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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague; I understand that the customary 30 minutes was yielded to my friend from Pasco, Washington. And I would just like to state for the record that I will be managing the rule on this side, and so I would hope very much that my friend from Tampa might consider yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished Rules Committee colleague, my friend from Tampa, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, even though we went through that little bump with my colleague from Pasco temporarily handling it. And I have to say that this is obviously a very solemn, serious and difficult time for our Nation as we are in the midst of facing a financial crisis the likes of which no Member of this House has seen, probably even our oldest Members have not witnessed. Maybe we have a couple of people. Maybe Ralph Hall lived during the Depression. But it is something that most of us clearly have never witnessed before.

People are likening this to the economic challenges that we faced following the Second World War. And we are attempting, as we all know, in a bipartisan way to deal with this issue. Our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, is involved in these bipartisan negotiations so that we will be able to have a package emerge from this institution in a bipartisan way that will be able to stabilize the markets, respect the American taxpayer and ensure the kind of stability when people are seeking to keep their homes, run their small businesses and engage in the normal activities that exist in the United States of America.

And it's with that as a backdrop, Mr. Speaker, that I have to paraphrase the statement of the former running mate of Ross Perot, the late Admiral James Stockdale, who, in the famous oft-quoted Vice Presidential debate in 1992, said: ``Who am I and why am I here?'' I would ask that somewhat rhetorically, Mr. Speaker, because we are here dealing with a very important issue. Of course job creation is priority number one. Making sure that we can stimulate our economy is a very, very important issue. But this is not the way to do it. And 1 hour ago, the United States Senate made that decision by defeating the motion to proceed in the Senate. So this is dead.

The President of the United States put out a statement of administration policy in which he said that this measure would be vetoed if it were to get to the President. And it's not going to. And so that is why I ask, Who are we and why are we here? Because there is absolutely nothing but political posturing taking place.

Mr. Speaker, it is being done in the most outrageous of ways in that we regularly show here something that was touted 2 years ago, but we never hear the majority Members talk about any longer, and that is a document called ``A New Direction for America.'' This document was designed to talk about the very important degree of openness and transparency that would exist if in fact the Democrats were to take control of the United States Congress. And unfortunately with where we are, we have completely eviscerated that entire concept of ``A New Direction for America.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all accustomed to hectic, get-out-of-town weeks. The heaviest lifting typically falls to weeks prior to district work periods, when we're all anxious to return home to hear from our constituents. But even under the circumstances, this week's proceedings are absolutely unprecedented. The emergency negotiations, as I mentioned, on a financial rescue package are very difficult. And they are very challenging. And we want to see it done in an appropriate way. But they have been made all the

more frantic because they're set against a backdrop of a year's worth of unfinished business right here in the House of Representatives.

The Democratic majority has unfortunately shirked virtually every one of its core duties and obligations as legislators. Our most basic and fundamental job is the responsible and efficient spending of the taxpayers' dollars. That is the single most important thing that we do here, is responsibly, with the power of the purse, spending these dollars. This is done through the passage of 12 appropriations bills as we all know.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how many of these 12 bills has the House passed as we began this very difficult week? One. Only one of the 12 appropriations bills was passed. And how many have become law? Zero. Not a one. So we arrived at this last week of session for the fiscal year without enacting a single appropriations bill.

The Democratic leadership had long since abandoned any plan for attempting to make progress on our constitutional power of the purse. Their solution? Write a bill to put off their duties for another 6 months. They can't be bothered to do their jobs now or after the election. They want to wait until the fiscal year is half over before finally getting to work.

So we started this week after what amounts to a 9-month vacation from responsible legislating. The Democratic majority decided to take three of the 12 appropriations bills, one of which never even went through committee, and slap them together. They tacked on $55 billion in extra funding for various causes, extended their fiscal deadline for 6 months and sent it up to the Rules Committee barely an hour before we reported it out.

The entire body of their appropriations work for the entire year was put together in one bill, the bulk of which was delayed by half a year. They were kind enough to give us an hour before meeting on the rule at nearly 11 o'clock at night. It was on the floor the next morning. And voila. They put the entire Federal budget to bed as far as they were concerned.

But that was Tuesday. What did we do yesterday? The Democratic majority's flawed tax extenders bill, and a $100 million mistake. In their rush to pump out bad legislation, the Rules Committee ended up passing out a rule and bringing it to the floor for a bill that no longer existed. Democrats and Republicans were actually voting on two different bills. The discrepancy, as I said, was over $100 million in tax increases.

Now to many in this institution on the other side of the aisle who have this sort of tax-and-spend mentality, $100 million in taxes may seem to be very insignificant. But not to the American people. Not to the American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, and certainly not at times like these. Fortunately this mistake was caught, and we returned to the Rules Committee to fix it. What other mistakes have gone unnoticed? We may never know until it's too late. But this is the very real risk when you jam through a flawed agenda in a frantic and haphazard way.

And this bill is a perfect example of that.

Having punted on appropriations and jamming through the tax extenders bill after two tries, now the Democratic majority is free to turn to everything else they meant to do this year. How do you do a year's worth of work in 1 week? For starters, you don't, Mr. Speaker. You just don't.

There are a host of very critical issues that simply won't be addressed this week, such as our Nation's energy crisis. But you can certainly move things along by shutting down due process entirely. We did their hodgepodge appropriations bill without a single amendment or even a motion to recommit. We did their tax extenders bill without a single amendment either.

Now we are considering a rule to waive the rules to allow the underlying bill to be expedited. Then we will consider a rule to bring up the underlying bill. Again, this is a bill that the President has said he would veto and a bill that is similar to it is not even going to get through the United States Senate. So once again, under a completely closed process, there is no opportunity whatsoever for Members to participate in any kind of real debate.

What is the result of this haphazard way of legislating? First and foremost, there is clearly no deliberation. Now say what you want about this place, but the American people do send us here to think about, to discuss, to ponder and to try and work out a compromise in a bipartisan way as we proceed with what it is that we are trying to do. So no deliberation at all. I mean, there is no means for amendment. There is no means for open debate. Second, as we have just seen again from that tax extenders bill, mistakes are inevitable.

