Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

I want to thank the gentleman, my friend from New York, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this new record-breaking 64th closed rule being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, the most open, honest and ethical Congress in the history, proclaimed by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. But we have this new record-breaking 64th closed rule, so it makes me kind of wonder which conference she was really in reference to.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this underlying legislation also. Just in the last 24 hours, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to the introduction of this bill as the ability to ``snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,'' because it guts a carefully negotiated and bipartisan compromise reached in the Senate. So what the Senate has worked very closely and clearly on and passed the bill, this Speaker decided we are not going to do it that way. In the waning days of this session, we are not going to play ball with our colleagues in the Senate. So what it does is it leaves many of the deal's most important provisions in limbo, rather than addressing them responsibly today.

Two evenings ago, the Senate passed a comprehensive tax extenders package by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 92-3. This legislation included an $18 billion fully offset energy tax policy proposal, as well as a partially offset tax relief package, including an AMT patch to prevent middle class families from being hit with an unprecedented and unintended tax bill, along with important extensions of current tax policy, disaster-related tax provisions for the victims of the Midwest floods and Hurricane Ike, and for mental health parity legislation.

Understanding the delicate balance in that Chamber, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid 2 days ago begged Speaker Pelosi not to send the Senate back a different bill, because it won't pass, and that if the House messes, and I quote, ``messes with the package, it will die.''

Today, news reports have surfaced that he is ``furious'' that House Democrats refuse to accept his bipartisan deal and has retaliated with procedural tactics intended to delay the House from continuing along the House Democrat leadership's preferred course of action.

But rather than heeding these dire warnings from their own leadership, from the Senate leadership of their own party, this House Democrat leadership has decided to chop up this legislation into pieces, making substantive and negative changes to many of them, and to engage in a game of legislative chicken with the Senate, rather than doing the responsible thing and making sure that important measures like, we will just name one, like helping the victims of natural disaster, or, as we have heard, tax relief for middle class families who are at risk of being unintentionally caught by a tax created for the super-wealthy, and fairness for our own Nation's rural schools. Each of these passed. They passed in the Senate bill, and we could do it here today.

I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that this Democrat majority thinks that scoring some sort of political points on the eve of an election is more important than passing these measures. But, unfortunately, this kind of political gamesmanship has come up all too often in what Speaker Pelosi once again, and we reiterate, promised would be the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history.

Included in this House Democrat package are a number of energy tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, which, along with the upcoming October expiration on the ban of drilling for American energy, will go a long way to fulfilling House Republicans' long-term commitment to an all-of-the-above strategy, which helps America achieve energy independence.

Also included in this legislation are important tax provisions for American families trying to make ends meet and for American business trying to create jobs here in America and to be competitive with companies around the world. These include measures like the Research and Development Tax Credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers. This is particularly important for families, schools and businesses in my home State of Texas, and I strongly support their inclusion in this legislation.

I do not support, however, the inclusion of measures to permanently raise taxes on the American economy during an economic crisis to simply extend these current job-creating tax policies. Tax increases are never the way to solve a soft economy.

I ask all of my colleagues to vote with me to defeat this rule so that the House can end this political charade and cover a vote for its vulnerable Members, and take up the better Senate option to provide American families and businesses with tax relief they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like our friends on the Democratic side are talking off talking points of the Republican Party today, cutting taxes, keeping jobs in America, expanding our economy. We can sure use a little bit of this. It goes a long way. We ought to make it permanent, but we shouldn't do it with a tax increase attached to it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman, the gentleman from New York, coming down and being on the floor. I really do respect and appreciate that.

It's my hope that the gentleman from New York also heard, and I am not claiming any insensitivity here at all, but I hope that he has heard the story about these 41 States and these, in particular, communities that had counted on and received this money for a long time.

The actual impact, and I am going to yield in just a minute to the gentleman from Oregon, who can more clearly enunciate, but the real impact on 41 States, rural communities, that have forests in their areas, is a real and genuine problem. I had an opportunity this year in August to go out to Oregon and see firsthand.

I had an opportunity firsthand to meet with people who tried to explain to me. They said, Congressman Sessions, please look at what we are asking for and the need.

It is my hope, and I would like to know that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee would be able to hear firsthand.

