Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

call up House Resolution 1606 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586 and makes in order a motion by the chair of the Appropriations Committee to concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the motion. The rule provides that the motion shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, the resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a resolution from the Rules Committee on the same day that it is reported. The waiver applies to any measure reported through the legislative day of Wednesday, August 11, 2010.

Most of my colleagues here today, Madam Speaker, have interrupted their important activities back home in their districts to be here for this unusual, but not unprecedented, August session. As we stand here today, Madam Speaker, debating assistance for States and school districts across the country, I can't think of a better reason for Members to rush back to the Capitol than to invest in our children and in our future.

We are here today to extend a lifeline to teachers in classrooms across the country to ensure that students and our future are not mortgaged by a weak economy that has forced States into drastic cutbacks. Despite the failure of the Senate to move this bill during many months of debate until it finally passed last week, the urgency is real. And the appeal and need is real as well.

This legislation saves or creates 310,000 American jobs, specifically for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and nurses. In Colorado, this bill will save the jobs of 2,600 teachers. Yes, Madam Speaker, absent the passage of this bill, class sizes will be larger for students across the State, and we will be mortgaging our future because of the current recession.

These funds will go immediately to States and prevent layoffs and in some cases rehire teachers that have already been given notice, as summer comes to an end, just in time as students go back to school. Students here in Washington, D.C. will be in school the week after next. Many districts in Colorado start in 2 or 3 weeks as well.

This legislation, Madam Speaker, is completely paid for, primarily by closing tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas. Not only is this bill paid for, Madam Speaker, but this bill cuts the deficit by $1.4 billion.

It never fails to surprise me when some of my colleagues talk about the spending of Congress--this, that, or the other. Well, here today before us, Madam Speaker, is a chance to cut the deficit. What an important and justifiable reason for us to return here to Washington in August: to cut the deficit.

These funds will assist States so they can keep qualified teachers in classrooms, pay firefighters and police officers to keep our neighborhoods safe. We need to do everything in our power to ensure that the American people are protected during this recession and that our children are educated. Widespread layoffs in these public security and education sectors wouldn't only hurt the schools and children but would further depress the economy. These men and women who work in these professions, Madam Speaker, are the backbone of our Nation and our economy.

Now that the measure is before us with bipartisan support from the Senate, I hope all of our colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and quickly moving to a final vote so that we can expeditiously get the money out to those who need it. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, most teachers, firefighters, nurses don't earn $1.4 million a year. I wish they did in our society. I wish we valued the teaching profession. There was a study recently that showed that a good kindergarten teacher is worth $365,000 a year. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I don't think there are any kindergarten teachers in our country that earn it.

I'm grateful that of course, as the gentleman from California pointed out, that this gentleman's abuse of the public trust was exposed and corrected, and the residents of that town will hopefully compensate their new city manager more in line with the standards.

Finally, he talked about Republican, Independents and Democrats doing something and caring about teachers, caring about nurses. I have no doubt that in this Chamber and in our country Americans of all stripes ideologically and all parties care deeply about our nurses and teachers and keeping our streets safe, and Members of both parties here in the House today will have a chance to express that in a very tangible way, by keeping teachers in classrooms, nurses in hospitals, and officers on the beat by voting ``yes'' on the rule and the motion here today.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my esteemed colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Madam Speaker, as has been noted, this legislation will reduce the Federal deficit by over a billion dollars.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about cops and firefighters and teachers we have and we need, and we value cops and firefighters and teachers in the reddest of red States and the bluest of blue States across this great country, that's why, Madam Speaker, 16 Republican Governors have written to us, encouraging us to pass the money for Medicaid assistance here today, including, I might add, the Governor of the State of Georgia, as well as the Governor of the State of Alabama, calling on us to act because all of us know that we are in this together as a country. Regardless of where we live, we all need these basic services.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased that this legislation does not include $800 million in cuts to critical education reform programs, including Race to the Top, which has encouraged education reform initiatives and accountability across our country; including the Charter School Innovation Fund, which provides start-up money for new and innovative charter schools to help meet the educational needs of our most at-risk youth; and the Teacher Incentive Fund, finding new and better ways to compensate teachers for their hard work.