This clearly goes beyond poor policy. And shirking our duties for another 6 months is clearly very, very poor policy. As yesterday's proceedings demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, we are also talking about the sloppy mistakes that are an inevitable result of shoddy work.

The Democrats roundly criticized us for moving our agenda too quickly in the past few Congresses. They were particularly critical of not giving Members or the American people enough time to review legislation so this deliberative process could proceed.

Now on this document which I pointed to when I first stood up here entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' this document, by the way, I would say to our colleagues, is still available on the Speaker's Web site. So if anyone would like to read a copy of ``A New Direction for America,'' I commend it to them.

In this document, they promised this new direction, as I said. And it reads as follows: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration.

``Rules governing floor debate,'' it reads, ``must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how ``2 hours'' equals ``at least 24 hours,'' which is what was promised in this New Direction for America by Speaker Pelosi. It is that kind of math, long on promises, short on results, that got us into our current financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider today's underlying bill, amusingly called a stimulus bill by the Democratic majority, the American people should know it was written through the night and sent to us at 9:43 this morning. Not even Republican appropriators had seen it, so not even members of the Appropriations Committee have seen it.

I just had a chance to look through it, and we have some unbelievable things we have found in this. Members should know the Democratic majority is rushing to cover up 9 months of nothing with a flurry of activity in these waning hours of the 110th Congress. They are resorting to draconian measures and shutting out all meaningful debate in this charade. They are pushing off the real work for another 6 months. And they are producing such shoddy work that a $100 million tax increase is ``a mistake,'' and that kind of thing is appearing here.

Mr. Speaker, this is one sorry week for the House of Representatives. I don't believe that the American people will be fooled.

Now, of course, as my colleague talked about the importance of infrastructure construction, building schools, making sure that we provide relief to those who are truly in need and have suffered from the economic downturn that we all know is there, to do it in the way that is being done is, I think, a very, very sad commentary on this great deliberative institution.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. It is a martial law rule which is very, very unfair. We do need to, at the very least, give our Members an opportunity to have a chance to read this bill.

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

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

I would like to as I do this engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Hood River, Oregon, who has long been a great champion of something known as the Secure Rural Schools Program, something that has enjoyed very strong bipartisan support. In fact, five Democratic members the Rules Committee are cosponsors of legislation designed to address that.

I will say that obviously we know that as we deal with this economic downturn, everyone has acknowledged it, there are many things that do need to be addressed. And we know that FMAP is one of them, dealing with Medicaid reimbursement to our States, infrastructure construction, as I said, working to do what we can to stimulate economic growth.

We happen to believe very strongly that it is also essential for us to do all that we can to stimulate private sector economic growth. Now, I know that that term may be difficult for some in this institution to comprehend, but we do have a $14 trillion, that is with a T, a $14 trillion economy in the United States of America. We are the world's only complete superpower. And we are going through extraordinarily challenging economic times. But we need to remember that our goal with the package that we put together in dealing with this financial crisis will be one that is designed to create stability, security and confidence in our credit markets and in the overall financial system. No doubt about that.

My State of California, the West and other parts of the country are dealing with the fact that the Washington Mutual Bank was just taken over, and I have to say having spoken with top leaders at J.P. Morgan, I am very grateful that all of those deposits are in fact secure with J.P. Morgan's acquisition having taken place there. But we know in other areas there is a lot of uncertainty.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we want to do what we can to put into place policies that will encourage private sector economic growth. Unfortunately, this so-called stimulus package that has been presented to us is one that is focused on public sector economic growth.

Again, many parts of it we support. It is very key for us to have an infrastructure system in this country if we are going to encourage the private sector movement of goods in the country and for people to be able to move around. We know that these are very important items. But there are many, many other things that we need to do to deal with private economic growth.

Now, I talked about the procedural problem that we have and the fact that this New Direction for America has been eviscerated by the actions that we are taking here, and that has been the case for the entire Congress, tragically. But we just now had, as my friend from Hood River said very well, received this at 9:43 this morning, so a number of us are having a chance to look at this.

My friend just pointed to me on page 12, the fact that we have something in this bill known as the 21st Century Green High Performing Public School Facilities for the Department of Education, which would allow for the construction of so-called green schools, putting roughly $3 billion, $3 billion in this, to build schools in the Mariana Islands, Micronesia and other spots. And I know that the package that my friend from Hood River, Oregon, has been championing, working with our Rules Committee colleague Mr. Hastings on for secure rural schools, has a cost of about $3.1 billion over a 4-year period.

So we are just finding these things out in this measure. To me, it is beyond the pale that they would come forward without allowing a single opportunity to work in a bipartisan way.

I congratulate my friend from Tampa for talking about the need for us to work in a bipartisan way. She is absolutely right. I totally concur with that. Unfortunately, this legislation is doing anything but that.

I would like to now yield to my friend from Hood River, Oregon, a great champion of the Secure Rural Schools Program.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to my friend from Tampa if she would like to explain exactly how this is going to be paid for.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks by talking about the fact that we are dealing with a very serious economic downturn and a financial crisis in this country, and very serious attempts are being made to work in a bipartisan way. We have Republican representation. I know Speaker Pelosi and those at the White House are working on this.

Now, to liken this $60 billion package that was just dropped on us, which is designed to dramatically increase public spending, with the effort that Democrats and Republicans alike are pursuing to try and deal with the economic challenges that we face as a country when it comes to the confidence level of markets and people who are losing their homes, is just preposterous.

I would be happy to further yield to my friend from Hood River.

If I could reclaim my time, it was not only this morning, but it was last night. It has been day in, day out in the Rules Committee. We have repeatedly offered an amendment that five Democratic Members of the Rules Committee have cosponsored as legislation that the gentleman has. Yet they have refused vote after vote upstairs in the Rules Committee to allow us to deal with this very important issue of secure rural schools.

I am happy to further yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I would like to thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution.

Here we are dealing with these very, very serious and important challenges that exist all over the country. The gentleman has come forward with Democratic and Republican support for his effort, and it's being denied, once again, under a process that really undermines the deliberative nature of the institution.

