Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1137.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1137 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, or his designee, that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, in today's economy, many families are struggling to make ends meet. As we know, the economic recession began in 2008 as a direct result of reckless and irresponsible financial decisions. We are still dealing with the wreckage today. Over the last few years, I have heard countless stories of people struggling to put food on the table, pay their mortgages, and provide for their children, and millions of America's seniors are making decisions every day to skip meals or cut their pills in half just to survive.

California and, in particular, my constituents in Sacramento, have been greatly impacted by this economic crisis. Many of my constituents were and continue to be victims of predatory home loan lending, unfair credit card practices, payday loans, and other forms of unscrupulous business practices. They turned to Congress for help, and we responded with the CARD Act. And the ink was hardly dry on that legislation before credit card companies tried to find loopholes to arbitrarily raise credit card interest rates and fees on consumers.

This Congress also passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which will bring much-needed oversight and accountability to Wall Street. This bill also creates a new consumer financial protection agency to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive financial practices. Meanwhile, small businesses are seeking assistance to help make payroll, retain their employees, and pay for the skyrocketing costs of health insurance. These are the reasons why it is time to once again put the American people first and provide them with the support they need from their Representatives in Congress.

We need to pass the jobs bill before us today as a significant step towards helping hardworking Americans get back to work. The American people are hurting, and the top priority of this administration and this Congress must be

jobs, jobs, jobs. In December, the House passed a jobs package, the Jobs for Main Street Act that would make $156 billion in targeted investments in our economy. The projects supported by this bill will improve our highways and transit infrastructure, renovate schools, and help small businesses rebuild, support job training initiatives, and affordable housing programs.

While the jobs package we are considering today is not as broad as the version passed by this House, it is an important step in the right direction and one we cannot afford not to enact. Today's bill is one that I hope will be the first of a series of job creation proposals that we will consider in the coming weeks and months because the reality is that the unemployment rate in this country is at an unacceptable level of 9.7 percent, and this bill will help incentivize employers to start hiring immediately. Already the Recovery Act, put forth by congressional Democrats, has saved or created more than 2 million jobs. That is according to CBO. The Recovery Act has clearly helped us rebound from this recession and saved us from the brink of another Great Depression.

The Recovery Act has greatly benefited my district and the entire Sacramento region, providing almost $700 million for dozens of projects. Such projects include $21 million for improving and enhancing Sacramento's levees from flood protection, public transportation facilities, developing clean energy technology, and hiring 30 new officers at the Sacramento Police Department. It is also helping struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, investing in new community health facilities, and the list does go on and on and on. My constituents can see where and how every dollar is being spent in our district by visiting my Web site.

One of the most important results of the Recovery Act is that it helps school districts minimize budget cuts. However, as the economy declines, school districts are now considering shorter school years, larger class sizes, and looking to lay off teachers. We cannot let this happen. So our path towards economic recovery must continue to invest in our Nation's workforce to spur additional job creation, innovation and long-term economic growth. And by supporting the rule and the underlying bill, we will do just that.

I have heard from small business owners who are eager to be connected to business counseling and resources, to learn more about financing opportunities, SBA loan products, and government contracting opportunities. There is a great demand for immediate and real assistance for our small businesses to get back on their feet and for workers to get back into the labor market. Over the last few months, I have held two small business workshops to help existing small business owners understand the recovery legislation, obtain financing, and find new opportunities for government programs. And I have seen firsthand how eager people are to start working again or get retrained in new fields and to take an active part in our country's economic recovery.

The proposal before us today offers a key strategic tax incentive for employers to hire new workers. The proposal would exempt employers from paying Social Security taxes through the end of this year for hiring new workers who have been out of work for at least 60 days. If the newly hired workers remain on the payroll for at least a year, the bill provides an additional $1,000 income tax credit to employers. This new hiring tax credit could spur as many as 250,000 jobs, according to leading economists. To help small businesses, the proposal offers an immediate writeoff, up to $250,000 for equipment purchased this year. To invest in additional transportation infrastructure, the proposal extends the Highway Trust Fund, otherwise known as SAFETEA-LU, for 15 months to pay for transportation projects ready to break ground.

Using the rule of thumb in highway contracting where every $1 billion in transportation spending creates about 35,000 jobs, this $77 billion investment means that more than 2 million jobs will be retained or created, including high-quality jobs in the construction and building trades.

