Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1001

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

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

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

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

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

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

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

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

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will reserve then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration of the resolution because it is in violation of section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution provides that all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. This waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes the resolution to be in violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, this bill that is the subject of this rule that is about to come before us includes two tax increases, one on section 199, which eliminates the oil and gas industry's ability to take advantage of this provision within the law to increase their taxes over the next 10 years by some $13 billion. There is also some tweaking with, and that's an odd word to use when it raises $4 billion, but a tweaking with the way foreign oil and gas income plays into the computation of the foreign tax credits that these companies could take advantage of.

Both of these violate the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act provision on private initiatives and therefore are subject to this point of order on being waived. So I think that favorable consideration of this point of order is where we should be going with respect to the private sector mandates that are waived under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would also at this point in time like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I thank my colleague for pointing that out.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office on a similar, almost exact, bill, 2776, earlier in the year, clearly stated that these were unfunded mandates. They breached the threshold appropriate under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, and a point of order should be sustained against this bill.

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

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

I was laboring under a misconception that the debate was to be limited to the point of order rather than the underlying bill itself. So since the other side has raised the issues in the bill, I'll take a couple of seconds to add some gratuitous comments about those as well rather than strictly talking about my point of order.

At a time when we are clearly dependent on foreign oil, imported foreign oil, crude oil, and natural gas, and everyone recognizes that it's a strategic vulnerability to our country, a reduction in domestic production of crude oil and natural gas seems to be very wrongheaded in the sense of trying to reduce our dependency on imported foreign oil and natural gas.

This bill will take $17 billion out of the search for crude oil and natural gas, domestic supplies in most instances, and put it towards some very worthy initiatives in terms of trying to find alternatives to that. There is no rational projection that any of these alternatives will develop in the next 15 to 20 years to supplant the need for crude oil and natural gas to drive the economy, whether you're talking about generating electricity or driving cars and trucks and airplanes. So at a time when we are fully dependent on crude oil and natural gas, it seems to make eminent sense that we ought to be encouraging domestic oil and gas companies to reinvest their profits, reinvest their moneys back in the ground.

Now, mechanically what happens with respect to the oil and gas business is when they do find crude oil and natural gas, they find reserves in the ground and there is value associated with those reserves. Typically, those producers then go to the bank and use those reserves as collateral in the ground to borrow more money to spend additional money going into the ground. So for each dollar that we increase their taxes, there is a multiple of that dollar that does not get spent on searches for crude oil and natural gas that would be used domestically. We do nothing about the restrictions on a responsible, environmentally sound development of other areas that have proven crude oil and natural gas reserves, domestic crude oil and natural gas reserves. We do nothing in this legislation to affect that.

In addition, my colleagues brought up the vaunted PAYGO rule, which is used almost every day in this Chamber. Quite frankly, these taxes have been used multiple times already in this Congress to pay for a variety of things. So if our constituents back home fully understood how theatrical the PAYGO situations with this bill really are, they would be probably offended, that that is just the typical Washington business-as-usual kinds of things that are going on.

So while this bill, I believe, creates an unfunded mandate that is in violation of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and it should be properly subject to this point of order, the underlying bill itself is flawed on a variety of things as well.

I will close, then, by just saying that I believe this point of order should be sustained and this rule should be defeated.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in the majority today because in this bill you effectively kill our opportunity to talk about FISA and the renewal of our opportunity to listen to foreign terrorists talking to foreign terrorists overseas. And it's intellectually not honest with the American people if you don't tell them what you're doing, because it's dangerous. It's really dangerous.

This is day 11, day 11 that you're starting to slowly turn off our ability to listen to bad guys plotting to kill Americans and to kill our allies overseas, men, women, children, Christians, Jews and Muslims. The danger of this is very real and very palpable.

They passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate and said this is urgent; let's do it. Two weeks ago, the Director of the ODNI came out and said, this is important.