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

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend is going to provide her closing statement, I would inquire, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, as I pointed out at the beginning of the debate on this issue, faced with a very serious economic downturn. A crisis of confidence exists in our financial markets. An attempt is being made in a bipartisan way to deal with that at this very moment. We all hope that there can be a resolution that ensures that taxpayers are not going to be unfairly saddled with a responsibility, and that the government is not going to expand its reach any further.

As we look at those bipartisan negotiations going on right now between the two bodies, including the White House, Democrats and Republicans alike, it seems to me that we need to recognize that what we are engaging in here is little more than posturing. Yes, we all acknowledge that there are things in this measure that are very important that we need to address, but this is not the way to do it--in an overnight package that was presented at 9:43 this morning, 46 pages long, rammed through the Rules Committee with a partisan vote, and already terminated in the United States Senate, and with the President of the United States stating that if he were to get this measure, he would, in fact, veto it. So I wonder why it is that we are here.

The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has twice this week, before the Rules Committee, said that the most famous line from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech was, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'' but, he said, the line that got the greatest ovation was, ``We must take action.''

It is very clear that we do need to take action. But action should not be taken in a way that completely undermines the deliberative process.

There were mistakes that were made in the past Congresses, and I will acknowledge that. Some of those mistakes that were made led to the establishment of this document called ``A New Direction for America.''

This ``A New Direction for America'' has just been obliterated. It is absolutely worthless, because it has been thrown out the window, a commitment made that has been ignored.

I want to say that I hope that we can defeat this rule. We are going to try to defeat the previous question. Recognizing that this Nation needs to use more of its natural resources while looking to the future with renewable sources of energy, Republicans are advocating an all-of- above approach. We believe that this legislation will lower the price of gasoline, which is what fuels America's cars today.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow a resolution which will prevent Congress from skipping town until we pass comprehensive legislation that will bring down the high cost of energy for American consumers. My colleagues will have the opportunity to support giving States the opportunity to explore and extract energy resources right off their own coasts, opening America's Arctic energy slope, extending renewal energy incentives, supporting research for alternative clean fuels, and minimizing unnecessary litigation that delays or prevents American energy production.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1503 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 purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will correct that. I will yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and good friend from California, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1503.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1503 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule reported on the legislative day of September 26, 2008 that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a humble first-term Representative who represents hundreds of thousands of hardworking families and seniors who are caught in the center of an economic storm. For them, the economic squeeze did not arise last week or last month, but it has been ongoing for well over a year.

I also rise as the daughter of parents who worked hard all of their lives and saved for retirement and, like millions of Americans, they are watching their savings dwindle and decline. And I rise as a parent, who, along with my husband, is saving for our children's college education.

For students and families across America, the cost of attending college has risen. And as we look out to future years, like other parents, our college savings accounts for our kids feel a little less tangible now, and I fear that college for students may be a little less attainable unless we act in a bipartisan way this week.

Many middle class American families are unable to even save now for retirement or their children's college fund because they've lost a job, or if they do have a job, the raise did not come, or the raise came, and it was not enough to meet the rising cost of living in America today.

So at this time, as our country's leaders join together to develop a rescue plan--which has been dramatically altered from the beginning of the week when it was proposed in a two-and-a-half page proposal to spend $700 billion--we must join together, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way to provide a lifeline to families as well.

Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for everyday Americans. While stabilizing financial markets on the day of the largest bank failure in history is vitally important, correspondingly, stabilizing families and taxpayers is just as important. American families need a little breathing room, and they need a job if they're out of work. So it is our moral imperative, at this moment in history, to examine this modest stimulus proposal, create jobs back home through an infusion of cash for infrastructure projects, for unemployment benefits, and for health care dollars for Americans who have no other place to turn.

This stimulus package will jump-start America's economy. And here's our action plan:

First; jobs, jobs, jobs through infrastructure investments. We're talking about highways, transit capital grants, Amtrak, airport improvements. Do you know how many thousands of construction jobs have been let go and we have lost across America? This will put Americans back to work.

We're also going to provide resources to our local communities to help them with clean water projects, sewer projects, the Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and tributaries, and also vital--and I speak as a parent of two young daughters--school construction dollars.

We also provide, as part of our action plan, energy development dollars for energy efficiency and renewable energy, electricity delivery, and reliability programs. That is the major portion of our economic stimulus proposal for American families.

We will also provide unemployment compensation and job training dollars, which seems oh so modest because it totals merely $6 billion. It's modest in the face of a proposal this week to spend $700 billion, unfettered, at the beginning of the week.

We will also respond to the least among us, Medicaid dollars. Now, that's a term that gets thrown around a lot, but I want the American people to understand that when we talk Medicaid--and you will hear the discussion here today will be FMAP, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage in Medicaid. What Medicaid is is largely health care dollars for children from poor families. Now, many middle class families are now slipping into that lower socioeconomic level today. Their parents don't have health insurance. If they're working, they're working maybe at a small business or part-time, and there is no other place to turn during this dire economic downturn.

The least we can do, when we're discussing a bailout for Wall Street and for banks and financial markets, is to also consider, at the same time, a very modest proposal of $60 billion for America's families, for jobs, for health care for kids, seniors who have no other place to turn, and unemployment compensation.

First, on jobs. You know, today's wages are stagnant; they're at the most stagnant point that they have been since World War II. Medium household income was .6 percent lower in 2007 than it was at the end of the 1990s. And even more troubling are the rising inequities of incomes among families in different communities. Data released from the Joint Economic Committee reports that over the past decade, median incomes for the richest households have risen while middle and low-income families have seen their income fall.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.4 million Americans--a 6.1 percent increase--in August, the highest it has been since 2003. This continues the unfortunate job loss for the

eighth consecutive month, with over 600,000 American jobs lost this year.

Unemployment benefits under our action plan will be extended for merely another 7 weeks, a very modest proposal. It extended in every State an additional 13 weeks, and an additional 13 weeks in States with unemployment rates higher than 6 percent, like my home State of Florida.