This bill before us today, Madam Speaker, recognizes that we need both funding and reform, investment and accountability. One without the other will not close the achievement gap. Together, Madam Speaker, teachers in the classroom and the education reform initiatives that President Obama is pursuing in a bipartisan way promise to help end the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance in this country and replace it with the virtuous cycle of opportunity and hope.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentlewoman 15 additional seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586.

The new school year is just around the corner. Families across our Nation are preparing to send their kids back to school; and the experience that their children have this school year directly depends, Madam Speaker, on our actions here today in this Chamber.

The package before us today recognizes that we can't afford to stand idle while our schools are being hammered by budget crises across the country. In Colorado, districts are facing the deepest budget cuts in memory. Colorado school districts have cut more than $288 million out of their budgets for next school year, so the $160 million that Colorado will receive under this program provides much-needed funds.

Now I want to describe that that is typical of the experience of many States. In no way, shape, or form are we avoiding making the tough decisions or tough cuts during this recession. The States have made those. Districts have made those. We have the opportunity today to make sure that those cuts don't affect the kids going back to school.

What have districts done to balance their budget? They have reduced their staff size and salaries, they have increased furlough days, they have created larger class sizes, they have reduced instructional hours, cut after-school programs, established 4-day school weeks. We are undercutting the future of American competitiveness by getting in the way of the ability to educate kids today because we happen

to be in a severe budget crisis. We each here today in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, have the opportunity to get these much-needed funds to States and school districts across the country.

In addition, the budget of Colorado and more than half the States in the country assume that the FMAP increases will occur. If they don't, if this Chamber doesn't act here today, Colorado would have to come up with $245 million more in cuts; and, in most States, including my home State, those cuts would generally hit education, law enforcement, and higher education. So the extension is critically important not only for the low-income families that rely on Medicaid for health services but also for all public services that are so essential for our communities.

Undermining public education during a recession is no way to build a world-class educational system, no way to create the economic engine of growth for our Nation for the next century when more than ever jobs will depend on what people know and their ability to think rather than what they can do with their hands.

By passing this here today, Madam Speaker, we can help ensure America's competitiveness in a global, knowledge-based economy. Inaction today in the face of today's crisis would simply mean further erosion of our Nation's human capital, our greatest asset.

Madam Speaker, this is not spending we are considering today. This is an investment. It's an investment in our most valuable asset, our children and our future.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

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

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

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

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend on the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that this special emergency session called unexpectedly just after a week of the district work period to pass another $26.1 billion in spending is, in fact, Washington, D.C. at its absolute worst. Everything that Americans have come to hate about their government, about the way their government works--the waste, the ineptitude, the cynicism, the lack of accountability, the utter disregard for the concerns of taxpayers--is all very vividly on display right here today.

Now, one must ask the question, how is it that we got here? How is it that we got here? Well, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we've made history. For the first time we have failed to budget, we have failed to pass a budget for the first time in the modern era. In the absence of a budget roadmap, the leadership on the other side of the aisle has legislated recklessly and haphazardly, managing to consider a mere one-sixth, one-sixth, of the normal appropriations bills. And I am happy to see the chair of the Appropriations Committee here. They have passed a mere one-sixth of the appropriations bills while irresponsibly approving new emergency spending outside of regular order. Politico, the newspaper that we read every morning around here, described it as follows: They described this as a ``fiscal-policy meltdown'' and an ``unprecedented failure.''

Now, how is it possible, Madam Speaker, how is it possible that this Democratic majority could fail so miserably at its constitutional duty? Was it pure ineptitude or was it something more willful than that?

