[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21806-21821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7060, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB 
                        CREATION TAX ACT OF 2008

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1501 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1501

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     7060) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend 
     certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax 
     relief, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against the bill are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7060 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. House Resolution 1489 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1501 provides for consideration of H.R. 
7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act. The rule provides 
1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule because American 
families and small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This 
rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today 
that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to 
middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but also 
help to bring the country into a new future of alternative energy not 
dependent on foreign energy and foreign fuel.
  Since being elected to Congress, I have voted along with this body to 
cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses on at least 14 
occasions. In doing so, this Congress has upheld its pledge to the 
American people. And I have kept my promise I made to my constituents 
to provide much-needed tax relief and incentive for economic growth.
  I know that there are many families and businesses in my district 
that are struggling in the current economic crisis. With talk of a $700 
billion plan to bail out Wall Street, we cannot, in good conscience, 
fail to take action to help so many families facing the ever-escalating 
costs of gasoline and home heating oil into this winter. This 
legislation we will consider provides tax relief and incentives to 
those who need them most at a fraction of the cost for bailing out the 
financial industry.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has shown a strong commitment to the pay-
as-you-go rule adopted last January. I applaud my Blue Dog Coalition 
colleagues for their outspoken leadership on PAYGO. When I explain to 
folks back home what PAYGO is, they always ask the same question. I 
ask, you have to balance the books each month, right? Why shouldn't the 
government do the same? And they all get it. My constituents get it. 
And the American people get it. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are 
still some Members of Congress who are steadfastly against the idea of 
being fiscally responsible in balancing the Federal books in the same 
way our constituents balance their checkbooks. But it appears that even 
our colleagues in the Senate are beginning to come around. The 
legislation we will consider later today is proof that you can provide 
tax relief in a fiscally responsible way.
  The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a 
number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class 
families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and 
strengthen our economy. During these tight economic times, it is also 
absolutely critical that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for 
today and long-term development for tomorrow, including jobs in the 
alternative energy sector like wind and biomass that will reduce our 
Nation's dependence on foreign oil and bring the price of gasoline and 
heating oil to levels that families and businesses can afford.
  I am a realist. I understand that we can't bring back the millions of 
manufacturing jobs, including thousands in my own congressional 
district, which have been moved overseas. However, we can look to the 
future, a future of our Nation's economy that is green, and re-create 
jobs that we once lost. It is absolutely essential that we leverage 
every possible option, whether it is through tax credits, investment 
through research and development, or education to advance alternative 
and renewable energy development.
  Mr. Speaker, tax credits for alternative energy production have the 
power to truly jump-start our economy

[[Page 21807]]

and create good-paying, highly skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced 
overseas, the type of jump-start, Mr. Speaker, which is already 
happening in my upstate New York district with the creation of new 
green collar jobs. In the last 2 years, I have spoken numerous times 
throughout the debate over extending these renewable energy tax credits 
about the new businesses in my district that are utilizing the national 
investment in alternative energy to create good-paying jobs in upstate 
New York. Those businesses are to be commended. That is why I'm proud 
to support the approximately $15 billion in long-term, clean renewable 
energy tax incentives and investments included in this legislation 
which we will vote for later today.

                              {time}  1400

  I hope that by doing so, it will encourage other companies to follow 
suit, both in my region and across the Nation.
  The underlying legislation extends and modifies critical tax credits 
for production of electricity from renewable sources, ranging from 
wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed loop and open loop biomass. 
Specifically, the legislation includes extension of clean, renewable 
energy bonds, efficient commercial building tax incentives, investment 
tax credits for solar and fuel cell systems, tax credits for energy 
efficiency upgrades to existing homes, tax credits for production of 
efficient home appliances, and tax incentives for consumer purchase of 
energy efficient products.
  Most of these incentives either expired at the end of the last year 
or are set to expire at the end of this year. It is vitally important 
to sustaining the development of clean energy technology industries, 
which will lead to the creation of new jobs, that these tax credit 
incentives are extended.
  The legislation also includes an extension of the Research and 
Development Tax Credit that allows companies to claim credit for a 
portion of their R&D expenditures. Extending the R&D credit is vital to 
ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of innovation that 
keeps our domestic companies competitive. This credit is of particular 
interest in the area of New York that I represent, because its 
extension will further the expansion of microchip fabrication and 
nanotechnology industries which are beginning to blossom in upstate New 
York.
  American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuing to 
adequately plan for their long-term research projects. I support this 
2-year retroactive extension to provide that continuing extension, and 
I will continue to work for a much-needed permanent extension that 
would eliminate concerns over expirations or lapses.
  The legislation also extends and expands and creates important tax 
credits for individuals.
  Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider 
later today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and 
incentives to the middle class, spur innovation, create tens of 
thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile 
nations and reduce greenhouse gas. We can do all of this in a fiscally 
responsible manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman, my friend from New York, 
for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this new record-breaking 64th 
closed rule being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, the most open, 
honest and ethical Congress in the history, proclaimed by our Speaker, 
Nancy Pelosi. But we have this new record-breaking 64th closed rule, so 
it makes me kind of wonder which conference she was really in reference 
to.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this underlying legislation also. Just in the 
last 24 hours, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to 
the introduction of this bill as the ability to ``snatch defeat from 
the jaws of victory,'' because it guts a carefully negotiated and 
bipartisan compromise reached in the Senate. So what the Senate has 
worked very closely and clearly on and passed the bill, this Speaker 
decided we are not going to do it that way. In the waning days of this 
session, we are not going to play ball with our colleagues in the 
Senate. So what it does is it leaves many of the deal's most important 
provisions in limbo, rather than addressing them responsibly today.
  Two evenings ago, the Senate passed a comprehensive tax extenders 
package by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 92-3. This 
legislation included an $18 billion fully offset energy tax policy 
proposal, as well as a partially offset tax relief package, including 
an AMT patch to prevent middle class families from being hit with an 
unprecedented and unintended tax bill, along with important extensions 
of current tax policy, disaster-related tax provisions for the victims 
of the Midwest floods and Hurricane Ike, and for mental health parity 
legislation.
  Understanding the delicate balance in that Chamber, Democrat Majority 
Leader Harry Reid 2 days ago begged Speaker Pelosi not to send the 
Senate back a different bill, because it won't pass, and that if the 
House messes, and I quote, ``messes with the package, it will die.''
  Today, news reports have surfaced that he is ``furious'' that House 
Democrats refuse to accept his bipartisan deal and has retaliated with 
procedural tactics intended to delay the House from continuing along 
the House Democrat leadership's preferred course of action.
  But rather than heeding these dire warnings from their own 
leadership, from the Senate leadership of their own party, this House 
Democrat leadership has decided to chop up this legislation into 
pieces, making substantive and negative changes to many of them, and to 
engage in a game of legislative chicken with the Senate, rather than 
doing the responsible thing and making sure that important measures 
like, we will just name one, like helping the victims of natural 
disaster, or, as we have heard, tax relief for middle class families 
who are at risk of being unintentionally caught by a tax created for 
the super-wealthy, and fairness for our own Nation's rural schools. 
Each of these passed. They passed in the Senate bill, and we could do 
it here today.
  I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that this Democrat majority thinks 
that scoring some sort of political points on the eve of an election is 
more important than passing these measures. But, unfortunately, this 
kind of political gamesmanship has come up all too often in what 
Speaker Pelosi once again, and we reiterate, promised would be the most 
open, honest and ethical Congress in history.
  Included in this House Democrat package are a number of energy tax 
incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, which, along with 
the upcoming October expiration on the ban of drilling for American 
energy, will go a long way to fulfilling House Republicans' long-term 
commitment to an all-of-the-above strategy, which helps America achieve 
energy independence.
  Also included in this legislation are important tax provisions for 
American families trying to make ends meet and for American business 
trying to create jobs here in America and to be competitive with 
companies around the world. These include measures like the Research 
and Development Tax Credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, 
and the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers. This is 
particularly important for families, schools and businesses in my home 
State of Texas, and I strongly support their inclusion in this 
legislation.
  I do not support, however, the inclusion of measures to permanently 
raise taxes on the American economy during an economic crisis to simply 
extend these current job-creating tax policies. Tax increases are never 
the way to solve a soft economy.
  I ask all of my colleagues to vote with me to defeat this rule so 
that the House can end this political charade and cover a vote for its 
vulnerable Members, and take up the better Senate option to provide 
American families and businesses with tax relief they deserve.

