Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 615 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the House is in session on a Saturday, a rare event. And why we do that, of course, is to finish up the work that is the culmination of the efforts of our committees that have then brought legislation to us to consider.

In this past week, we passed important legislation on employment discrimination, fair pay, an Iraq planning bill, Agriculture appropriations, and, very important, critical, actually, a children's health care bill.

Today, we are here to continue the business at hand, and that is to turn a new course for an energy future in this country that meets the needs and demands of the 21st century for a pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro- high-tech approach to solving our environmental challenges and our energy security issues.

H. Res. 615 provides a single rule for consideration of H.R. 3221, the New Direction For Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act and H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007. This will be a single rule. The rule provides a structured rule for H.R. 3221. It provides a closed rule as is customary in tax matters on H.R. 2776.

Today's legislation is about energy independence and creating a new economy around facing directly the energy and environmental challenges before this country.

This year more than a dozen of our committees began the challenging task of drafting energy legislation that, in a wide array of jurisdictions, can challenge the growing energy crisis. I certainly commend all of the committee Chairs, all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, particularly the long-term efforts of men like Chairman Dingell, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Waxman and others who have presented to us for the consideration of the whole body this comprehensive package of energy legislation.

Early in January, as you remember, the House passed H.R. 6. That repealed nearly $14 billion that were tax breaks granted to oil companies. Those tax breaks have been granted to oil companies at a time when they had record profits of $125 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this House has made a different decision. What we have done is decided to repeal those tax cuts and invest that money instead in projects that are critical for renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives. This bill will provide long-term incentives for the development of renewable energy, and it will set the stage for a growing industry that requires investment in order to thrive.

One of the debates that we have been having is this: If we undertake the challenge of energy independence, will that harm our economy? This bill says that will promote our economy and create good jobs. We have seen across this country, in every State, entrepreneurs taking on the challenge of energy efficiency and energy efficiency in new technologies.

To give an example, in my own State of Vermont, we have a small company that began about 20 years ago, Energy Systems in Heinsberg, Vermont. They began developing technologies to help measure wind velocity for purposes of determining the feasibility of wind energy. It has emerged as one of our most prosperous businesses, creates good jobs, high-paying jobs, and it has been very beneficial to the economy of the State of Vermont, all-clean jobs, all-clean energy.

That example has been replicated across this country. This bill promotes that effort. The idea here in this legislation is very simple: If we make a commitment now to investing in our energy future, we can have that pro-growth, pro-high-tech, pro-environment economy. We can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and we can protect our environment.

One of the potential opportunities that we have is the expansion of renewable energy development through carbon offsets. If that is going to be successful, it requires that these carbon offsets meet standards that are real, that are additional, verifiable and enforceable.

This legislation presented by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is going to allow us to put in place that methodology to help us offset our carbon emissions and create jobs in clean energy future.

There are many other parts of this legislation, since we have had 12 committees that have been involved: the Renewable Energy Worker Training Program, to help create a workforce of green jobs; the $2.5 billion investment to help rural communities, farmers and small businesses by reducing their energy costs through efficiency; the new efficiency standards for appliances, which require more efficient lighting and promotes green buildings in the public and private sector; and, of course, we have an effort under way here in Congress to green the Capitol and offset our carbon footprint by the year 2030. That is, at this stage, a bipartisan effort reflecting the mutual commitment to use less rather than more.

The committee has done a very good job in crafting a bill that we can be proud to support. It doesn't do everything. The CAFE standards are not a part of this, as that continues to be a debate. Renewable electricity standards are something that the body will be able to consider in an amendment that has been made in order.

But, taken together, all of the components of this bill mark a very serious and perhaps seminal change in the approach by this Congress towards energy, moving away from our excessive dependence on fossil fuels and moving towards a self-sustaining renewable energy future.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to finishing the job that we have started here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

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

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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two points I would like to make, one about the rule and one about the process.