Florida families have been especially hard hit by the economic downturn. In the past year, Florida has lost over 100,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate continues to rise. The housing crisis has dragged down job opportunities in construction and other related fields, and we keep seeing continued joblessness and layoffs. At the same time, in Florida we have seen a 21 percent increase in families receiving food stamps over the past year, which is one of the highest increases in the Nation.

But fortunately, under this stimulus plan, we're going to immediately take action to fund new jobs through infrastructure projects. See, investing in infrastructure can rapidly move people from unemployment rolls to payrolls. Just this week, we heard our Republican Governor, Charlie Christ, sent his DOT secretary to the Hill to meet with the bipartisan Florida delegation. She advised that there are projects ready to go, have been permitted, are ready to go. So this action plan will take those projects off the shelf and put people to work building roads, building bridges, sewer projects all across America.

For hundreds of thousands of Floridians who are unemployed, and other Americans, they're still looking for work, and this package will help them find a job. It's that simple.

On health care, on the Medicaid portion which remember largely goes to health care services for children so they can get to the doctors' office, seniors in nursing homes and pregnant women, this stimulus package will improve and bolster that health care safety net at this critical time in our Nation's history. Unlike the hope of trickle-down, this action plan and economic stimulus project is a rapid and effective way to support those hardworking families.

During the last economic downturn, the Congress approved $10 billion to temporarily enhance the health care safety net of Medicaid. This similar increase today will again provide vital, basic health services to families that need it most as quickly as possible. And at the same time, an increase in health care funding will help families who are not served by Medicaid but are taking up the slack in this economy, that are paying higher premiums and co-pays because the charity care in the emergency room, someone has to pay for that. And that usually is tacked on to the cost of the typical family's employer-provided health care cost. Higher co-pays and higher premiums are a direct result of many families in this country not having anyplace else to turn for health care.

In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Center for Studying Health System Change released a report yesterday that says that employees are paying more medical expenses out of their own pockets. They're having a harder time coming up with money to pay their bills. The study displayed the mounting additional strain that medical care is placing on working Americans. It is estimated that 57 million Americans live in families struggling with medical bills, and 43 million of those have health insurance coverage.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret across America that with stagnant wages and a higher cost of living, be it health care, be it higher gas prices, be it home heating oil, be it, in Florida, property insurance, that we have got to take action for them. And it cannot simply be a trickle-down rescue package. It also needs to be a very modest, but at the same time meaningful, support for families.

When we are able to provide additional moneys to States for health care and for infrastructure and jobs, what this does is it takes the pressure off all other programs that are funded by our State and local governments, including education. In my State of Florida, they have had to cut billions and billions of dollars out of our State budget. Unbelievably, for the first time in many decades, this year the State of Florida ratcheted back the amount of money provided per student in our public school system. The State university chancellor of the State of Florida announced yesterday that there is a freeze on new students being allowed into the Florida college system because they simply do not have the resources during this economic downturn to provide a seat for new freshmen in our colleges and universities.

Mr. Speaker, economists agree that any stimulus package must put money in the hands of those who will spend it right away in order to stimulate the economy. This package will do just that by focusing funding where it is needed most, creating jobs, jobs, jobs through infrastructure, enhancing the health care safety net for our children and our seniors and providing a lifeline to American families who are struggling during this economic downturn.

At this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important at this critical time in our Nation's economic history, in the history of what is going on in people's lives today, that we really try to rise above partisanship. That is what is going on right now. The White House and leaders here in the Congress are meeting on a very important economic package. This is a separate piece of that. We do intend to address it. We will stay here for as long as it takes.

I would be happy to yield for a moment.

I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we did consider the amendment in the Rules Committee on a couple of occasions. It was not accepted.

What is important right now is our leaders meet to focus on the economic condition of this country and that we do not get bogged down in the process. The American people cannot wait for these costly, time- consuming debates. They are out of work, they need to get their kids to the doctor's office, and we will stay and work here for as long as it takes to provide that additional relief to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, similar to the administration's $700 billion emergency economic rescue package, this emergency stimulus package, to provide jobs to the American people, to enhance the health care safety net, this is an emergency situation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, please, how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, we are done with speakers on our side.

I would like to submit for the Record a copy of a letter from the Republican Governor from the State of Florida, Charlie Crist, who writes: ``I am writing to you in the last days of the 110th Congress to reiterate my support for congressional action regarding the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage,'' the Medicaid portion of this bill.

Office of the Governor,

Tallahassee, FL, September 25, 2008.

Hon. Alcee Hastings,

House of Representatives, 2353 Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

House of Representatives, 2244 Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen Hastings and Diaz-Balart: I am writing to

you in the last days of the 110th Congress to reiterate my

support for Congressional action regarding the Federal

Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).

As you will recall, the impact of seven hurricanes in 2004

and 2005 and subsequent reconstruction has disproportionately

affected Florida's FMAP allotment, resulting in $213.5

million in additional state expenditures in federal fiscal

year 2009. Furthermore, continued decline is expected in

2010. For every percentage point reduction in federal support

for Florida, our state loses approximately $150 million and

makes it increasingly more difficult to serve residents who

need care. This reduction in the federal share of Medicaid

funding has placed additional pressure on the state during

these economic times.

Our goal is to continue to provide quality services to

those currently receiving benefits, and those who just now

find themselves in need of assistance. Florida continues to

seek a temporary increase in its FMAP and hopes to work with

you on a longer term solution to address natural disaster

implications to the FMAP allotment. As Congress considers

providing relief for states, I ask for your support in

ensuring FMAP relief in a manner that will best enable

Florida to serve the most residents in need.

I appreciate your willingness to work on this issue as well

as other matters impacting our great state.

Sincerely,

Charlie Crist.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve until my colleague from the Rules Committee has made his closing statement.

Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis for many American families did not begin this week. The economic squeeze has been ongoing for a long time. For example, just this summer in my district in the Tampa Bay area that I have the privilege to represent, we held foreclosure workshops for families facing foreclosure, maybe they had just gotten their first notice. I was shocked, hundreds of families showed up at the workshop where we sat them down with a lender, one on one, to try to begin that workout period. It was great. They could get a little grace period, they could get a little breathing room. I heard numerous stories about a lost job in a family, something that was completely unanticipated.