[[Page 21808]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my friend says, Democrats 
are not trying to make any political points here. In fact, it is just 
the contrary. We are trying to get something done here.
  I certainly understand that Senator Reid has some considerations that 
he has to make in the Senate, but we have some considerations here in 
the House, and one of them is something that is very important to me, 
and that is paying for these provisions that we do, something important 
to the Blue Dog Coalition here and something important to Congress. We 
need to pay for it, and that is what this bill is doing. It is paying 
for it, and it is very important.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the importance of 
this bill, the American job creation bill, and how this bill relates to 
another bill we are working on. By doing that, I just want to share 
something I saw in Colorado about 3 weeks ago.
  I was in Golden, Colorado, at the National Renewable Energy Lab. At 
that National Renewable Energy Lab I saw a functioning system of 
powering our cars with solar energy.
  It was a photovoltaic cell about 400 square feet mounted on a little 
pod that basically would run two cars, two electric plug-in cars for a 
day, just by charging them for about 6 to 8 hours. So you plug them in, 
they run 40 miles on all electricity, and then they could go another 
250 miles on gasoline. Basically what it showed was a vision for this 
country using home-grown solar power and home-grown electric cars.
  This bill is absolutely imperative to make sure that we get that 
solar energy located in the United States. So these industries like 
Ausra Solar Thermal Power, like Nanosolar in Palo Alto with 
photovoltaic power, so we keep building those businesses right here in 
the United States. And the renewable tax credits are imperative in this 
bill.
  But I want to point out how this dovetails with another bill that is 
under consideration today in the House, and that is a bill we will have 
to try to stimulate job creation.
  It very important in those plug-in cars that we have that we 
manufacture in this country the batteries that are going to run our 
electric cars. When we have plug-in electric cars and fully electric 
cars, the batteries will represent 50 percent of the value of those 
cars, and we cannot allow those jobs to go to China and Korea. 
Unfortunately, right now the plans are to make the car bodies here, but 
make the batteries in China and Korea. That is a sure loss of tens of 
thousands of jobs.
  So we are working on another bill here today parallel to this one 
that would create a loan guarantee program to ensure that those battery 
production jobs stay in America. I am hopeful that we get these 
renewable energy tax credits extended, and I think it is imperative 
that we move forward to save the battery industry in this country.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like our friends on the 
Democratic side are talking off talking points of the Republican Party 
today, cutting taxes, keeping jobs in America, expanding our economy. 
We can sure use a little bit of this. It goes a long way. We ought to 
make it permanent, but we shouldn't do it with a tax increase attached 
to it.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the broad bill and speak as to how 
important that bill is. I think it is vitally important to extend these 
tax extenders. Frankly, I think these tax extenders that we have here 
ought to be made permanent, but maybe we will have a debate on that at 
a future time.
  It is especially important to my State of Washington, because it 
allows for the sales tax deduction of State sales tax from my Federal 
income tax obligation, because Washington State, along with six or 
seven other states, doesn't have an income tax, and this is simply a 
fairness issue.
  So this is a very important bill, very broadly, but it is not a 
complete bill. This bill in its current form will not pass the Senate 
and therefore will not become law.
  Why is that, Mr. Speaker? The reason why is because it leaves out a 
very, very important provision, a provision that the Senate put in 
there, and I don't always like to congratulate the Senate, but in this 
case, in their wisdom, to take care of a problem that faces rural 
America, especially, and especially rural America that has a lot of 
Federal lands, and that is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It extends it 
for 4 years.
  What is this act? This act is simply an act to recognize that Federal 
policies in the past, i.e. policies that don't allow some communities 
to log their Federal lands and get the revenue from that, puts a big 
hurt on local government and school districts. The Secure Rural Schools 
Act is designed to mitigate that because of Federal policy.
  Now, what I can't understand about this is this has broad bipartisan 
support. It has had support a number of times. And, here we are, 
winding our way down in this Congress, and you would think that the 
broad bipartisanship of this would recognize that the Senate passed 
this bill 93-2 and that they say I think this has a pretty good chance 
of becoming law. But, no, earlier this morning I offered an amendment 
to the rule to allow me to simply bring up the opportunity to vote up 
or down on this issue, and it was defeated on a partisan vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is very, very important. I have in front of 
me here, Mr. Speaker, and I will include it for the Record, a letter 
from the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition.

                              {time}  1415

  The essence of this--and it is dated today--a letter to Speaker 
Pelosi to include this provision in the Tax Extenders Act.
  Well, it is in the act. It is in the act that passed the Senate.
  Now maybe there are politics being played with this. I know that we 
are in a political arena here, sometimes that happens, but I think the 
Speaker of the House, who comes from urban San Francisco, doesn't 
understand rural America.
  I would suggest that probably the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, who comes from urban New York City, doesn't understand the 
needs of rural America. I can only think that's the reason it wasn't 
included in something that has broad bipartisan support.
  I think that we should defeat this rule, and I think what we need to 
do at the end of the day is to pass the Senate bill, because we know 
the President will sign it. He has sent a letter to every Member of the 
House saying that he would sign that bill.
  I don't like to concede everything to the Senate. There are a lot of 
times I disagree with what they are saying.
  But I think we need to take into account what the majority leader has 
said. I think we need to take into account what was said by the senior 
Senator from Oregon. By the way, Oregon is one of these States that are 
heavily hit, impacted by the lack of rural school language in this 
bill.
  Senator Wyden said, after passage of the Senate bill, and I quote, 
``Now it's up to the House and the President to do the right thing, or 
thousands of critical employees in hundreds of communities across 
Oregon could face a very difficult winter.''
  Well, I have got to tell you, the President is on board. He doesn't 
have to say the President would do the right thing, the President said 
he would sign this bill. It's up to the House.
  The way to accomplish that is to defeat this rule so we can take up 
the Senate bill and concur with them, send it to the President's desk, 
and it will become law.

                                      National Forest Counties and


                                            Schools Coalition,

                                Red Bluff, CA, September 25, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are writing this letter to ask that 
     you please include four

[[Page 21809]]

     years of funding for Secure Rural Schools and PILT in the 
     final version of the Tax Extenders Act of 2008. As you are 
     aware this legislation is crucial to school children and 
     teachers across the nation, and the continuation of vital 
     county services. The Administration ``supports prompt 
     passage'' of H.R. 6049, and has not threatened to veto that 
     legislation if it includes funding for Secure Rural Schools 
     and PILT.
       We would very much appreciate your leadership on this 
     issue. You have an opportunity to ensure that school children 
     are afforded the opportunity for a quality education. We look 
     forward to working with you, and other members of Congress, 
     to include this funding package in the final legislation.
       Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert E. Douglas,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. RANGEL. I don't think there is anything that you have said in 
support of rural schools that I do not believe in and that I am not 
willing to support.
  I just want to make it abundantly clear that the issue that has 
caused this logjam with the Senate has nothing to do with the causes 
that you advocate and I support. There is only one issue that has not 
brought us here, and that is the issue of whether or not we pay for the 
extenders or don't pay for the extenders.
  It seems like an issue, when we are asked to come up with $700 
billion, that should not really concern us that much. But the truth of 
the matter is, they have sent the bill over here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The time of the gentleman from 
Washington has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. The only real big issue is that they have sent over a 2-
year extension, but it's paid for only 1 year. The position that has 
been taken by the majority in the House is that instead of 2 years, we 
are prepared to accept the extender package, as is, except that we will 
reduce it to 1 year so there would be no years unpaid for, or, in the 
alternative, and I spoke just yesterday with Senator Grassley, we are 
prepared to pay for the 2 years.
  There is a difference, they claim over there, and I have no reason to 
disagree with them, that if we do anything on the House side, exercise 
any prerogative in the payment of this, they cannot hold on to their 60 
votes.
  I want the gentleman to know that I only wish that rural schools 
would be the only issue, because it could be resolved. It is not the 
issue. It is only the issue that I stated with you, and I have shared 
this with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, 
and have shared it with our Speaker.
  That is the issue that is holding up the passage. So we will send 
another bill back over there.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I will.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to make, and I know there 
are Members on your side that have advocated paying for things.
  Yesterday we had two tax bills on the floor, the AMT fix, that didn't 
have a pay-for, and the disaster relief which didn't have a pay-for. So 
we have made exceptions to that in the past.
  This issue has been in front of us for some time. It is absolutely 
critical to these communities involved.
  Now I would suggest, in fact, when Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon was 
upstairs in the Rules Committee this morning in your stead, he 
suggested that rural schools probably shouldn't be on this bill, 
particular bill, because it's a tax bill.
  I will concede that that may be a logical course of action. But if 
that is the case, it seemed to me there should have been another 
vehicle, like an appropriation bill in the CR, and it wasn't on the CR. 
We are running out of time, is what I am just suggesting to my friend.
  Let me ask my friend, if this bill does not pass, is there any 
likelihood whatsoever of the Senate bill that passed 93-2 being enacted 
into law?
  Mr. RANGEL. I am telling you that the issues that we have and 
concerns with the credibility of funding tax decreases is one that 
exists, but probably between our parties, and we have division in the 
House. But we would like to believe that in the House of 
Representatives that we initiate taxes and just sometimes, just 
sometimes the other body has to yield to our requests.
  Four times we sent it over, four times we tried to negotiate. Even 
yesterday I was talking and trying to see whether we could work out 
something.
  There are times when the integrity of the House is important in order 
to recognize that we have to get things done, but we have to also 
maintain some principles. We are at that point now.
  I don't know how long it's going to take, but I just came to the 
floor, when I heard your eloquent argument, which hardly anyone can 
dispute, to make it clear that if you are a Republican or a Democrat, 
and you want to help, if you are in business, and you are concerned 
about the extension of benefits that workers and companies need, if you 
are concerned about the energy crisis, and you want to do something, 
that we are going to keep sending packages. If we had someone as 
eloquent as you on the other side saying let's get something done this 
year, we wouldn't have this problem.
  So when it gets down to it, who is going to yield? Well, we have, 
again and again and again and again.
  As proud as I am of being a Member of Congress and chairman of this 
committee, it has to stop somewhere where the other body knows that 
they are just one body of the Congress. They just can't say that they 
can't get anything done.
  But once they do come together, then it means that we don't have 
anything to say about anything as to what gets in their package.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Far 
be it from me to defend the actions of the other body. I am a Member of 
this House and I am proud to be a Member of this House.
  But we have to recognize this is a bicameral process. Sometimes we 
have to recognize, as they have to recognize on some legislation that 
we pass, where we don't move, and that's happened in the past.
  This one is a 93-2. That is overwhelming, and it includes language, 
as I mentioned on Secure Rural Schools, that is very, very important.
  So I hope that the Senate bill passes. I would urge my colleagues to 
defeat this rule, as I mentioned, and the underlying bill so we can 
take that up, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the length of 
time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I appreciate the time that you have given me.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman, the gentleman 
from New York, coming down and being on the floor. I really do respect 
and appreciate that.
  It's my hope that the gentleman from New York also heard, and I am 
not claiming any insensitivity here at all, but I hope that he has 
heard the story about these 41 States and these, in particular, 
communities that had counted on and received this money for a long 
time.
  The actual impact, and I am going to yield in just a minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon, who can more clearly enunciate, but the real 
impact on 41 States, rural communities, that have forests in their 
areas, is a real and genuine problem. I had an opportunity this year in 
August to go out to Oregon and see firsthand.
  I had an opportunity firsthand to meet with people who tried to 
explain to me. They said, Congressman Sessions, please look at what we 
are asking for and the need.
  It is my hope, and I would like to know that the gentleman who is the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee would be able to hear 
firsthand.
  And so at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

