Preventing Government Shutdown Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1507 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1507.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1507 provides for the consideration of H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, the past 8 years have not been kind to American workers and their families. Since President Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, people's wages have stagnated while the cost of food and energy have skyrocketed.

Over the past 8 years, more people have been forced into poverty. Over the past 8 years, student loans have become even harder to get, denying access to a college education. Over the past 8 years, more people have trouble putting food on their table. Over the past 8 years, more people have lost their jobs. Over the past 8 years, our infrastructure, our roads and our bridges and levees have deteriorated, and in some cases have collapsed. I hope that the American public sees a pattern here.

And these problems didn't just magically happen. We're in this mess today because of the way the Republican party has turned their backs on anyone not fortunate to make millions of dollars, because of President Bush's insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy, and because of the reckless spending originating from the then Republican-controlled Congress.

My friends, we are in this mess today because of reckless fiscal and financial mismanagement proposed by this President and rubber-stamped by the Republicans in Congress. And now that the past 8 years has led us to the biggest and most desperate financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Republicans in the House are proposing more tax breaks for their rich friends on Wall Street. Their answer to a frozen market is more tax cuts for the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

When the times get tough, the Republicans try to cut taxes for the rich. That's not leadership, Mr. Speaker; that's just more of the same bad policies that got us here. There is a different way, a way that looks out for Main Street.

We recognize, those of us in the Democratic Caucus, we recognize that everyday Americans, not the Donald Trumps of the world or the big oil companies, need help in these very tough times. We know that rising food prices are causing people to cut back on the food that they're putting on their tables. We know that jobs are increasingly hard to find, and that unemployed Americans are exhausting the unemployment benefits that are helping them scrape by as they look for new jobs. We know that the crumbling infrastructure in our Nation must be fixed, that we cannot risk another bridge collapse like the one that took place in Minnesota last year. And we know that investments in infrastructure will create new jobs and make our people safer.

The people who are calling our offices angry about the bailout for Wall Street are saying, ``Wait a minute. What about us? What about us?'' And that is exactly the question we are here to answer today. Today, Democrats are saying to the American people, to the people of Massachusetts, ``We hear you.'' That's why we have an economic stimulus bill that will provide a $60 billion jump start to the economy.

In this bill, Democrats will provide almost $37 billion in infrastructure development. That means more highway construction, funding for passenger rail improvements, increases in clean water and flood control. There is funding for school modernization and public housing in this bill. These are not just improvements in our infrastructure--which are badly needed after years of neglect by this President and his allies in this Congress, these are jobs programs. More funding for infrastructure programs will mean more people being hired to build roads and bridges, to repair schools, and to improve our waterways.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that we are providing funding for communities like those in my district that are struggling with complying with clean water requirements and are looking to the Federal Government for just a little bit of help.

As a Member of Congress who represents a regional airport, I know how important airport improvement grants really are. In this bill, Democrats provide $600 million for AIG grants to help regional airports alleviate the massive congestion at our major hubs.

In this bill, Democrats provide $1.6 billion for development of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. In particular, $1 billion will be dedicated to an advanced battery loan program, which will allow for U.S. companies to invest and develop technology for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

In this bill, Democrats provide an increase in the Medicaid matching rate to prevent cuts in health insurance and health care services for low-income children and families.

And in this bill, Democrats provided an additional 7 weeks of extended benefits for workers who have exhausted regular unemployment compensation. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the quickest, most cost-effective forms of economic stimulus because workers who have lost their paychecks spend benefits quickly.

And very importantly, Mr. Speaker, in this bill, Democrats provide $2.6 billion to address rising food costs for seniors, people with disabilities, and very poor families with children. We know that millions of our fellow citizens are struggling to put food on the table. Seniors are being forced to choose between eating and taking their medications. And we know food stamps will provide a targeted stimulus to the economy. We know that every Federal food dollar generates twice that in economic activity. Experts at CBO and Moody's, as well as economists from across the political spectrum, agree that increasing money for food stamps is a powerful economic stimulus that can reach the low-income families who may not have benefited from the first stimulus package.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to Chairman Obey for including this provision in this bill. I am also grateful for the leadership of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their advocacy on behalf of food and nutrition programs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I expect many of my friends on the other side of the aisle to oppose this package. I expect them to say that it's too much money and that it's unnecessary. Well, if I'm right, then it will show the American people just how out of touch they really are.

