Bullying and Gang Reduction for Improved Education Act

Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives is voting on a jobs bill that will keep Americans working. This is a jobs bill that will keep 161,000 teachers in the classroom rather than in the unemployment line. This is a bill that prevents thousands of first- responders who are protecting our communities today from losing their jobs tomorrow. Passing this jobs bill is not a luxury or an act of political patronage as some Republicans claim. This bill is about saving and creating jobs while keeping communities in Minnesota and across the country safe, strong, and sustainable as this economy recovers.

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is to be commended for calling the House back into session during this August recess. The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act (H.R. 1586) needs to be passed and signed into law as soon as possible. Jobs are at stake. Families are at stake. The education of millions of students is at stake. Speaker Pelosi recognizes the crisis that state and local governments are facing, and she is committed, along with many of us, to making sure teachers stay in the classroom and states receive essential Medicaid assistance, FMAP, as soon as possible.

With states facing a $140 billion fiscal year 2011 cumulative budget gap, there is a critical need for Washington to provide state fiscal relief that can sustain the economic recovery. The state fiscal crisis is tearing an already fragile safety net, hurting communities, and inflicting hardships on our most vulnerable citizens. Dozens of states, including Minnesota, have been hit hard by a loss of tax revenue as a result of workers losing their jobs and unemployment remaining high. State and local governments have been forced to cut 100,000 jobs in the last 3 months alone as they struggle to balance budgets. We know that police officers, first responders, teachers, and other vital government workers who keep our communities safe, strong, and sustainable are getting laid off when our families need them on the job.

The $26.1 billion in federal support for teachers and Medicaid provided in this bill is completely paid for by closing foreign tax loopholes exploited by corporations, rescinding funds from outdated programs, and cutting funding for other programs. This bill is not deficit neutral; it actually reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years.

While paying for a bill that is projected to save or create nearly 320,000 jobs is not easy, I cannot hide my disappointment that nearly $12 billion in offsets were achieved by reducing benefits to food stamp recipients starting in 2014. I hope the reductions in benefits, which are provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are restored and hungry families are not forced to bear the burden of providing fiscal relief to state governments.

As our economy slowly recovers it remains in a fragile state. Congress has an obligation to act to preserve jobs, sustain the economic recovery, and overcome the perpetual political game playing of a minority party that is willing to put 161,000 teachers in the unemployment line rather than keep them in the classroom. In Minnesota, this bill will provide $167 million to prevent 2,800 teachers from being laid off. It will save the State of Minnesota $346 million under a 6-month extension of the FMAP provision in the Recovery Act, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District, which I represent, nearly $30 million in funding will keep 411 public school teachers in the classroom to the benefit of our children and our community.

It would be my hope that this bill will pass the House with bipartisan support. There is support from Democratic and Republican governors. Some 42 governors, including 16 Republicans, wrote to Congress seeking the Medicaid assistance provided in this bill. Their letter said the most efficient way to help states avoid further layoffs and service cuts that could otherwise slow the recovery is to provide a two-quarter extension of Medicaid aid.

Unfortunately in Congress my Republican colleagues are more concerned about November's election and playing politics than keeping teachers in the classroom. The $10 billion provided to keep 161,000 teachers working for our children should be a litmus test for voters. This is a vote for jobs and for our children's future. This is a vote that will expose Republicans as either defenders of jobs or as nothing more than a party that cuts taxes for the rich, protects Wall Street executives, and is willing to throw 161,000 public school teachers out on the street while our children suffer.

I am proud to vote for this bill. I am proud to support the men and women who have chosen a career of service as educators in public schools. The benefits of this bill will be felt in every state and every public school in the country and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1586.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1606, I call up the bill (H.R. 1586) to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and offer the motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, today we have heard from our friends on the minority side an ample amount of sarcasm and cynicism and partisan hyperbole mixed in with fiscal fiction. I hope we can cut through that today.

Today, we can either sit frozen in the ice of our own indifference, as Franklin Roosevelt once said, or we can take action to help States meet their safety net obligations and to protect our children's education by keeping teachers in the classroom while we continue to claw our way back from the most devastating economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Last year, in the first job recovery package, we recognized two reasons for providing Federal aid to States and school districts. The first was to reduce the human carnage that occurs when we take kids off health care coverage or let their education suffer because of teacher layoffs. The second was that standing by while States, localities, and school boards cut essential investments in services and impose significant new taxes will cripple the ability of the economy to grow and cause additional job weakness in both private and public sectors.