And so at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the majority leader of the House, for coming down and being on the floor. I would, if I can, not take his words but to take his feelings and understandings in the way I accept this, as well as the gentleman from Oregon, that the majority leader has indicated that he will try before this session is over to address this issue. It is my hope that the majority leader, and so that we don't engage in talking past each other, would not do what happened on July 30 when the gentleman, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee said in a colloquy that he would also work with another Member of the Republican team before the bill came back on an amendment. That never happened.

It is my hope, without calling anyone's bluff around here, to take the gentleman's words that I believe he very sincerely stated, that he would initiate the opportunity to find a place in the budget, I'm sorry, in an appropriation bill, to get passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate because that's what we are talking about. We are talking about a bill today that could have passed because the President would sign it and the Senate would agree to it. So I have taken it that way.

Now, the gentleman from Maryland also indicated that he saw nothing controversial in this bill, but extending future taxes for 1 year, this provision is going to cost employers $1.474 billion. That is a tax increase. That means it makes it more difficult for employers to hire employees. It sounds like the same type of arrangement that some of our other States have done, up to and including the State of Illinois that raised taxes just like this which puts Illinois where they are 48 out of 50 in job creation. It places States in a position and employers in the position where they lay off employees. So there is a controversial piece in this package that I am disappointed is in there as a permanent tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York has hit upon a great idea, which means we can do this today, which means, if the previous question is defeated, we can just add the gentleman, Mr. Walden's amendment right to the bill. We can get it accepted. There's no need to go back to committee. It'll just be accepted as it is.

We've heard lots of people from the majority, including the majority leader, the gentleman from New York, who does care about schools. He cares about education. But today we can resolve this.

You see, what happened is I was just upstairs, Mr. Speaker, at the Rules Committee, and we lost 9-4 on a party-line vote. We tried the process. Republicans respectfully came and tried. Evidently we're making progress today. That makes me happy.

So the gentleman can, with respect, whatever his words may be, will have a chance today. We're not going to send anything back to the committee. We'll just add the amendment to the bill once the previous question is defeated.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentleman. It's my understanding that this was a conference report.

Well, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, you know, we could sit here and ping-pong back between you and me too. I'm trying to say that the gentleman, Mr. Walden, has respectfully brought the issue for over 2 years.

We were upstairs yesterday in the Rules Committee. The gentleman from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, politely asked. He served on the committee 12 years. I've only served on it 10 years. We politely asked if we could get it in. And now we're down being nice to each other on the floor.

All I'm suggesting to you is we can go through our own parliamentary procedure properly. We can get it included in and then we know that all of our words did matter.

But without that, without that, the gentleman from Oregon is correct. Otherwise, then it is only the Democrat leadership, the Speaker and the Rules Committee who will be responsible for it not making it. The committee had that opportunity yesterday. We're going to give every single Member of this body the opportunity in just a few minutes. I'm hopeful that people take us up on it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

I'm going to offer and place forward this amendment to H. Res. 1501. It will allow this body to be able to vote, when we defeat the previous question, to add in the amendment directly to the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

We will reserve our time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the bill that we're debating now and that was passed by the Rules Committee is not the package that is on the floor now, that there was a change that was made upwards of $100 million, and that the Rules Committee, in fact, met--and in my opinion should not have--and we passed a bill that's not on the floor.

And I don't know--I'm looking for some clarification on this. I'm saying that right now on the floor. This is not the same bill that is presently on the floor that we passed in the Rules Committee.

And I'm asking for the Speaker to rule this bill out of order or to tell me what we believe is the correct thing to do because we think that there's been a huge mistake.

I would say I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what version of the bill do we presently have on the floor, and was it the same that was passed by the Rules Committee this morning?

Then I would ask the gentleman from the Rules Committee, and I would say directly to the gentleman, we do not believe that the bill that is presently on the floor today was exactly the same bill that was considered and passed in the Rules Committee and we are asking for clarification. We believe there is at least a $100 million difference.

So you believe it is exactly the same bill that we passed in the Rules Committee?

I was looking for a direct answer from the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we've made our point today that we're going to ask that the gentleman, once the previous question is defeated, the gentleman from Oregon will have a chance to not send the bill back to committee; just to accept the amendment. And we have made our case on the floor today. We asked for and received clarification about the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

I would yield.

I would continue to yield to the gentleman.

