Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7110) making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Order

I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

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

I yield an additional 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid assistance is in this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

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

supplemental appropriations for job creation and

preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and

energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2009, and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising

under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as

read. All points of order against the bill are waived. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,

and any amendment thereto, to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment

relating to the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools

and Community Self-Determination Act printed in section 3 of

this resolution, if offered by Representative Walden of

Oregon or his designee, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as

read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally

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

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

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

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

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

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

follows:

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1507, I call up the bill (H.R. 7110) making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7110, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request in response to the comments that we had during consideration of the rule on this bill. We've had some of our friends on the minority side of the aisle indicate that they are disappointed that the Appropriations Committee did not provide funding for the western schools program, which is expired, and which is not under the jurisdiction of our committee.

In the interest of comity, I would like to respond to that concern by simply asking unanimous consent that the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted. It would have the effect of resurrecting that western schools program for 1 year in the same manner in which it was being operated before it expired.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would simply like to have the Record show that we have tried to respond to concerns expressed on the minority side of the aisle, that the objection to allowing us to do that came from the minority side of the aisle. I regret that, but I guess there's not as much interest in comity as I had hoped today. Having said that, let me explain the bill before us.

I think both political parties are seriously misdescribing the economic crisis that we now find ourselves in. I do not believe that this crisis began on Wall Street. I think this crisis began right here in this Chamber. I think it began right here in this town, in the White House. And I think what is happening today is a logical extension of what has happened since the Reagan administration over 20 years ago.

The fact is that this Congress and previous and present Presidents have followed economic policies through the years which have resulted in the middle class--and what's called the underclass by some--being squeezed to the wall. Since 1980, the top 10 percent of American families has absorbed 80 percent of the increase in the national income. And in the last 8 years, the richest 10 percent of American families have absorbed 96 percent of all of the income growth in this country. That means the other 90 percent of American families have been struggling for table scraps, struggling to keep their head above water. And one of the ways that they've been doing that has been by borrowing.

There is a lot of talk about the increase in the Federal debt over the past decade, which has been over $1 trillion. But the fact is that mortgage debt alone in the private sector in this country has increased by almost $7 trillion at that same time. And at the same time that that huge increase in borrowing was occurring by families trying to stay above the water line, we also had a simultaneous, ill-advised deregulation of the financial sector of the economy. The umpire was, in fact, taken off the field, and as a result, Wall Street took advantage of that, invented all kinds of interesting and complicated instruments, and at the same time, there was very little regulation to protect little people who didn't know what they were getting into. And so, as a result, we've had trickle down economics being followed for 25 years, and now we are experiencing the trickle down consequences. We have, I think, a serious choice to make in this Chamber and in the other body over the next few days. And I hope we make the right choice.

All through this year this Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. To cite just some of our efforts, we passed the largest expansion of the GI Bill, education benefits, since that program started in 1945. We provided the largest veterans health care funding increase in modern history. We blocked the President's efforts to eliminate all student aid programs except Pell grant and work study. And we, instead, provided an increase in the Pell Grants of $750. And we passed legislation cutting the loan costs of student loans by 50 percent over the next 5 years, all to help middle class families send their kids to school.

We increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade. We extended unemployment insurance benefits to help people who had run out of unemployment benefits and have still not been able to find a job. We provided additional funding to save the SCHIP program, to help keep needy kids on the health care payrolls of our various States.

We've provided funding to help States establish high-risk insurance pools----

I yield myself another 5 minutes.

To increase access for almost 200,000 people who did not have access to health care. We extended dental care programs for the poor by 50 percent. We passed all kinds of efforts to improve the lot of middle- income Americans. And we had a large dispute with the President of the United States over budget levels for programs in the health, education, science and social services area. The President objected to a number of those programs. He wanted to require Congress to impose $14 billion in cuts in those crucial programs, and he said we simply could not afford that money. But now we are being confronted with a Presidential request to deal with the Wall Street bailout, and that cost will be about 50 times as large as the cost of funding the programs that we've been trying to fund for a year.

Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. Twenty-seven percent more people are unemployed today than was the case just 6 months ago. And so we are bringing before the House today an effort to counter some of those problems.

We are trying to provide a major increase in investments in highways, bridges and airports to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.