Mr. Speaker, at this time when our Nation's leaders are meeting in a bipartisan way with the White House, the leaders here in the Congress, the folks at Treasury, listening to experts from all around the country and listening to everyday, average Americans weigh in on this emergency situation, I think it is very important that all of our colleagues hear the American people.

If you vote for this rule and the underlying bill, I think everyone here can prove that they are listening and hear the American people and understand their struggles today, understand that they have lost jobs. And that's what this package will provide--jobs, jobs, jobs. We are going to expedite infrastructure projects across the country, bridge building, road building, put a lot of these folks that have been put out of work in the construction sector back to work.

Health care, health care services for our children and for our seniors that do not have any place else to turn. Hear the American people, hear their voices. It is not just health care for those children and the seniors that have nowhere else to turn, but it takes the burden off all the rest who are paying higher copays and higher premiums. They won't have to pick up that tab that is being put upon them unfairly because everyone is going to the emergency room for primary care. Hear the American people.

I think that most of the Nation's leaders are taking this very seriously. They are meeting right now to address the emergency. But part of the emergency response must be carving a modest sliver directly for people at home.

At the beginning of the week, the administration came with a 2\1/2\ page proposal for $700 billion. People got to work. Everyone understood that was unreasonable. You can't give a blank check. So they went back to the drawing board and ratcheted it back, and they keep working on it. But think about it, $700 billion that a lot of experts thought was okay for Wall Street, largely; and what we are asking for here is $60 billion for families, for jobs, for health care for kids and our seniors, to give breathing room for unemployment compensation for a few more weeks to, hopefully, get them through this emergency.

I really do appreciate the White House's response to this because yesterday after their meeting, they did not rule out this stimulus package. They don't like what the Senate is doing. It is a little different there, but this is serious business. Do you hear the American people?

It is our moral imperative at this time of emergency to hear the American people. Now, most of us weren't around during the Great Depression, but I know there are many people who are students of history and love to read about FDR and how he handled that crisis. Hopefully we are not there yet. Hopefully these times are not as dire as the times that I heard about from my parents and grandparents.

But let's act now to ensure that we do not face such hard times.

Mr. Speaker, do you hear the American people? Do you hear what they are saying about their retirement accounts? Do you hear what they are saying about their saving for college for their kids?

I hope all of our colleagues hear the American people, support this rule, support this job creation and infrastructure investment package. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7060, the majority's latest extenders package, a bill that will never actually deliver the tax relief it's promising because it will never pass the Senate and it will never be enacted into law.

I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--it's time to be realistic. We are in the waning hours of this Congress, only a day away from our scheduled adjournment, a day or two or three.

Yet here we are, conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules.

Indeed, as the end of the 110th Congress draws near, it's interesting to see the application of PAYGO to expiring tax provisions remain as difficult for the majority today as it has ever been.

Throughout the year, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that PAYGO requires us to find offsets for these tax extensions. Of course, the majority's adherence to PAYGO has been somewhat intermittent. It has been waived to fund unemployment benefits, and on the housing bill passed in July. And PAYGO has never applied to spending, which continues to grow at unsustainable rates. It has also been waived for extensions of some tax provisions, including just Wednesday on the AMT patch. Nevertheless, the majority has steadfastly refused to waive PAYGO for other expiring tax provisions even in the face of ample evidence that the Senate and the President are not in agreement with that position.

On Tuesday, the Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 93-2, to approve a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like.

Is the Senate's package perfect? Of course it isn't. But given the limited time left in this Congress, the Senate's comprehensive package is likely the only option that will lead to enactment of much-needed extensions of expired and expiring provisions, including the AMT patch, the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit which is so critical for restarting our economy, and the extension of the subpart F exception for active financial services income.

Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

The Senate majority leader made that point on Tuesday on three separate occasions. In the morning he urged the House: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

In the early afternoon, he told a reporter that he had talked to House leaders and ``told them how important it is that we get a bill back like the one we sent them . . . If they send us back something different . . . it is dead, sorry to say.''

And then, to make sure that there was no confusion, even later in the afternoon the majority leader said, ``If the House doesn't pass this, the full responsibility of this not passing is theirs, not ours.''

So let's be clear. The Senate's comprehensive tax package, which passed 93-2, is the only clear path for enactment of the AMT patch and the tax extender package we are debating here today. Let me say that as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I don't like being told by the Senate what we should or should not do. This is not how I prefer to legislate, of course. However, with adjournment looming and with a continuing resolution that takes us into next year, it is time to be realistic, as the distinguished chairman said. We are headed down a path that will leave all of these critical issues unresolved well into 2009.

Simply put, the majority's insistence on paying for extenders has painted us into this corner. And, unfortunately, we don't have time to wait for the paint to dry. Failing to act on the extenders this year will be burdensome to businesses and families alike.

It is important to note, Madam Speaker, that the House majority's extenders bill contains no net tax relief. None. That is in stark contrast to the Senate's position. The Senate's comprehensive tax package contains approximately $107 billion in net tax relief after subtracting out the AMT patch, the disaster-related tax provisions and the mental health parity benefits from the Senate's package to account for the House's passage of those provisions as separate freestanding bills. We see that the remaining Senate extenders provisions by themselves provide approximately $35 billion in net tax relief. On the other hand, the House extenders bill provides no net tax relief to American taxpayers because every last penny of tax relief is offset with revenue raisers elsewhere, and that is not a good deal for the American taxpayer.

It is also a bad deal for U.S. businesses and employers that are trying to compete with their foreign counterparts. That is because the House bill provides a long-term delay, potentially until 2019, of the implementation of more rational worldwide interest allocation rules that are currently scheduled to go into effect in 2011. These more rational rules, originally enacted by Republicans in 2004, were good policy then and remain good policy now.

While the majority refers to those as an international tax provision, when implemented, these rules will actually help companies avoid double taxation on their foreign income, and we shouldn't push off for nearly a decade the effective date of a provision that will help American businesses and employers compete.

