Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

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

Mr. McCRERY. May I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would reserve the balance of my time to close on our side.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, let me close today by simply saying that we don't object to the main body of the bill, the extensions of the expiring provisions of the Tax Code. After all, those were provisions that we put in the Tax Code when we were in the majority. That is not the point. The point is that if we follow the PAYGO rules that require these existing provisions of law to be paid for if they are extended just amounts to a built-in tax increase. If we are already bringing in to the Federal Government more money as a percent of GDP than we historically have with all these provisions in place, what sense does it make to raise taxes just to keep them in place? It doesn't make sense, unless you simply want to raise more revenue for the central government in this country, grow the government even more. So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to those who have spoken so eloquently on the merits of the expiring tax provisions, I agree with that. But to hold to the PAYGO provisions that require the offsets in this bill would lead us to a huge tax increase over the next 10 years.

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

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward motion that offers Members of this House a simple choice. Are you in favor of long- term extensions of these expiring tax provisions and extending the all- important AMT patch, without raising taxes? As we have discussed at length here today, the majority's bill unwisely adheres to their ill-advised PAYGO rules. Thus, they have once again found themselves boxed in a corner, scouring the Tax Code for ways to fuel their agenda. Whether that agenda involves additional spending, new tax incentives, or even just extensions of the low-tax policies that Republicans originally enacted during our time in the majority, the Democrat solution seems to always be the same: tax, tax, tax. Today's bill is no different. While there is virtually no disagreement in this House that the expiring tax reductions contained in the underlying legislation need to be renewed, the two parties seem to have a major disagreement about whether revenue-raisers should be necessary to pay for them. The majority's bill represents a clear choice in favor of higher taxes. Our motion to recommit, on the other hand, represents a clear choice in favor of extending current tax relief, without offsetting tax increases. Unlike the bill brought forward today by the majority, Mr. Speaker, which contains $55.5 billion in revenue-raisers, our motion contains no--repeat, no--tax increases. Democrats were wrong to propose these sorts of offsetting tax hikes last year, and they're wrong again today. If they stick with their misguided PAYGO rules, they'll be wrong again in 2010 as well, when a huge number of critically important tax policies, ranging from the expanded $1,000 child credit to the lower rates on dividends and capital gains and lower individual rates will expire. And the majority's PAYGO logic will then require more than a $3.5 trillion tax increase simply to maintain current law. But that's where PAYGO will take us. This motion to recommit offers us a different path, Mr. Speaker. Not only does our motion reject the majority's tax hikes, it extends the bill's positive provisions for considerably longer than the underlying bill does. Indeed, our motion extends the package of expiring provisions, including all the expiring energy tax provisions, through 2013. So if you support the deduction for State and local sales taxes, here's your chance to extend it for 6 years, not just 1. If you support the research and development tax credit, here's your chance to extend it for 6 years, not just 1. In short, if you want to extend all of the important low-tax policies that expired last year--as well as the energy extenders that are set to expire just months from now--on a long-term basis, here's your chance. This motion also gives Members the opportunity to extend one final crucial provision that has gone completely unaddressed by the majority: the AMT patch. As we've highlighted throughout today's debate, the majority's legislation is deafeningly silent on the urgently needed AMT patch. Their bill's failure to patch the AMT for 2008 means that more than 25 million middle class individuals and families are in line for a $61.5 billion tax hike next April, an average tax increase for those families of more than $2,400 per taxpayer. Our motion does what everyone knows must be done. It patches the AMT for 2008, and it does so early in the year to help ensure that we avoid a repeat performance of the legislative meltdown engineered by the majority last year, which prevented the 2007 patch from being enacted until the day after Christmas. We need to patch the AMT and we need to patch it now. This motion gives us that opportunity. I will close, Mr. Speaker, with just a word about process. I suspect that we'll hear from our friends on the other side that this motion will kill the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that you can't kill a bill that's already dead. This bill is dead on arrival in the other body, Mr. Speaker. Forty-one Senators signed a letter last month pledging to oppose tax bills that contain revenue-raising offsets. On the very same day that our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, reported out this bill last week, our colleagues across the Capitol passed a motion on the Senate floor instructing Senate conferees on the budget resolution to reject the House's plan to raise $110 billion in taxes in order to pay for the extension of expiring provisions, including the AMT patch. And, Mr. Speaker, even if this legislation somehow got through the Senate, the President has indicated he would veto the bill. You can't kill a bill that's already dead, Mr. Speaker. So let's use this motion to recommit to revive this bill, send it back to committee so that we can do our work in a bipartisan way, and get a bill passed and to the President that he will sign.