Ineptitude certainly goes a long way toward explaining the failings that have taken place under Speaker Pelosi. Their work has been so shoddy and riddled with oversights, mistakes, and loopholes that countless corrections over the last 3\1/2\ years have been necessary. Today's underlying bill doesn't even have a title. Madam Speaker, the bill doesn't even have a title, thanks to their haphazard way of doing business. In its mad rush, the Senate passed the blank act of blank. This bill has no title. They literally neglected to fill in the blanks. God only knows what other mistakes have been made here, Madam Speaker.

But ineptitude alone only goes so far in explaining the Democratic majority's shortcomings. As the Washington Post editorialized last week, ``To govern is to choose, and nothing lays bare a government's true priorities like the choices it makes about spending taxpayers' money.'' Now, Madam Speaker, this gets to the heart of why the annual budget is so critically important. It lays out for the American people what the priorities of the majority of this institution are. Whatever gimmicks they may employ to shield themselves from accountability, the budget lays out in black and white the agenda that the majority has.

It also forces the majority to make choices, tough choices. Faced with a host of needs, a budget forces the majority to choose which are the most important items. And if times are tough, a budget forces the majority to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. This presents quite a predicament for a majority that loves nothing more than to tax and to spend. Today's emergency bill is just another in a long line of unaccountable spending bills that have supplanted the regular budget and appropriations process simply because this majority, quite obviously, is not up to governing.

Some of the funding contained in this bill is, no doubt, very worthy. Our teachers, nurses, and cops deserve our full support, and I concur with my colleague's remarks on those priorities. Let me say our teachers, nurses, and cops deserve our full support. No one disputes that. These are precisely the kinds of top priorities that should be funded in the regular budget process.

Now, Madam Speaker, teachers, nurses, and cops should not be used as pawns in a cynical political game, held hostage by the Democratic majority's failure to govern responsibly. Contrary to the quote that I read in Politico at the end of last week from Speaker Pelosi, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike all want to see teachers in the classroom, nurses in the emergency room, and cops on the beat, not in the unemployment line, as the Speaker claimed Republicans wanted to see.

So let me repeat. Speaker Pelosi offered this quote: Republicans, Democrats, and independents want to make sure that teachers are in the classroom, that nurses are in the emergency room, and that cops are on the beat. If the Democratic majority, Madam Speaker, had done their job in an appropriate and timely way, our teachers, nurses, and cops would not be on the chopping block. Today's emergency vote is a function of the failures of this Democratic leadership.

But this bill is about more than teachers, nurses, and cops. Some of the spending in this bill is unjustifiable under any procedure. We're told by the Democratic majority that the Federal taxpayers must bail out struggling States. But let's take a look at why States are looking for a bailout in the first place.

One needs look no further than my State of California, the largest State in the union. I'm very sorry to say that it provides the perfect example of the fiscal disasters that are inevitable in the absence of transparency and accountability.

The people of southern California over the past few weeks have become outraged over astronomical salaries for certain officials. The most egregious example has been the city manager of Bell, California. Now, Bell, California, Madam Speaker, is a town of 36,000, just east of downtown Los Angeles. The city manager, Robert Rizzo, was receiving an annual compensation package of $1.5 million. The city manager of a tiny, frankly, not very wealthy town just east of downtown Los Angeles, Robert Rizzo, was receiving a compensation package of $1.5 million a year. He resigned in the wake of the scandal within the past week, and now he'll only collect an annual pension of almost $1 million a year. And it's not just the taxpayers of this tiny town of 36,000, Bell, California, who are on the hook. Because of the way the pension structure was put into place in California, my constituents and the constituents of our other California colleagues will be forced to pay a significant portion of Robert Rizzo's lavish nearly $1 million pension.

The problems in California go well beyond one wildly overpaid city manager and a broken pension system. The State legislature's failure to enact a budget is costing the State $1.5 billion in deficit spending with every single month that goes by. They have created a fiscal nightmare, they've taxed the people of California to the brink, and now they have turned to the beleaguered Federal coffers once again.

Thanks to the Democratic majority's policy of never-ending bailouts, there's not a taxpayer in this country who isn't on the hook for astonishingly reckless spending priorities just like these.