Mr. Speaker, we need a stimulus package today, not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street. People are struggling, and they need and deserve our help. They don't need your empathy, they don't need your sympathy, they don't need your kind words, they don't want you to feel their pain, what they want is your vote, your vote on a stimulus package that will help them, that will benefit everyday people on Main Street.

So I hope the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, will finally join us in meeting the real needs of the working families of this Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think my friends on the Republican side just don't get it. This President, with their help, has driven this economy into a ditch. And we need to take the responsibility to get us out of that ditch. And that is what this stimulus package in part is about.

People are hurting, not just people on Wall Street, but people on Main Street. People are hurting all over this country. People have lost their jobs. There are more people after 8 years of this President who are unemployed. There are more people who are hungry. There are more people without health care. I could go on and on and on. And our infrastructure is crumbling. This is an attempt to help those people.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Arizona, but I have to respond by saying that another tax cut is not going to rebuild a broken bridge in Massachusetts that because of years of underfunding and years of a lack of commitment by the Federal Government is now dangerous. A tax giveaway to an oil company, another tax giveaway to an oil company is not going to build a school in California or Arizona or anywhere else, and another corporate tax break is not going to provide anybody health care.

The bottom line is that I will respectfully say to the gentleman that this Democratic Congress has been way more fiscally responsible, by light-years, than his party has been. Bill Clinton left office and left this country with a surplus. We now have the biggest debt in the history of this country. We have a war in Iraq that is $10 billion a month, and nobody on the other side believes that we have an obligation to pay for it. It goes on our credit card.

We cannot neglect the basic needs of this country, which we have been doing, unfortunately, for the last 8 years. We need to get back to basics.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but again I disagree with him. What I am talking about is investing in infrastructure to make our roads and our bridges safer, to create more jobs, to help stimulate this economy. So we have a very different approach.

We need to do something. We are in a fiscal emergency. The President is asking for $700 billion, don't pay for it, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, and what we are saying is, look, we have to do a little something for Main Street, in the area of infrastructure, education, health care.

I don't think that is too much to ask. Yet this is a big deal to my friends on the Republican side, that we can't do this. It is too much. No, we can't do this. Everyday people don't deserve the

same consideration that the President of the United States is now asking that we give to big companies on Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I would just remind the gentleman that on June 5, we brought to the House floor H.R. 3058, which would have reauthorized the very program he talked about, and he and Mr. Hastings both voted against it. Thank you very much.

Why didn't the gentleman vote for it when he had a chance to?

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

Again, I think I responded to the gentleman. I would just say two other things that I think are important to make note of.

The gentleman, while his party was in control for 12 years, consistently voted for budgets that underfunded the very programs that we are talking about. Secondly, when he talks about a closed process, I don't recall a single incidence when the gentleman ever voted against his party on a closed rule when in fact his party was in control.

So let's get back to the point of this bill, which is to provide everyday people, who have been neglected by this President and by his allies in the Republican Congress for too long, this is to provide a little relief, to try to stimulate some job creation, to try to help with infrastructure, with rebuilding schools, with health care. I mean, the President of the United States is coming before the Nation saying $700 billion, I don't want to pay for it, for a bailout for Wall Street, and then he is telling us we can't do anything to help people on Main Street.

I would like to yield a minute to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Point of Order

I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman voted against H.R. 3508 and, hopefully, he can offer a better explanation to his constituents.

At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

I am the last speaker on my side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say with regard to the rural school issue, I was very proud to be able to vote on behalf of rural schools when the gentleman voted against it. I'm sorry he did that. But what we are talking about here today is an economic stimulus package to help everyday people. This is to help working people, to help people who have lost their jobs, to help people afford their health care, to help communities rebuild their roads and bridges and put people back to work. This is to help rebuild our schools. This is a bill to provide much-needed resources to our communities who have been neglected for far too long by this President and his Republican allies in this Congress.