Finally, the bill expands the Build America Bonds Program to allow investors to claim Federal subsidies up to 45 percent of the borrowing cost for bonds issued for public works projects.

There is no doubt that this package will incentivize and spur much- needed job creation and economic growth in our neighborhoods and communities. And to my colleagues, concerned, as I am, that this bill does not go far enough to create jobs, I want to be clear that this is the first in a series of steps we will be taking to continue to get the economy back on track.

Together with the continued economic assistance of the Recovery Act, we are laying the groundwork for continued job creation and future economic growth to lead us to our prosperity.

It is my hope that this Congress continues to find new ways to get Americans back to work, stabilize our economy, and help rebuild our middle class. This is not the end of our work, but it is a critical step forward for the American people. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to say this job creation package has been discussed in the headlines and the Halls of Congress for weeks now. In addition, the pay-fors that are proposed here have been debated numerous times in the House previously. There are no surprises here.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I just received this amendment as well this morning. It is fairly short, 15 pages, double-spaced. I read it, and it took less than 10 minutes for me to see that the amendment was fully paid for.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I want to say that the motion to concur with the amendment that is made in order under this rule is a very simple one that will bring the bill into compliance with statutory pay-as-you-go rules. It changes very little, as Mr. Oberstar says, with the underlying bill which was intended to create jobs and spur hiring by America's small businesses. Delaying this package of job-creation measures today would delay our ability to get Americans back to work. Time is not on our side, which is why we have to act quickly here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to point out my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite concerned that we are using same-day authority before the end of a session. In the 109th Congress, when the Republicans were in the majority, the Rules Committee reported two same-day rules in March and early April. These were hardly end-of-the-session times, Madam Speaker, and they had nothing to do with reviving our economy. These particular same-day rules were about the Federal Government interfering in a case of Terri Schiavo. Now, without reopening that divisive debate, I just want to say that the issues we are dealing with today under this same- day rule are important to the lives of millions of Americans.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I just want to say, while this bill distributes some highway funds in a way that disproportionately benefits a handful of States, it's important to remind my colleagues that these concerns will be addressed in subsequent legislation.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say this again, that I believe it's important to note that the chairman of the authorizing committee has reached an agreement with the House and Senate leadership on the contentious highway funding issue that was included in the other Chamber's jobs package.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

I reserve my time.

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

Madam Speaker, calling up and passing rules using same-day authority is a legitimate legislative tool, with precedent. In the 109th Congress, when the Republicans had the majority, when they passed the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, same-day authority was used to bring it before the House. During debate on that rule, the then chairman of the Rules Committee called it ``a very fair rule.'' That was followed by Mr. Dreier's assertion that ``Members have had a great deal of time over the past several weeks and months to focus on this issue. Let us continue what we have done throughout this great 109th Congress--get the work of the American people done.''

Madam Speaker, getting the work of the American people done is exactly what we aim to do today by passing the jobs bill under an expedited procedure. Creating jobs must be our top priority, until we get our economy completely back on track and put more Americans back to work.

The legislation we are considering today had bipartisan support in the Senate, with 13 Senate Republicans voting for this much-needed jobs package. That bill was not even paid for. Well, the House version is and has full PAYGO language included.

The jobs package includes key provisions to spur job creation and investment in our workforce. It includes a new jobs payroll extension, offering employers exemption from paying Social Security payroll taxes for hiring new workers who were previously unemployed. This specific provision is estimated to create an additional 250,000 jobs alone. The bill also provides relief to small businesses by allowing them to write off more of the costs of their 2010 expenditures.

The package extends the Highway Trust Fund for 15 months for existing highway programs to allow for billions to be invested in infrastructure projects and make a real difference in communities across our country.

The bill also expands the Build America bonds to allow States and local governments to borrow at lower costs to finance infrastructure projects and put more Americans to work.

Together with the ongoing investment by the Recovery Act, this jobs package will further incentivize and spur job creation and economic growth in this country. This Congress must continue to invest wisely in proposals that will train our workers, create new, good-paying jobs, grow our economy, and rebuild the middle class.

Madam Speaker, we must lead by example and demonstrate our continued commitment to help our middle class families, our seniors, and the economy move forward. With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans in this body are in a quandary again today because of the way this bill was brought to the floor, and I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson) to ask some questions.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman--and I am extending my words to him at this time. I do appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Oberstar, for being available to come down to the floor, but that is not the process. The process is the gentleman should have been upstairs at the Rules Committee. There was not one person available on behalf of the majority to come up to the Rules Committee to explain the bill. An explanation of, ``Well, none of this is new,'' is an inadequate explanation to the American people and to this body, and the Speaker should be embarrassed. This is not open. This is not, I believe, ethical, because the decisions were made and there was no discussion.