We are providing a significant increase in funding for construction jobs by helping local communities and States construct sewer and water systems. There is a $600 billion national backlog on that.

We are providing additional help to create jobs by moving ahead with flood control projects.

As far as schools are concerned, the GAO tells us we have a $112 billion backlog in maintenance, building safety, and technology upgrades for our schools. We're trying to provide a small amount of funding to help begin to take care of that.

On the energy front, we've had a theological debate about energy between the parties for the last several months. We are trying to provide some funding here for energy research programs which will create jobs in that area, and at the same time, we are trying to invest a significant amount of money in order to assure that our auto industry, as it converts to battery-driven, dual-technology automobiles, we're trying to make certain that those batteries are developed and produced in the United States. If we can accomplish that, it will be a large number of jobs that we keep here in the United States.

We also are trying to extend unemployment compensation benefits for an additional 7 weeks. And we are trying to help State budgets to make sure that States don't have to knock low-income children and low-income families off the health care rolls.

This is the main thrust of this legislation. We think it is long overdue.

And I would urge passage in the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Transportation appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, the chairman of the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the public works and infrastructure authorizing committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep going over old ground, but in light of the gentleman's comments, I would like to present a slightly different interpretation of where we are.

The fact is that we have passed out of this body and we expect to have sent to the President this weekend the three foreign policy appropriation bills for the year, representing well over 60 percent of the discretionary funding in the budget. We have not sent him any of the domestic appropriations bills for one simple reason, because the White House declared them dead on arrival before they had ever been written.

The White House simply made quite clear that if we did not submit to their budget wishes and cut $14 billion out of education, out of health care, out of science, out of energy research and the like, if we didn't do that they would veto the bills. When we asked if they would sit down and talk about it and consider compromise, they indicated they had no interest.

It is clear to us that the President means what he says. He often does. So under those circumstances, we had a choice. We could either capitulate to the President's requirements that we cut everything from medical research at NIH to vocational education and the like, or we could say no, we are not going to accept those reductions; we will try to appeal to the public and let them choose.

So the public will choose by their selection of either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain. I am sorry, it has been a long day. The fellow from Arizona. Anyway, the public will choose one or the other. And if they choose Mr. McCain, then they will get President Bush's domestic budget, and if they choose Mr. Obama, they will get something quite different.

So I think there is a very rational reason for our making this choice. The only other option would have been for us to scream at each other and argue with each other for 6 months, knowing that the bills were going nowhere because of the President's intent to veto the bills.

That, in essence, is why we find ourselves where we are on those domestic appropriation bills.

But this bill is a different issue. This bill relates not to yesterday's arguments, but to today's problems and tomorrow's solutions. What this bill represents is an effort to respond to the economic chaos that we have seen in this country for the past 8 months or more. It represents an effort. At a time when people are talking about doing a huge bailout for the financial system, we are trying to find discrete ways of making life a little less miserable for people who have been hit hard by the

consequences of the economic chaos that has swept over the country.

So we make no apology. In a year when we have lost 600,000 jobs, we make no apology for trying to help resurrect the possibility for some more good-paying jobs by adding to construction, to our infrastructure by way of airport and highway and transit development, by doing additional energy research, by doing additional cleanup of sewer and water, again, construction jobs that will mean a good many families will be seeing decent income again where they were not before. That is what this bill tries to do.

It is in fact a very modest proposal in terms of what most economists think will be necessary, but it is a whole lot better than doing nothing.

FDR warned a long time ago, he said, ``Better the occasional mistake of a government that cares than the constant omission of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.'' And that I think is the choice that faces us today.

As Franklin Roosevelt said a long time ago in his inaugural address, ``This country needs action; it needs action now.'' We are trying in a small way to provide that, along with the two other pieces that are now before this Congress, one being the continuing resolution, and the second being the disposition of the huge economy rescue project that the President has proposed. This is a key element in those efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And with that I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

I yield myself one additional minute.

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

I will yield.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Should all this be enacted, we will have to rename the chairman ``Obey the Builder'' because this legislation will build America, rebuild America, create jobs, $30 billion to invest in America, the roads, the bridges and the transit and passenger rail systems, the airports, the locks, dams, waterways and environmental infrastructure that enhance mobility, that improve productivity, reduce the cost of logistics, the cost of moving people and goods in our economy and make America productive again.