We've often said here we should listen to our commanders in the field. They are screaming at the top of their lungs, give us this authority so we can continue to keep America safe.

I heard some argument that, gee, we can just listen if we want and we can come to the FISA Court if we want.

I used to be an FBI agent. It took me 9 months to develop the probable cause on my first case to get a criminal title III, which is the same as a FISA, to listen to somebody's conversations. And it should be that hard. It should be that hard for United States citizens. They deserve that protection under our Constitution.

But what you're saying is you think that those overseas criminals, a criminal in Pakistan, a terrorist plotting to kill Americans, making a phone call from Pakistan that ends up in Saudi Arabia, we ought to say, well, wait a minute; we need to come all the way back to the court, we need to work up probable cause and try to figure out if we ought to be listening to that conversation.

No American out there, including the majority of the Senate and I think the majority in this Chamber, believes that's the right standard to keep America safe. This is dangerous.

Now I know you're down here with the jangly keys theory and thinking, if we just distract them long enough they'll think this is about big oil companies and all of that mess. This is about the majority killing our opportunity to give this tool, this authority which they have used responsibly to make sure that we don't have attacks against Americans here.

What does a majority of the Senate and a majority of this House see that the majority leadership does not? What won't they see, and why won't they tell the American people what they're doing?

It's day 11. Every day that goes by we are in jeopardy of attack.

I will guarantee you this today. There is somebody picking up some electronic instrument to communicate what plan they may have to kill Americans or, as I said before, our allies, or Christians or Jews or Muslims.

What will it take for the majority to stand up and stop politicking on the lives of Americans, our allies and every global person, to stand up and say we will stand for the defense of the United States and its allies and we will stop terrorists in their tracks?

I would urge the strong rejection of this rule.

I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the landmark Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and this rule.

Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for fundamental change in our Nation's energy policy. For too long, the big oil companies have had a stranglehold over politicians in Washington, DC and over our country's energy policy.

All we have to do is examine the headlines these days: ``Pain at the Pump Grows.'' Another headline: ``Cost of Gas Hits All-Time High.''

But there is a very interesting juxtaposition of headlines, because the other headlines in our Nation's newspapers read something like this: ``ExxonMobil Profit Sets Record Again.'' That's right, almost $41 billion last year, breaking the record that they had set only last year.

This sales figure alone exceeds the gross domestic product of 120 countries. To put this in perspective, ExxonMobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second in the year 2007.

So here is the question: Do the American people continue to subsidize big oil companies while they are making record profits? Or do we shift our investment to cleaner, renewable fuels?

Mr. Speaker, I know the White House does not like this. President Bush said he would veto this, but we are not going to give up. This new Congress, led by Democrats, is responding to folks in every State in America demanding change in our country's energy policy.

They understand that this is vital to our national security, and it's vital to

their pocketbooks. The contrast between the politics of the past, represented by the White House, and our forward-looking bill could not be clearer.

Remember just 7 years ago, the administration's energy task force met behind closed doors. It consisted of oil company executives, and the administration fought to keep everything secret. Renewable sources of energy were not a priority. The Earth's climate change was not a priority. And the recommendations involved more drilling, more mining and more of the same, which led only to record gas prices for families, record profits for oil companies and disastrous national security consequences. I mean, after all, under the current administration, gas prices have doubled.

In contrast, our groundbreaking efforts to date are setting our country on a path towards energy independence. Despite the fact that the White House continues to side with Big Oil and threaten a veto of this bill, we are not going to give up.

We already have a great record. We have strengthened national security by increasing fuel efficiency standards. We have raised the fuel economy standards. We have lowered energy costs by focusing on conservation and efficiency. We have tackled global climate change, but we are only just beginning to set the new course on the Nation's energy policy.

By repealing subsidies to the big oil companies and investing in the renewable energy technologies, we will continue to march towards new energy solutions. The status quo in Washington is not acceptable anymore. The White House might threaten veto, but we are not going to give up.