This country, this economy, is in trouble. That is no secret to anyone here. Read the newspapers, turn on the news, it is there. We need to do something. What we need to do is not just bail out Wall Street, we need to help people on Main Street. People are tired. They are sick and tired of the rhetoric, the expressions of sympathy and the speeches by politicians who say ``I get it.'' ``I know things are bad in your community, I feel your pain.'' What they want us to do is to take action, to actually vote on something that means something in their lives.

This economic stimulus package invests in highway infrastructure. It invests to help rebuild our crumbling schools. It invests in clean water projects and in transit and Amtrak. It invests in public housing. It invests in energy development to help create green-collar jobs to get this economy moving in the right direction. It extends unemployment benefits. The gentleman from Michigan talked about the plight of so many workers who, because of this lousy economy, have lost their jobs and have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We are all talking about bailing out Wall Street, but we can't extend unemployment benefits to these workers? I mean, shame on us if you can't vote for that.

Medicaid assistance is in this bill.

Food assistance is in this bill. There is not a community in the United States of America, I am sad to say, that is hunger free. Go to any grocery store in your district and people will complain about the high cost of food. There are people in poverty and there are people who are working families who cannot afford their groceries. They need help. That is what this bill is all about.

So for the life of me, with all that is going on in this country, with all that is happening to this economy, for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would vote against this stimulus package.

This is a good bill. Chairman Obey deserves great credit for putting this together the way he did. It is not perfect. It doesn't include everything, but it is help. It is real help to real people, to everyday people, to working people, to people who have lost their jobs. This is absolutely necessary that we pass it. And we need to work with the President to make this part of the package.

The material previously referred by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1507 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7110) making

supplemental appropriations for job creation and

preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and

energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2009, 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,

and any amendment thereto, 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; (2) the amendment

relating to the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools

and Community Self-Determination Act printed in section 3 of

this resolution, if offered by Representative Walden of

Oregon or his designee, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as

read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally

divided and controlled by the proponent, and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7110 pursuant to this

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

At the end of the bill add the following new section:

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this morning, our Democrat colleagues spoke about the need to ``pay as you go'' as that relates to government spending. They insisted that if we are going to extend existing tax relief to protect Americans from big tax increases, that those tax extenders must be paid for. So that is, to put it another way, to have tax relief, they insist on having massive tax increases. This is the reason that the House Democrats are staying away from passing a bipartisan compromise tax relief bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 93-2 and which President Bush said he would sign into law.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again; these are tax extenders, meaning that tax relief currently exists for the people I'm going to mention here, and without action, taxes will go up; like tuition deduction for students. That means that tuition will go up for students trying to improve themselves. State and local sales tax deductions for States that don't have an income tax. There are seven States; my State of Washington, Florida, Texas, and others, are involved in that. There is a research and development credit to enhance and help businesses innovate to help the economy move. That would go away also. And also, for our teachers that are teaching our school children, they get an expense deduction when they have to go out and buy other materials in order to teach the students that they are teaching.

Also just another example, there are many more examples, Mr. Speaker, is more standard deduction for real property taxes, when they are feeling the crunch right now, that should stay. These are current tax reduction principles that are in place.

But in order to put them in place, the Democrats would increase taxes in another way. Now that was what they were talking about this morning. It is now 3:45 this afternoon. And the tune of the remarks that they were making as relates to PAYGO has changed, because now they are proposing to increase government spending by billions and billions of dollars.

But it, Mr. Speaker, is not paid for.

So when it comes to lower taxes and preventing tax increases, Democrats insist on raising taxes. But when it comes to government spending, they just spend and spend and spend with no concern on how it's going to be paid for. I just want to kind of get a handle on this. Where is the impassioned opposition to deficit spending that came from those that opposed the tax extenders from those within the Democrat Party? The Democrat pay-as-you-go promise has been revealed unfortunately just today as nothing more than something that is hollow and meaningless. And it is really nothing, if you look at the examples, but an excuse to raise taxes.