It is important, Madam Speaker, to remember how we got here. The failed

economic policies of the previous 8 years obliterated hard-won budget surpluses inherited from President Clinton. Federal oversight of Wall Street banks was gutted, allowing them to morph into casinos, and drive the economy into catastrophic collapse. That produced monthly losses of 750,000 jobs in each of the last 3 months of the Bush administration.

We now know that the economic crisis was even deeper and more broad than we initially expected. While the economy has improved, the effects of the recession are still not behind us. They are still affecting people's lives and livelihoods.

Three times before today, in December, in May, and in July we tried to take additional actions to ease the problems, and three times we were blocked. Now, today we have this much-reduced bill to provide $10 billion in funding to save somewhere around 160,000 education jobs and $16 billion in health assistance to the States.

Our friends in the minority accuse us of including job-killing tax increases to pay for it. That's ridiculous. The bill closes a tax loophole that encourages companies to ship jobs overseas. Not only will that help pay for this package, it will fix a hole in the tax code that is rewarding companies for sending American jobs elsewhere.

Still others, including the leadership of the minority, call this a special interest bailout. To that I say since when do we regard America's kids as a special interest group?

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

You don't get a second chance to educate kids. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that this package will do as much as we ought to be doing to ease the squeeze on the national economy. We will have partially offset with this bill the human wreckage caused by the recession, but we will still have done nothing in this round to address the macro reality that the economy is still incredibly weak. This bill will soften the blow of State budget cutbacks, but those very cutbacks have had a negative and neutralizing effect on the Federal fiscal stimulus in the first place.

This is a far less dramatic action than the Nation needs to recover from the recession. But this aid is long overdue, and the time for arguing is past. The cutbacks in food stamps in the bill are plain wrong. But face it, the minority party in the Senate is using the rules of the Senate to give them the functional equivalent of the majority's ability to determine the agenda of that body, and they have decided to follow a rule or ruin approach to governance, blocking every action they can, and in this case delaying action to the point of complete confusion.

Our Nation's kids are getting ready to go back to school. They need this help now, inadequate though it is. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' to give it to them. It's the least we should do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

That is the committee's intent.

That is our intent.

Could I inquire how many speakers the gentleman has?

Madam Speaker, I would simply say yes, this bill spends money. Yes, it saves money. It saves more than it spends to the tune of $1.3 billion, according to CBO.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that we have to be here today to spend money that the taxpayers don't have, that Congress can't afford, for an economic stimulus program that doesn't work.

The provision that is in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee is the Federal Medicaid Assistance Program, specifically called FMAP. This is a program to help low-income constituents in a cost-share between the State government and the Federal Government.

Spending on this program over the last 2 fiscal years has gone up almost 50 percent. The stimulus package that was enacted last year increased it an additional 6 percent, I believe, through December of this year. The bill before us would extend that extension until June of next year.

There is no emergency in this program. There is no pending financial catastrophe in Medicaid. There is a long-term unfunded mandate, obviously, but in the short term this is not something that absolutely has to be done.

The $16 billion that would be spent on this program ostensibly is to be spent for Medicaid, low-income health care assistance, but if you read the fine print, it doesn't have to. As we all know, Madam Speaker, money is fungible, and under this particular bill, while the nameplate says for Medicaid, the truth is the money can be spent for whatever purpose the State wants to spend it for. I don't think that's appropriate.

We on the Republican side were prepared to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last evening that would have at least said, if you're going to say the money is for Medicaid, it actually has to be spent for Medicaid. We were told that no amendments would be made in order and that they were put in what's called a martial law lock-down rule. So we did not offer that amendment, but it is an amendment that should have been offered and should be accepted.

What this bill really is about is, in my opinion, some sort of a panic attack on the Democratic leadership side, that they see the election coming up and they need to get more money to their special constituencies, and this is a bill that would do that. So we're going to spend $180 million a day. We're going to be paying taxes on this money for the next 10 years. This $180 million a day is only for 6 months. It's not going to reduce the unemployment rate, which right now is a little under 10 percent. It's going to be used, purely and simply, for some of those States to have more money that might help constituencies that might help our friends on the majority side of the aisle. As I said earlier, the money that is in the jurisdiction of the committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce, doesn't have to be spent for Medicaid.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee from the great Hoosier State of Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman from the great State of Indiana, Mr. Mike Pence.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the starting third baseman on the congressional Republican baseball team, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the committee from the great Pelican State of Louisiana, Mr. Steve Scalise.

