So we have acted on the regulatory field; but very frankly, what has happened is this administration said they didn't believe regulation was helpful to growing the economy, and Senator McCain, their candidate for President, has said he's the biggest deregulator in town and doesn't believe in regulation.

So I tell my friend that, from a regulatory standpoint, the articulation of policy by the present President and your candidate for President has been that they do not believe in keeping the referee on the field.

I will yield one more time, and then I want to conclude.

Reclaiming my time for just a minute, because what I asked him, and he said yes, what I asked him was is there a statistic that I have stated today, either on the amount of spending, on the amount of debt incurred under your economic policies, the failure to create employment necessary to stay even with the growth in

the employment market, and the loss of jobs for 8 months in a row of 600,000-plus, as opposed to Bill Clinton's, in the same comparable time frame, creating 1.4 million jobs.

I ask the gentleman again, do you believe that any of those statistics are inaccurate?

Reclaiming my time, because I want to end and don't want to have a full debate on this. I've given the gentleman some time.

Let me say this: If the American public who is listening to this debate believes the economy is in good shape, so be it. They ought to act on that premise.

In fact, we know the economy is not in good shape. Notwithstanding the fact that when they offered their budgets, after many of the events that the gentleman referred to, which have been, obviously, troubling to the economy, which were challenges to the economy, but they continued to indicate that they were going to balance the budget. The budget deficit, debt, has doubled in 90 months, borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined, and we have a $1.6 trillion, which may go as much as $2 trillion operating deficit in the 8 years of this Bush administration, may go that high, as opposed to, I tell my friend this, you're at $1.6 trillion now and growing in the national deficits that you've run up in 8 years. Under Bill Clinton, $62.9 billion surplus and four surplus years in a row.

No, I want to conclude my debate, Mr. Dreier. But thank you very much for participating in this.

I want to say we're here tonight saying simply that what we want to do is incredibly important. We want to pass mental health parity. We want to pay for it so our grandchildren don't pay for it. We want to pass energy independence legislation, wind, solar, tax credits. We want to pass tax credits for individuals. We want to pass tax credits for businesses to grow, but not by incurring more debt because, notwithstanding Vice President Cheney, debt does matter, and it matters to our children, it matters to our economy. And that's what's happening with our economy; so much debt that it crunched us down. And finally people said we're not going to loan anymore, and we had that credit crisis. And that's what this is all about.

Not only this bill, but this bill, by the way, is very much related to the bill we're going to consider tomorrow, this $700 billion that the administration has asked us to come up with, and I'm going to vote to do it. I'm going to vote to do it because I think the guy on Main Street, the guy on the farm, the guy in the small business, the guy who wants a job, the guy who wants to pay his kid's college expense, help him with it, the guy who wants to buy a new refrigerator because the old one broke down, he needs to have availability of credit, or his life is going to be very much undermined. That's why we're considering this bill tomorrow. That's why I'm going to vote for this bill tomorrow.

But I don't delude myself that it's the result of an economy that was advantaged by the economic program that we have seen over the last 8 years.

So I say to my friends that this rule, we may ask to withdraw this rule. We were going to call for a vote. We've told people there aren't going to be any votes. We may ask to withdraw this rule at this point in time and bring it back tomorrow, conclude the debate at that point in time for however much longer time that might take. But we have to get to, clearly, the bill to rescue our economy from the fiscal irresponsibility and the regulatory neglect that we have been experiencing for the last 8 years in America.

I hope Americans carefully consider the consequences of the economic program that is being pursued, and frankly, that Senator McCain says he wants to continue to pursue. We think that's not prudent policy, it's not good for our people.

I thank my friend for yielding the time.

Will my friend yield on that?

Will my friend yield?

Is my friend aware that we don't have that bill? He talks a lot about a bill that we don't have. He talks a lot about a bill that the majority leader says in the Senate that he won't consider our bills. Is the gentleman aware that we do not have the Senate bill?

If the gentleman will yield again, I will inform him that we do not have that bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1516 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

House Resolution 1516 provides for the consideration of H.R. 7201, the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 and H.R. 7202, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2008.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Ways and Means for both H.R. 7201 and H.R. 7202.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to cut right to the point here. We're here again to consider a rule that will allow us to debate two very critical pieces of legislation: The first, the package that invests in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency to help create thousands of new green-collar jobs and lower energy costs for the American people; the second, a package that extends several key tax credits and deductions for small business owners and working families across this country.

This Congress has shown a strong commitment to the pay-as-you-go rule adopted last January. Both pieces of legislation that this rule provides consideration for are fully paid for. Let me repeat that. They are fully paid for. That means neither of these bills would add to the enormous national debt that continues to haunt us.

In terms of substance, the two pieces of legislation we will consider would extend and modify critical tax credits for the production of electricity for renewable sources, ranging from wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed-loop and open-loop biomass.

They would provide tax credits for the production of efficient home appliances. They would provide tax incentives for consumer purchases of energy-efficient products.