I served 13 years in the Vermont State Senate, a small body, 30 members, sometimes in the minority, sometimes in the majority; and we had fierce fights about issues of enormous public concern, tax policy, environmental policy. In all of the time that I served in that State Senate, winning fights, but losing as many as I won, I never, ever saw the other side leave on an appropriations vote. Never. When you lose, you get up and you fight another day. That is what we learned. That is what all of us have learned.

There is a use of process here that has an effect of avoiding discussing substantive issues that are really of vital concern to the people of this country and the people that we represent. None of us can certify that the position we take at any given moment

is guaranteed to be the right one. We have to debate that, we have to listen to the other side. But we don't stop listening when it comes to our final decision, the ultimate responsibility that we have been given by the people who have elected us to stand in this well and to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' and to accept accountability for the ``yes'' or ``no'' vote that we take.

I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, walking out on a vote, most importantly, one involving appropriations for rural America. I don't understand the excessive use of motions to adjourn when it has no purpose, no purpose whatsoever other than to bring down the respect that the American people should have in this institution. I don't understand that. Maybe in time I will.

This bill brought forth by this rule is going the allow America to have a new debate on energy. It is that simple. The old approach on energy has been oil and fossil fuels. It has had a place and will have a place, to be sure. But the question is, are we going to continue with the public policy of this country, with subsidies as we have for mature industries like oil and nuclear, which in the 2005 legislation received $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies. That is real money from real Americans. Yet, as that happens, global warming expands, the price of gasoline increases. It is a dead-end policy, Mr. Speaker.

And the question that is going to be raised in this legislation for the decision of each and every one of us is whether we are going to turn a page on the old energy policy to a new one that is going to allow efficiency to matter. Using less, not more, saves money. The efficiency provisions in this bill will save tax ratepayers $300 billion. Whether we are going to use the power of tax incentives, a tax incentive budget to unleash the entrepreneurial skills, the engineering skills of people across this country in local communities, to harness wind, solar, renewable sources of energy, whether we are going to unleash the opportunity to create 3 million new jobs.

Let me say this: for all the good that is done by some of the energy policies that we have had, let's make the acknowledgment that there are many good things out there, every time a consumer in a local area, my town of Hartland, pays the light bill, most of the time that dollar that I pay gets sent hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away to a generator. And what we are trying to do in our State, what we are trying to do in many other States around the country is to have an energy policy that is going to allow consumers to spend their money locally so that the repair person that was mentioned that fixes the air conditioners, more of those people are going to have jobs. Every dollar that we keep in our local economy is strengthening our local economy.

Energy efficiency, renewable energy is about creating jobs, not just improving and cleaning out the environment. It is about independence and strengthening of local communities, not just shipping local money to faraway corporations.

Mr. Speaker, if we needed any wake-up call about why we have to turn a page and move in a new direction, it is in this morning's newspaper report about Toyota. Let me just read one paragraph:

``Booming sales of fuel efficient cars helped lift Toyota to its biggest quarterly profit ever, and kept the maker of Prius Hybrid on pace to pass General Motors as the world's number one automaker.''

That is not good news for us. What is good news for us is that we accept the challenge that is there, not run from it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and support this underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 615 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution insert the following new

Sections:

Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution, House Resolution

622 is hereby adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell. Last night I needed his help, and he gave it to me to help make this amendment in order. He told me a story, and it was a simple story: If you have a chance to help somebody, take it. And it is a good lesson to live by. Although, he didn't say he was for the amendment, I hope he finds the content of the amendment okay as well as being in order. And I want to thank his staff for the tremendous work they have done.

This amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It establishes or authorizes the Federal fund to support energy sustainability and energy efficiency projects on colleges and universities campuses through grants, authorizes but doesn't appropriate.

Public institutions are playing a major role in this energy debate. They lead by example. Giving them the possibility of having funds to actually implement programs would be a very good thing.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Yes, they will.

No, it is not.

That is correct.

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

I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee from Ohio.

First of all, I want to congratulate the outstanding work of the Science Committee under the leadership of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Hall. That committee has produced more bipartisan useful legislation, maybe, than any other committee so far in this body. They are to be commended.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another nail in the ladder of creating opportunity and making this country competitive in the 21st century global economy.