[[Page 21810]]


  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you to my colleague from Texas, and I 
note the chairman, apparently, has had to leave the floor, but perhaps 
he will be able to hear this somewhere wherever he is.
  It is extraordinarily important to the States that are involved, to 
the 4,400 school districts that are involved, the 600 rural counties 
that are involved, this is the opportunity that is being lost. This 
measure, when it came from the other body, passed by the other body, 
had in it a 4-year reauthorization bipartisan of the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
  That funding is used to help school kids go to school in areas where 
there is a high preponderance of Federal lands, timber lands. That 
funding is being taken away. It helps pay for search and rescue, fire 
and police. That funding is being taken away.
  You see, I have got counties that up to 70 percent of their land mass 
is off their tax rolls because it's Federal land. We have 11 national 
forests in my district alone in the nearly 70,000 square miles of 
Oregon that I represent.
  The mills are closed because of change in policy and litigation. The 
jobs are lost, the revenues have dried up. Now the Federal Government, 
in effect, is breaching its nearly century-old commitment, century-old 
commitment, to share revenues and help.
  Now yesterday on this House floor the majority waived twice PAYGO 
rules on two other tax provisions, waived them. They have waived them 
before.
  If they were going to bring a bill here that has pay-fors in it to 
pay for the tax extensions, why did they rip out county payments and 
not, instead, pay for them somehow and put that on the floor? It's a 
choice they made.
  Why didn't they allow us to have at least a vote on the floor on an 
amendment and let the will of the House be worked, as they promised 
they would do if they got control of this House, and now seem less 
inclined to allow?
  So there is no opportunity for my side of the aisle, the Republicans, 
to even offer an amendment, to keep the Federal Government's commitment 
for the last 100 years to these rural schools and counties and 
sheriffs' departments, to do the search and rescue, to do the fire 
work, to do everything they do, educate our kids, among other things. 
It also denies us the opportunity to reauthorize titles II and III of 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which 
brings together in a collaborative process environmental organizations, 
forestry and community leaders in all the States.
  How can we be better stewards of the lands around us? How do we get 
out and do the work that, A, produces jobs; B, makes our forests 
healthier and safer and our communities safer?
  That funding stream has dried up. There have been massive layoffs in 
the local governments that I represent. We have counties in Oregon, 
some of which are contemplating bankruptcy, bankruptcy, dissolve, go 
away, turn themselves back to the States and the neighboring counties. 
This is real serious stuff, and it has been going on a long time.
  This is the opportunity before us. We asked the leadership in a 
bipartisan way. Members of both parties sent letters to the leadership 
saying can you give us another 1-year extension in the CR. They chose 
not to, and that's their prerogative.
  This is the vehicle that's come from the Senate, or at least the 
vehicle that the Senate passed would have reauthorized and funded 
county payments for the next 4 years in a phased-out process.
  Now some have alleged in the press that it was dropped because the 
President was going to veto this bill if it was in it. That's not what 
the statement of administrative policy says, and I don't believe that's 
what the chairman said or the leadership on the Democrat side of the 
aisle said.
  This isn't because the President said he would veto it, because he 
didn't say he would veto it. He said he would sign it if the House 
would take it up. So this could become law. This could become law. This 
could be passed, this could become law. We could get back on track in 
600 rural counties and 4,400 school districts in 42 States and be the 
partner we should be.
  We do a lot of things in this Congress for this, our Nation's city. 
That's right, because there is a huge Federal footprint and presence 
here, so we do a lot of things to help the residents of Washington, DC. 
I believe the figure is 26 percent of the land mass of Washington, DC 
is Federal. And the rest is private.
  You get out in the west and upwards of half of our States in some 
cases, and sometimes more, is Federal ground. When there is a fire in 
the forest, which we have had, again, another record season of fire-
fighting costs and loss of life and loss of habitat and forests, it is 
the local sheriff's department. It is the local community that is 
affected.

                              {time}  1430

  In southern Oregon this year in the Rogue Valley, for nearly a month 
the air quality was about as bad as you can get because of the fires in 
northern California choking the air shed. There is so much work we need 
to do out in our forests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. In the Winema-Fremont National Forest, there is 
more than 500,000 acres of Federal and private land that is ready to go 
up in smoke. It is disease-ridden. There is beetle kill. And because of 
the way that the budget is structured and this Congress' refusal--we 
did it in the House but the Senate hasn't taken it up, a bill to create 
a separate fire category for the Forest Service, they have had to take 
$1 million out of that one forest alone to pay for current fire-
fighting costs elsewhere, which means the money is not available to go 
in and do the thinning and remove the dying trees and open up the 
stands and deal with the beetle kill. They have had to put all of that, 
or at least $1 million of it, on hold which just means that the problem 
gets worse faster. So when it ignites, and it will, folks, you will 
have half-a-million acres in the northwest, in the Winema-Fremont 
National Forest, go up in smoke.
  Now this legislation, if we can get an amendment, and if you vote 
down the previous question, I will offer a 4-year extension as the 
alternative. So you will have a chance to vote. If you are for county 
payments, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  If that fails, then our motion to recommit will be the full Senate 
bill that has the 4-year extension with county payments in it.
  So this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where you have an 
opportunity to be for county payments, for your local schools, for the 
sheriff service, for search and rescue. For all the things, the 
collaborative approaches to forest management that this legislation in 
the past has helped provide.
  Unless you think that this is a partisan issue, it never was and 
should never be, because it was enacted in a Republican Congress with a 
Democrat President, and it has been hailed as a marvelous success on 
the ground, and it has been a wonderful partnership until it was 
allowed to expire. Today we need to reauthorize it. Today we need to be 
given at least the opportunity to vote on it. What is wrong in a 
democratic institution, the finest on the planet, of offering us at 
least an opportunity to vote? You have the votes if you want to kill 
it. You outnumber us on rules more than 2-to-1. There are ways to do 
this. It doesn't have to be this way.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority 
leader, the gentleman from Maryland, 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and strong support of this 
bill.
  I want to say to my friend, I am mindful of the issue he raises. I 
think that ought to be addressed and I certainly will look forward to 
working with him and others in addressing this as we move along; and 
before, hopefully, we leave here because he makes a good point.