I believe we are calling into question, Republicans are calling into question today about how this House is being run. And I do appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and, in fact, I admire him a lot. Despite its being only perhaps 15 or 18 pages, that is an inadequate explanation. This House should not stand for it. The Members of this body should say we will not tolerate this. And I am deeply disappointed once again.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from San Dimas, California.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman said it best about this bill: Nobody even really knows what's in it. There was no general discussion. There was no one made available to come to the Rules Committee to answer questions. There were no committee hearings on this. This isn't the way to run this House, and it's not just Republicans that are down saying this. It's Members of the majority party also. It is this kind of unthoughtful and unprofessional conduct that is being put off on this body to where Members don't even know what's in the bill, have not had the time. And once again, Republicans are down saying it's not open, it's not honest, and certainly not ethical.

I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the favorite son of Winterpark, Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Speaker, there is an answer to the gentlewoman from Texas, which is to vote against this rule. Vote against this rule. Then become a part of the process for the things which you would hope, would expect, and would want to be in the bill so at least your feedback can be accepted.

We've been told now that the Senate is the problem, but the problem is this House, Madam Speaker. The problem is the way we are doing things. The gentleman Mr. Oberstar said, Yes, we've been waiting for months to get this from the Senate. We took 2\1/2\ minutes upstairs this morning--not one hearing, not one person who represented the Democratic Party who would explain what is in this bill. Now we are down on the floor, trying to figure out what is in the bill, getting it just hours ago. This is a flawed process.

Madam Speaker, hearkening back to February 5, 2009, over a year ago, in the CQ article, `` `Regular Order' Will Prevail in House After Stimulus Is Complete, Pelosi says,'' the article reads, ``Speaking at House Democrats' annual policy conference, Pelosi said in her opening speech, `Of course we will go forward under regular order. We now have a large majority and a President who will sign legislation.' ''

It's not happening. It's not happening again today. It did not happen even after February 5, 2009. We should be embarrassed, but as the old saying goes, beatings will continue until morale improves.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, you know, we have heard all this before, and it is not working. The bottom line is what this Democratic leadership and this Democratic President are proposing is not working, and that is why we are back at the well, so to speak, again.

Over and over and over again we have a bunch of people that want to claim, ``Oh, we know how to get this done. Look at what President Clinton did.'' That was a Republican House of Representatives. Those were free market ideas. That was encouraging this country to be competitive. That was doing things that would encourage America and American business to go hire people.

The three largest political items of Speaker Pelosi and President Barack Obama have lost this country 10 million net jobs. No wonder American business is not hiring people. They are getting things jammed down their throat.

The President of the United States when he was a candidate talked about all the great things that could be accomplished, and since the President has been in the White House, he has done nothing but call people names, pick on them, belittle them, bully them, and then turns around and wonders why we have no jobs, why his agenda is not working. It is obvious why it is not working, because it is not made to work. It is made to bully the free enterprise system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I appear to have one additional speaker plus myself.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the time that remains on both sides, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that this House of Representatives is made up of 435 Members who take time every week to come here to Washington. Perhaps they live here, but they still come to work, I believe, with a sense of obligation and duty, all 435 of us, to be fully participatory and to be a part of a moving body and a process that should work for the American people.

We are now in our fourth year of leadership that denies the American people and the Members of this body an opportunity, I believe, to even participate; not just fully participate, but to participate.

This bill that is on the floor again today is an example of a process that is very deceptive, because our friends, the Speaker and the Democratic leadership, talk about being open and honest, and yet the bill is here today with just hours' notice, with no one up in the Rules Committee on behalf of the Democrat leadership even explaining what is in the bill. I believe, again, the American people will reject this kind of leadership when the American people want to be engaged and Members of Congress want to be engaged.

So, today, Republicans are going to ask that we reject this, and we should reject this, because we know that Republicans have better ideas.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican leader (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I believe that our Republican leader, John Boehner, has said it very clearly, and that is that the way we are operating is not in the best interests of this House, the institution, or the Members.