We have got to put a stop to these dangerous policies once and for all. We need to put an end to the never-ending cycle of bailouts, emergency spending, deficits, and debt. Instead, we need to return to regular order to pass a budget and fund our top priorities through the regular accountable process while doing everything that we can to ferret out and cut waste, fraud, and abuse.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we need to put an end to the practice of haphazard, unaccountable legislating.

Madam Speaker, arrogance and ineptitude are a lethal combo. We will be paying the consequences for generations to come if we don't change the course right now.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that I appreciate the fact that my friend from Colorado pointed out that, contrary to what Speaker Pelosi said when she argued that Republicans would rather see in the unemployment line teachers, nurses, and cops rather than in the classroom, in the emergency room and on the line, on the beat, that, in fact, we do, Republicans and Democrats, alike care.

At this point, I am happy to yield, Madam Speaker, 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, my friend from Dallas, Mr. Hensarling.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say that we keep hearing that this is fully paid for. It's paid for, Madam Speaker, by taxing companies that in difficult times are creating jobs and by hitting food stamps and renewable energy. Obviously, that ain't a way to pay for this, and we know that it's not fully paid for.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a tireless member of the House Rules Committee, my friend from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from Lakeville, Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a Member who would like to see us go through the regular appropriations process, a member of the Appropriations Committee, my friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, a week ago last Friday when we adjourned for the August district work period, I thought to myself, well, we are going to get a six-week reprieve from this pattern of constant increases in spending and more bailouts. And yet here we are one week into this August district work period,

and we are back here with a $26.1 billion spending measure.

Now, Madam Speaker, I was horrified when I read at the end of last week a quote that was put out of Speaker Pelosi's office. She said that Republican Members would rather see teachers, nurses, and cops on the unemployment line rather than having teachers in the classrooms, nurses in the emergency rooms, and cops on the beat.

And as I said in the opening, I am grateful that my friend from Colorado recognizes that Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike all want to make sure that teachers are in the classroom, all want to make sure that nurses are in the emergency room, and all want to make sure that cops are on the beat. So let's disabuse ourselves of this notion that somehow if you are not supportive of this $26.1 billion measure, that you somehow are opposed to teachers, nurses, and cops.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question and allow those five measures to be debated here on the House floor, I believe that that goal would go a long way towards getting our economy back on track; and, yes, that kind of economic growth would ensure that we would have the resources to make sure that teachers remain in the classrooms and that nurses remain in the emergency rooms and that cops remain on the beat.

So Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. And if by chance we are not successful, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Because I believe that we can do better.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, last Friday we learned the unemployment rate is still at 9\1/2\ percent, and it would be much higher if the official calculations also looked at the fast-growing number of Americans who have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. So while Congress should be here trying to find ways to get

Americans back to work, we're here instead to complete action on another extension of stimulus that will also do nothing to reduce the unemployment rate in this country. In fact, this bill and the tax increases in it will hurt job creation.

According to the methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President's chief economic adviser, the tax increases in this bill alone will destroy over 140,000 American jobs. In an open letter to Congress this week, the National Association of Manufacturers warned that ``imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.'' Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned they would ``impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.''

These tax increases are a mistake, and, as I noted during the debate 2 weeks ago, most of these have never been the subject of any committee hearing or markup. It is possible that, upon review, some of these provisions might make sense if packaged with other changes to address the fact that our corporate tax rate is soon to be the highest among all industrialized nations. Our international tax system is deeply flawed, and our tax code is increasingly putting our companies and their employees at a tremendous competitive disadvantage.

But we never got the opportunity to hear from the American employers or to offer any amendments. That's a truly disappointing breakdown of the committee system, which is supposed to ensure that policies are carefully vetted and reviewed before passage.