[[Page 21811]]

  I support this bill for two reasons. First, because it provides 
essential tax relief to American families and businesses. And secondly, 
just as importantly, because it is paid for.
  The tax credits extended by this bill, some of the most necessary, 
are those that support renewable energy and energy efficiency. Business 
and political leaders agree. This summer, 51 State governors sent us a 
letter which read in part: ``Extending tax incentives for energy 
efficiency and conservation will slow the growth of future energy 
needs, minimize ratepayers' costs, and lessen potential environmental 
impacts.''
  New energy technologies may not end the pain of $4 a gallon gas in 
the short term, but those technologies which this bill helps to support 
are the only long-term solutions to our energy crunch. In the meantime, 
alternative energy tax credits will create tens of thousands of 
American jobs. We must pass this legislation.
  Now, I was proud of the fact that the House passed a bill expanding 
domestic production of oil just this month. But a country that controls 
less than 3 percent of the world's oil supply, while using more than a 
quarter, cannot drill its way out of the fundamental problem. Boone 
Pickens has made that very clear to all of us.
  That is why I am glad to see the House consider farsighted 
legislation like this. But I don't just support the goals of this bill, 
I support it because its tax credits are not financed by even more 
debt. We are going to incur a lot of debt, we are going to incur a lot 
of debt in this week. We did so yesterday. Almost all of the Members of 
this House voted to so-called fix the alternative minimum tax. I voted 
against that. I voted against it because it wasn't paid for.
  The means used to pay for this legislation are not controversial. 
They include a provision to close a loophole that allows hedge fund 
managers and other high-income corporate executives to defer taxes 
through offshore tax havens. What does that mean, the rest of us pay 
more.
  A large majority of the business community agrees that we should 
close that loophole. So do majorities in the House and Senate. Only a 
Republican minority in the Senate, frankly, is putting high-income tax 
loopholes above fiscal sanity. They are insisting, instead, that we pay 
for this bill with borrowed money.
  I understand that bind, the bind that presents for principled Senate 
Democrats. But fiscal responsibility is not something we can compromise 
on, especially now. We have a crisis. This economy is in the worse 
shape it has been in half a century, notwithstanding the protestations 
that were made in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 
about how good this economy was, and the fact that the tax and economic 
policies being pursued by this administration were making our economy 
grow and expand and create jobs. The fact of the matter is, we have 
lost jobs this year; 500,000 jobs. Bill Clinton in the same period of 
time in his administration created 1.4 million new jobs. That is a net 
turnaround of 2 million jobs.
  But fiscal responsibility is not something that we can compromise on, 
especially now. In crisis, we need to act. But in time of financial 
crisis brought on, in part, by massive fiscal irresponsibility and 
regulatory neglect, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we value this 
extenders bill, it is simply wrong to pay for it by once more whipping 
out the national credit card. We don't need to do that. We have not 
done it, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
support this bill. They support the policies. All we are asking is to 
pay for it, and the pay-fors in this bill are not controversial. That 
is the kind of thinking that swung the Clinton surplus deep into record 
debt under President Bush and led to more foreign borrowing by this 
administration than by the first 42 administrations combined. In other 
words, we have had to borrow more money from foreign governments during 
the last 90 months than we borrowed in the previous 219 years.
  We helped to create a crisis of confidence in our financial system 
which we are being asked to pay for, dearly. Charging our children and 
grandchildren for our priorities is deeply unwise, and I would suggest 
immoral.
  This year, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican, was one of the few 
Republicans to bravely break with his party and insist that this bill 
be paid for. He said, and I call my Republican colleagues' attention to 
what Bob Corker had to say: ``It is the first time in a long time I 
thought we had something that was intellectually honest,'' and that is 
paying for this bill. ``And I have to tell you, my big fear is our 
tremendous lack of fiscal discipline.'' So said Bob Corker, Republican 
from Tennessee, when calling upon his body to pay for this bill.
  That fear of more debt is entirely reasonable. I am glad more and 
more Members of Congress are coming to share it.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not because they are 
Republicans or Democrats, but because they love our country, they want 
to see our fiscal ship of state righted, realizing we are in a crisis 
time, and they have an opportunity to act in a fiscally responsible way 
today. Take that opportunity. Show America that we have the courage to 
pay for what we buy while at the same time giving tax relief to people 
who need it, to businesses who will expand and create jobs, and to an 
energy independence that is so critical for our Nation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the 
majority leader of the House, for coming down and being on the floor. I 
would, if I can, not take his words but to take his feelings and 
understandings in the way I accept this, as well as the gentleman from 
Oregon, that the majority leader has indicated that he will try before 
this session is over to address this issue. It is my hope that the 
majority leader, and so that we don't engage in talking past each 
other, would not do what happened on July 30 when the gentleman, the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee said in a colloquy that he would 
also work with another Member of the Republican team before the bill 
came back on an amendment. That never happened.
  It is my hope, without calling anyone's bluff around here, to take 
the gentleman's words that I believe he very sincerely stated, that he 
would initiate the opportunity to find a place in the budget, I'm 
sorry, in an appropriation bill, to get passed by the House of 
Representatives and the Senate because that's what we are talking 
about. We are talking about a bill today that could have passed because 
the President would sign it and the Senate would agree to it. So I have 
taken it that way.
  Now, the gentleman from Maryland also indicated that he saw nothing 
controversial in this bill, but extending future taxes for 1 year, this 
provision is going to cost employers $1.474 billion. That is a tax 
increase. That means it makes it more difficult for employers to hire 
employees. It sounds like the same type of arrangement that some of our 
other States have done, up to and including the State of Illinois that 
raised taxes just like this which puts Illinois where they are 48 out 
of 50 in job creation. It places States in a position and employers in 
the position where they lay off employees. So there is a controversial 
piece in this package that I am disappointed is in there as a permanent 
tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard the 
tremendous support for our rural schools throughout America. I am 
bringing this up because the Senate tax extenders package has funding 
for rural schools in it. We have gone for the entire year without 
addressing this problem. Our layoff notices have gone out in California 
already. I have one county, Plumas County, where they will be laying 
off a majority of their administrators, nearly one-third of their 
teachers, they will be closing all school libraries and closing some, 
if not all, of the school cafeterias. This is a problem that cries out 
for action.

[[Page 21812]]

  I was very happy to hear the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, as reported to me, that he indicated that he did not have a 
problem with this. I personally spoke with the President of the United 
States who understands the problem of our rural schools and is willing 
to support it. We just can't get the House of Representatives to keep 
it in the bill when it comes to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, representing the 4,400 schools that qualify for this 
aid, and the 780 counties in this country where the schools are 
located, I implore you, we must act to save our rural communities. They 
are entitled to be included in this bill and to get the funding that 
they deserve. It is unconscionable that we keep going with bills 
through this Congress and fail to address this issue.
  So please, let's work together on a bipartisan basis and a bicameral 
basis and take care of our rural communities starting with the Secure 
Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act for our communities.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time to 
speak on this, and his leadership in bringing this measure to the 
floor.
  This is an important element to bring together to finally wrap up and 
end a game of political ping-pong. We have passed four times through 
the House of Representatives these critical energy provisions, along 
with the tax extenders.
  We have a proposal before us today that is something that our friends 
on the other side of the Capitol ought to be able to accept. It meets 
all of the needs of things that we all agree should be part of this 
legislation, and it is paid for by using provisions all of which have 
already passed the other body. These are not controversial. These are 
things on which there is agreement.
  We can meld these together and be able to have the provisions that 
are so critical for research and development, for solar, for wind. 
There are others obviously that deal with important parts of our 
economy and items that relate to individual families in terms of tax 
extenders.

                              {time}  1445

  There is something in this legislation for virtually everybody on the 
floor of the House, for the people that we represent, and in terms that 
do not have to be controversial. Indeed, our chairman of Ways and Means 
took out a provision that is near and dear to his heart, a proposal 
that was a recommendation from the President of the United States, to 
keep the American commitment at Ground Zero; not that it's not 
important, but it's not there in order to make this a clean tax bill 
and to minimize controversy.
  There have been some concerns about the rural schools provision. I 
come from the State of Oregon. I have been here working in a bipartisan 
basis, to atone for what the last Republican-controlled Congress did, 
where they allowed this provision to expire. The Republicans chose not 
to renew it, so we started from scratch. We had to scramble to find a 
budget home.
  I see my colleague, Peter DeFazio from Oregon here, who's been a 
champion trying at every turn to move this forward. And we've actually 
got it through in several provisions through the House of 
Representatives.
  It's ironic that there are some who would come to the floor, and 
sadly, as we heard them, attack the Speaker, the Rules Committee Chair 
in the past and others who are trying to help us and whose leadership 
is critical.
  I've talked to the majority leader a few minutes ago. You just heard 
his words on the floor as he told me privately that he would continue 
to work with us. We're not done yet. Let's look for a provision in 
which we could get help for rural school. The best way to do it is to 
take people at their word, yes, try and work with them, and yes, not to 
insult the people who we're relying on to help us guide it through. I 
would hope we are people of goodwill.
  The rural schools funding is not a tax provision and not germane. I 
hope we can find an opportunity in an economic stimulus bill or 
something else, that is appropriate. I want to deal with the problem at 
Ground Zero.
  But let's not muddy the waters on this bill. Let's not vote against 
the rule. Let's not disparage people whose help we need at a time when 
there are all sorts of things going on here and we're going to need to 
work together cooperatively.
  Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be honored to.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me try to clear up some things. It's insulting to 
believe that because I come from the City of New York that I don't 
understand the problems of education in rural areas. In this great 
country it's so important that all of our kids have----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I continue to yield.
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much, a distinguished member of our 
committee, and I've heard your eloquent plea on behalf of education for 
our rural children. And whether they're in inner cities or rural areas, 
in order for this country to be productive, in order for this country 
to make certain that we can compete, we've got to improve the quality 
of education.
  Now, people are talking about the other body's bill as though we have 
it. They're holding up that bill at the desk. They won't bring that 
bill over here. All we're trying to do is to say, don't hold back the 
incentives that we have for businesses to continue what they're doing 
in order to get energy.
  Now, I can give some assurances too. We have to think, not as 
Democrats and Republicans, but we have to think about having the House 
of Representatives respected, and to believe that in the House of 
Representatives, the people govern.
  And I can assure you, if we can break down that gridlock as relates 
to who's going to be responsible and pay for these incentives, I have 
no problems, even though that bill does not have jurisdiction in my 
committee, as the chairman in accepting that, because I know how 
important it is.
  But if you weaken us, they come over here, and you believe that 
they're right because they have 90 votes? Well, God knows that we can 
work out something with Republicans and have our way on everything as 
long as we say you're going to get what you want. That's not the way we 
think that we should legislate.
  You have a good issue. We accept the issue. We can work with the 
issue. And we can do it in the other body's bill. That other body's 
bill has not been sent over here, for political purposes, in order to 
believe that at the last minute there's going to be a cave-in.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to thank the chairman for his expression of 
support. I just would conclude by saying that we want to make sure that 
this bill goes forward for the things the American people need, and we 
can work on the long term for these other solutions. And I appreciate 
the gentleman's clarification----
  Mr. RANGEL. We can do it in this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And your leadership.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York has hit upon a 
great idea, which means we can do this today, which means, if the 
previous question is defeated, we can just add the gentleman, Mr. 
Walden's amendment right to the bill. We can get it accepted. There's 
no need to go back to committee. It'll just be accepted as it is.
  We've heard lots of people from the majority, including the majority 
leader, the gentleman from New York, who does care about schools. He 
cares about education. But today we can resolve this.
  You see, what happened is I was just upstairs, Mr. Speaker, at the 
Rules Committee, and we lost 9-4 on a party-line vote. We tried the 
process. Republicans respectfully came and tried. Evidently we're 
making progress today. That makes me happy.