We have heard lots of colleagues on the other side cut down and argue about this isn't even a job bill because it is not even going to create jobs and how inefficient it is. But until this Democratic leadership agrees that they want to be open, that they want to be honest about what is in the bill, and that they want to be ethical about how decisions are made, Republicans are going to keep coming down to this floor.

Many times I have argued openly in front of our Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, and said, Please know that the Republican Party wants to be better at our job, not as loyal opposition, but as an alternative party, and you do not even allow us an opportunity to know what is in the bills.

It is ridiculous. We find ourselves in the role of asking questions, making statements, and doing things that, to the American people, look awkward and, quite honestly, unprofessional.

I lay at the feet of the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leadership and my great Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, once again a request: If you want this body to have a chance to not look unprofessional and perhaps stupid, like we don't know what we are doing, and to gain back some trust of the American people, you have got to open up the process to where we as Members of Congress are able to come down with an educated opportunity to understand what is in the bill, to engage our colleagues on a professional basis, and to be able to thoughtfully talk about the content of the bill.

This is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that after we heard a year ago that we will start going through regular order now, we are still not doing that, that Members of Congress cannot even see the bill hours before they read it, nor do we know the content because nobody came to explain it.

It is wholly inadequate to people who are back home, Madam Speaker, to expect their Member of Congress, who comes up here 40 weeks a year to represent people, to be told we don't even know what is in the bill.

I encourage a ``no'' vote. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule. I will say once again to my friends that are Democrats, if you want to read the bill, if

you want to open up the process, your vote is the one that will make it happen. Don't blame that on somebody else. I have said it over the years. If you want to read the bill, then vote ``no'' on the rule. If you are perfectly happy with the process that is happening, go ahead and support this rule. But don't go back home and tell people, well, you know, I really didn't have a chance. That is a bad thing. Their vote matters on this floor.

Madam Speaker, every single one of us is issued a voting card that should be controlled by the Member, not by somebody else. Today, the Republican Party is coming down once again on this floor and saying directly to the American people and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, We are not happy. The process is flawed. And we are going to hold accountable every Member that votes for this rule today, just like we are for the others.

So if you bring what we consider to be a less than stellar bill to the floor and the process is part of that participation and you shut it out, you can expect to hear the same from the Republican Party. We want to be a part of this process, the American people do, and I even heard today your own Members again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Dallas, a very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me this time.

Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I stood here in the well and began talking about a date that may only be in my head, but I have been talking about it. The date was June 24, and my friend from Dallas, of course, remembers it. It was 3 a.m. on June 24, and we were sitting upstairs in the Rules Committee considering the so-called cap-and-trade bill, and as the motion was being offered by my friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, to move the special rule to the floor for consideration, as that motion was being offered, I had a nice, warm, hot-off-the-press, 300-page amendment dropped in my lap, as did Mr. Sessions, Mr. Diaz- Balart, and Ms. Foxx. Within a matter of hours, we considered that measure. And it was a very important time, Madam Speaker, because that is when the American people got it. They began this chant, ``Read the bill. Read the bill.''

The next day, we will all recall, that when the customary 1 minute was yielded to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), he spent 1 hour going through the 300 pages in that amendment that Members of this House had not yet read and had only had before them for a matter of a few hours.

I talked about that just yesterday when we were, for the second time in as many weeks, proceeding under martial law rule, and I was arguing that takes place at the end of a Congress when we are dealing with very, very pressing situations, not in the third month of the second session of the 111th Congress, which is where we are today.

Madam Speaker, once again we have it again, and I know that my friends from Texas, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Sessions, have both referred to the fact that we met this morning for a grand total of 2 minutes in the Rules Committee, and this measure is now before us.

The American people are hurting. They want us to focus on job growth and economic growth. They know full well that it is absolutely imperative that we create good, long-term private sector jobs. We know how important that is. But we also have a responsibility to do what James Madison envisaged this institution as being, and that is a great deliberative body. We have the responsibility to deliberate on these matters.

Now, I understand the urgency. I understand the urgency, but when you look at the legislative schedule we have had over the past several weeks, and some of our colleagues have gone through them, I can't name them all, but post offices and recognition of items, we have not extended the time and energy and effort that we clearly could here in this institution doing it.

Now, I know that Mr. Oberstar was speaking earlier, and others have spoken. It's not a question of our not trusting the process we're under right now, but I'm reminded so vividly of the famous exchange that took place between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. ``Doveryai, no proveryai'' was what the Russian used to say: ``Trust, but verify.''