I would also note, Madam Speaker, that the House bill in many instances provides considerably less generous tax benefits than the Senate bill, including and especially with respect to energy-related tax benefits. For example, the House bill omits entirely a number of Senate proposals, including an extension and modification of the election to expense certain refineries, an energy-efficient home credit, and a special depreciation allowance for certain reuse and recycling property. In addition, the House bill places considerable limitations on a number of the Senate's other energy-related provisions, including a reduction in the maximum credit for plug-in hybrids, a key restriction on the credit for producing electricity from most renewable sources.

Moreover, unlike the Senate package, the House bill does not contain $3.3 billion in funding for the Secure Rural Schools Program.

Madam Speaker, when the 110th Congress convened last January, I had high hopes that these 2 years would be spent working on a bipartisan basis on issues people care about. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have real disagreements about what each side believes in. But, unfortunately, in the face of a bipartisan Senate solution to the extenders debate, and the ticking clock on this Congress, the House majority is still clinging to PAYGO on this bill.

Time is short, Madam Speaker. Whether we defeat the House bill now or whether the Senate rejects it later, this bill's life expectancy is exceedingly short. The sooner the majority sees that, the sooner we can begin debating the Senate's comprehensive package which would actually be enacted into law. I urge opposition to this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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

Well, frankly, in terms of responsibility, if the majority had exercised their responsibility, we wouldn't have let these extenders expire for 9 months and be here at the closing days of the session. We would have dealt with these earlier on in the session.

We've heard a lot of discussion about the House's role and the Senate's role. But as we know, we have three branches of government. And another important point in this discussion is the statement of administration policy, which is, that we have an SAP that says that this legislation, H.R. 7060, if

it were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. And also in the statement, we have that the administration will support the bipartisan compromise in the Senate.

So this isn't just about turf between the House and the Senate and what our responsibilities are. It's also about what is actually going to become enacted into law. Clearly what we're doing today is not going to go very far.

So the question I have to ask is, why do we continue down this path? We've done this before on mental health parity, which we finally did accept the Senate language on. We've done it before on Medicare, where we finally accepted the Senate language yet this year. So there have been other occasions where we've done this. And I would just urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation because its shelf life is very, very short.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'd be happy to say that, first of all, we have three branches of government.

Well, of course not.

We have three coequal branches of government.

Madam Speaker, I see there are a few more speakers on that side so I will reserve my time for right now.

I would yield myself such time as I may consume and just briefly say that we will not see those goals achieved because this bill will not be enacted into law. Not only has the Senate majority leader said he will not take it up, we also have a statement from the administration that his advisers would recommend it be vetoed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to close.

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

We've heard a lot about the principled stand of the majority in terms of PAYGO, but I have to say that to inflict permanent tax increases on the American people to pay for temporary extensions of tax relief is just nonsensical. And let me just say that their application of this principle has been inconsistent at best. It wasn't applied for the unemployment benefits extension that we did; it wasn't applied for the housing bill; it hasn't been applied when they wanted to extend AMT, alternative minimum tax relief; it won't be applied to the stimulus package that's being put through the Rules Committee right now.

So to say that this bill is the only way because it has PAYGO when PAYGO is not applied in any kind of consistent manner across anything that they present to this House I think is an argument that really collapses under its own weight.

Secondly, we have clear indication from the Senate, as the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina so eloquently said, who has stated that they will not take up this bill. They've passed a bipartisan compromise 92-3. We would have bipartisan support for that bill were it to come to this body, were my colleagues to bring that forward.

Not only is it the other body, but it's also the administration. The President has said this bill would be vetoed if it ever reaches his desk. We know it won't get that far.

So recognizing that we have limited time left in this Congress, recognizing that it really takes three branches of government, it really takes particularly the executive and legislative branch to at least get a bill enacted into law, the third branch to make sure it's constitutional; but knowing what the other branch of government has said already about this bill, knowing that we don't have unanimity in the legislative side, it makes absolute sense that we bring forward the Senate bill.

Then on policy grounds, let me just say, the House bill has more tax increases than necessary, and the Senate measure includes a number of key items that are not included in the House bill that some of my colleagues have talked about today, particularly with regard to rural schools, but also especially in the area of energy.

When you look at this bill lacking the credit for small wind power systems, which is going to so help our dependence on foreign oil, the business tax credit for geothermal heat pumps, which is part of our all-of-the-above strategy trying to support wind, solar, alternatives, geothermal, nuclear, whatever we can to help lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and then also the bonds to help municipal and cooperatives to install wind and solar power plants. We see those operating all over the country, efforts to try to get these alternative energy sources up and running. And here we've delayed 9 months to move forward on a bill and then bring a bill forward to this body which is inadequate in those alternative energy methods. Also for refining capacity, for energy- efficient homes, those are critical.

And lastly, which is important to so many Members from the gulf coast still dealing with the aftermath of Katrina, the extension of tax credits for rehabilitating buildings in the GO Zone.

These aren't just minor problems. These are glaring omissions that have received bipartisan support in the Senate. They're lacking in the House bill.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Yes, in its current form.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a very simple debate here. What we'd like to do is replace the text of the bill before us with the bill that the Senate passed this week by an overwhelming vote of 92-3, and there are three main reasons for this.

First, that bill provides more tax relief. It includes fewer tax increases, and it can become law. The Senate measure also has a number of key provisions that are not in the House bill. Most particularly, the research and development tax credit is enhanced in the Senate version, which is so important to getting our economy up and going again. This is just simply an extension in the House bill. It's not nearly enough to do the job.

Also, the House bill contains more tax increases, in addition to those that were in the Senate bill. The House bill further extends the effective date of what we call worldwide interest allocation rules which really make its difficult for our employers to compete in today's global economy.

Finally, I think the most important thing is the Senate bill is a bill that could get enacted this year. It's quite clear that the issues that we're debating today with regard to the House bill will never be taken up by the Senate, as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate has made on many occasions and have been made repeatedly on this floor, including the comment that: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will--we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

So I would urge this House to reject this point of order and move forward so that we can actually have a debate on the issues that we've been talking about all morning, instead of short-circuiting this debate and making it impossible for us to offer an alternative to what the majority is trying to do.