[[Page 21813]]

  So the gentleman can, with respect, whatever his words may be, will 
have a chance today. We're not going to send anything back to the 
committee. We'll just add the amendment to the bill once the previous 
question is defeated.
  Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RANGEL. I want to give you as much assurance as to what can be 
done and what can't be done. It may sound good to say that you can add 
it to the bill. Just because it has no germaneness in the Senate does 
not prevent me, in conference, from accepting it. But I can't help to 
make your amendment germane on a bill that has nothing to do with rural 
education, no matter how deep the commitment.
  All I can promise you, if we showed the solidarity in sending our 
bill over there as they clearly have in sending their bill over here, I 
can assure you in conference, if it's in their bill I will be able to 
support it. But the question of having an amendment when it's not 
germane is something that we can't win on.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentleman. 
It's my understanding that this was a conference report.
  Mr. RANGEL. We have never, never, never, been able to go into 
conference. We've ended conferences with the other body. They make up 
their mind what they want to do and they come and tell me, and then 
around the edges we get some agreement.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, you 
know, we could sit here and ping-pong back between you and me too. I'm 
trying to say that the gentleman, Mr. Walden, has respectfully brought 
the issue for over 2 years.
  We were upstairs yesterday in the Rules Committee. The gentleman from 
Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, politely asked. He served on the 
committee 12 years. I've only served on it 10 years. We politely asked 
if we could get it in. And now we're down being nice to each other on 
the floor.
  All I'm suggesting to you is we can go through our own parliamentary 
procedure properly. We can get it included in and then we know that all 
of our words did matter.
  But without that, without that, the gentleman from Oregon is correct. 
Otherwise, then it is only the Democrat leadership, the Speaker and the 
Rules Committee who will be responsible for it not making it. The 
committee had that opportunity yesterday. We're going to give every 
single Member of this body the opportunity in just a few minutes. I'm 
hopeful that people take us up on it.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a unique situation as 
I rise to speak on something that I consider to be extremely 
significant, and it seems as if it has almost bipartisan and bi-House 
support for doing this at the same time.
  We throw around a lot of numbers in this floor, and I think there's 
only two that I would like to emphasize right now, 52 and 4. 52 and 4. 
Because one of the situations that we have in this particular issue is 
that if you live east of the Rocky Mountains, only 4 percent of all of 
it is owned by the Federal Government; and 52 percent of those of us 
who live west of it is owned by the Federal Government, which creates a 
unique and significant problem.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could, for a moment, I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to have 
the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the 
Record prior to the vote on the previous question.
  I'm going to offer and place forward this amendment to H. Res. 1501. 
It will allow this body to be able to vote, when we defeat the previous 
question, to add in the amendment directly to the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it will be entered into 
the Record.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Kind.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from New York 
for yielding me the time and for his management of this important rule 
and the important legislation that we're going to have a chance to 
debate and consider in a short while.
  But I also want to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
for his strong commitment to the rural school portion that's been 
discussed on the floor here.
  As someone who represents Western Wisconsin, with many rural schools, 
I have the utmost confidence that we're going to find a way, working 
with the Senate, whether it's in conference in the reconciliation that 
will inevitably have to take place between this energy tax incentive 
extender bill that we have before us and what they've moved earlier in 
the week in order to get this provision done. It is important, across 
the aisle, that we accomplish that.
  But let's get back to the substance of what we have before us here, 
which represents, I believe, an important step along the road to 
developing a comprehensive energy plan that makes sense for our 
country's future and our children's future because of the crucial 
investment that it makes with the tax incentives to develop alternative 
and renewable energy sources in this country.
  Throughout the summer, and for too long, we have heard the chant from 
the other side that the answer to our energy woes is ``drill, drill, 
drill.'' But Thomas Friedman is correct in stating that it's comparable 
to a group of citizens standing up on the eve of the information 
technology revolution, screaming for more electric typewriters, 
electric typewriters, electric typewriters, when our national chant 
really should be, ``invent, invent, invent.'' It's the only way we're 
going to see our way out of the energy box and crisis that we're facing 
as a Nation and throughout the world. That's what this bill helps us to 
accomplish, with tax incentives for the development of wind and solar, 
fuel cell development, geothermal, electric hybrid technology, but also 
the incentives to enhance conservation and an efficiency program, which 
is another important aspect towards energy independence; extending the 
credit for energy efficient improvements to existing homes, for 
instance, energy efficient commercial buildings, energy efficient 
appliance credits, accelerated depreciation for smart meters and smart 
grid systems, qualified green building and sustainable design projects, 
as well as the extension of the R&D tax credit, which will help spur 
the investment in clean technology and clean energy sources.
  The only real difficulty we have with this legislation is the fact 
that the Democratic Party, since we took the majority, believes that we 
need to start paying for things again. We have responsible offsets to 
pay for this so we don't dig a hole deeper for our children to climb 
out of. And when we adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, we did it 
not because we thought it was going to be fun or easy. We did it 
because we thought it was the responsible thing to do, so that we don't 
leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren.
  And the revenue offsets that we identify in this bill to pay for the 
investment and build-out of renewable energy in this country, come from 
the exorbitant tax breaks that big oil companies receive under their 
bill at a time of record profits with oil companies sitting on huge 
cash reserves. That's why this legislation is important, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. This week, Congress is grappling with grave economic 
issues, issues that are facing our Nation's economy, and we're all 
being called upon right now to ensure that America's financial 
situation is secure.

[[Page 21814]]