This investment will create jobs here in America, jobs that will not be outsourced to Bangalore or anyplace else in the world, the real jobs in America that pay the mortgage, send the kids to school, buy the fishing boats and the snowmobiles and put food on the table. These are the real jobs of this economy. Over 800,000 construction workers are now out of work. The construction industry has the highest unemployment of any sector in this economy, 8.2 percent. This bill will create and sustain more than 1 million family wage jobs, jobs and projects that will be underway in 90 days, as we require in the legislation, that we proposed from our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for highways and bridges, $12.8 billion, on projects that are ready to go within 90 days. We have a list already--I will submit that for the Record--that will provide funding for transit and capital investment and $1 billion relief for high energy costs; $500 million for Amtrak, a bill we just passed yesterday in this body; the Airport Improvement Program of aviation, to reduce congestion on our airways, create more capacity on the ground side of airports; and funding for environmental infrastructure under the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, in fact a bill this House passed over a year ago; as well as $5 billion for the Corps of Engineers to invest in the locks and dams and waterways and improve our ability to resist hurricanes and storms in this country.

We need to make this investment in America for our future, for these jobs in this economy.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 7110, the ``Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008.''

This bill invests in America--in the roads, bridges, transit and passenger rail systems, airports, locks, dams, waterways, and environmental infrastructure that enable our economy to work and keep our citizens safe. This is the infrastructure that, too often, we take for granted, until it fails.

This bill recognizes the critical importance of meeting our Nation's transportation and environmental infrastructure investment needs, and provides $30 billion toward that end. This $30 billion investment will yield lasting benefits in terms of reduced travel times, higher productivity, increased competitiveness in the world marketplace, and cleaner water.

With more than 800,000 construction workers out of work, and the construction industry suffering the highest unemployment rate, 8.2 percent, of any industrial sector, this bill puts America back to work. It will create or sustain more than one million good, family-wage jobs--jobs that cannot be outsourced to another country, because the work must be done here in the United States on our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems, airports, waterways, and wastewater treatment facilities.

For highways and bridges, the bill provides $12.8 billion. State Departments of Transportation, ``DOTs'', have a tremendous backlog of highway projects that could be implemented quickly if these additional funds are made available. For example, State DOTs often have open-ended contracts in place for resurfacing projects, which means that work could begin immediately upon receipt of additional funds. In addition, many State DOTs have projects already in process that could be accelerated if additional funding were provided. According to an Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, ``AASHTO'', survey of State DOTs, States have more than 3,000 projects totaling $17.9 billion which are ready-to-go and can be out to bid and under contract within 90 days.

Although I have heard the administration's economists discount the stimulative effects of infrastructure investment, they may want to check with the State DOTs. In August, State DOTs informed the Federal Highway Administration, ``FHWA'', that they had $8 billion of highway projects that could advance before next week, September 30, if funding were available. Regrettably, FHWA only had $1 billion available to distribute to the States through its August redistribution process.

Not only will these additional funds be put to use quickly, they will be put to good use, to meet urgent highway and bridge investment needs. For instance, consider the ready-to-go projects of just one State DOT, Missouri. With funding provided by this bill, Missouri could accelerate repair work on the Brownville, Nebraska bridge over the Missouri River. The 1,903-foot bridge is 70 years old and is structurally deficient. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 3, which is even lower than the rating of the I-35W Bridge which collapsed in Minnesota. This rating reflects such a serious condition that if its rating drops to 2, the bridge will be closed. If the bridge has to be closed, residents will have to make a 123-mile detour. Missouri could also accelerate the replacement of a structurally deficient and obsolete bridge with the construction of a new bridge over the Osage River at Tuscumbia, Missouri. The current bridge is a two-lane, 1,083-foot structure that is 75 years old and is also rated a 3, serious condition. If this bridge has to be closed, residents will have to make a 40-mile detour.

For transit, the bill provides $3.6 billion for capital investments, and $1 billion for relief from high energy costs. Due to high gas prices, transit agencies across the country are experiencing increased demand for transit services, yet they are struggling to meet this demand due to the impact high fuel costs have had on their own operating budgets. In 2007, 10.3 billion trips were taken on public transportation--the highest number of trips taken in 50 years. Ridership has continued to climb in 2008, with a 4.4-percent increase in trips taken during the first half of 2008 compared to the same period last year, putting 2008 on track to beat last year's modern record ridership numbers. Additional funds could be put to immediate use by transit agencies to meet this demand while at the same time creating much-needed jobs and economic activity.