Madam Speaker, I think that that's all we're saying. We have a responsibility--not to Republicans, not to Democrats, but to all of the American people--to hold accountable this institution, which saw this majority come to power based on a document, a document that was entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' In that document, Speaker Pelosi pointed to the fact that legislation would be considered under an open amendment process whenever possible. It talked about minority rights, the kinds of things that James Madison regularly focused on when he talked about the rights of the minority.

And what is it that's happened, Madam Speaker? Unfortunately, we are now, as I said, in the third month of the second session of the 111th Congress, and guess what? We've gone through the entire first session of Congress for the first time in the history of the Republic and not had a single piece of legislation considered under an open amendment process, not a single piece of legislation considered under an open amendment process, and now we're in the third month of this second session, nothing considered under an open amendment process.

Then we have, as we deal with the very important pressing jobs issue, we have legislation that is brought here under martial law rule, considered for a grand total of 2 minutes in the House Rules Committee just 3 hours ago, and now we're here on the floor dealing with it.

Madam Speaker, we can do better. I urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Sessions in opposition to this rule so that we can come back with a work product that will do the kinds of things that will get real jobs created out there.

I know that in this measure there is a provision that provides a tax incentive for people to hire new employees. Well, that sounds great, but the heads of one of the top companies in this country had this proposal offered to him by the former Treasury Secretary, one of the top economic advisers to President Obama, Larry Summers, and his response was, Don't offer me a tax credit to hire someone. What we need to do is increase the demand for our product. Those are the kinds of things that we should be doing.

So, Madam Speaker, again I say, as I regularly do from this well, when it comes to job creation and economic growth, what we should be doing is pursuing the bipartisan John F. Kennedy/Ronald Reagan vision: marginal rate reduction and a reduction of the top rate on capital gains. Job creators deserve the kind of relief that is necessary since Japan is the only nation in the world with a higher tax on those job creators than ours.

We know what it takes; we know what it takes. It worked under a Democratic administration, and it's worked under a Republican administration. So let's defeat this rule and go back and come up with a bill that will, in fact, create exactly what I said at the outset: good, long-term private sector jobs.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my 5 minutes, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I didn't want to interrupt the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, but is it proper in debate to utter words that Senator Bunning does not care about the unemployed? Is that an appropriate observation?

Well, excuse me. It is not a hypothetical. The gentlewoman said it, so it is not a hypothetical. She said it 2 minutes ago.

Are you saying that I am asking you a hypothetical?

Madam Speaker, I think regular order has prevailed in the House. The regular order is that we don't follow the rules and that we issue gag rules. This is another gag rule. It is a closed rule, and we are going to talk about, not only the bad underlying bill, but the bad rule. This isn't a jobs bill.

I have great admiration for the gentlewoman from California, the manager on the majority side of this rule, but my admiration has grown today because she has been able during this debate to call this a ``jobs bill'' with a straight face. She has not giggled once. But she should have. This isn't a jobs bill. This is a no jobs bill. This is a faux jobs bill. This is a snow jobs bill.

Mr. Doggett, with whom I rarely agree, I think was right on the money. The centerpiece of this bill is $13 billion for a tax credit-- $13 billion out of $15 billion. The way this things works is, if you're a small business person in this country, struggling, and if you hire somebody at $30,000 a year, do you know what? You don't have to pay the payroll taxes, 6.2 percent payroll taxes, which is about $1,500.

I had three chambers back in Ohio--chambers of commerce, small business people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I said, You know what? Here's the deal. How many of you are going to hire anybody? Nobody. Nobody raised their hands. This is not going to create one job, and it's the centerpiece of the bill.

So, Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat the previous question so I may amend the rule. If the previous question is defeated, I would propose to amend the rule to make in order an amendment to modify the proposed further House amendment, which would eliminate the $13 billion in this stupid tax provision and would transfer it to infrastructure spending and, further, that that infrastructure spending be distributed pursuant to the House-passed formula and not the Senate- passed formula.

I want to get now to the underlying policy on the infrastructure side. I spent 14 years on the infrastructure committee--love the infrastructure committee, love Chairman Oberstar--but I can't figure out why people would vote for this thing based on the infrastructure spending. I understand, if you're from California, you might like this bill because, under this bill, California gets $277 million and, under the House bill, only $85 million. Illinois, the President's home State, I understand why he might like it--$151 million under this bill and $15 million under the House bill. Oregon, I don't know why a person from Oregon would vote for this bill: $40 million under this bill and $11 million under the--well, actually, you should vote for this bill, people from Oregon. You'll do better.