We heard a lot about debate and openness and that the House is place where we shouldn't just say ``yes,'' we shouldn't just agree with what's happening. So I would say to my colleagues, if you're so interested in debate, why are you so afraid of having us bring this motion forward?

Let us have the vote on this motion to recommit, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1503, I call up the bill (H.R. 7060) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Madam Speaker, before I get into the substance of this important legislation, let me make it abundantly clear that in my opinion, there is nobody in this House that is not concerned with the direction in which this country has gone in the past in relying on fossil fuels.

In addition to that, we, all being patriots, do recognize that probably everyone in this Chamber agrees that many of the important tax provisions should not expire because business can lose confidence in the system and certainly in the Congress. People should be allowed to rely on what we say will be tax incentives, and probably most of us believe that these incentives should even be permanent, rather than 1 or 2 years, but at least they should not be allowed to expire.

Unfortunately, there is a cloud of politics that remains over our shoulders and the other body.

I just heard that the arrogance of the other body has said that notwithstanding what we do here today, that they would not even receive the legislation because they put a time on us. I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat. It is shameful that the other House can hold us in such complete disregard that they can dictate what they are not going to look at.

On the other side, instead of referring to them as the majority and minority, or Republicans and Democrats, I am inclined to believe that they are the gang of 60 that determine what the law is going to be, notwithstanding the intent of the House where the people are supposed to govern. I do hope that somewhere along the line, no matter what our major policy differences might be, that our leadership can get together to let the other body know that it is a two-body Congress, and that this eagle has to work with two wings instead of one.

Another political issue is this: I was shocked and amazed yesterday that when the rule came up, most all of the debate from the minority was the protection and support of our rural schools. We should not have been arguing or debating each other, because education of our young people, whether they come from urban, inner cities or rural areas, is not just important to that community, but really is important to the United States of America, who must compete with the rest of the world.

If we don't have the ability to give access to a decent education for our young people, no matter what great part of our country they come from, then we lose our competitive edge. None of our competitors care whether or not our workforce is black or white, Jew or gentile, rural or in the city. We have to come together as a Nation and recognize that our failure to produce educated people is not a local and State issue, but our support for it is to protect our national security. There is a way that we could do that and not have it divert attention from the important issues that are in this bill.

Where is this rural support bill? Is it in our bill? Did we initiate it in the House? Has anyone in the minority ever asked that it be included in an energy bill or tax extension? No. Why? Because we've got rules over there.

But they don't have rules on the other side, so they put it in the bill. I have told my colleagues on the Ways

and Means Committee, I got their support, the Democratic Caucus, and even made an appeal yesterday. If you are really serious about it, we can't put it in our bill here today, but it's in their bill, and we are willing to accept it. What is it about accepting the rural area bill that you guys and gals don't understand?

But how can we accept it? The only way we can is that if they take the Senate-passed bill and send it over here. So you can talk all you want about your dedication to education, albeit rural or urban. But if you really are sincere about it, the only vehicle that you have for it is to get that bill over here, and my leaders and my committee have given assurance, bring the bill over, and we will accept it.

Why won't they send it over? Because of lack of respect of the House of Representatives. They are holding it at the desk thinking, in the middle of the night, when we have to go home, it's their way or the highway. I do hope we have some pride in our legislative initiatives that we find out our differences. But at the end of the day when the House speaks, they don't have to accept it, but they shouldn't have the arrogance of saying that they are not even going to look at it.

Having said that, here we go again, with the whole Nation looking at us, wondering do we have any concern about the energy crisis that we find ourselves in. The gasoline price at the pump causes everyone to consider what is it going to be for rent, what is it going to be for mortgages, what is it going to be for food, what is it going to be to put clothes on the kids, because we find ourselves in this energy crunch, and God knows how long it's going to take.

The only thing that we can do, as representatives of the American people, is to say how long, how long, and we're doing something about it. It even affects our national security to believe that we are so dependent on countries that we don't even believe in their form of government, but yet we send them money each and every day, each and every year, to consume the oil that they have.

We have put together the bill that just makes a lot of common sense. No one has challenged our bill on the merits. Sure you can talk about drill, drill, drill. Do what you have to do politically. But let's get back to what we can do realistically.

It may take some time. It's not going to bring changes tomorrow, but we will be able to tell our kids and our grandkids that we looked for alternatives, wind, solar, water, anything that's possible. We provide these incentives. We can create a whole new industry in search of some answers to the crisis. We are talking about creating jobs, creating ideas, creating thoughts.

We can't do it as Democrats or Republicans. We have to do it as a Congress. They have accepted all of these things on the other side. We can get together and save the future of our country if we ever got together as one Congress instead of two bodies.

We also have in our bill a commitment that we have made to provide incentives for research and development; for States that don't have income taxes, but we can have them to be able to deduct their local and State taxes for Federal tax purposes; for teachers who dedicate themselves each and every day to help the kids to give them a little help in doing it.

The business sector, the social sector, are depending on us that when we have a law, that we just don't leave it saying it expired because we have differences of politics on the other side. We have done everything that we could to take anything controversial out of this bill, whether it's helping the people that have suffered as a result of a terrorist attack against New York, whether it's providing some protection for people that may work in energy to make certain that they get a decent wage, whether we give lawyers an opportunity to operate their accounting system the same way other professionals do. If it was controversial, we said, We'll drop it. Let's see how we can meet across the aisle.

But if the whole debate is going to be about rural schools, we can take care of that in the Speaker's corridor and not waste the people's time in debate. If the whole thing is going to be whether or not we are going to be fiscally responsible and pay for 2 years of the extension of these things, we will let the people and the business people decide which side is right, whether we are going to increase the indebtedness to our children or grandchildren, or whether at a time when the Federal Government is asking us to provide $700 billion of tax exposure, can we say that where we could control, we did try to control.

That's the major difference between the other side and us. Do we pay for 1 year of the extensions, or do we really just lock horns and not do anything? This is the option. This is the last time this year. I hope we can jump over the hurdles of politics and get something done.