For Amtrak, the bill provides $500 million. Similar to transit, Amtrak is experiencing record ridership and revenues in fiscal year 2008, and demand is growing across Amtrak's entire system for intercity passenger rail service. With this additional funding, Amtrak will be able to refurbish rail cars that are currently in storage and return them to service, and fund other urgently needed repair and maintenance of its facilities.

For the Airport Improvement Program, ``AlP'', the bill provides $600 million. This funding will allow the AlP program to keep pace with inflationary cost increases, and begin to

address the investment gap in airport safety and capacity needs. Ready- to-go AlP projects that would be funded by this bill include runway and taxiway rehabilitations, extensions, and widening; obstruction removal; apron construction, expansion and rehabilitation; Airport Rescue and Firefighting equipment and facilities; and airside service or public access roads.

For environmental infrastructure, this bill provides $6.5 billion for Clean Water State Revolving Funds, ``SRFs''. Under this administration, funding for the Clean Water SRF program has been cut repeatedly and funding is now one-half of it what it was a decade ago, despite the fact that the needs continue to grow. These cuts have created pent-up demand in the States for project funding. In addition, wastewater treatment facilities must meet new treatment requirements, including requirements to control nutrients, sewer overflows, stormwater, and nonpoint sources. Aging infrastructure must be replaced or repaired. Additional funds could be put to immediate use in many States, creating family-wage construction jobs and economic activity. A recent survey by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators identified more than $9 billion in ready-to-go Clean Water SRF projects that cannot be funded within existing appropriation levels.

For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the bill provides $5 billion to invest in the Nation's water resource infrastructure. This investment will provide jobs, help American products compete on the world market, reduce the risk that larger sums for disaster relief will be needed in the future, and restore precious ecosystems. For example, the infusion of additional construction capital could be used for the construction of the second 1,200-foot lock at Saulte Ste. Marie. If the second lock were completed, then the incident that occurred earlier this week would not shut down traffic between the Upper and Lower Great Lakes because there would be a second point of transit. The existing Poe lock, that failed, is the only 1,200-foot lock between the Upper and Lower Lakes.

Finally, I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and Chairman Olver, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, for working with me throughout the development of this job creation package.

Throughout our Nation's history, economic growth, prosperity, and opportunity have followed investments in the Nation's infrastructure. From the ``internal improvements'' of the early 1800s--canals, locks, and roads--to the Interstate Highway System of today, infrastructure investment has been our foundation for economic growth. The investments funded by H.R. 7110 will not only create jobs today, they will provide long-term economic, safety, health, and environmental benefits.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 7110, a true investment in America's future.

I insert in the Record the results of a survey conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials of ready-to-go highway and bridge projects in each State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

[From the Oregonian, Sept. 25, 2008]

For House Democratic Leaders, Rural Counties Are Not a Priority

Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the

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

for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments

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

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

$185 million a year into 33 Oregon counties.

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

accounts, Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, both

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

inclusion of funding for county payments. This was not a

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

Oregon Democrats to persuade their own party leaders to

support the aid to counties.

House Democrats first tried to blame the White House, but

the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement

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

included, but would not sign the bill that House Democrats

favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal

conservatives in denying county payments, but that was

unconvincing, too.

The House Democrats are only the latest leaders in

Washington to turn their back on rural counties, The Bush

White House has consistently been lukewarm to hostile on the

payment program. And many of the Republicans who formerly

controlled the Congress did not lift a finger to get county

payments extended.

But this time, it is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic

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

support rural counties who host vast areas of federal

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

Gordon Smith, provided strong backing for including the

county payments in the popular tax bill.

Now that the White House has signaled its clear preference

for the Senate version of the tax bill, Senate President

Harry Reid of Nevada and other Senate Democratic leaders

should stand firm and send their bill right back to the

House, with the county payments intact.

While all this goes on, rural Oregon counties are preparing

for wholesale layoffs of their sheriff's deputies and

shutdowns of libraries and other local services. They are

also watching the federal government rush to the financial

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

communities of Oregon and the West.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

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

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding.

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

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