Continuing my reservation, I would say to the gentleman that we're not in any hurry over here in doing it right. The Republican Party is not in a rush, and we would wish for us to do very deliberately that which needs to be done.

I would yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1501 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1501 provides for consideration of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule because American families and small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but also help to bring the country into a new future of alternative energy not dependent on foreign energy and foreign fuel.

Since being elected to Congress, I have voted along with this body to cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses on at least 14 occasions. In doing so, this Congress has upheld its pledge to the American people. And I have kept my promise I made to my constituents to provide much-needed tax relief and incentive for economic growth.

I know that there are many families and businesses in my district that are struggling in the current economic crisis. With talk of a $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street, we cannot, in good conscience, fail to take action to help so many families facing the ever-escalating costs of gasoline and home heating oil into this winter. This legislation we will consider provides tax relief and incentives to those who need them most at a fraction of the cost for bailing out the financial industry.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has shown a strong commitment to the pay- as-you-go rule adopted last January. I applaud my Blue Dog Coalition colleagues for their outspoken leadership on PAYGO. When I explain to folks back home what PAYGO is, they always ask the same question. I ask, you have to balance the books each month, right? Why shouldn't the government do the same? And they all get it. My constituents get it. And the American people get it. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are still some Members of Congress who are steadfastly against the idea of being fiscally responsible in balancing the Federal books in the same way our constituents balance their checkbooks. But it appears that even our colleagues in the Senate are beginning to come around. The legislation we will consider later today is proof that you can provide tax relief in a fiscally responsible way.

The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and strengthen our economy. During these tight economic times, it is also absolutely critical that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term development for tomorrow, including jobs in the alternative energy sector like wind and biomass that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and bring the price of gasoline and heating oil to levels that families and businesses can afford.

I am a realist. I understand that we can't bring back the millions of manufacturing jobs, including thousands in my own congressional district, which have been moved overseas. However, we can look to the future, a future of our Nation's economy that is green, and re-create jobs that we once lost. It is absolutely essential that we leverage every possible option, whether it is through tax credits, investment through research and development, or education to advance alternative and renewable energy development.

Mr. Speaker, tax credits for alternative energy production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create good-paying, highly skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced overseas, the type of jump- start, Mr. Speaker, which is already happening in my upstate New York district with the creation of new green collar jobs. In the last 2 years, I have spoken numerous times throughout the debate over extending these renewable energy tax credits about the new businesses in my district that are utilizing the national investment in alternative energy to create good-paying jobs in upstate New York. Those businesses are to be commended. That is why I'm proud to support the approximately $15 billion in long-term, clean renewable energy tax incentives and investments included in this legislation which we will vote for later today.

I hope that by doing so, it will encourage other companies to follow suit, both in my region and across the Nation.

The underlying legislation extends and modifies critical tax credits for production of electricity from renewable sources, ranging from wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed loop and open loop biomass. Specifically, the legislation includes extension of clean, renewable energy bonds, efficient commercial building tax incentives, investment tax credits for solar and fuel cell systems, tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes, tax credits for production of efficient home appliances, and tax incentives for consumer purchase of energy efficient products.

Most of these incentives either expired at the end of the last year or are set to expire at the end of this year. It is vitally important to sustaining the development of clean energy technology industries, which will lead to the creation of new jobs, that these tax credit incentives are extended.

The legislation also includes an extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit that allows companies to claim credit for a portion of their R&D expenditures. Extending the R&D credit is vital to ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of innovation that keeps our domestic companies competitive. This credit is of particular interest in the area of New York that I represent, because its extension will further the expansion of microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are beginning to blossom in upstate New York.

American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuing to adequately plan for their long-term research projects. I support this 2-year retroactive extension to provide that continuing extension, and I will continue to work for a much-needed permanent extension that would eliminate concerns over expirations or lapses.

The legislation also extends and expands and creates important tax credits for individuals.

Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider later today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to the middle class, spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations and reduce greenhouse gas. We can do all of this in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my friend says, Democrats are not trying to make any political points here. In fact, it is just the contrary. We are trying to get something done here.

I certainly understand that Senator Reid has some considerations that he has to make in the Senate, but we have some considerations here in the House, and one of them is something that is very important to me, and that is paying for these provisions that we do, something important to the Blue Dog Coalition here and something important to Congress. We need to pay for it, and that is what this bill is doing. It is paying for it, and it is very important.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Kind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no further speakers.