Democrat leaders claim that this economic stimulus bill, this is a job creation bill, yet nothing could be better for our economy in creating jobs than ensuring the extension of the tax relief that I was talking about in just those small examples. But it is the House Democrats who are refusing to allow the House to vote on a bipartisan tax bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 93-2.

Tax increases would hurt our economy and cost jobs. History is full of examples like that. Yet House Democrats won't even let this House, the people's House, have a vote on a Senate bill that is focused on lowering taxes and not raising them. So House Democrats are the only ones that are standing in the way of tax relief and tax fairness from becoming law. And again, Mr. Speaker, this is existing tax law.

Just this morning, I spoke with the junior Democrat Senator from Washington State, my State, Maria Cantwell, who, by the way, is a member of the Senate Finance Committee. And she helped put this tax relief package together in the Senate. She called me because of her deep concern that the House's action or refusing to act might put this bill in jeopardy. I fully agree with her. And I told her that I am committed in a bipartisan way of supporting her work in voting on the Senate bill, and I said that yesterday, if of course the House Democrats would quit blocking the vote.

So here we are. Rather than voting on the Senate tax relief bill to help our economy, the House chooses to consider this cobbled-together appropriations bill. Now I have talked about this before. And it's probably well known. But the House Appropriations Committee unfortunately has failed to pass into law even one of the 12 annual appropriation bills to fund this government despite the fact that the fiscal year ends in only 4 days. That committee has failed to do its job of passing these bills unfortunately. I might say, and this is also well known, in the middle of a committee markup last summer, House Democrats just gaveled the meeting to a close, and they got up and walked out.

So now the House is considering this appropriation bill that was first unveiled to us around 9:30 this morning. And of course it was revealed without any consultation from House Republicans. So it would have to have been written in total secret if that is the case. And with this rule that we are considering, the House Democrats are now closing down any Member from offering any amendment to improve, to add, or even to subtract if one would desire, or to offer their own ideas on this spending bill.

It is a closed rule. And it has set another record in this Congress for having closed rules. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs because the Senate has defeated even considering a stimulus package in that body. So this bill isn't going to go anywhere. And frankly I think we all know that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address another issue that we have had a great deal of discussion on in the past 2 days, and that is the issue of the Secure Rural Schools Act. This program affects hundreds of rural counties and thousands of school districts across the country. And these school districts and counties are running out of money. As a result, they are laying off teachers and closing lunchrooms. And frankly they are in deep pain. But this bill does nothing to help them. We were told this week by House Democrats that Rural Schools was left out of the tax bill because it's not paid for. But now they bring an unpaid-for appropriation bill to the floor and they left out Rural Schools in this bill.

House Democrats say Rural Schools isn't a tax bill because it's not a tax issue. I guess I can concede that. Then when we have an appropriations and spending bill, why then would you leave out Rural Schools because clearly it's a spending bill?

Mr. Speaker, I think this House needs to stop with the excuses, to stop wasting time, and stop paying lip service to these rural communities and the thousands of kids that attend schools in these communities.

In the Senate tax bill there is a provision to extend the Rural Schools Act for 4 years, 4 years, to help them. But the House apparently won't let us even vote on that proposition. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop standing in the way. Let's get on with this business as this Congress winds down.

And with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who probably knows more about the Secure Rural Schools Act than anybody in this country, and it is probably because his district is the second most impacted of any district in the country.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Sometimes getting between the dog and a fire hydrant has its problems right now, and let me kind of sort this out. Let me try to sort this out.

The question here, the question here is on a suspension bill. Now, there has been several times this year where there have been suspension bills that have not gotten the two-thirds votes, because it takes two- thirds, it's suspension bills, it's not open to amendment.