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for bringing this bill to the floor today. It's certainly a bill that has bipartisan support, bicameral support, and I will talk a little bit more about that in my remarks. People watching this on C-SPAN may think they have gone into reruns. We haven't. This bill has been discussed on the floor of the House before and, in fact, passed through the House before. Unfortunately, though, we never could get the Senate version and the House version reconciled and get a bill to the President. So here we are again starting this process in the House, passing a bill today, hoping to get finally some agreement so that we can get this bill to the President and we can give some relief to our soldiers in the military. This bill provides certain tax benefits to members of the military. It provides tax credits to housing projects for low-income families. But the specific thing that it fixes is, with respect to low-income housing and the eligibility for that, when testing to see if a family's income makes them eligible, current law excludes the value of a section 8 voucher provided by HUD. But a family's income does include the value of a base housing allowance provided to members of the Armed Forces. This bill, for whatever reason, doesn't address this issue. In the past other versions of this legislation have. Congressman Moran of Kansas and Senator Roberts of Kansas have tried to address this problem in legislation, and the other body has included it. And that's one of the things that led to last year's deadlock. I personally wish that this provision were included, and I hope before the end of the process, we can address that. But there are many good things in the bill before the House today, including provisions to ensure that combat pay does not diminish the earned income credit. The bill also contains important language allowing active-duty Reservists to make penalty-free withdrawals from retirement plans and permits contributions of military death benefit gratuities into a Roth IRA or education savings account without regard to annual contribution limits. Other provisions in the bill amend the Supplemental Security Income program to expand eligibility for, and increase SSI benefit payments to, certain military families, veterans, and AmeriCorps participants. This bill does contain one other change from the bill debated last year that merits mentioning today. It allows stimulus checks to be mailed to families in which one spouse is a member of the military and the other does not have a valid Social Security number. I understand the reasons for this provision, and I'm sure as this bill works its way through the process, we will have an opportunity to examine this provision further to make sure that it's administrable and workable. Finally, one other provision deserves particular mention both because of its merits and because it's a great example of how one person's good idea brought to the attention of a Member of Congress can make its way to the forefront of a legislative agenda. Health care flexible spending accounts, known as FSAs, have a use-it-or-lose-it rule. If you don't use all the money by the end of the year, the money goes back to your employer. Funds deposited into an FSA are put there on a pretax basis, or a tax-free basis. So it's a very attractive benefit for employees. This bill modifies the FSA program to allow a plan to return deposited funds to an employee at the end of the year if that amount remains unspent because the individual was called to active-duty military service. This is a very, I think, fair change to the underlying program. It's an issue that one of Mr. Barton's, Joe Barton's, constituents raised with him, and I applaud him and his lead cosponsor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for crafting a simple solution to this problem. Mr. Speaker, I once again want to thank the chairman and the staff of the Ways and Means Committee for their work on this issue, and I urge passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McCRERY. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, be allowed to allocate the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation before us. Besides increasing taxes, this bill would create an untargeted emergency extended unemployment benefits program that would add to the deficit and ultimately increase State payroll taxes. Moreover, this provision is untargeted, meaning it would pay extended unemployment benefits in all States, regardless of the availability of jobs in those States. Today's national unemployment rate is 5.0 percent. In March, 32 States had unemployment rates below 5 percent. Congress has never created a temporary extended benefits program at such a low unemployment rate. The lowest prior unemployment rate when such a program was created was 5.7 percent. Especially given today's low unemployment rate nationwide, it just doesn't make sense to extend benefits in States where jobs are readily available. While I do not support the legislation before us on this subject, Republicans know that laid off workers are hurting, especially in States with struggling economies where jobs are hard to find and unemployment rates are high. That is why, during committee consideration of this legislation, I supported targeting extended unemployment benefits so real help would be provided where it is needed most. Unfortunately, that effort was rebuffed in favor of the general untargeted proposal before us today. This legislation also shows the sham that is PAYGO. The broad extended unemployment program is projected to cost $16 billion over the next 5 years and increase State payroll taxes by $1 billion over that time. And this is likely just the start. The typical temporary program in recent decades lasted about 30 months. If the program started under the legislation before us today follows that path, the ultimate cost will exceed $30 billion.