It would extend for 1 year the personal income tax deductions for tuition and education expenses, helping more middle class families send their children to college. It extends the State and local sales tax deductions. It provides our teachers with the ability to claim a credit for out-of-pocket expenses they incur when purchasing classroom supplies to better educate their children. It would extend the new standard deduction for State and local property taxes and for the child tax credit so working families would have more of their hard-earned dollars to spend where they would need it most--on their families. It would extend the research and development tax credit.

Last but certainly not least, it would provide a 1-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools program, which is not only important to the western Members of this body but also to my constituents who live near the Finger Lakes National Forest in Upstate New York.

There are tax credits and extenders that just about every Member of this body can agree on, and supporting this rule is simple common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families. We can spur innovation. We can create tens of thousands of new jobs, green-collar jobs. We can reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, and we can reduce greenhouse gases at the same time. We can do this all in a fiscally responsible way, without pushing the burden back on the shoulders of our children and of our grandchildren.

Mr. 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.

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

At the present time, I have no speakers.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from California talks about what the Senate is going to do, as he often in Rules talks about what the President is going to do. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution calls on the House of Representatives to initiate any tax bills. That is what this is. I don't understand why he is arguing that we should wait and see what the Senate is going to do. This bill is generated from the House of Representatives, where it should be.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from the Blue Dogs, Mr. Boyd.

I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my friend know that I am about to withdraw this rule. So if he has any statements that he would like to make, I would like to offer him an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out in response to my friend from Texas for his comments is that he said that when the Republican Congress came in during President Clinton's administration, it was all about balancing the budget. It may very well have been. I wasn't here at that point.

It's just when I think about it, it's unfortunate that they forgot about that when President Bush took over the White House. Totally forgot about it. And in fact built up the largest deficits that we've ever seen in this country.

And they had some other priorities, and that was giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, spending the surplus that we had on tax breaks for America's richest people, and that's unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, under the rules, I withdraw House Resolution 1516.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Arcuri, my follow Blue Dog from New York.

I'm always intrigued by the arguments made on this floor. But, ladies and gentlemen, I need to tell you the debate here today is about an underlying principle that most Americans understand very well, but a principle that the folks who have been running Washington, DC, for the last 8 years don't have a very good handle on.

And that principle is, is that if you want to buy something, in a business or whether it be in running your local home budget, or whether it be in a local government, or in the Federal Government, if you're going to buy something, you have to be willing to pay for it. We do that in our own home budgets, we do it in our own businesses and our local governments. But in Washington, DC, since 2001, we have said to the American people, You don't have to operate the Federal Government that way. We can spend and buy anything we want, but we really don't have to pay for it. We will go into the capital markets and borrow the money.

There are many of us who have been saying for years that that will work for a while, but when the economic markets, the financial markets, figure out what is going on, then the house of cards will come tumbling town. We have been told for years, up until last Wednesday afternoon a week ago, about 10 days ago, that everything was good, the underlying economy was good even though many of us have been saying there are problems looming.

On Thursday afternoon, the Secretary of the Treasury of this administration and the Federal Reserve Chief appointed by this President, came to Congress, House and Senate, Republican and Democratic leaders, and said, ``Ladies and gentlemen, we have a crisis. The financial markets are about to crash, and we need $700 billion to rescue the financial markets and the economy of this Nation.'' Seven hundred billion dollars. Just 3 days ago we'd been told everything was cool.

The underlying problem is the fiscal and monetary mismanagement of this government by this administration for the last 8 years. And the chickens have come home to roost, as they say back home. That's the underlying discussion we're having here today about whether we would pay for a spending program or tax cut or whether we just go into the capital markets to borrow it.

You can't spend your way out of this. You can't tax-cut your way out of it. You need good, solid economic fiscal and monetary policy, and we haven't been getting it.

Now, this bill does just a couple simple things, and I want to tell you what they are.

It extends the production tax credit, energy production tax credit, investment tax credit, and all other energy-related tax provisions. They're very similar to the Senate bill.

And it uses the same offsets as in the Senate energy amendment and mostly has to do with oil production. It takes away some of the favors that we've given away to the oil companies in the tax code and uses them in alternative energy production.

Those who oppose it say we ought not to do that, just leave the existing tax credits for the oil companies and don't find any new pay- fors and just let it go.

The other thing that this bill does is it's a 2-year extension of expiring business and individual tax credits that relate to research and development, and it also has provisions in it which go to the State and local sales tax deductibility for individuals, mental health parity, and a third provision which addresses the education needs of those who have rural schools and who have United States forests in their counties.

This is paid for--now get this--this is paid for by offshore deferred compensation: those people who take their money offshore and put it in an account so they won't have to pay U.S. taxes on it.

It would be awful to ask those people to pay for a spending program we may have or another tax cut, wouldn't it? Also, the other part is worldwide interest allocation. Again, moneys that are taken offshore, companies, major public companies that operate in other places and get a tax break because they operate in other places in addition to the United States.

This is the right thing to do. This is a very basic principle that our constituents understand that if we're going to have a spending program, if the United States Government buys something, it's going to have to pay for it, and we ought to start right here today.

I thank my friend.