After the bill, therefore, has been defeated, the bill has gone back to the Rules Committee for a rule to be brought to the floor. The point the gentleman from Oregon was simply saying was that could have happened on that bill aforementioned earlier this year, but it has not gone back to the Rules Committee, point number one.

Point number two, and this is very, very important on this particular bill: if we had gone through the normal order of open, open amendment process on appropriation bills, which has historically been the case, then I suspect that my friend from Oregon--

I yield myself one additional minute.

I suspect my friend from Oregon or others would have had an amendment to put the Secure Rural Schools bill in this bill and offset it with the green initiative that was mentioned that's also on schools. But we haven't had the opportunity to even do that because of this process.

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, and I wasn't suggesting that. As a matter of fact, I made the argument in the Rules Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee.

I made the argument in the Rules Committee that we could waive the rules, which, of course, would have made it in order. It would have made it in order.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a former member of the Rules Committee, and a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts that I am the last speaker on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I am really excited about what I am going to say because I think we are going to get a chance, finally, to vote up or down on Rural Schools. I say that because I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can simply amend the rule to allow the text of the Secure Rural Schools Act to be debated and voted on.

Now why am I excited? I am excited because we heard that we couldn't do it because of PAYGO. We heard another speaker, my friend from Oregon, say because of germaneness.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is germane. That is not an argument. And we have 90 Democrat cosponsors of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment

and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat one more time. There are 90 Democrats who are cosponsors of Rural Schools. The PAYGO issue is not an issue anymore because this one here doesn't comply with PAYGO, at least in the spirit. Germaneness is not an issue because that was an issue on a tax bill. So the germaneness issue is gone. I don't know what other thing could stand in the way of defeating the previous question so we can amend this rule to have an opportunity to debate and vote this issue of Rural Schools.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited. I think as we close this process down, we are finally going to get an opportunity. This is the opportunity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend and colleague from Washington State's Fourth District, who has been a real partner in this effort to try and reauthorize and fully fund not only our Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, but also to support additional funding for payment in lieu of taxes, because, you see, both of those are actual commitments that this Federal Government has had to rural communities across its land for upwards of 100 years.

I know the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who is presenting this closed rule, a record, another time the majority has broken its promise to allow us to have an open rule, an open debate, and for the minority to offer up amendments, he is actually a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the Community Schools Act.

The irony here is that you are creating new programs. You are going to go into the capital markets and compete to borrow money to fund $60 billion in new Federal spending that you don't have an offset for in this bill. So you are going to be in the same capital markets trying to find money that is frozen now to the private sector, trying to maintain the jobs by maintaining their lines of credit. So you are out there competing to borrow money.

Yesterday and today you said you couldn't add the rural schools legislation to the tax bill because, one, it wasn't in your jurisdiction, and two, it wasn't paid for. So you defeated it. And you wouldn't allow us to offer an amendment.

Multiple times we came to this floor and came to the Rules Committee. We sought your grace, your indulgence, your support. This whole notion of bipartisanship would be a wonderful thing if it existed in the Rules Committee, or even here on the floor. We just wanted a chance to vote on an alternative to add. You wouldn't even give us that.

So the last time today, the good gentleman from Washington went back to the Rules Committee, offered up an amendment to go to this bill, since it is an appropriation bill, since it has no offsets, since it is being rushed to floor to deal with the Secure Rural Schools Act, and you rejected even allowing that amendment to be voted on here.

Meanwhile, I pick up this bill and on page 12 you fund a new program, a program for green schools. Now, I am all for conservation and energy efficiency and all those things. But it is $3 billion, $3 billion with a B dollars, for a new program for new grants to do conservation at existing schools, at a time when school teachers in California are being fired, when sheriff's deputies in Josephine and Jackson and Klamath Counties are getting their pink slips, when we won't have the people to do the search and rescue when mountain climbers and families get lost in the Federal forest lands and up on the mountains. All those people are actually losing their jobs.

The libraries in Jackson County closed last year. This is the biggest county in my district. We have got counties in southern Oregon, in the Fourth District, that are contemplating bankruptcy. That means going out of business altogether. There will be no nighttime patrols.