For more specifics to the bill, our distinguished chairman of the committee that has studied this, the one that has done the taxes, the one that has done the taxes for energy, is going to take over.

But you know as well as I do, people on the committee and people not, that what we are saying and advocating makes sense. The only difference between passing a bill and getting the President to sign it is politics. I truly believe, or at least I want to believe, that we can get over that too.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Richard Neal, a distinguished Member from Massachusetts, an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, a great American and a great Member of Congress.

We don't have a lot of speakers. That's why I asked the gentleman to yield.

Madam Speaker, assuming that the majority was persuaded by the eloquence of the gentleman from Michigan and we wanted to embrace the bill that 60 Members in the other House had, and assuming further that we wanted to help the rural schools which is in that bill, the gentleman knows that we can't react on bills that they have passed over there until they send it over here.

So we shouldn't allow the other House to interfere with the process that we have. We don't need a whole lot of harmony. We have different constituents and different policies. It is okay to say their way or the highway, and the minority may say that is the

way they want to go. But even if we yield to that, if we said that 60 votes over there are far more important than 435 votes over here, how could we possibly do anything until they send it over here?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I want to thank Chairman Rangel.

Let me stand in support of this energy and tax extenders legislation we are considering today. I have been here for 20 years. This is a good piece of work. I want to thank Charlie Rangel for his hard work on this legislation again and again and again.

This is the sixth time we are going to send this energy package over to the other body. But they keep moving the goalpost. And every time they move the goalpost a few yards farther, we still pass the bill. We keep meeting their demands, and they keep saying it's not good enough. A clean AMT patch is on the way to the Senate. It's already been declared dead on arrival. It seems in the other body they can't take ``yes'' for an answer.

As my colleagues here know, this bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This has to be done. This needs to get under way.

I want to thank Chairman Rangel for asserting the constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives in moving this legislation and within this body, the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter.

In my home State, 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for their out- of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, 1,000 businesses in Massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on research here in the U.S.

The R&D tax credit is important. Without this bill, 121,000 families in Massachusetts cannot take a deduction on their college tuition expenses.

This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. There are many well-crafted positions and provisions in this bill. There is not enough time to mention them all this morning.

Let me conclude by simply saying that Chairman Rangel has crafted a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

I urge support of this bill, and let's send a strong message to the Senate and to the President. We want this tax relief bill done now, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way.

Madam Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, provides tax relief by extending generally for 2 years various energy tax incentives and other temporary tax provisions. I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX75-08. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov. Madam Speaker, the Senate has not sent a bill over to us. None of us got elected here to defer to what the other body happens to think on any given day. We have repeatedly sent them good legislation over the course of the last year and a half, only to have it summarily rejected.

I want to submit today, I bet you during the course of Mr. Camp's career, along with mine, that will be the last time he quotes the majority leader of the United States Senate on a piece of legislation.

This is a responsible bill, and it is the constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate this legislation. What is the sense of being on the Ways and Means Committee if you defer to the other body on these matters? We have separate responsibilities for good reason, and that's what we are entertaining today.

A reminder--there is no Senate bill to consider. They have not sent one over. How about the idea that they have said if they don't have the paperwork by 11 o'clock, they're not going to consider this bill. Why be on the Ways and Means Committee? Why be a member of the House of Representatives?

We have done a good job with these legislative matters and sent them back to them responsibly. We have rules here, and we adhere to them. That is the fundamental difference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a grim reminder: There are 4,000 businesses in Mr. Herger's district and State that employ high- tech researchers who need the R&D tax credit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, my friend and a long-time member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

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

I yield myself 1 minute and will ask the gentleman a question: Do Members of the House of Representatives serve under the President of the United States?

I would yield.

Would you answer the question yes or no from our constitutional perspective: Do Members of the House of Representatives serve under the President of the United States?

We serve with the President of the United States.

I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Doggett.

I yield the gentleman 15 more seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and a very good member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pascrell.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada, a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Berkley.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut, a member of the Appropriations Committee and my friend, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I understand it's the opportunity for the minority leader on the Ways and Means Committee to use his time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 20 years. I want to tell you something today. This is a good piece of legislation. This deals with the energy needs of the country, and I want to say to my friend, Mr. Camp, I consulted with him on major portions of this legislation. There are provisions in this legislation that Mr. Camp and I worked hand-in- glove on.

We are here this morning where the minority side says, ``Well, we have to check with the President.'' We didn't get elected to be members of the executive branch; we got elected to be Members of the legislative branch. Every

school child in America knows that. Since when do we submit here without asking any questions of the executive to the whims of what they might want to do?

I want to say this today. The reason that historians will write about the last 7\1/2\ years being as difficult as it has been for the American people, including what is in front of this Nation today, is because the minority today, who were the majority for the first 6 years of the Bush administration, they abdicated their responsibility.

The job of this body is to occasionally ask a question of the President of the United States. Instead, it was, ``Yes, Mr. President.''

``Can we move quickly enough, Mr. President?''

``Weapons of mass destruction? Yes, Mr. President.''

``Invasion of Iraq? Yes, Mr. President.''

``$2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts? Yes, Mr. President.''

``Regulations thrown out the window? Yes, Mr. President.''

Since when do Members of this body ask themselves is it okay with the United States Senate? Is it okay with the President of the United States?

Our job here is to help the 660,000 people that sent us here, and that means occasionally clearing your throat and saying, ``No, Mr. President.''

This bill addresses many fundamental issues for the American people. The R&D tax credit is very important. When the Senate says to us they're not going to act on our legislation if we don't get it over there by 11 o'clock, they haven't even submitted a bill to us to act upon.

This deference all of a sudden to the United States Senate surprises me. We have a separate responsibility here to move forward with what we believe to be in the best interest of the American people and not to accept automatically what the executive branch says or what the Senate says.

I've been associated with some good legislation, and from time to time perhaps in this body over two decades, some not-so-good legislation. This, Mr. Speaker, is a good piece of legislation, and the minority was included in the writing of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I make a point of order.

I make a point of order that the gentleman's motion to recommit includes provisions within the jurisdiction of other committees, and, as such, is a violation of clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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