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

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a failure to communicate. My friends on the Democratic side are talking about things to help the economy. My friends and myself on the Republican side are pointing out that this is money that we don't have. There is no national emergency. The items that are being funded are items that historically have been funded at the State level with the exception of Medicaid, which is a State-Federal expenditure. And in that the program, the money doesn't absolutely have to be spent for low income health care assistance. If you look at the way the money is actually allocated, one State, the great State of New York, the Empire States, gets over 12.5, 13 percent of the funds. In fact, if you exclude California, New York gets more money than every State west of the Mississippi. As has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer of Indiana, New York has a Medicaid reimbursement rate at 350 percent of poverty, which is pushing about $80,000 for a family of four.

This is money we don't have being spent on programs that are not in dire emergency at a time when the unemployment rate is 10 percent. Please vote no on this bill.

Madam Speaker, it seems like we have a lot of Texas voices here today, and I want to share mine. I thank my chair of our Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding to me.

I support, obviously, the full passage of the bill, but, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the students and teachers who will benefit from passage of the Education, Jobs, and Medicaid Assistance Act.

Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record two letters from education groups supporting this legislation.

At a time when local and State governments from coast to coast are cutting funding for basic services such as education, public safety, and transportation, this legislation will bring much-needed assistance to keep 161,000 educational professionals working now; 14,500 educational jobs in Texas will be saved.

I want to speak to the important provision my Texas colleagues on this side of the aisle worked hard to get into this bill. Last year, the governor of Texas took $3.25 billion in Federal stabilization funds specifically designated for educational purposes and used it to build up the State's rainy day fund, which may sound good, but it was nothing more than the governor taking much-needed resources from the students and educators of Texas.

In order to make sure the governor of Texas does not repeat history and misuse the Federal education funds, my colleagues and I pushed to have language added to the bill that will require the governor provide assurance to the Secretary of Education that the funds allocated to Texas be used to supplement and not supplant State K-12 education funding through fiscal year 2013. The governor and his political allies have stated in recent days that it cannot make such assurances because of its being unconstitutional. Well, our governor obviously is not a constitutional lawyer, so let the record show that the governor had made the same assurance before, including in the State's Fiscal Stabilization Program application last year.

This language is supported by the Texas Association of School Boards as well as Statewide groups representing teachers, principals, and school administrators across the State and ensures that these funds get to the classrooms and will hopefully delay property tax increases.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

Texas Democratic Delegation Statement on Protection for Schoolchildren

Last year, we voted for the Economic Recovery Act, which

included $3.25 billion to support local Texas school

districts. But instead of using these funds as Congress

intended, State Republican Leadership used them to replace

state education funding, thereby denying an increase in

support for our local school districts.

We want to ensure that any new emergency funds Congress

provides for education actually help our Texas schools. We

have requested additional protections be incorporated into

any Supplemental Appropriations legislation specifically for

Texas schoolchildren to ensure local districts actually

receive this federal help. These protections will ensure that

the $820 million in new emergency federal funds for education

go to preserve teacher jobs throughout the State and meet

other local education needs.

These funds would go to local schools as long as the

Governor certifies that (1) federal funds are not used merely

to replace state education support, and (2) education funding

will not be cut proportionally more than any other item in

the upcoming Texas General Appropriations Act. This prevents

any further shell games with federal education dollars at the

expense of local school districts. This approach has been

endorsed by Texas statewide education organizations

representing teachers, principals, school boards, school

administrators, and nearly 40 superintendents.

A solid education is the foundation on which our economy

and our democracy rest. Our support for our local school

districts reflects a twofold understanding: First, local

districts know best what the needs of their students,

teachers, and administrators are. Second, especially in times

of a difficult economy, we need to invest in our schools.

Our language helps ensure local school districts in Texas

have the support they need.

Charles A. Gonzalez; Sheila Jackson Lee; Silvestre Reyes;

Henry Cuellar; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Ciro D.

Rodriguez; Lloyd Doggett; Solomon P. Ortiz; Ruben

Hinojosa; Gene Green; Chet Edwards; Al Green.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the 13,500 teachers in California who will get to keep their jobs this fall as result of the education funding we provide today.

I rise in support of the over $1.8 billion that will come back to California to help pay for Medicaid assistance for low income people.

Without this crucial funding California would be forced into even more painful budget cuts that would have cascaded down to our local cities and counties--forcing layoffs for police, fire, EMT's and other critical personnel.