Why do you spend on a new program $3 billion, and not reauthorize and keep the commitment of an existing Federal program? Don't you care about those jobs? Don't you care about those people and those services?

Let me tell you what the Portland Oregonian wrote today. ``Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the U.S. House of Representatives. That is the only explanation for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments from a popular tax bill that just hours after the Senate voted 93-2 for a bill that would have continued the program that sends $185 million a year to 33 Oregon counties. House Democrats first tried to blame the White House,'' as you have heard now, ``but the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement that it would sign the Senate bill with the county payments included, but would not sign the bill the House Democrats favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal conservatives in denying county payments, but that was unconvincing too.''

They go on to write, ``It is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders who decided to break the Nation's promise to help support rural counties who host vast areas of Federal timberland.''

It is the Democrat leadership. Not the President, not some Wall Street

bailout. It is the Democratic leadership in this House who have told us they will help us, and then every vehicle that comes along, the door is slammed just as we reach for the handle, and it drives off, speeds off to somewhere else and runs over our feet.

That is what has happened here. You can talk all you want about a bailout of Wall Street. I don't favor a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, but I do support my local communities. Further, I do believe this government would have more credibility in this Congress, higher than a 9 percent approval rating, if it simply kept its word. If you kept your word that the rules would be open and we would be allowed to have alternatives brought to this floor, then your talk about bipartisanship might hold some validity.

Why won't you allow us to have this amendment on the floor? I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, why won't you allow us to at least have an amendment on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would explain to you why. Why would you refuse not to bring that back under a rule? Why?

I will get to that. I will reclaim my time. You refused to bring it under a rule to the House because you wanted no alternative by the minority to be considered. You brought it under suspension.

And under the suspension of the rules, you denied the minority the opportunity to offer an alternative. As you could on many other bills and have, you could have brought H.R. 3058 back yesterday, the day before, any day since it went down. You had 218 votes on the House floor and you could pass it.

I voted against it because it violates contracts. It was a placeholder. And you did not keep your word coming out of the Resources Committee that it would include payment in lieu of taxes when it came to the floor and it would have a different pay-for. That was another broken commitment.

So bring it to the floor. Bring it tomorrow. You are on the Rules Committee, you could do that, and you refuse. So stop the rhetoric, and let's get to the facts.

[From the Oregonian, Sept. 25, 2008]

For House Democratic Leaders, Rural Counties Are Not a Priority

Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the

U.S. House of Representatives. That's the only explanation

for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments

from a popular tax bill just hours after the Senate voted 93-

2 for a bill that would have continued the program that sends

$185 million a year into 33 Oregon counties.

We don't blame Oregon's congressional delegation. By all

accounts, Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, both

Democrats, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., argued strongly for

inclusion of funding for county payments. This was not a

matter of their will--it was a matter of the inability of

Oregon Democrats to persuade their own party leaders to

support the aid to counties.

House Democrats first tried to blame the White House, but

the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement

that it would sign the Senate bill, with the county payments

included, but would not sign the bill that House Democrats

favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal

conservatives in denying county payments, but that was

unconvincing, too.

The House Democrats are only the latest leaders in

Washington to turn their back on rural counties, The Bush

White House has consistently been lukewarm to hostile on the

payment program. And many of the Republicans who formerly

controlled the Congress did not lift a finger to get county

payments extended.

But this time, it is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic

leaders who decided to break the nation's promise to help

support rural counties who host vast areas of federal

timberland. The Senate, encouraged by Oregon's Ron Wyden and

Gordon Smith, provided strong backing for including the

county payments in the popular tax bill.

Now that the White House has signaled its clear preference

for the Senate version of the tax bill, Senate President

Harry Reid of Nevada and other Senate Democratic leaders

should stand firm and send their bill right back to the

House, with the county payments intact.

While all this goes on, rural Oregon counties are preparing

for wholesale layoffs of their sheriff's deputies and

shutdowns of libraries and other local services. They are

also watching the federal government rush to the financial

aid, it seems, of everyone and anyone but the timber

communities of Oregon and the West.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

The comments made by the gentleman were not accurate when he referred to me.