Mr. McCRERY. This program will cost about $30 billion if it follows that path. Yet despite pledges in this House to adhere to the letter and spirit of PAYGO, this bill does neither. Our colleagues' argument is that today's economic conditions constitute an emergency. Only 20 percent of all months since 1970 had a lower unemployment rate than today. So if we're in an emergency now, when won't we be in an emergency? We may as well just have extended unemployment benefits 100 percent Federally paid for forever and ever. It doesn't make sense, and it's very costly.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against the tax amendment to this bill. Let me be clear, however, in stating that my opposition to this section is not the result of a disagreement with my friend, Mr. Neal, or with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rangel. We were able to work together so that the housing bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee enjoyed bipartisan support. And while that package contains many provisions that do make sense, I think the House should have had the opportunity to consider at least one alternative. Unfortunately, the procedural straitjacket imposed by the majority for consideration of the housing bill today is something that I simply cannot ignore. For that reason, I will be voting against this amendment. We all understand the severity of the housing crisis. Housing starts declined to 680,000 in March of 2008, the lowest level since January of 1991. Since hitting a peak in early 2006, housing starts have dropped by 62 percent. There is currently a 9\1/2\ month supply of unsold homes, more than double the 10-year average. With those facts in mind, it is not surprising that home prices are falling, and the contraction in the residential real estate market is an anchor around our economy. The Tax Code didn't get us into this mess, and there is only so much the Tax Code can do to get us out. The package approved by the Committee on Ways and Means contains many well-designed improvements, including improvements to make the low-income housing tax credit more efficient. I also think allowing those credits to be claimed against both the regular tax and the AMT is a step in the right direction. The language expanding the Mortgage Revenue Bond program and allowing proceeds of the bonds to be used to refinance existing home mortgages, as suggested by the President, is certainly worth doing. And although I have some reservations about the design of the first-time homebuyer's tax credit, the recapture provision, if we include it, makes it more like a no-interest loan and not really a tax credit. Still, I share the hope of the sponsors that this provision will help induce some home purchases this year and stabilize the market. We desire that because we recognize that potential homebuyers right now are reading the headlines every day, they're waiting on the sidelines to get to the bottom of the market. Well, as prices keep falling, more people who might think about buying a home decide to keep waiting, and so that creates a self-perpetuating cycle of declining home prices. Maybe, just maybe, this tax credit could induce some of those waiting on the sidelines to go ahead, jump in and buy a home. That's our desire. I think it could have been better, as I say, designed as a pure tax credit with no recapture provision, but still, I think it's better than nothing. I understand the concern raised by some that an artificial temporary floor, so to speak, will not restore long-term stability to the housing market and could even result in further price declines when the temporary benefit lapses. But on balance, I think this provision holds some hope of helping us to reverse this slide in housing prices, or at least stop it for a while and give it a chance to recover. At the same time, there are elements of this package that, frankly, I would prefer not be in here. Given the nature of the housing crisis, I think the House should follow the Senate's lead and waive PAYGO, for example. I think this is an emergency. We shouldn't be responding to this emergency situation with tax increases. And there are specific items in here that if it were up to me might not have made the cut. But democracy is about compromise, and the bill produced by the Ways and Means Committee was something that I supported and would like to vote for again here on the House floor today. But the decision made by the majority leadership to debate this legislation as an amendment to a Senate-passed bill deprives the House of the chance to consider ways to improve it, even to the extent of denying the minority a motion to recommit. Now, I recognize that tax bills traditionally come to the floor under restrictive rules, and I support that. But as I documented in a letter last year to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, in years when Republicans were in the majority, on one tax bill after another the Republican majority offered the Democratic minority not only a motion to recommit, but a substitute. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert the text of that letter to the chairwoman of the Rules Committee into the Congressional Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, August 1, 2007. Chairwoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Ranking Member David Dreier, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier: This week the House is expected to consider H.R. 2776, the ``Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007.'' This will be the first tax bill, reported by the Ways and Means Committee, to be considered under a rule in the 110th Congress. As you are aware, the House has a long history of supporting rules for tax bills which make in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Numerous examples, dating back to the 104th Congress, include: 1. Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005; 2. Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005; 3. Charitable Giving Act of 2003; 4. Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003; 5. Social Security Protection Act of 2003; 6. Pension Security Act of 2003; 7. Tax Administration Good Government Act; 8. A bill to extend permanently the marriage penalty relief provided under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; 9. Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004: 10. A bill to permanently extend the ten percent individual income tax bracket; 11. Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004; 12. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001; 13. Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001; 14. Care Act of 2002; 15. Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001; 16. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; 17. Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2002; 18. Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; 19. Pension Security Act of 2002; 20. The WORK Act of 2002; 21. Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002; 22. Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000; 23. Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000; 24. Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000; 25. Foster Care Independence Act of 1999; 26. Financial Freedom Act of 1999; 27. Fathers Count Act of 1999; 28. Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000; 29. Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2000; 30. Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998; 31. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998; 32. Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995; 33. A bill to permanently extend the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, and for other purposes; 34. Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995; and, 35. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. While the usual practice has been to provide for the consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, I recognize that there have been instances where such consideration was not allowed under the rule. In many of these cases, the amendment was either non-germane to the underlying bill, was not an actual substitute amendment, or was not compliant with the Budget Act. I have submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. R. 2776. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the amendment complies with Clause 10 of House Rule 21, otherwise known as the ``paygo rule.'' In addition, through consultations with the Office of the Parliamentarian, I am assured that the amendment is germane to H.R. 2776. To my knowledge, it would violate no rules of the House. I hope that the Committee will make in order my amendment as part of the consideration of H.R. 2776. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, Jim McCrery, Ranking Member. At the same time, I recognize that it is not uncommon to resolve differences between the House and the Senate by sending amendments back and forth across the Capitol. That's what's being done today. But what makes today's procedure so unusual, and to some of us so frustrating, is that this House never had a chance to work its will on housing legislation. This is not a housing bill that went to the Senate, was amended, and then sent back to us. This was an energy bill for heaven's sake. It was gutted in the Senate, replaced with housing provisions, sent back to us, and that is what has created this unusual opportunity for the majority to deny the minority even a motion to recommit, and it's wrong. So Mr. Speaker, I think that action reflects poorly on this House. It's a trampling of the rights of all of our Members, not just the minority. And I, therefore, plan to vote against all of these amendments and urge my colleagues to do the same until we can get a fair hearing, a fair rule governing the debate of these very important matters. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this time to allow the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, to control the remainder of time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to educate the House on a provision that was in the Senate version of the farm bill, and according to reports as being considered for inclusion in the conference report. I say ``reluctantly,'' Mr. Speaker, because my good friend, Mr. Baucus, is the sponsor of this provision in the Senate bill, and I certainly respect the right of any Member to try to bring Federal dollars to his district. But that is exactly what this is. And it ought to be exposed for that. It is not a tax provision really. It is a really more like an appropriation. And my good friend on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pomeroy, said that, well, this is not really just for one entity, there will be lots of bondholders, so this money will be spread out among numerous bondholders. That's true. It will be. But that evades the point. The point is that the way the provision is written in the Senate bill would limit the application of these bonds to one specific piece of property in the United States. Now I will read to you the criteria that lead us to that conclusion. First, ``some portion of the land must be adjacent to United States Forest Service land.'' Well there's lots of parcels of land like that around the United States. But second, ``at least half of the land acquired must be transferred to the United States Forest Service at no net cost to the United States and not more than half of the land acquired may either remain with or be donated to a State.'' Again that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Third, and this is where it begins to tighten, ``the amount of acreage acquired must be at least 40,000 acres,'' a fairly large parcel. And then fourth, ``all of the land must be subject to a native fish habitat conservation plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.'' So upon examination of all the parcels of land in the United States, only one meets this criteria. And it happens to be a large piece of land of which about 90 percent of it is in the State of Montana. And it is owned by one landowner in the State of Montana. So, Mr. Speaker, even though, yes, there will be scores, hundreds, thousands maybe of bondholders, they're not going to be the ones getting $500 million for a piece of property. It is one landowner. And the taxpayers will be footing about $200 million of the bill. Now that is like an appropriation. That is a $200 million appropriation basically to the Nature Conservancy which will buy the land and give the money to the current landowner. So let's call it what it is. It's an earmark. It's an appropriation disguised very cleverly as a forest tax credit bond. Now, this provision could have been written to apply to any property in the United States so that anybody who wanted to set aside