Texas. Really, I saw Ms. Jackson Lee, who apparently can say that Senator Bunning doesn't care about unemployed people in this country. I don't know why anybody from Texas would vote for this bill, Mr. Sessions. Under this bill, you will get $1 million and change. Under Mr. Oberstar's proposal, Texas would have gotten $78 million.

Now, why is that fair? Why is that fair that 22 States get zero? Why is it fair that you have winners and losers? Why is it fair that California gets 30 percent of the money under this bill? Well, it's not, and you know it's not.

Finally, to the process. You know, I was tipping my hat to the Democratic majority a little earlier today because the original plan was just to bring the Senate amendment to the House bill over here, which of course, would have cut off the minority's ability to offer an amendment and a motion to recommit--but no, they didn't do that. I thought that was pretty crafty. What they did do is amend it with these 15 pages that were available 3 hours ago for our consideration. I'll give the gentlewoman from California the nod that, yes, these ideas have been talked about for a long time. Nobody had seen the 15 pages before 9:30 this morning. So they amended it. They had a Rules Committee hearing. What did they not permit under this rule? A motion to recommit.

I can't believe it. You should be ashamed. Excuse me, Madam Speaker. They should be ashamed. This is a fraud. This is an anti-democratic rule.

What are you afraid of? You have 256 votes. Let us offer my motion to recommit that transfers this stupid $13 billion to infrastructure spending that will put people to work in a sector of the economy that has 30 percent unemployment. It will distribute it according to the House proposal, not the Senate proposal so that California, Oregon, and Illinois don't walk out of this place with 58 percent of the money. It's not fair.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 362) expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on House Resolution 362 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 362, which expresses the House of Representatives' support of the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program.

When it comes to education in our country, we traditionally focus on reading, writing, and extracurricular activities. We want to ensure that our students have access to well-trained teachers and to the tools they need to achieve academic success. However, we often forget that an essential tool to any child's academic success can also be found outside the classroom--in the school cafeteria.

Children who are hungry are at a disadvantage to their peers. Studies have shown that children who experience hunger throughout the day have higher likelihoods of receiving lower math scores, of having decreased attentiveness, increased absences and tardiness, and a higher chance of having to repeat a grade. Children who are not well nourished are also more likely to need referrals to special education services.

We know that nearly one-third of our Nation's children today are overweight and obese. Obesity rates have soared over the past four decades among children of all age groups, increasing nearly five-fold among those who are ages 6 through 11. Teaching children to have a healthy relationship with food and nutrition has never been more important.

First Lady Michelle Obama has initiated an exciting new program to help solve this challenge. The ``Let's Move!'' campaign directs attention to four areas: helping parents make healthy family choices; serving healthier food in schools; improving access to healthy, affordable food in communities; and increasing physical activity.

The National School Lunch Program can have a central role in the First Lady's efforts to help children develop healthy behaviors and to achieve their highest potential. For over 60 years, the National School Lunch Program has served as a safeguard for the health and nutritional well-being of our Nation's children. Every day, over 31 million meals are served to schoolchildren across the country.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to take note of the changes we have seen in school food menus over the years. In cafeterias in all of our communities, you might find menus which offer salad bars with fresh fruit, whole wheat pizza, or freshly made chicken wraps. The days of ``mystery meat'' are past. Today, students want to eat in the school cafeteria because the food tastes good and there are many food options.

However, we know from the most recent report from the Institute of Medicine that healthy foods cost more. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported that the full cost to produce a reimbursable lunch generally exceeds that of the Federal reimbursement for free lunches. To help address this concern, the President has requested an additional $1 billion for child nutrition programs to help improve nutrition quality and to make these programs accessible to more children. These funds will go a long way in school cafeterias across the country.

I look forward to working with the President and with my colleagues, particularly with those on the House Education and Labor Committee, on this initiative.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, this week, each of us may be receiving visits from our local school food service directors. I want to acknowledge the fine work of the school food service workers who help to educate our children on nutrition and who work hard every day to serve them safe and healthy meals. They are the front line in these efforts, and they deserve our thanks.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Watson of California for introducing this important resolution, which highlights the need for this program, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, I urge strong support for the resolution. It is a timely measure because, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, today the Education and Labor Committee is holding

a hearing on reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. The School Lunch Program is really at the center of that effort. Again, I urge support of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.