Mr. Speaker, I move to take down his words.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding.

My comments were never intended for the gentleman. I respect the fact that the gentleman helped us with a 1-year extension. In prior debates on this floor and in the last week and before, I have thanked the gentleman and credited him with that extension.

I also have legislation before the House Resources Committee that would not only extend this program but fully fund it.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I stand as someone who also voted against that infamous bill, happily so, because it did not solve the problem.

One of the things we should be here to do is try to solve the problem, regardless of whether there is some archaic rule that prohibits that solution from taking place, which is exactly what happened on that particular piece of legislation.

There are two numbers that I want to once again reiterate, talking about what Mr. Walden from Oregon was saying, 52 and 4.

This chart, everything that is blue in this chart is the amount of land owned by the Federal Government in each State. The 52 refers to those of us who live west of the Rocky Mountains. Fifty-two percent of everything west of the Rocky Mountains, the Speaker understands this very clearly, is owned by the Federal Government.

You will notice that Montana and California don't have a whole lot, so the rest of us pick up that slack, my State about 80 percent, Nevada about 90 percent.

Those of you who live east of the Rocky Mountains have 4 percent of your land owned and controlled by an absentee landlord known as the Federal Government. It becomes more insidious. If you were to take the 13 States that have the most difficult time in funding their State education programs, the slowest growth in their State education programs, you will find 11 of those 13 States also are in this infamous blue block found in the West.

The East, in all due respect, does not get this situation, they don't face it, and neither does the Democratic Party. The two solutions that we have right now, the best solution would be to give the land back, but the best solutions we have are PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, for county governments and Secure Rural Schools for the school sections of these particular areas.

This program, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, was started when Nixon was president and was flat-lined in payments of 100 grand a year until 1994 when the Republicans took over. Every year since that time, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program has increased its percentage and increased its actual amount of funding, not ever reaching the full authorized amount, which it should have been, but it increased every year until this year.

Secure Rural Schools has found the same source of problems. This year, there has finally been the problem of facing it.

Now, this is essential to us. Schools are running in the West because of this money. Counties are functioning in the West because of this money. A gentleman from New England took recreation in my State, went down kayaking in Black Box, which was a mistake.

Three weeks later the county was able to recover his body. In this tragedy, unfortunately, it also consumed every dime they had set aside that year for their emergency funding processes.

Now, the problem for those in the West, when it comes to our schools and our counties, is we don't have a tax base to get this money back. It is controlled by the Federal Government, which is why PILT and Secure Rural Schools are essential for those of us who are in the West.

That's where the frustration of yesterday comes in. The Senate passed a tax extender, I think it was 93-2 was the vote, which does fund Secure Rural

Schools and PILT. I want that bill over here so I have the opportunity to vote for it and solve the problem.

But we were told it could not be added to the House version, because it did not have an offset. It violated PAYGO.

Now, here is where I become confused, because before us right now we have another bill of all sorts of spending that also does not have offsets and violates PAYGO. Now, that's okay. Those of us in the West are simply saying, this is important to us, and it should be done.

I have another problem in, as you mentioned, the Green Schools Initiative in this bill.

Let me just say, the Green Schools Initiative, because I was on the committee of jurisdiction, that particular program adds construction money to local districts for their schools. The original sponsor of that bill had a program involved in there so they could allocate and find out what school districts needed the assistance.

In the State of Utah, we have an equalization formula. The school districts that either have a high number of students, and, therefore, it is difficult for them to keep up with construction, or had the oddity of all their schools have been built at the same time, therefore, they all fall apart at the same time. There is extra funding from the State that goes to those districts.

In the formula put into the school bill that is now part of this, it does not in any way, shape or form follow any need for school construction. It follows only title I funding, which means in the State of Utah, that has tried to solve the problem with equalization, not one district that has a need for extra school construction money will get one dollar from this program. It goes to the districts that don't need the money, because it's a poorly written, poorly planned bill.