While I support this aid to the states to keep people at work--I am disappointed that the other body would choose to pay for this assistance on the backs of poor people who receive food stamps. I ask for unanimous consent to insert into the Record an August 6 editorial in the New York Times--Congress's Serial Hits on Food Stamps.

We spend trillions in support of two wars--funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into a black hole over at the Pentagon--yet we can't find another way to fund a good education for our kids or help States provide healthcare to the poor?

Have we lost our moral compass?

The Congress continues to throw away our children's inheritance in Afghanistan to pursue the longest war in American history, yet finds it okay to cut food stamps.

That doesn't make any sense! We should not have to choose between forcing people to go hungry and our children's education.

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill because the States are desperate for this money--but the other body should have done better.

In addition to these funds we should have been approving money to pay our debt to Black farmers and the Native American community, to fund youth employment programs, and to extend the TANF emergency contingency fund.

As Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I can say with certainty that we will not relent and will fight to get these priorities done. We should not have to choose between forcing people to go hungry and our children's education.

[From the New York Times, Aug. 6, 2010]

Congress's Serial Hits on Food Stamps

With some shabby sleight of hand, Congress has begun

tapping into the food stamp program for the hungriest

Americans to help pay for lawmakers' higher election-year

priorities. The Senate approved two important measures this

week--the $26 billion state-aid bill and the $4.5 billion

school nutrition program--in part by shaving food stamp funds

as a target of least resistance.

There is no denying that both of the programs are badly

needed. The state aid package, regrettably compromised as it

was, helps protect jobs for teachers and other workers facing

layoffs. The school nutrition program provides the first

improvements in a generation, including an increase in meal

reimbursements and the power to set federal nutrition

standards for schools.

But treating food stamps as the fungible means to worthy

ends is a cowardly blight on Congress. After the Bush years

of guilt-free tax cutting and deficit budgeting, lawmakers

are self-righteously embracing pay-as-you-go legislation lest

they be demagogued at the ballot box. So they resort to

fiscal triage.

Originally, school nutrition was slated to be paid for by

cuts in a farm conservation program. But Republicans rated

this a high priority for the livestock industry. A deal was

struck with Democrats to cut back on the scheduled boost in

future food stamp benefits that was part of last year's

economic stimulus. Food stamps took a second hit as lawmakers

turned to it like an all-purpose A.T.M. to help cover the

cost of state aid.

Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat of Arkansas who fought

hard to get the school nutrition improvements, told

Politico.com that the food stamp increase was doomed in any

case: ``You saw the teachers grab for it.'' Her comfort was

those dollars would feed children. But this is a pale

rationalization that downgrades the hunger of entire

families. A companion bill in the House, yet to be paid for,

is an opportunity to right this wrong.

In the crunch of the recession. if Congress lacks the guts

to meet vital needs with deficit financing, it should have

the decency to chisel some less-humane program than food

stamps.

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

States across America have as their number one responsibility the education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow. That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy.

Why are we talking with each other here today? We should be meeting with our constituents, holding town hall meetings, and listening to what's on the hearts and minds of our voters. The folks in my district have made their concerns very clear. They're saying, ``Jerry, tell those big spending politicians in Washington to stop spending our money.'' But the Democrat majority is so addicted to spending that they have called Congress back just to vote on yet another multibillion- dollar bailout.

I'm left scratching my head, because in the past few months this Congress has done virtually none of the work that the voters sent us here to do. We haven't passed a budget, we haven't funded defense and homeland security. We made our troops wait months before passing funds to support their fight against international terrorism.

The majority leadership calls the bill before us a major accomplishment. They hope it will please teachers' unions and inspire the Democratic base 2 months before the November election. I believe most voters will see it for what it is, further evidence that this Congress has a spending problem. To the voters, the 111th Congress will go down in history as the bailout Congress. The Congress has already spent $75 billion in stimulus dollars to help States with education. That was supposed to be a one-time, temporary bailout, approved by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

I am very proud of the fact that three of my four children are teachers. They work very hard to provide quality education in the classroom. They know that schools should be run by parents, teachers, and local communities. The more we approve these bailouts, the more the Federal Government takes over that role.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my Democrat colleagues say that this legislation is quote, ``fully paid for.'' On the other hand, the bill spends the entire $26 billion in just 2 years, while the offsets take place over 10 years. The so-called offsets in this legislation are produced by almost a $10 billion increase in taxes, $13.4 billion in reductions in two programs that are popular with Democrat leaders. That is the food stamp program and renewable energy projects. Some Democrat leaders have already pledged to restore funding to these programs. Some of these so-called cuts could be eliminated as soon as November in a lame duck session.