I reserve my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

As I understand it, the bill that is on the floor today is the very same bill that was before the Rules Committee earlier today.

As I understand it, it is the same bill that we saw in the Rules Committee. That's right.

Mr. Speaker, supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider later today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, and creates tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, reduce greenhouse gases, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way. That is to say, we can do it without putting the price tag on our children and our grandchildren. We can pay for it today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, under the rules, I withdraw House Resolution 1501.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this rule and strong support of this bill.

I want to say to my friend, I am mindful of the issue he raises. I think that ought to be addressed and I certainly will look forward to working with him and others in addressing this as we move along; and before, hopefully, we leave here because he makes a good point.

I support this bill for two reasons. First, because it provides essential tax relief to American families and businesses. And secondly, just as importantly, because it is paid for.

The tax credits extended by this bill, some of the most necessary, are those that support renewable energy and energy efficiency. Business and political leaders agree. This summer, 51 State governors sent us a letter which read in part: ``Extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation will slow the growth of future energy needs, minimize ratepayers' costs, and lessen potential environmental impacts.''

New energy technologies may not end the pain of $4 a gallon gas in the short term, but those technologies which this bill helps to support are the only long-term solutions to our energy crunch. In the meantime, alternative energy tax credits will create tens of thousands of American jobs. We must pass this legislation.

Now, I was proud of the fact that the House passed a bill expanding domestic production of oil just this month. But a country that controls less than 3 percent of the world's oil supply, while using more than a quarter, cannot drill its way out of the fundamental problem. Boone Pickens has made that very clear to all of us.

That is why I am glad to see the House consider farsighted legislation like this. But I don't just support the goals of this bill, I support it because its tax credits are not financed by even more debt. We are going to incur a lot of debt, we are going to incur a lot of debt in this week. We did so yesterday. Almost all of the Members of this House voted to so-called fix the alternative minimum tax. I voted against that. I voted against it because it wasn't paid for.

The means used to pay for this legislation are not controversial. They include a provision to close a loophole that allows hedge fund managers and other high-income corporate executives to defer taxes through offshore tax havens. What does that mean, the rest of us pay more.

A large majority of the business community agrees that we should close that loophole. So do majorities in the House and Senate. Only a Republican minority in the Senate, frankly, is putting high-income tax loopholes above fiscal sanity. They are insisting, instead, that we pay for this bill with borrowed money.

I understand that bind, the bind that presents for principled Senate Democrats. But fiscal responsibility is not something we can compromise on, especially now. We have a crisis. This economy is in the worse shape it has been in half a century, notwithstanding the protestations that were made in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 about how good this economy was, and the fact that the tax and economic policies being pursued by this administration were making our economy grow and expand and create jobs. The fact of the matter is, we have lost jobs this year; 500,000 jobs. Bill Clinton in the same period of time in his administration created 1.4 million new jobs. That is a net turnaround of 2 million jobs.

But fiscal responsibility is not something that we can compromise on, especially now. In crisis, we need to act. But in time of financial crisis brought on, in part, by massive fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory neglect, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we value this extenders bill, it is simply wrong to pay for it by once more whipping out the national credit card. We don't need to do that. We have not done it, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bill. They support the policies. All we are asking is to pay for it, and the pay-fors in this bill are not controversial. That is the kind of thinking that swung the Clinton surplus deep into record debt under President Bush and led to more foreign borrowing by this administration than by the first 42 administrations combined. In other words, we have had to borrow more money from foreign governments during the last 90 months than we borrowed in the previous 219 years.

We helped to create a crisis of confidence in our financial system which we are being asked to pay for, dearly. Charging our children and grandchildren for our priorities is deeply unwise, and I would suggest immoral.

This year, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican, was one of the few Republicans to bravely break with his party and insist that this bill be paid for. He said, and I call my Republican colleagues' attention to what Bob Corker had to say: ``It is the first time in a

long time I thought we had something that was intellectually honest,'' and that is paying for this bill. ``And I have to tell you, my big fear is our tremendous lack of fiscal discipline.'' So said Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee, when calling upon his body to pay for this bill.