land could utilize these bonds. But it wasn't. It was restricted to this one piece of property. It's a rifle shot. It's an earmark. And Mr. Cantor's intention, I believe, is to educate the House of this and to say, and I agree with him, that this has no place in the farm bill. It ought to be in an appropriations bill. It ought to be clearly defined as an earmark for the purchase of this piece of property. Now I don't know if $500 million is an appropriate amount of money for this piece of property. I don't know what Nature Conservancy might have offered for this piece of property. But my guess is that when you have a $200 million subsidy from the taxpayers, it just might distort the market. It just might raise the value of land in that particular parcel and all around that parcel. So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman's motion to instruct conferees is well placed. This ought not be in the farm bill. And frankly this farm tax credit idea ought not be used to distort the market for real estate anywhere in the country, and certainly not on a piece of property this big in one location.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana, the Honorable Steve Scalise, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me on behalf of the Louisiana delegation to introduce to the Members of the House our newest Member, Steve Scalise. Steve is a graduate of the home of the current national college football champions, the LSU Tigers. And he has a degree in computer science. And he told me to tell you all that if you are having problems with your computer, feel free to call him. Steve comes to us after 12 years' experience in the Louisiana legislature where he had a distinguished career. He was known as a reformer in a place where there was not much reform on the minds of many people in State government. So Steve comes to us with a distinguished record of service for the people of Louisiana already. And I am sure he will bring that same distinction to his service here in the House. Steve has a lovely family, which I will give him the honor of introducing. Please help me welcome to our ranks Steve Scalise.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this extraordinary, unprecedented, and, I believe, dangerous change to the House Rules. Congress first gave trade promotion authority to the President in 1974, in order to allow him to engage directly with our competitors around the world to level the playing field, eliminate barriers to American exports and create jobs for American workers. Passing this rule would undermine that authority and damage United States credibility abroad because our trading partners could rightfully question the commitments of our government in negotiating trade agreements. I have heard it said that this rule will allow us to consider this agreement this year after the election, but what this rule would do is to eliminate the uncertainty under TPA that Congress will vote on this agreement. It doesn't guarantee a vote by any time certain. It doesn't push the vote off until after the election. It simply turns off the clock entirely. Even postponing congressional consideration of this agreement does tremendous damage to America's competitiveness. Right now Canada, the European Union, are completing trade agreements with Colombia. As a result, they will gain a competitive advantage over American products. Colombia will buy tractors, mining equipment and fertilizer from Canada, France, and Germany, instead of from Illinois, Georgia, and Texas. Chairman Rangel, my good friend, said nobody is talking about the economic benefits, they are all talking about Hugo Chavez. Well, my good friend knows that is not the case. And besides, the reason we are not talking about it all that much is because it is a no-brainer from an economic standpoint. I am mystified as to why any Member would oppose this agreement when all it does is level the playing field for American workers. Today, American workers compete against imports from Colombia that enter our country virtually duty free, while our exports going to Colombia face high tariffs. This agreement eliminates those obstacles to our goods and services and supports American jobs. I agree with Chairman Rangel's assessment last month that denying a vote on this agreement wouldn't help address the concerns about labor violence in Colombia. In fact, this agreement would help Colombian labor unions. The agreement includes robust, enforceable international labor organization core labor standards, standards included with the strong support of the Democratic leadership to require Colombia to continue the tremendous progress it has made to improve labor rights. I plead with my colleagues today: Do not make a vote which will undermine the credibility of the United States, making it more difficult for any future administration to eliminate barriers to the sale of products made by us. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Chairman, the speakers from the majority side for the last 15 minutes or so are among the Members of the House that I have the most respect for, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Boyd. I have watched them over the last few years show courage when it comes to fiscal discipline, when it comes to entitlement reform and suggesting a need for entitlement reform. So it was with some surprise that I heard them today endorse the majority's budget as crafted by the majority on the Budget Committee. And the reason I say I was somewhat surprised is that I believe those gentlemen over the years have talked about the need to constrain spending at the Federal level, to restrain spending. That's the whole point of talking about entitlement reform. They know that the entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, are unsustainable as currently structured. And with some courage, they have talked over the last few years about the need to tackle those problems and get this spending under control. And so when my friend, Mr. Tanner, talked about turning this ship, and it takes so many miles and so long to turn a ship and this budget starts the turn and that's a great thing, well, the minority budget does the same thing. It starts to turn that ship in the right direction, also, toward a balanced budget. The difference is the majority's budget turns that ship with the energy source of higher taxes, whereas our ship, the minority ship, is being turned with the energy source of restrained spending. So I hope, Madam Chairman, that my good friends, for whom I have much respect, will see the light before the vote comes and join us in supporting a budget that does what they want to do, that gets the ship of state turned in the right direction, but does it through what they have advocated very soundly over the last few years, which is spending restraint, not increases in taxes.