[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22907-22914]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7201, ENERGY IMPROVEMENT AND 
  EXTENSION ACT OF 2008 AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7202, 
                    TEMPORARY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2008

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1516 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1516

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule 
     XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.

[[Page 22908]]

       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 10 of 
     rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 7201 or H.R. 7202 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of either bill to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. 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

  Mr. ARCURI. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. 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. SESSIONS. 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.

                              {time}  2115

  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,

[[Page 22909]]

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. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague 
from New York if he has any speakers on his side.
  Mr. ARCURI. At the present time, I have no speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. 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

[[Page 22910]]

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.

                              {time}  2130

  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. ARCURI. 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We have a choice, another choice tonight. The incentives in these 
extenders are important to all Americans, and they are critical to job 
creation. We can do this one of two ways. We can offset the cost of 
these extenders without adding to this massive debt. That is one of the 
reasons why we are in the shape we are in right now. All of these 
offsets that we have proposed to pay our way on these extenders have 
interestingly enough been approved by the Senate in one form or 
another.
  The very people who we are asking to help us with the offsets don't 
agree with the bill. It is a simple choice. We can pass these tax 
incentives, fully paid for with noncontroversial offsets, approved by 
the business community and Senate Republicans, or we can pass them and 
do what we have been doing, and that is continue to borrow massive 
amounts from overseas that have put us, Americans, all of us, in a 
financially vulnerable position.
  One of the offsets is included in the Senate bill that was sent over 
here, and the other has been unanimously approved by the Senate in 
times gone by. So any suggestion that there is something that is 
controversial or objectionable by the Senate as a reason for inaction 
in a responsible manner by the House simply doesn't hold water.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope as we start a new day here, and we have been 
working all weekend on a very important package for our country, that 
we can at least, on something this important and as noncontroversial as 
the offsets are, do the responsible thing around here for once.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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

[[Page 22911]]

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. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, we have been following the gentleman's 
economic plan for this country since 2001. I tell you where the 
spending is, we are spending today this year somewhere, depending on 
the interest rate, between $85-90 billion more on interest. This is 
where the spending is. Interest is the second fastest growing part of 
the Federal budget. We are borrowing money and hocking this country to 
anybody on Earth who will let us have it. That is why spending is going 
up, all right. It is going up $85-90 billion a year since 2001 when 
they started this deal.
  If you want to continue to do that, we will see how much spending can 
slow down because you have to pay interest.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.

                              {time}  2145

  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.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will yield for a brief minute.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. HOYER. If I could reclaim my time, are you disputing any of the 
facts that I have recited?
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would continue to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say the answer is yes.
  Mr. HOYER. What facts are you disputing that I have articulated?
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would continue to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will yield one more time, and then I want to conclude.

[[Page 22912]]


  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just take on this issue of regulation, if I might, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. 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?
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. 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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California.
  Mr. DREIER. 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----
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that?
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield, of course, to my friend, the 
majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. 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?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say that I don't know 
exactly where that stands at this point.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield again, I will inform him that 
we do not have that bill.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.

[[Page 22913]]

  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.

                              {time}  2200

  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.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida, my colleague from the Blue Dogs, Mr. Boyd.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. 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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.
  Mr. ARCURI. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding the gentleman is 
going

[[Page 22914]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is withdrawn.

                          ____________________