But today we also have an opportunity to look beyond the present and 
ensure that America's future is strong, and that's what this energy tax 
bill is all about.
  In particular, I want to call your attention to the solar tax 
credits. Solar power is clean, it's domestic, it's renewable, it's 
going to bring us closer to energy independence and provide us with 
powerful economic benefits across our great Nation.
  According to a recent study, an 8-year extension of the solar ITC 
could lead to more than 440,000 jobs and attract $232 billion in 
investment. Not only is that serious economic stimulus, it will foster 
a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable world. But without the solar ITC 
being signed into law this year, it will not happen.
  We have to pass this bill. We must work with the Senate. We must work 
with the White House.
  Time is not on our side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We will reserve our time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. No one's district, with perhaps the exception of the 
other gentleman from Oregon, is impacted more than mine by the issue of 
counties and schools. And no one has worked harder to try to get it 
included. And actually it was said yesterday that we didn't have a vote 
in the House on county schools. We did, actually, in May, and the 
Republicans chose to side with Big Oil instead of with counties and 
schools. I got 218 votes, but I needed a two-thirds majority to pass 
it.
  And it was also included in an energy package last year, a major 
energy initiative sent by the House to the Senate which was 
filibustered by 41 Republican Senators, again, over the issue of 
protecting Big Oil.
  So the record's pretty clear here. I appreciate the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee saying he's going to work with us and try to 
help us with this vehicle or other vehicles in the closing days of this 
Congress to get this critical funding, and I take heart with that 
because he's an honorable man.
  We've got another problem, and it is downtown. It's called George 
Bush. Here is the President's statement on county schools: ``Finally, 
the administration opposes new, mandatory funding for payments in lieu 
of taxes, and believes that any extension of rural community payments 
should be phased out, as it has previously proposed. The administration 
urges Congress to eliminate all such provisions from the final bill.'' 
All such provisions. That's the President's position.
  If this President would lift one pinky, we would have county school 
funding. He muscled $465 million in foreign aid into the continuing 
resolution that passed the House yesterday because he wanted $365 
million for Georgia, but he didn't ask for a penny for county schools 
here in the United States of America. And by the way, that wasn't 
Georgia the State, that's Georgia the country overseas; one of his 
favorite places, I guess.
  If we just had a little bit of help downtown, we could get this done. 
And we're not done here yet. We're going to fight like heck in the next 
2 days to get it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no further 
speakers.
  I reserve my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the bill that 
we're debating now and that was passed by the Rules Committee is not 
the package that is on the floor now, that there was a change that was 
made upwards of $100 million, and that the Rules Committee, in fact, 
met--and in my opinion should not have--and we passed a bill that's not 
on the floor.
  And I don't know--I'm looking for some clarification on this. I'm 
saying that right now on the floor. This is not the same bill that is 
presently on the floor that we passed in the Rules Committee.
  And I'm asking for the Speaker to rule this bill out of order or to 
tell me what we believe is the correct thing to do because we think 
that there's been a huge mistake.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would say I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what version of the bill do we presently 
have on the floor, and was it the same that was passed by the Rules 
Committee this morning?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not interpret a resolution 
while it is pending.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. ARCURI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Then I would ask the gentleman from the Rules 
Committee, and I would say directly to the gentleman, we do not believe 
that the bill that is presently on the floor today was exactly the same 
bill that was considered and passed in the Rules Committee and we are 
asking for clarification. We believe there is at least a $100 million 
difference.
  Mr. ARCURI. As I understand it, the bill that is on the floor today 
is the very same bill that was before the Rules Committee earlier 
today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So you believe it is exactly the same bill that we 
passed in the Rules Committee?
  Mr. ARCURI. As I understand it, it is the same bill that we saw in 
the Rules Committee. That's right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I was looking for a direct answer from the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we've made our point today that we're going to ask that 
the gentleman, once the previous question is defeated, the gentleman 
from Oregon will have a chance to not send the bill back to committee; 
just to accept the amendment. And we have made our case on the floor 
today. We asked for and received clarification about the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The parliamentary inquiry would be if the previous 
question, as the gentleman suggests, were defeated, under the rules of 
the House and the germaneness, are all rules at that point waived and 
this could be added to the bill, or would the germaneness rule apply 
and would a point of order stand against it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the previous question was defeated, the 
rules of the House would continue to apply.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I guess that means it would not be in order; is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would be a hypothetical question. The 
Chair will not render an advisory opinion.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, supporting this rule and the tax relief 
legislation we will consider later today is simply common sense. We can 
provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur 
innovation, and creates tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our 
dependence on oil from hostile nations, reduce greenhouse gases, and we 
can do it in a fiscally responsible way. That is to say, we can do it 
without putting the price tag on our children and our grandchildren. We 
can pay for it today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the 
rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

      Amendment to H. Res. 1501 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall he in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7060) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for 
     energy production and conservation, to extend certain 
     expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI.

[[Page 21815]]

     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, and any amendment there 
     to, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; (2) the amendment relating to the reauthorization 
     of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 
     Act printed in section 4 of this resolution, if offered by 
     Representative Walden of Oregon or his designee, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall 
     he considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     and opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7060 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill, to such time as may he designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. House Resolution 1489 is laid on the table.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill add the following new section:

     SEC. 409. SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-
                   DETERMINATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and 
     Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.--The Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393) is amended by striking 
     sections 1 through 403 and inserting the following:

     ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This Act may be cited as the `Secure Rural Schools and 
     Community Self-Determination Act of 2000'.

     ``SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this Act are--
       ``(1) to stabilize and transition payments to counties to 
     provide funding for schools and roads that supplements other 
     available funds;
       ``(2) to make additional investments in, and create 
     additional employment opportunities through, projects that--
       ``(A)(i) improve the maintenance of existing 
     infrastructure;
       ``(ii) implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest 
     ecosystems; and
       ``(iii) restore and improve land health and water quality;
       ``(B) enjoy broad-based support; and
       ``(C) have objectives that may include--
       ``(i) road, trail, and infrastructure maintenance or 
     obliteration;
       ``(ii) soil productivity improvement;
       ``(iii) improvements in forest ecosystem health;
       ``(iv) watershed restoration and maintenance;
       ``(v) the restoration, maintenance, and improvement of 
     wildlife and fish habitat;
       ``(vi) the control of noxious and exotic weeds; and
       ``(vii) the reestablishment of native species; and
       ``(3) to improve cooperative relationships among--
       ``(A) the people that use and care for Federal land; and
       ``(B) the agencies that manage the Federal land.

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Adjusted share.--The term `adjusted share' means the 
     number equal to the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(A) the number equal to the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(i) the base share for the eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the income adjustment for the eligible county; by
       ``(B) the number equal to the sum of the quotients obtained 
     under subparagraph (A) and paragraph (8)(A) for all eligible 
     counties.
       ``(2) Base share.--The term `base share' means the number 
     equal to the average of--
       ``(A) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the number of acres of Federal land described in 
     paragraph (7)(A) in each eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the total number acres of Federal land in all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States; and
       ``(B) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the amount equal to the average of the 3 highest 25-
     percent payments and safety net payments made to each 
     eligible State for each eligible county during the 
     eligibility period; by
       ``(ii) the amount equal to the sum of the amounts 
     calculated under clause (i) and paragraph (9)(B)(i) for all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States during the 
     eligibility period.
       ``(3) County payment.--The term `county payment' means the 
     payment for an eligible county calculated under section 
     101(b).
       ``(4) Eligible county.--The term `eligible county' means 
     any county that--
       ``(A) contains Federal land (as defined in paragraph (7)); 
     and
       ``(B) elects to receive a share of the State payment or the 
     county payment under section 102(b).
       ``(5) Eligibility period.--The term `eligibility period' 
     means fiscal year 1986 through fiscal year 1999.
       ``(6) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a 
     State or territory of the United States that received a 25-
     percent payment for 1 or more fiscal years of the eligibility 
     period.
       ``(7) Federal land.--The term `Federal land' means--
       ``(A) land within the National Forest System, as defined in 
     section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)) exclusive of the 
     National Grasslands and land utilization projects designated 
     as National Grasslands administered pursuant to the Act of 
     July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and
       ``(B) such portions of the revested Oregon and California 
     Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant land as are 
     or may hereafter come under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Interior, which have heretofore or may 
     hereafter be classified as timberlands, and power-site land 
     valuable for timber, that shall be managed, except as 
     provided in the former section 3 of the Act of August 28, 
     1937 (50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181c), for permanent forest 
     production.
       ``(8) 50-Percent adjusted share.--The term `50-percent 
     adjusted share' means the number equal to the quotient 
     obtained by dividing--
       ``(A) the number equal to the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(i) the 50-percent base share for the eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the income adjustment for the eligible county; by
       ``(B) the number equal to the sum of the quotients obtained 
     under subparagraph (A) and paragraph (1)(A) for all eligible 
     counties.
       ``(9) 50-Percent base share.--The term `50-percent base 
     share' means the number equal to the average of--
       ``(A) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the number of acres of Federal land described in 
     paragraph (7)(B) in each eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the total number acres of Federal land in all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States; and
       ``(B) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the amount equal to the average of the 3 highest 50-
     percent payments made to each eligible county during the 
     eligibility period; by
       ``(ii) the amount equal to the sum of the amounts 
     calculated under clause (i) and paragraph (2)(B)(i) for all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States during the 
     eligibility period.
       ``(10) 50-Percent payment.--The term `50-percent payment' 
     means the payment that is the sum of the 50-percent share 
     otherwise paid to a county pursuant to title II of the Act of 
     August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     and the payment made to a county pursuant to the Act of May 
     24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et 
     seq.).
       ``(11) Full funding amount.--The term `full funding amount' 
     means--
       ``(A) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     the amount that is equal to 90 percent of the full funding 
     amount for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(12) Income adjustment.--The term `income adjustment' 
     means the square of the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(A) the per capita personal income for each eligible 
     county; by
       ``(B) the median per capita personal income of all eligible 
     counties.
       ``(13) Per capita personal income.--The term `per capita 
     personal income' means the most recent per capita personal 
     income data, as determined by the Bureau of Economic 
     Analysis.
       ``(14) Safety net payments.--The term `safety net payments' 
     means the special payment amounts paid to States and counties 
     required by section 13982 or 13983 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 
     note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note).
       ``(15) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture or the designee of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the Federal land 
     described in paragraph (7)(A); and
       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior or the designee of the 
     Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Federal land 
     described in paragraph (7)(B).
       ``(16) State payment.--The term `State payment' means the 
     payment for an eligible State calculated under section 
     101(a).
       ``(17) 25-Percent payment.--The term `25-percent payment' 
     means the payment to States required by the sixth paragraph 
     under the heading of `FOREST SERVICE' in the Act of May 23, 
     1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the Act 
     of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500).

  TITLE I--SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES AND COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL 
                                  LAND

     ``SEC. 101. SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES CONTAINING FEDERAL 
                   LAND.

       ``(a) State Payment.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2011, the Secretary of Agriculture shall calculate for each 
     eligible State an amount equal to the sum of the products 
     obtained by multiplying--

[[Page 21816]]

       ``(1) the adjusted share for each eligible county within 
     the eligible State; by
       ``(2) the full funding amount for the fiscal year.
       ``(b) County Payment.--For each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2011, the Secretary of the Interior shall calculate 
     for each eligible county that received a 50-percent payment 
     during the eligibility period an amount equal to the product 
     obtained by multiplying--
       ``(1) the 50-percent adjusted share for the eligible 
     county; by
       ``(2) the full funding amount for the fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 102. PAYMENTS TO STATES AND COUNTIES.

