mr. chairman , the previous speaker made some good points . 
he talked about the need for our country to discover new alternative sources of energy , and i think the gentleman is right . 
the underlying bill under consideration has some incentives for developing those new alternative sources of energy . 
should we do more ? 
perhaps . 
i think perhaps when we get the final bill out of conference with the senate , there may be more in the bill . 
but to rail against the oil and gas industry , as the gentleman did , and the provisions in the underlying bill that provide tax incentives for exploration and development of our oil and gas reserves in this country , to me rings empty because the substitute or the amendment that is before us that the gentleman spoke in favor of does not strike any of those provisions in the underlying bill . 
all this amendment does is add new tax credits to the underlying bill . 
so all of the rhetoric that we heard about the underlying bill is just talk because this amendment does nothing to affect those provisions the gentleman was speaking against . 
what this amendment does do is basically double the cost of this bill , at least the tax provisions in this bill . 
we have not had time , and the chairman of the committee on energy and commerce spoke about the number of pages in this amendment , we have not had time , frankly , to analyze it from a budgetary aspect to see if it violates the house budget we have already passed . 
it very well could . 
but it takes the cost of tax provisions in this bill from about $ 8 billion over 10 years to about $ 17 billion over 10 years . 
now , the accounting gimmick , as the gentleman from washington put it , is called lifo , last in first out . 
this is not an accounting principle used just by the oil and gas industry . 
it is used by every sector of our economy . 
it is in common usage , and there is a reason . 
the reason is if we insisted on industry , of whatever kind , accounting for first in first out , it would lead to distortions in the market , and it would lead to business decisions based on tax considerations instead of market considerations . 
last in first out is something commonly used throughout industry , not just the oil and gas industry . 
they can not game it . 
there are regulations in place to keep them from shifting their inventory around to take advantage of the accounting rule . 
so this is not something , some gimmick for the oil and gas industry . 
it is a very sound accounting principle used throughout industry in this country . 
so i would urge this house not to listen to the words of the gentleman , but look at the action embodied in the amendment . 
this amendment does nothing to the underlying tax provisions in the bill . 
it doubles the cost of the bill , and it would impose upon the oil and gas industry , just one industrial sector in this country , a retroactive tax increase because under his accounting change , those companies would have to go back and recapture what they would have paid in taxes and pay them prospectively over the next 10 years . 
i hope we have concluded in this body that retroactive tax increases are bad policy . 
so for that reason alone , i would recommend that we reject this amendment . 