I want to talk a little bit about what can happen if you have companies, large and small, that make a difference and commit themselves to training the workforce, commit themselves to participating in a local community to advance science and math.

We have small companies in Vermont that have done this. We also have a big company, IBM. It is celebrating its 50th anniversary in Vermont, and that will be later this summer. IBM is a major employer. It is a company that transformed itself from computers to services in a whole array of activities that has been beneficial and relied on having the best training for new employees, the best science and math.

That company has not only helped provide good jobs to Vermonters as well as people around the world, it has participated very actively in our State efforts to improve science and math training. This legislation is going to focus resources on that effort in Vermont and across the country.

My congratulations to the Science Committee for the good work that it's done and to the companies large and small across this State that have helped be a partner on these policies that are essential for the future.

The question before the House today is really very simple: Will the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the world, pass legislation that guarantees access to health care for all the children of the citizens of this country?

Many of our States, including Vermont, have taken the lead. They answered that question in the affirmative: The children of working parents, children whose parents are doing the right thing, should have the health care they need when they need it.

That has been done on a bipartisan basis. Republican and Democratic Governors in my State of Vermont have supported access to health care for our kids; 98 percent are covered in Vermont.

Why is it that this Congress has been unable to take that step until today? We will change that. It is the right thing to do. It is good for our kids. It is good for our country. It is well within the reach of this Congress to do.

Madam Speaker, I hope that our friends on the Republican side will join us in what will be a historic day for our kids.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his extraordinary leadership, along with the Chair of the subcommittee, my colleague from Connecticut, for her lead on nutrition.

We are in the process of changing priorities in this country. Today, the House will be taking up the 11th of 12 appropriation bills where we will continue the process of taking this country in a new direction.

This agricultural appropriations bill makes a solid statement of confidence in the future of rural America, and it makes a solid statement of recognition about the diversity and vitality of our rural economy.

Let me just mention a few things that highlight what this program is doing.

Number one, a strong farm economy where we have our farmers being the custodian of our landscape requires conservation; $980 million is in this bill for conservation.

Rural development is critical to our economy. Broadband, among other things, is a major investment in this bill, and we are treating the rural economy with broadband, much like we did with electricity. That has to be a full partner, not a second-class citizen when it comes to the development of the infrastructure that is essential to building our economy.

A strong rural economy is based on a well-fed country, and that means prosperous farmers. There is a record $13.9 billion for school meal programs, $39.8 billion for food stamps, and $5.6 billion for the Women, Infant and Children program.

There is also in this bill, as the gentleman from California has said, a major investment in nutritious food, vegetables and fruit. And I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on that.

This bill and this rule is going to take America forward. A strong rural economy is essential to America.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for establishing in the bill the Federal Milk Marketing Order Commission. It's my hope that the commission will go a long way in fixing many of the problems inherent in the current system, and it will lead, hopefully, to a more stable price for milk.

The milk marketing orders, like many of the agricultural pricing programs, almost dates back to the New Deal. The intent is to provide a lifeline, not a lifestyle, and a safety net, not really a subsidy.

But one of the problems with the system is it does not take adequately into account the cost of production. In Vermont, in the last year, in the world of dairy, we had the perfect storm: high grain prices, high fuel costs, terribly bad weather, and very low milk prices.

The purpose of this commission is to allow it, this amendment, to allow the commission to take into account the cost of production.

We must be sure that if dairy farmers, like other members of the agriculture community, are going to be able to pay their bills, the cost of production must be reflected in the pricing program.

I yield, yes.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and my cosponsor, my friend, Mr. Arcuri from New York, we accept the gracious offer of the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time we would move to withdraw our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on the Rules Committee and leadership on the Agriculture Committee in helping us work through this.

I want to also thank the extraordinary generosity, personal and political, with his time, Mr. Peterson, who was extremely responsive to all the concerns of the Members, and Mr. Goodlatte for his excellent work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. First of all, two things: One, this bill is a departure from the past farm bills, and I will just give a few straight-out facts. One, commodity programs have been cut 43 percent compared to what they were in the 2002 farm bill. Two, conservation spending has been increased 32 percent. Three, nutrition has been increased 46 percent. So there is a clear change in emphasis.