I also want to mention the phantom tax increases that aren't in this bill but we will soon see. The Speaker has already indicated that she opposes two of the spending offsets included in this bill. One relates to food stamps; the other is a cut in funding for a renewable energy spending program. Together, those items total $13.4 billion, more than half the total offsets in the bill. So next month when the House considers some other legislation, don't be surprised to see another $13 billion in higher taxes to prevent those spending cuts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I am prepared to reserve or prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have before me letters from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, as well as PACE, Promote America's Competitive Edge.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million business organizations of every size. They strongly oppose this legislation because they say it would place ``draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth'' and the jobs that come from that.

Likewise, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States, they

also oppose this legislation. ``An estimated 22 million workers in the United States, more than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53 percent of all manufacturing employees, are employed by companies with operations overseas.'' They oppose these tax increases because, again, it will ``jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.''

Likewise, the Business Roundtable, which, again, is an association that represents more than 12 million employees, has also sent a letter opposing this legislation because they say that this legislation will, again, only make matters worse, make it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete in the world economy and then actually puts U.S. jobs at stake because of that.

Again, PACE, which represents more than 63 million American jobs that depend on the competitiveness of American employers worldwide, said, ``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the effect of discouraging business investment and job creation in the United States.''

I think it's actually unfortunate that, again, here on the floor I am having to submit these letters here, when actually the appropriate place would be in the Committee on Ways and Means. But, unfortunately, the Committee on Ways and Means has never had a hearing on these provisions, never had a markup on this legislation. We have not had a process that has been open to employers to come forward before the committee and be heard on the record so that we might be able to adjust this or put this in context.

As I said, we need broad-based international tax reform in the U.S. This piecemeal approach doesn't work, hurts our competitiveness.

Again, I think if we could have had a system where there was actually a committee hearing or a markup, that on review you might be able to improve upon this or find a way to actually address the serious issue that pretty soon our corporate tax rate will be the highest among all the industrialized nations, and we could actually put on the record the deep flaws in our international tax system and the deep flaws in our Tax Code.

Instead, what we are doing today is rushing to the floor again, without transparency, without openness, without hearing--certainly no opportunity for American employers to come forward and be heard on this issue. We are putting them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage at a time when they need to be competing around the world for jobs.

With that, I urge opposition to this legislation.

Business Roundtable,

Washington, DC, August 9, 2010.

Dear Member of Congress: We write today to express our

strong opposition to inclusion of international tax revenue

raisers in H.R. 1586, as approved last week by the Senate.

The measure would raise nearly $10 billion in new taxes on

worldwide American companies through fundamental changes in

U.S. tax law, despite the fact that U.S. tax rules already

put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Keeping American companies and workers competitive should

be the number one goal of U.S. tax policy, yet changes in the

tax systems of our major trading partners now place the

United States at a decided tax disadvantage--which runs a

high risk of severely undermining U.S. economic growth and

job creation.

The United States already has the second highest tax rate

among developed countries and an international tax structure

that is a relic of an era in which U.S. companies faced

little competition from foreign-headquartered corporations as

they competed around the world. The current U.S. system is

inconsistent with the free flow of trade and investment, and

it inhibits use of foreign earnings to invest in the U.S.

economy. The provisions included in the House legislation to

be considered today will only make matters worse.

We urge the House to remove the counterproductive

international tax provisions now included in H.R. 1586, and

that any future consideration of U.S. tax policy be done only

in the context of comprehensive tax reform designed to

improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the world

economy. U.S. jobs are at stake.

Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive

officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in

annual revenues and more than 12 million employees. Our

members share your goal of restoring the U.S. economy to

strong economic growth and job creation.

Sincerely,

Larry D. Burton.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need of these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system as the former chairman and ranking member of Education and Labor.

Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities, but this arguments misses two larger points.

First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.

Second, rescissions to the defense budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that Defense restructure or postpone programs, and in some cases the money is no longer available in these accounts.

Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next 5 years, the only secretary that has been asked to do this. My ultimate concern is these savings will not be reinvested into America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs.

We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats, with the full support of the White House, are taking critical defense funding to pay for another State bailout.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid for in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need for these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system, as the former Chairman and Ranking Member of Education and Labor.

Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities. This includes $683.5 million unspent from last year's economic stimulus package and $325 million for military construction projects. They will use this argument to convince members that these cuts will not harm the Department and to assure you that this next bailout is fully paid for.

But this argument misses two larger points. First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, ``. . . diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.'' For example, in the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, we used the unobligated balances for military construction projects to fund other more pressing infrastructure needs, such as barracks and armories, and many of the services' unfunded requirements. Now these funds will no longer be available for these purposes and the services will have outstanding needs go unmet.

Second, rescissions to the DoD budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that DoD restructure or postpone programs. I am confident the Department will try to avoid adverse effects on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when this nation is fighting two wars, Congress should not be pulling the financial rug out from under DoD at the end of the year.

Moreover, while these funds were identified as ``unspent'' earlier this year, some of these ``unspent'' dollars have already been diverted to other defense programs. When we cut the original accounts now, it will mean that some of these accounts no longer have enough money in them. Think about your own checking account--at the beginning of the year, you see that you have $1000 more than your budget says you'll need. So you move $800 into another account or give it to one of your children. If the government comes and takes $1000 from you at the end of the year, your remaining account balance may not be sufficient and you find yourself in an overdraft situation. In the case of government agencies it is against the law to overdraft an account. We have been told that the Department of Defense may find itself in violation of the Antideficiency Act in some accounts.

Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next five years. Yesterday he announced a series of spending freezes and closures of organizations within his office and combatant commands. Secretary Gates plans on plowing these savings back into force structure and modernization accounts. As elected officials, Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted on inefficient, wasteful or redundant programs. All of us support efforts to identify and curb such programs. Yet, as Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are also tasked with the unique responsibility of providing for America's national defense and meeting the needs of our military services, which is why we will need to receive more information from the Department of Defense so we fully understand the rationale behind each decision and potential impact of every cut.

My ultimate concern is that these savings will not be reinvested into America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by Congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats--with the full support of the White House--are taking critical defense funding to pay for another state bailout. What's to stop them from taking this money, too?

At his press conference yesterday Secretary Gates stated, ``. . . my greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the Nation's deficit problems, to find money for other parts of the government . . . And as I look around the world and see . . . more failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in their militaries . . . as I look at the new kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise missiles and so on--my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today and what we're likely to see in the years to come.''

I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of the Secretary in this matter and vote no to a cut in defense spending. Instead of another Federal bailout, let's make sure our men and women in uniform have the resources and equipment they need. Leave this money in the Department of Defense where it belongs.

I know that as my colleagues listen to the debate on the floor of the House, they don't have the full picture of Members returning from work recess, where we have been meeting with constituents, to come here today to take this important step. We are the People's House, and it certainly gives us no trouble to fly in to be able to make this important decision.

But this is out of the ordinary. And it is out of the ordinary because you are looking at people who really care about what is happening, the strangulation of our States and the losses and the pink slips that teachers are getting so that our children cannot learn and be part of the competitive edge in the world. I know it factually, having more than seven school districts in my community.

Today we are doing something that Chairman Obey deserves credit for, for his vision and his tenacity, someone who knows what it is to be without. Today we are talking about helping people. And I am sorry that the other body took so long, and I am sorry they took it out of EITC, and I am sorry they did not handle this in the right way, but we have a crisis going on.

So these thousands of dollars that will help per teacher to save these teachers and firefighters and police officers, so that maybe the three little girls that were killed by a drunk driver in my district would not have faced such, with more law enforcement to tell people you can't drive while you are drunk.

So I rise today to support this and ask anybody with good judgment, why would you vote against it? As I said, I don't like the pay-fors, but it is paid for. We will fix that.

But let me tell you what is happening in Texas. Texas is taking money out of the mouths of children and putting it somewhere else. So I am supporting it because we have language that says to the Governor of the State of Texas, don't fool with money for children and education. And we have 40 school districts saying we support the legislative language that members of the Texas legislation have proposed.