       ``(a) Payment Amounts.--Except as provided in section 103, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to--
       ``(1) a State or territory of the United States an amount 
     equal to the sum of the amounts elected under subsection (b) 
     by each county within the State or territory for--
       ``(A) if the county is eligible for the 25-percent payment, 
     the share of the 25-percent payment; or
       ``(B) the share of the State payment of the eligible 
     county; and
       ``(2) a county an amount equal to the amount elected under 
     subsection (b) by each county for--
       ``(A) if the county is eligible for the 50-percent payment, 
     the 50-percent payment; or
       ``(B) the county payment for the eligible county.
       ``(b) Election To Receive Payment Amount.--
       ``(1) Election; submission of results.--
       ``(A) In general.--The election to receive a share of the 
     State payment, the county payment, a share of the State 
     payment and the county payment, a share of the 25-percent 
     payment, the 50-percent payment, or a share of the 25-percent 
     payment and the 50-percent payment, as applicable, shall be 
     made at the discretion of each affected county by August 1, 
     2008 (or as soon thereafter as the Secretary concerned 
     determines is practicable), and August 1 of each second 
     fiscal year thereafter, in accordance with paragraph (2), and 
     transmitted to the Secretary concerned by the Governor of 
     each eligible State.
       ``(B) Failure to transmit.--If an election for an affected 
     county is not transmitted to the Secretary concerned by the 
     date specified under subparagraph (A), the affected county 
     shall be considered to have elected to receive a share of the 
     State payment, the county payment, or a share of the State 
     payment and the county payment, as applicable.
       ``(2) Duration of election.--
       ``(A) In general.--A county election to receive a share of 
     the 25-percent payment or 50-percent payment, as applicable, 
     shall be effective for 2 fiscal years.
       ``(B) Full funding amount.--If a county elects to receive a 
     share of the State payment or the county payment, the 
     election shall be effective for all subsequent fiscal years 
     through fiscal year 2011.
       ``(3) Source of payment amounts.--The payment to an 
     eligible State or eligible county under this section for a 
     fiscal year shall be derived from--
       ``(A) any amounts that are appropriated to carry out this 
     Act;
       ``(B) any revenues, fees, penalties, or miscellaneous 
     receipts, exclusive of deposits to any relevant trust fund, 
     special account, or permanent operating funds, received by 
     the Federal Government from activities by the Bureau of Land 
     Management or the Forest Service on the applicable Federal 
     land; and
       ``(C) to the extent of any shortfall, out of any amounts in 
     the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.
       ``(c) Distribution and Expenditure of Payments.--
       ``(1) Distribution method.--A State that receives a payment 
     under subsection (a) for Federal land described in section 
     3(7)(A) shall distribute the appropriate payment amount among 
     the appropriate counties in the State in accordance with--
       ``(A) the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500); and
       ``(B) section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 
     16 U.S.C. 500).
       ``(2) Expenditure purposes.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     payments received by a State under subsection (a) and 
     distributed to counties in accordance with paragraph (1) 
     shall be expended as required by the laws referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
       ``(1) Allocations.--
       ``(A) Use of portion in same manner as 25-percent payment 
     or 50-percent payment, as applicable.-- Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3)(B), if an eligible county elects to receive its 
     share of the State payment or the county payment, not less 
     than 80 percent, but not more than 85 percent, of the funds 
     shall be expended in the same manner in which the 25-percent 
     payments or 50-percent payment, as applicable, are required 
     to be expended.
       ``(B) Election as to use of balance.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), an eligible county shall elect to do 1 or 
     more of the following with the balance of any funds not 
     expended pursuant to subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) Reserve any portion of the balance for projects in 
     accordance with title II.
       ``(ii) Reserve not more than 7 percent of the total share 
     for the eligible county of the State payment or the county 
     payment for projects in accordance with title III.
       ``(iii) Return the portion of the balance not reserved 
     under clauses (i) and (ii) to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       ``(C) Counties with modest distributions.--In the case of 
     each eligible county to which more than $100,000, but less 
     than $350,000, is distributed for any fiscal year pursuant to 
     either or both of paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection 
     (a), the eligible county, with respect to the balance of any 
     funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) for that 
     fiscal year, shall--
       ``(i) reserve any portion of the balance for--
       ``(I) carrying out projects under title II;
       ``(II) carrying out projects under title III; or
       ``(III) a combination of the purposes described in 
     subclauses (I) and (II); or
       ``(ii) return the portion of the balance not reserved under 
     clause (i) to the Treasury of the United States.
       ``(2) Distribution of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Funds reserved by an eligible county 
     under subparagraph (B)(i) or (C)(i) of paragraph (1) for 
     carrying out projects under title II shall be deposited in a 
     special account in the Treasury of the United States.
       ``(B) Availability.--Amounts deposited under subparagraph 
     (A) shall--
       ``(i) be available for expenditure by the Secretary 
     concerned, without further appropriation; and
       ``(ii) remain available until expended in accordance with 
     title II.
       ``(3) Election.--
       ``(A) Notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--An eligible county shall notify the 
     Secretary concerned of an election by the eligible county 
     under this subsection not later than September 30, 2008 (or 
     as soon thereafter as the Secretary concerned determines is 
     practicable), and each September 30 thereafter for each 
     succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Failure to elect.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), if the eligible county fails to make an 
     election by the date specified in clause (i), the eligible 
     county shall--
       ``(I) be considered to have elected to expend 85 percent of 
     the funds in accordance with paragraph (1)(A); and
       ``(II) return the balance to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       ``(B) Counties with minor distributions.--In the case of 
     each eligible county to which less than $100,000 is 
     distributed for any fiscal year pursuant to either or both of 
     paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection (a), the eligible 
     county may elect to expend all the funds in the same manner 
     in which the 25-percent payments or 50-percent payments, as 
     applicable, are required to be expended.
       ``(e) Time for Payment.--The payments required under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be made as soon as 
     practicable after the end of that fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 103. TRANSITION PAYMENTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Adjusted amount.--The term `adjusted amount' means, 
     with respect to a covered State--
       ``(A) for fiscal year 2008, 90 percent of--
       ``(i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 102(a)(2) (as in effect on September 29, 2006) 
     for the eligible counties in the covered State that have 
     elected under section 102(b) to receive a share of the State 
     payment for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 103(a)(2) (as in effect on September 29, 2006) 
     for the eligible counties in the State of Oregon that have 
     elected under section 102(b) to receive the county payment 
     for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2009, 81 percent of--
       ``(i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 102(a)(2) (as in effect on September 29, 2006) 
     for the eligible counties in the covered State that have 
     elected under section 102(b) to receive a share of the State 
     payment for fiscal year 2009; and
       ``(ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 103(a)(2) (as in effect on September 29, 2006) 
     for the eligible counties in the State of Oregon that have 
     elected under section 102(b) to receive the county payment 
     for fiscal year 2009; and
       ``(C) for fiscal year 2010, 73 percent of--
       ``(i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 102(a)(2) (as in effect on September 29, 2006) 
     for the eligible counties in the covered State that have 
     elected under section 102(b) to receive a share of the State 
     payment for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 103(a)(2) (as in effect on September 29, 2006) 
     for the eligible counties in the State of Oregon that have 
     elected under section 102(b) to receive the county payment 
     for fiscal year 2010.
       ``(2) Covered state.--The term `covered State' means each 
     of the States of California, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
     South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.
       ``(b) Transition Payments.--For each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2010, in lieu of the payment amounts that otherwise 
     would have been made under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B)

[[Page 21817]]

     of section 102(a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay 
     the adjusted amount to each covered State and the eligible 
     counties within the covered State, as applicable.
       ``(c) Distribution of Adjusted Amount.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (d), it is the intent of Congress that the 
     method of distributing the payments under subsection (b) 
     among the counties in the covered States for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2010 be in the same proportion that the 
     payments were distributed to the eligible counties in fiscal 
     year 2006.
       ``(d) Distribution of Payments in California.--The 
     following payments shall be distributed among the eligible 
     counties in the State of California in the same proportion 
     that payments under section 102(a)(2) (as in effect on 
     September 29, 2006) were distributed to the eligible counties 
     for fiscal year 2006:
       ``(1) Payments to the State of California under subsection 
     (b).
       ``(2) The shares of the eligible counties of the State 
     payment for California under section 102 for fiscal year 
     2011.
       ``(e) Treatment of Payments.--For purposes of this Act, any 
     payment made under subsection (b) shall be considered to be a 
     payment made under section 102(a).