Second, there is in this rule 33 amendments that have been allowed to be in order, including amendments that will allow this Congress to take further action, if it so chooses, on commodity reform. And that is done with the consent and the approval of the Chair of the Agriculture Committee.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly reflects the necessity for reform and balance in the farm bill. And, number two, the rule clearly allows this body to have this as a first step and to consider more dramatic reform.

Finally, I want to address the MILC program, or the milk program, that is of particular concern to dairy farmers in Vermont. Our farmers in Vermont are hanging on by their fingernails. A year ago when milk prices were at record lows, they also experienced horrible weather, high energy prices, high grain prices, and the folks who hung on did so against extraordinary odds. And how they did that I will never know. But I can tell you this, and I believe what is true for us in Vermont is true for every State across this Nation: Local agriculture not only is essential to our economy, but it is essential to our environment. It is essential to our definition of who we are. And what we must do in this bill that Mr. Peterson in the committee and Mr. Goodlatte in his work begin to do is put an emphasis on local agriculture. Is it a beginning? It is just the beginning because we have to do more in the commodity program, in all of the farm policies that recognize that it is our family farmers who should be the intended folks that we are trying to help.

We, in this farm bill, by preserving the MILC program, are at least providing to the hardest-working family farmers a lifeline when, through forces that are completely beyond their control, they need some assistance to stay in business. And, Mr. Speaker, that is an important component of this bill, and I thank the Chair for including it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, my colleague from Washington, and colleagues on the Rules Committee.

Today, as you know, the House takes up the 10th of 12 appropriation measures, and this bill is all about continuing to make progress in America, in this Congress, in changing our domestic priorities. There are two points about this bill I want to address: first, law enforcement; second, science.

Law enforcement in our communities is the front line of protecting our communities. It is best done locally. This legislation, bipartisan, by the way, reverses 5 years of cuts to local law enforcement grants at a time when we need it. Violent crime, unfortunately, is on the rise. This funds our local law enforcement communities to do the job of building and maintaining safe communities. It does soundly reject the administration's proposed cuts to undo funding formulas that have been particularly helpful with the small State minimum.

The bill heavily invests in the safety and well-being of Americans, providing a total of $3.2 billion for State and local law enforcement efforts. $430 million will go to the Office on Violence Against Women. And, as you know, that strives to reduce the prevalence of violence committed against women. $100 million goes for the Cops on the Beat program, something that has been a major bipartisan success over the years.

The second issue is science. I want specifically to applaud the subcommittee for its support of the sciences and the emerging multidisciplinary field of service science. That combines disciplines like computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, business strategy, and management sciences to meet the 21st century needs of the workforce. The National Science Foundation should review what is currently being done in the area of service science and explore what more can be done.

The work of the NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, is critical to fostering greater U.S. innovation and competitiveness in science, technology, engineering, and math. The investment in these agencies is an investment in that education and the development of the crucial multidisciplinary skills that are required to maintain our workforce and compete in the world economy.

As much more of our economy is service-based, we must ensure that our science agencies are focused on both research and education that promote innovation in service sectors such as education, health care, energy, telecommunications, and finance. The growing service sector in my State of Vermont is probably typical. It provides some of our best- paying jobs, nearly 80 percent of our employment. Last year we exported more than a half billion dollars in services, and 8,000 Vermonters were employed because of foreign investment in that sector.

This bill's investment in service-related research and STEM education through the NSF and NIST will foster innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 56 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 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.

General Leave

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

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

Madam Speaker, today, the House will take up the ninth of 12 appropriation measures where we will continue the effort to take America in a new direction, where we focus on priorities of concern to average Americans throughout this country.

Through these bills, the new Congress is restoring our focus on a domestic agenda that helps all Americans, not just the wealthy few and not just the well-connected corporations.