That fear of more debt is entirely reasonable. I am glad more and more Members of Congress are coming to share it.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they love our country, they want to see our fiscal ship of state righted, realizing we are in a crisis time, and they have an opportunity to act in a fiscally responsible way today. Take that opportunity. Show America that we have the courage to pay for what we buy while at the same time giving tax relief to people who need it, to businesses who will expand and create jobs, and to an energy independence that is so critical for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask unanimous consent that that vote be vacated?

I ask unanimous consent that the vote that we just took be vacated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There was a mistake made in the notice that was given to the minority. That was not anybody's intention; it was a mistake. We want to give another opportunity to consider the rule with the minority having the proper information in front of them when we do so.

I have discussed this with the minority, and I think this is the appropriate procedure for us to fairly follow. And I've discussed it with your leadership.

I think it was discussed. There was a figure that was incorrectly given in the bill that you had in your possession that was different from the bill that was on the desk.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Frankly, I have not seen it, and I don't know. What I do know is that Mr. Arcuri informed me, and obviously has asked us--Mr. Arcuri feels very badly that a different version than was at the desk was given to the minority inadvertently; and as a result, the minority did not have the document in front of it. It was at the desk, but nobody's gone up to the desk to compare the items. And as a result, we think, in fairness, we ought to have that document in front of you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Now, frankly, I don't want to get into moving rapidly. The administration, of

course, came here Thursday and wanted us to pass $700 billion, and they want us to pass this very soon. So ``rapidly'' sometimes is in the eye of the beholder.

The point is, you're correct; there was a discrepancy. We think that was not fair. It was not intentional. But Mr. Arcuri, who gave the information to the minority and the information that was on the Web site, was not correct. We think, under those circumstances, in fairness to all, that we ought to redo this, and that's what we intend to do. And we discussed it with your leadership and we all agreed that that was the right thing to do.

I told the gentleman from Washington that's exactly what I'm trying to do, which is why I thought it best to obviate the vote so we can do exactly what you've suggested. I've discussed it with your leadership and they've agreed. I hope we can do that, and I hope there's not an objection.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both the vote on the adoption of the rule and the vote on the previous question be vacated.

I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the broad bill and speak as to how important that bill is. I think it is vitally important to extend these tax extenders. Frankly, I think these tax extenders that we have here ought to be made permanent, but maybe we will have a debate on that at a future time.

It is especially important to my State of Washington, because it allows for the sales tax deduction of State sales tax from my Federal income tax obligation, because Washington State, along with six or seven other states, doesn't have an income tax, and this is simply a fairness issue.

So this is a very important bill, very broadly, but it is not a complete bill. This bill in its current form will not pass the Senate and therefore will not become law.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? The reason why is because it leaves out a very, very important provision, a provision that the Senate put in there, and I don't always like to congratulate the Senate, but in this case, in their wisdom, to take care of a problem that faces rural America, especially, and especially rural America that has a lot of Federal lands, and that is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It extends it for 4 years.

What is this act? This act is simply an act to recognize that Federal policies in the past, i.e. policies that don't allow some communities to log their Federal lands and get the revenue from that, puts a big hurt on local government and school districts. The Secure Rural Schools Act is designed to mitigate that because of Federal policy.

Now, what I can't understand about this is this has broad bipartisan support. It has had support a number of times. And, here we are, winding our way down in this Congress, and you would think that the broad bipartisanship of this would recognize that the Senate passed this bill 93-2 and that they say I think this has a pretty good chance of becoming law. But, no, earlier this morning I offered an amendment to the rule to allow me to simply bring up the opportunity to vote up or down on this issue, and it was defeated on a partisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is very, very important. I have in front of me here, Mr. Speaker, and I will include it for the Record, a letter from the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition.

The essence of this--and it is dated today--a letter to Speaker Pelosi to include this provision in the Tax Extenders Act.

Well, it is in the act. It is in the act that passed the Senate.

Now maybe there are politics being played with this. I know that we are in a political arena here, sometimes that happens, but I think the Speaker of the House, who comes from urban San Francisco, doesn't understand rural America.

I would suggest that probably the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who comes from urban New York City, doesn't understand the needs of rural America. I can only think that's the reason it wasn't included in something that has broad bipartisan support.

I think that we should defeat this rule, and I think what we need to do at the end of the day is to pass the Senate bill, because we know the President will sign it. He has sent a letter to every Member of the House saying that he would sign that bill.

I don't like to concede everything to the Senate. There are a lot of times I disagree with what they are saying.