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of issues that have been mentioned here today a number of times. The first is this issue of subsidies. Several speakers have said we need to end this subsidy to the oil and gas industry. Well, the so- called subsidy that's being ended in this bill is the section 199 provision that applies to all manufacturers in the United States. It was designed to make American manufacturers more competitive and to create jobs here in this country. What this bill does is it excepts from all manufacturers only the oil and gas industry, so it's punitive to the oil and gas industry. It's not removing some special subsidy. It's taking away from only the oil and gas a general deduction for all manufacturers in the United States. So much for these special subsidies that we keep hearing about. The next thing I would like to talk about is the issue of profits. My good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, earlier in this debate said, at the beginning of the Bush administration, profits of the five biggest oil companies in America were $30 billion; at the end of the Bush administration, the profits are $100 billion. Well, guess what? At the beginning of the Bush administration, the biggest five oil companies in this country, American oil companies, invested in exploration, research, and development, trying to find sources of energy for this country, about $40 billion, more than the profits that they had in that year. And that investment, over the term of the Bush administration, has grown to this last year almost $100 billion. So you can say, ladies and gentlemen, that the profits that have been so denigrated here by some today moved pretty much in parallel with the level of investment of our American companies to find new sources of energy to help us meet our energy needs in this country. That's reality. All this hocus-pocus about renewable fuels and sun, that's swell, but it is a drop in the bucket of what we need to operate this country today and for the foreseeable future. So if you want a reasonable, well-balanced energy policy, this bill is certainly not the answer. This bill is part of the answer because it pretty much continues the bill that we passed several years ago when we were in control of this Chamber, but it makes a bad mistake when it punishes. It doesn't remove some special subsidy. It punishes just the oil and gas industry for only American companies. That is wrongheaded. It will result in higher prices at the gasoline pump. It's spiteful and it's wrong. And we ought not to pass this bill and get busy passing a true comprehensive energy policy for this country.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. I will also begin my remarks by thanking the leadership on both sides of the aisle, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Boehner, for their efforts on a bipartisan basis to respond in a very efficient and quick manner to the needs of the country, the needs of our economy, by putting together and supporting a stimulus package that we hope, combined with the efforts of the Fed, will indeed avert a recession in this country and will contribute to a higher level of economic growth this year than we otherwise would have had. Their efforts surely should be taken note of by every Member in this House, indeed of the Congress, and by people across this country. It demonstrates that when we, in this body, want to work together and accomplish something for the country, we can do it. And we certainly have done it in this piece of legislation. It is a compromise, no question about it. There are things that we would have liked to have had in this bill that are not in there. There are things that the majority would have liked to have in here that are not in here. But the fact that we were able to come together and get this done and in this very short amount of time is clearly a victory for the American people and I believe a victory for this Congress. I also want to thank my colleague, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. He has really reached out to the minority throughout his tenure as chairman, and in this instance, his staff worked very closely with the minority staff and with leadership staff to put this product together. So I want to thank him for his continued gentlemanly conduct of the committee and cooperation with the minority when it's possible. Madam Speaker, this bill before us today does have a few changes from the House bill that passed just a few days ago. The changes basically allow Social Security benefits and disabled veterans benefits to count as earned income for purposes of satisfying the $3,000 requirement for earned income to get the prebates: $300 per person, $600 per couple, and even the $300 child credit, if applicable. So I think certainly that is an improvement to the bill in the sense that we will get more money into the hands of people who will more than likely spend that money very quickly and get that money working in the economy. The Senate also made some changes with respect to making sure that illegal immigrants are not able to take advantage of this prebate, these checks that are being sent out, and certainly that is a positive development. Madam Speaker, all in all, I think the product before us this evening is an excellent work of the two bodies on a bipartisan basis and, of course, with the support of the Bush administration. And I hope that all Members in this body will tonight enthusiastically support this product and get this to the President for his signature, to the IRS for their administration, and get the checks in the hands of people and allow businesses to begin to get a bonus depreciation for investment. We think that will help speed investment into this year and create jobs. And that is the best way to fight an economic downturn is to create jobs and get money circulating in the economy with paychecks. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).