We will make sure, as we have, that our veterans have the care they need. We'll reverse neglect in environmental protection that's been abandoned, been neglected for the past several years, and we'll fund housing programs for low- and moderate-income Americans. We will provide resources to ensure that children arrive at school ready to learn and have the health care that they need, and we will make certain that our law enforcement officials have the tools that they need to protect our citizens.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 558 provides for consideration of H.R. 3074, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for 2008. This will be done under an open rule. This is a bipartisan bill that was presented before the Rules Committee by Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg. It was a pleasure, frankly, to see the cooperation of these two gentlemen and the members of that committee coming together to present to the House for its consideration a very impressive plan to meet our infrastructure and housing needs in the future.

As you know, demographic changes and growth patterns in the United States over the next decade will continue to have a major impact on transportation networks and the need for affordable housing. This bill seeks to ensure that our Nation's transportation system is safe and efficient and that our citizens have access to safe and affordable housing. The bill does so in a way that strengthens the economy and is environmentally and fiscally responsible.

The bill safeguards the regional needs of our Nation by rejecting administration proposed cuts that provide air service to rural communities, and it invests in transit projects for our urban areas that will help our commuters save time and money getting to work. The bill also rejects administration cuts to Amtrak, protects national rail service, and fully funds the highway and transit guarantees set forth in the SAFETEA-LU authorization bill.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recognized the need to support rural airports, something very important to people like me from a rural State like Vermont. Investments in airports, like the Rutland State Airport in Vermont, are critical to rural States and an effective transportation system. The bill includes $110 million for essential air service to continue service to small and/or rural communities as well as $10 million for the Small Community Air Service Development Program that will continue the Department of Transportation grant program to help our small communities to attract commercial air services.

Among other things, the committee also includes $75 million for the FTA's Clean Fuels Grant program, $26 million above 2007 for clean fuel bus technology. Public transportation companies like the Chittenden County Transportation Authority in Vermont are taking responsibility for their fleet's emissions by making investments in new, fuel- efficient, low-carbon-emitting buses; and this legislation supports those efforts.

In housing, the bill rejects a $2 billion cut proposed by the administration to eliminate housing programs for the poorest citizens in this country and, instead, aims to make sure that all Americans have adequate shelter. The proposed cuts that this bill would reject include deep cuts to HUD, Community Development Block Grants and programs that provide housing for the elderly and disabled. Funding is included so that anyone with a voucher will not lose it. The President's proposed cuts come at a time when fully three-quarters of households that are

actually eligible for HUD assistance are not receiving that assistance.

And more than 1 million low-income households across New England, including elderly, disabled and families, live in federally assisted housing. Most of these households have annual incomes of less than $8,000, and they're obviously at serious risk of homelessness. Even larger numbers of households are struggling to survive in a private housing market and are paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent.

The Community Development Block Grant is a valuable resource for cities and States struggling to ensure opportunities for residents to live in safe and affordable communities. It's a tool that helps our local officials do, locally, something that builds up their communities. This program has funded projects that improve the quality of life across the country, including infrastructure improvement and economic development.

In 2007, again using Vermont as an example, we received $8.4 million in CDBG funds. This bill provides $4 billion for CDBG grants across the country. That's $228 million above the 2007 appropriation.

The need to recommit to housing and transportation priorities is necessary in every State in the country. It's a priority we must address head on in this body. This bill takes a big step in the right direction.

I also commend the committee for including very strong language requiring HUD to incorporate strong green building and rehabilitation standards into its housing program, particularly focusing on improved energy efficiency, good for the environment, a pretty quick payoff and good for keeping costs down. While green building is relatively new, it's clearly vital to our Nation's homes and buildings, and to our country, that those homes and buildings become more environmentally friendly.

Finally, this bill also reinforces the link between housing and transportation. It establishes a new interagency working group to coordinate transportation and housing policies on the Federal, State and local level.

I again applaud Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg for their hard and cooperative work in crafting this excellent bill, and thank them and their staffs for their attention to the needs of the people of Vermont and all States in this country.