But I think we need to take into account what the majority leader has said. I think we need to take into account what was said by the senior Senator from Oregon. By the way, Oregon is one of these States that are heavily hit, impacted by the lack of rural school language in this bill.

Senator Wyden said, after passage of the Senate bill, and I quote, ``Now it's up to the House and the President to do the right thing, or thousands of critical employees in hundreds of communities across Oregon could face a very difficult winter.''

Well, I have got to tell you, the President is on board. He doesn't have to say the President would do the right thing, the President said he would sign this bill. It's up to the House.

The way to accomplish that is to defeat this rule so we can take up the Senate bill and concur with them, send it to the President's desk, and it will become law.

National Forest Counties and

Schools Coalition,

Red Bluff, CA, September 25, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are writing this letter to ask that

you please include four years of funding for Secure Rural

Schools and PILT in the final version of the Tax Extenders

Act of 2008. As you are aware this legislation is crucial to

school children and teachers across the nation, and the

continuation of vital county services. The Administration

``supports prompt passage'' of H.R. 6049, and has not

threatened to veto that legislation if it includes funding

for Secure Rural Schools and PILT.

We would very much appreciate your leadership on this

issue. You have an opportunity to ensure that school children

are afforded the opportunity for a quality education. We look

forward to working with you, and other members of Congress,

to include this funding package in the final legislation.

Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Douglas,

Executive Director.

I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to make, and I know there are Members on your side that have advocated paying for things.

Yesterday we had two tax bills on the floor, the AMT fix, that didn't have a pay-for, and the disaster relief which didn't have a pay-for. So we have made exceptions to that in the past.

This issue has been in front of us for some time. It is absolutely critical to these communities involved.

Now I would suggest, in fact, when Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon was upstairs in the Rules Committee this morning in your stead, he suggested that rural schools probably shouldn't be on this bill, particular bill, because it's a tax bill.

I will concede that that may be a logical course of action. But if that is the case, it seemed to me there should have been another vehicle, like an appropriation bill in the CR, and it wasn't on the CR. We are running out of time, is what I am just suggesting to my friend.

Let me ask my friend, if this bill does not pass, is there any likelihood whatsoever of the Senate bill that passed 93-2 being enacted into law?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Far be it from me to defend the actions of the other body. I am a Member of this House and I am proud to be a Member of this House.

But we have to recognize this is a bicameral process. Sometimes we have to recognize, as they have to recognize on some legislation that we pass, where we don't move, and that's happened in the past.

This one is a 93-2. That is overwhelming, and it includes language, as I mentioned on Secure Rural Schools, that is very, very important.

So I hope that the Senate bill passes. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, as I mentioned, and the underlying bill so we can take that up, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the length of time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is really very, very important because we are at the last days of this session and we know there is a rush to try to get things done. And I understand that it was a bookkeeping--it wasn't intentional. I understand all of that, we've been through this before. But the significance of this, and it needs to be understood by this body as we are being asked in the future to make some big decisions, the difference in this little error was $100 million. It wasn't small potatoes, so to speak. And I just want to say that the right thing to do--and I hope this is what's going to happen--is that the Rules Committee goes back upstairs and reports it out correctly so we can have the text. But I think that point needs to be made. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Thank you to my colleague from Texas, and I note the chairman, apparently, has had to leave the floor, but perhaps he will be able to hear this somewhere wherever he is.

It is extraordinarily important to the States that are involved, to the 4,400 school districts that are involved, the 600 rural counties that are involved, this is the opportunity that is being lost. This measure, when it came from the other body, passed by the other body, had in it a 4-year reauthorization bipartisan of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

That funding is used to help school kids go to school in areas where there is a high preponderance of Federal lands, timber lands. That funding is being taken away. It helps pay for search and rescue, fire and police. That funding is being taken away.

You see, I have got counties that up to 70 percent of their land mass is off their tax rolls because it's Federal land. We have 11 national forests in my district alone in the nearly 70,000 square miles of Oregon that I represent.

The mills are closed because of change in policy and litigation. The jobs are lost, the revenues have dried up. Now the Federal Government, in effect, is breaching its nearly century-old commitment, century-old commitment, to share revenues and help.

Now yesterday on this House floor the majority waived twice PAYGO rules on two other tax provisions, waived them. They have waived them before.