Mr. Speaker, beware of a lame duck session called by this Congress. I want to emphasize this again to my colleagues. The voters do not want us to throw more money at our Nation's problems, yet that is exactly what this bill does. It's time, Mr. Speaker, to put Uncle Sam on a diet and put an end to the congressional spending spree.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Education Committee, now the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to our former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed over the past year, as our country has faced some of the greatest economic difficulties imaginable, is that there have been very few easy or inconsequential votes taken on this floor. Our nation's problems are vast and deep and they have tested this Congress, as we have again and again been forced to rise and meet unforeseen challenges while, at the same time, working to restore the promise inherent in the American dream to our fellow countrymen and women.

Today is no different. The bill we bring to the floor today is a necessary measure. The fiscal fate of our states and over 300,000 jobs weigh in the balance. If we do not act, many of our nation's children will be left without teachers when they return to school in a few weeks. Worse, inaction could exacerbate an already unfolding crisis in our state and local governments, where budget shortfalls have cost 100,000 public servants their jobs in the past three months.

So, we must act. It is unfortunate that in doing so, we must also cut $11 billion in benefits from the food stamp program to offset the cost of this necessary state aid. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow.

In real terms, this means that monthly benefits for a family of three will drop by $47 dollars in April 2014. Now, $47 dollars may not seem like a lot of money to many in this chamber, but during this recession this additional funding has served as a lifeline for many of those who have been hit the hardest by this recession. Our food stamp program is already chronically underfunded. At current levels, these benefits are often insufficient to allow a family to purchase enough food to last an entire month.

Madam Speaker, this is why many of our fellow citizens are frustrated with Washington. It is why they think we are out of touch. We offer aid with one hand and take from the neediest with the other. It makes no sense whatsoever. As my friend, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, noted the other day: those who need help the most had finally caught a break, only to now have it taken away.

That said, I want to reiterate that this bill, taken as a whole, is a good bill and I will support it. This is the burden of governing; we have a duty to make tough decisions and live with them. While I disagree with the decision to phase out these important benefits in 2014 and pledge to work to ensure that they are reinstated, I respect the work my colleagues on this side of the aisle have put into crafting this necessary jobs package. It is certainly much more admirable and serious than what the other side offers: a resolution calling for Congress to shut down and take a paid two-month vacation.

I may not agree with the choices some of my Democratic colleagues make, but never for a moment do I doubt their commitment to facing down and solving the challenges facing the American people. This debate, frankly, illustrates the choice offered to our fellow citizens this fall: serious, difficult, deliberation and governance or silly and trivial gimmicks aimed at scoring political points. The American, people will have to decide.

I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary, job-saving bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I rise in strong support of this bill for education, jobs and Medicaid assistance. This will provide critical relief for the States and local governments. This is a vote for jobs, for education, for health care.

The States and local governments are faced with a decrease in income or taxes as people have lost their jobs, and yet in the Medicaid area there is an increase for services, as some people have lost their insurance. This will help the States avoid the massive cuts in Medicaid eligibility payments and payments to providers.

The Federal Medicaid Assistance Program was adopted in February of 2009. It expires in December. This will extend that temporary FMAP program for an additional 6 months through June 30, 2011, when most State fiscal years end. There would be no change in the current formula for targeting additional fiscal relief at States with high unemployment rates.

I urge support for this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Madam Speaker, let the American people know that we are trying to help kids get educated, and make sure that those who are vulnerable get health care; while the Republicans are urging that we continue the tax cuts for people making more than

$300,000 a year. That to me is a distortion of priorities.

I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, this is assistance to the States for Medicaid. No State has 300 percent of poverty for Medicaid. That's just not the way the States run it. We're talking about the poorest of the poor to get Medicaid assistance. There may be additional people who can get it for children under the CHIP program but not under Medicaid. The States can't afford Medicaid, and we're going to help them by directing Federal dollars so that those very poor people can get health care, and this legislation assists the States in paying for teachers and first responders.

What can be more important? It isn't one State versus another. All throughout this country we've got to make sure that we have an educated population and a chance for health care for those who need it who cannot afford it. That's why this bill is important. It will also provide jobs that will otherwise be lost if the States do not receive these funds. Put that into perspective of the Republican call for tax cuts to be continued without paying for them for people that make over $300,000 a year.

Who deserves our help? Let's help the vulnerable. Let's help the next generation. Let's provide the funds that are in this legislation for health care, for first responders, for teachers. I urge support for the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.