I will be urging all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, to respond to a couple of comments that my friend from Texas said, this bill complies with PAYGO. It absolutely meets the commitment that this Congress made to pay the bills that go along with the legislation we propose. It is a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

The past Congresses, as is well known and is just factually beyond dispute, abandoned PAYGO, and it has resulted in the largest deficit of this country. That's number one.

Number two, there really is a bipartisan desire to keep taxes as low as possible and spending as low as possible, but this bill also reflects a bipartisan commitment to build our infrastructure, to provide our citizens with the transportation that they need and

the housing that we need. It was passed on a very strong voice vote, bipartisan work by this committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Olver from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Madam Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a newfound respect for the Chair of this committee and the ranking member, Mr. Olver and Mr. Knollenberg. They have an incredibly difficult job, and that is to take the responsibility that this House of Representatives has, Democrats and Republicans, to put together a transportation infrastructure program and a housing program, and to do that when they have 435 Members of Congress tugging on their arms every day asking them to include projects in their districts because the Members from those districts sincerely believe that those are essential to the economic development and the transportation needs and the housing needs of the people who live there.

And they managed to do it. They came in, treated every Member of this body with enormous courtesy and patience, listened to what our requests were, and then put together a bill that was bipartisan. It was quite extraordinary. And it was a pleasure to be a member of the Rules Committee and to see these two gentlemen come up and be mutually complimentary after a hard process of allocating $50 billion of taxpayer money for infrastructure and housing improvement in this country. They are to be commended for that.

We then come down to the floor and we get into the back and forth about specific projects and try to pick and cherry pick examples of what is bad when it was the recommendation of the chairman of the committee that this be an open rule; so anybody who has got a problem with any particular project is going to have an opportunity to offer amendment to strike that project and make whatever arguments they want.

This issue of how we restore the transportation infrastructure of our country is vital. The fact is we spend too little, not too much, and it is the funding issue that is a challenge in every Congress. But our infrastructure compared to many of the countries with which we compete economically is woefully behind what the economy of our country needs and the citizens of our country deserve.

I applaud the work of this subcommittee, bipartisan work. And why it is that we have to beat up on the work of the committee by claiming it is partisan, Democrat and Republican, really escapes me. There is nothing partisan about meeting the infrastructure needs of our country. There may be fierce debates about the best way to do it, which projects should get funding, how much you allocate towards the air system versus rail; but the fact is we have got an obligation to improve a crumbling infrastructure in this country, and the bill that has been presented to this Congress on a bipartisan basis, under the leadership of Mr. Olver and Mr. Knollenberg, takes us a solid step forward.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule so that the House can consider H.R. 3074.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated with respect to the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 535 to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. Chairman, I speak to paragraph 1 of the amendment. This is another proposed CMS rule. Bottom line is this: Our American hospitals and health care delivery system has to provide health care to our citizens. CMS plays a major role in helping us to do that and to contain costs.

But CMS, the government representative, has to be a partner of our deliverers, the hospitals, not an adversary. And that requires that they give more than 2 months notice, they give a heads up to the hospitals when they're going to change a rule that has the direct and immediate impact of changing revenue streams for our hospitals.

This amendment, paragraph 1, like paragraph 2, simply delays the implementation so that there will be a heads up, a time to respond, a time to study it and a time to implement it.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act providing our first responders with a right that they deserve which has long been withheld, the right of collective bargaining. Many Americans have this right, and our first responders should not be left out.

In professions where working together can mean and does mean the difference between life and death for workers and citizens in our communities, cooperation in a healthy working environment is critical.

In my home State of Vermont, first responders have the right of collective bargaining. We are very proud of them. That right should be extended to their colleagues across the Nation.

Last fall I had an opportunity to participate in firefighting training at the Vermont Fire Academy in Pittsford, Vermont. I suited up in jackets, pants, and oxygen mask. And you know what I learned, the work they do is hard. The work they do is dangerous.

We must make certain that they feel fully entitled to represent themselves at the bargaining table for safe and decent conditions.

Representative Kildee and Representative Duncan, thank you for your leadership in this overdue legislation.