If they were going to bring a bill here that has pay-fors in it to pay for the tax extensions, why did they rip out county payments and not, instead, pay for them somehow and put that on the floor? It's a choice they made.

Why didn't they allow us to have at least a vote on the floor on an amendment and let the will of the House be worked, as they promised they would do if they got control of this House, and now seem less inclined to allow?

So there is no opportunity for my side of the aisle, the Republicans, to even offer an amendment, to keep the Federal Government's commitment for the last 100 years to these rural schools and counties and sheriffs' departments, to do the search and rescue, to do the fire work, to do everything they do, educate our kids, among other things. It also denies us the opportunity to reauthorize titles II and III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which brings together in a collaborative process environmental organizations, forestry and community leaders in all the States.

How can we be better stewards of the lands around us? How do we get out and do the work that, A, produces jobs; B, makes our forests healthier and safer and our communities safer?

That funding stream has dried up. There have been massive layoffs in the local governments that I represent. We have counties in Oregon, some of which are contemplating bankruptcy, bankruptcy, dissolve, go away, turn themselves back to the States and the neighboring counties. This is real serious stuff, and it has been going on a long time.

This is the opportunity before us. We asked the leadership in a bipartisan way. Members of both parties sent letters to the leadership saying can you give us another 1-year extension in the CR. They chose not to, and that's their prerogative.

This is the vehicle that's come from the Senate, or at least the vehicle that the Senate passed would have reauthorized and funded county payments for the next 4 years in a phased-out process.

Now some have alleged in the press that it was dropped because the President was going to veto this bill if it was in it. That's not what the statement of administrative policy says, and I don't believe that's what the chairman said or the leadership on the Democrat side of the aisle said.

This isn't because the President said he would veto it, because he didn't say he would veto it. He said he would sign it if the House would take it up. So this could become law. This could become law. This could be passed, this could become law. We could get back

on track in 600 rural counties and 4,400 school districts in 42 States and be the partner we should be.

We do a lot of things in this Congress for this, our Nation's city. That's right, because there is a huge Federal footprint and presence here, so we do a lot of things to help the residents of Washington, DC. I believe the figure is 26 percent of the land mass of Washington, DC is Federal. And the rest is private.

You get out in the west and upwards of half of our States in some cases, and sometimes more, is Federal ground. When there is a fire in the forest, which we have had, again, another record season of fire- fighting costs and loss of life and loss of habitat and forests, it is the local sheriff's department. It is the local community that is affected.

In southern Oregon this year in the Rogue Valley, for nearly a month the air quality was about as bad as you can get because of the fires in northern California choking the air shed. There is so much work we need to do out in our forests.

In the Winema-Fremont National Forest, there is more than 500,000 acres of Federal and private land that is ready to go up in smoke. It is disease-ridden. There is beetle kill. And because of the way that the budget is structured and this Congress' refusal--we did it in the House but the Senate hasn't taken it up, a bill to create a separate fire category for the Forest Service, they have had to take $1 million out of that one forest alone to pay for current fire- fighting costs elsewhere, which means the money is not available to go in and do the thinning and remove the dying trees and open up the stands and deal with the beetle kill. They have had to put all of that, or at least $1 million of it, on hold which just means that the problem gets worse faster. So when it ignites, and it will, folks, you will have half-a-million acres in the northwest, in the Winema-Fremont National Forest, go up in smoke.

Now this legislation, if we can get an amendment, and if you vote down the previous question, I will offer a 4-year extension as the alternative. So you will have a chance to vote. If you are for county payments, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

If that fails, then our motion to recommit will be the full Senate bill that has the 4-year extension with county payments in it.

So this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where you have an opportunity to be for county payments, for your local schools, for the sheriff service, for search and rescue. For all the things, the collaborative approaches to forest management that this legislation in the past has helped provide.

Unless you think that this is a partisan issue, it never was and should never be, because it was enacted in a Republican Congress with a Democrat President, and it has been hailed as a marvelous success on the ground, and it has been a wonderful partnership until it was allowed to expire. Today we need to reauthorize it. Today we need to be given at least the opportunity to vote on it. What is wrong in a democratic institution, the finest on the planet, of offering us at least an opportunity to vote? You have the votes if you want to kill it. You outnumber us on rules more than 2-to-1. There are ways to do this. It doesn't have to be this way.