That would guarantee these emergency Federal education funds are actually spent on education in Texas. As drafted, this Texas fix has no impact on anything else. I am standing here because it is about education and public safety. I believe we are doing the right thing, and I ask my colleagues to vote on the underlying bill and the rule.

I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. I support this legislation because it will save and create 319,000 American jobs--many of them in the education and health sectors.

In less than a month, millions of American students will return to school eager to begin a new year of academic and personal growth. However, the quality of the schools they return to is a matter to be determined. Throughout the country, thousands of teachers have lost, or risk losing, their jobs. This is something our children and our educators can ill afford. As we work to regain economic ground, this legislation provides a total of $10 billion in funding for education jobs to sustain thousands of schools educating millions of children. Moreover, this includes $830.2 billion dollars for primary and secondary schools in the state of Texas.

I am pleased that this legislation includes a provision that requires Governor Perry to certify that these emergency appropriations for public education will be used solely to add new funds for public education and not misused for other purposes. We all recall what happened last year when Governor Perry misused the Economic Recovery Act State Stabilization funds. In that instance, Governor Perry used $3.2 billion in similar aid last year as a substitute for, not an addition to, state aid to school districts. That was outrageous.

It ignored the intent of our legislation, and it denied our children the education that they deserved.

I want to stress that the provision will not create a compliance burden on the state of Texas. Rather, it says only that the state cannot take the federal aid and then use it as an excuse to make disproportionate cuts in state education aid to school districts, relative to other parts of the state budget that might also have to take a hit in the next budget cycle. This required assurance is no more onerous than assurances Governor Perry has given previously to receive billions of dollars in other federal funds. Texas cannot afford to be left out again, and I join the Texas Democratic Delegation and groups of teachers, principals and administrators from across the state of Texas who strongly support this provision.

Madam Speaker, I applaud you for reconvening this week to pass this crucial legislation. We have a bold vision for creating and sustaining an education system that prepares our children to excel. As President Obama said yesterday in Texas, ``education is the economic issue of our time.'' I could not agree more. Today we have the opportunity to pass legislation that will impact education jobs today and our children's job prospects tomorrow. With schools forced to make difficult personnel decisions before the start of the school year, this legislation is the necessary action at the necessary time. According to updated estimates from the Department of Education, the $10 billion education funding will save 161,000 teacher jobs.

In addition to education jobs funding, this legislation will also save and create jobs in the health sector. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, the Medicaid funds will save and create 158,000 jobs, including preventing the layoff of police officers and firefighters. More than half these jobs will be in the private sector, including workers who contract for or supply services to state and local governments.

Under the Recovery Act, enacted in February 2009, the federal Medicaid matching rate was increased by 6.2 percentage points for all states and by additional percentage points for states with high unemployment. These temporary provisions were enacted in response to the state fiscal crisis--with the increased Medicaid caseloads and decreasing state revenues resulting from the deep recession. However, these provisions are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010, with dire consequences for our economy.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found: ``If Congress does not extend the enhanced Medicaid matching funds in last year's Recovery Act, most states will cut public services or raise taxes . . . without more federal aid, state budget-closing actions could cost the national economy 900,000 public- and private-sector jobs.''

Due to the deep and enduring recession, states have lost tax revenue for the last two years and revenues are projected to remain at severely-reduced levels throughout fiscal year 2011. As a result, states have been forced to scale back spending and implement large service cuts to balance their budgets. While fiscal austerity is important, budget cuts impact more than a bottom line--the local health and emergency personnel need their jobs to make ends meet for themselves and their families. By extending the Medicare matching funds, we will help state and local governments save money and allow them to stay afloat while the economy improves. At least 34 states will cut jobs and services if this assistance is not enacted. This legislation will have a direct impact on Texas by providing an estimated $858,000,000 for Medicaid fiscal relief which will, in turn, save and create thousands of jobs.

Madam Speaker, I thank you again for calling us back to session to save America's jobs.