That's why those of us in the West are confused and complaining. This program is essential for us. Those of you living east of the Rocky Mountains don't understand the significance of it.

It could have been included in this bill, and should have been included, and it's not. At least let us vote on the Senate tax extender, which does include it.

I appreciate the consideration that has been done. The issue is solving the problem. This vehicle would solve the problem. The Senate bill would solve the problem.

Unfortunately, the bill to which the gentleman refers only has Secure Rural Schools and did not have PILT even though it was supposed to. Now, we have two problems. We need both of them solved. They both interrelate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This has been quite a week, Mr. Speaker. I would venture to say that this is the most expensive week in the history of the Republic. I don't think anything ever will even come close to this in a number of years. We are talking about a $700 billion bailout. We had CRs that passed. And then we have this that comes to the floor. And if those at home are wondering why there are so few here in attendance, it's probably because they know that this isn't going anywhere. Gratefully, this stimulus package isn't going anywhere.

The Senate already tried to pass something and failed. And so this as a vehicle is not going anywhere. And people around the country should be very grateful for that. We call it a stimulus bill.

I would for 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman. And if somebody can call a $61 billion bill ``slim,'' then let them try. But this one, you can try to call it ``stimulus.'' But stimulus to me, and I didn't like the last stimulus bill we passed here in Congress. And I didn't vote for it. But to call this ``stimulus'' is a real stretch. People at home want to keep more of their own money and not send it to Washington and then to have Washington turn around and say, well, I think that what we really need and what we needed to take your money for in the first place was so we can spend another $500 million in Amtrak for Amtrak projects, or another billion for transit and energy assistance grants, or $3 billion for green school improvements. I don't think anybody sitting at home thinks that that is very stimulating at all. I think they would be much more stimulated if you let them keep the money they have.

Let's be honest here. What this is is a stimulus bill. And it's meant to stimulate the electoral prospects of a couple of hundred Members here. That is what it's about, so Members can come to the floor or send out a press release saying, do you know what I got? I got $1 billion for capital management activities for public housing agencies. It's nothing more than that. That is what this is about.

But I think the danger in this is with a 9 percent approval rating, I think we could go into more historic lows here when people say they aren't really serious, a bill that isn't going anywhere, and they stand up and just say all right, this is if we could spend this money, here is where we would spend it.

We have to keep in mind that earlier this week, we did something that in my 8 years we have never done. Now I wasn't kind to my own party on earmarks. I thought that we let it go out of control. And the new majority came in and put in some decent rules which we have now broken just about every month. And what we did earlier this week was pass a CR where we brought to the floor a bill that had not even gone through the Appropriations Committee. And then we added 1,200, or there were 1,200 earmarks that were put in this bill that were not known to the Members of this body until a day before it came to the floor. Now we've done that kind of thing before. But what we have never done before that we did earlier this week is not give Members of this body the ability to even challenge those 1,200 earmarks.

Nobody could stand and say, why are we spending $1 million for the Presidio Trust or the Presidio Heritage Center in California? What is that about? Who is actually getting the money? Why are we doing this? Nobody had that chance, because we had a secretive process where earmarks were added into the bill with no ability to amend it out.

That is simply not right, and neither is this legislation.

You can keep going. $50 million for the cost of State administrative expenses associated with carrying an increase in food stamp benefits. How is that going to stimulate the economy? Let's be honest. It is meant to stimulate the electoral prospects of a couple of hundred Members here. That is what this legislation is about. Gratefully, it is not going to go anywhere, because the Senate vehicle went down.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am glad he brought up the bridge. I didn't bring up any bridge, but since he has, the last transportation bill that we passed when we were in the majority, that all but eight Members of this body voted for, I believe including the gentleman, had the infamous Bridge to Nowhere and a few others. Included in that were 6,300 earmarks.

If you want to know why we aren't spending on those projects, those bridges that are broken down that really need repair, is we are spending it all on earmarks, and we shouldn't be doing that. But I thank the gentleman for bringing that up.