              ``TITLE II--SPECIAL PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LAND

     ``SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Participating county.--The term `participating 
     county' means an eligible county that elects under section 
     102(d) to expend a portion of the Federal funds received 
     under section 102 in accordance with this title.
       ``(2) Project funds.--The term `project funds' means all 
     funds an eligible county elects under section 102(d) to 
     reserve for expenditure in accordance with this title.
       ``(3) Resource advisory committee.--The term `resource 
     advisory committee' means--
       ``(A) an advisory committee established by the Secretary 
     concerned under section 205; or
       ``(B) an advisory committee determined by the Secretary 
     concerned to meet the requirements of section 205.
       ``(4) Resource management plan.--The term `resource 
     management plan' means--
       ``(A) a land use plan prepared by the Bureau of Land 
     Management for units of the Federal land described in section 
     3(7)(B) pursuant to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712); or
       ``(B) a land and resource management plan prepared by the 
     Forest Service for units of the National Forest System 
     pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).

     ``SEC. 202. GENERAL LIMITATION ON USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       ``(a) Limitation.--Project funds shall be expended solely 
     on projects that meet the requirements of this title.
       ``(b) Authorized Uses.--Project funds may be used by the 
     Secretary concerned for the purpose of entering into and 
     implementing cooperative agreements with willing Federal 
     agencies, State and local governments, private and nonprofit 
     entities, and landowners for protection, restoration, and 
     enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and other resource 
     objectives consistent with the purposes of this Act on 
     Federal land and on non-Federal land where projects would 
     benefit the resources on Federal land.

     ``SEC. 203. SUBMISSION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS.

       ``(a) Submission of Project Proposals to Secretary 
     Concerned.--
       ``(1) Projects funded using project funds.--Not later than 
     September 30 for fiscal year 2008 (or as soon thereafter as 
     the Secretary concerned determines is practicable), and each 
     September 30 thereafter for each succeeding fiscal year 
     through fiscal year 2011, each resource advisory committee 
     shall submit to the Secretary concerned a description of any 
     projects that the resource advisory committee proposes the 
     Secretary undertake using any project funds reserved by 
     eligible counties in the area in which the resource advisory 
     committee has geographic jurisdiction.
       ``(2) Projects funded using other funds.--A resource 
     advisory committee may submit to the Secretary concerned a 
     description of any projects that the committee proposes the 
     Secretary undertake using funds from State or local 
     governments, or from the private sector, other than project 
     funds and funds appropriated and otherwise available to do 
     similar work.
       ``(3) Joint projects.--Participating counties or other 
     persons may propose to pool project funds or other funds, 
     described in paragraph (2), and jointly propose a project or 
     group of projects to a resource advisory committee 
     established under section 205.
       ``(b) Required Description of Projects.--In submitting 
     proposed projects to the Secretary concerned under subsection 
     (a), a resource advisory committee shall include in the 
     description of each proposed project the following 
     information:
       ``(1) The purpose of the project and a description of how 
     the project will meet the purposes of this title.
       ``(2) The anticipated duration of the project.
       ``(3) The anticipated cost of the project.
       ``(4) The proposed source of funding for the project, 
     whether project funds or other funds.
       ``(5)(A) Expected outcomes, including how the project will 
     meet or exceed desired ecological conditions, maintenance 
     objectives, or stewardship objectives.
       ``(B) An estimate of the amount of any timber, forage, and 
     other commodities and other economic activity, including jobs 
     generated, if any, anticipated as part of the project.
       ``(6) A detailed monitoring plan, including funding needs 
     and sources, that--
       ``(A) tracks and identifies the positive or negative 
     impacts of the project, implementation, and provides for 
     validation monitoring; and
       ``(B) includes an assessment of the following:
       ``(i) Whether or not the project met or exceeded desired 
     ecological conditions; created local employment or training 
     opportunities, including summer youth jobs programs such as 
     the Youth Conservation Corps where appropriate.
       ``(ii) Whether the project improved the use of, or added 
     value to, any products removed from land consistent with the 
     purposes of this title.
       ``(7) An assessment that the project is to be in the public 
     interest.
       ``(c) Authorized Projects.--Projects proposed under 
     subsection (a) shall be consistent with section 2.

     ``SEC. 204. EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BY SECRETARY 
                   CONCERNED.

       ``(a) Conditions for Approval of Proposed Project.--The 
     Secretary concerned may make a decision to approve a project 
     submitted by a resource advisory committee under section 203 
     only if the proposed project satisfies each of the following 
     conditions:
       ``(1) The project complies with all applicable Federal laws 
     (including regulations).
       ``(2) The project is consistent with the applicable 
     resource management plan and with any watershed or subsequent 
     plan developed pursuant to the resource management plan and 
     approved by the Secretary concerned.
       ``(3) The project has been approved by the resource 
     advisory committee in accordance with section 205, including 
     the procedures issued under subsection (e) of that section.
       ``(4) A project description has been submitted by the 
     resource advisory committee to the Secretary concerned in 
     accordance with section 203.
       ``(5) The project will improve the maintenance of existing 
     infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance 
     forest ecosystems, and restore and improve land health and 
     water quality.
       ``(b) Environmental Reviews.--
       ``(1) Request for payment by county.--The Secretary 
     concerned may request the resource advisory committee 
     submitting a proposed project to agree to the use of project 
     funds to pay for any environmental review, consultation, or 
     compliance with applicable environmental laws required in 
     connection with the project.
       ``(2) Conduct of environmental review.--If a payment is 
     requested under paragraph (1) and the resource advisory 
     committee agrees to the expenditure of funds for this 
     purpose, the Secretary concerned shall conduct environmental 
     review, consultation, or other compliance responsibilities in 
     accordance with Federal laws (including regulations).
       ``(3) Effect of refusal to pay.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a resource advisory committee does 
     not agree to the expenditure of funds under paragraph (1), 
     the project shall be deemed withdrawn from further 
     consideration by the Secretary concerned pursuant to this 
     title.
       ``(B) Effect of withdrawal.--A withdrawal under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be a rejection of the 
     project for purposes of section 207(c).
       ``(c) Decisions of Secretary Concerned.--
       ``(1) Rejection of projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--A decision by the Secretary concerned to 
     reject a proposed project shall be at the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned.
       ``(B) No administrative appeal or judicial review.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a decision by the 
     Secretary concerned to reject a proposed project shall not be 
     subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.
       ``(C) Notice of rejection.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which the Secretary concerned makes the rejection 
     decision, the Secretary concerned shall notify in writing the 
     resource advisory committee that submitted the proposed 
     project of the rejection and the reasons for rejection.
       ``(2) Notice of project approval.--The Secretary concerned 
     shall publish in the Federal Register notice of each project 
     approved under subsection (a) if the notice would be required 
     had the project originated with the Secretary.
       ``(d) Source and Conduct of Project.--Once the Secretary 
     concerned accepts a project for review under section 203, the 
     acceptance shall be deemed a Federal action for all purposes.
       ``(e) Implementation of Approved Projects.--
       ``(1) Cooperation.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, 
     United States Code, using project funds the Secretary 
     concerned may

[[Page 21818]]

     enter into contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with 
     States and local governments, private and nonprofit entities, 
     and landowners and other persons to assist the Secretary in 
     carrying out an approved project.
       ``(2) Best value contracting.--
       ``(A) In general.--For any project involving a contract 
     authorized by paragraph (1) the Secretary concerned may elect 
     a source for performance of the contract on a best value 
     basis.
       ``(B) Factors.--The Secretary concerned shall determine 
     best value based on such factors as--
       ``(i) the technical demands and complexity of the work to 
     be done;
       ``(ii)(I) the ecological objectives of the project; and
       ``(II) the sensitivity of the resources being treated;
       ``(iii) the past experience by the contractor with the type 
     of work being done, using the type of equipment proposed for 
     the project, and meeting or exceeding desired ecological 
     conditions; and
       ``(iv) the commitment of the contractor to hiring highly 
     qualified workers and local residents.
       ``(3) Merchantable timber contracting pilot program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     establish a pilot program to implement a certain percentage 
     of approved projects involving the sale of merchantable 
     timber using separate contracts for--
       ``(i) the harvesting or collection of merchantable timber; 
     and
       ``(ii) the sale of the timber.
       ``(B) Annual percentages.--Under the pilot program, the 
     Secretary concerned shall ensure that, on a nationwide basis, 
     not less than the following percentage of all approved 
     projects involving the sale of merchantable timber are 
     implemented using separate contracts:
       ``(i) For fiscal year 2008, 35 percent.
       ``(ii) For fiscal year 2009, 45 percent.
       ``(iii) For each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011, 50 percent.
       ``(C) Inclusion in pilot program.--The decision whether to 
     use separate contracts to implement a project involving the 
     sale of merchantable timber shall be made by the Secretary 
     concerned after the approval of the project under this title.
       ``(D) Assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary concerned may use funds 
     from any appropriated account available to the Secretary for 
     the Federal land to assist in the administration of projects 
     conducted under the pilot program.
       ``(ii) Maximum amount of assistance.--The total amount 
     obligated under this subparagraph may not exceed $1,000,000 
     for any fiscal year during which the pilot program is in 
     effect.
       ``(E) Review and report.--
       ``(i) Initial report.--Not later than September 30, 2010, 
     the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and the Committees on Agriculture and 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report 
     assessing the pilot program.
       ``(ii) Annual report.--The Secretary concerned shall submit 
     to the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committees 
     on Agriculture and Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives an annual report describing the results of 
     the pilot program.
       ``(f) Requirements for Project Funds.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that at least 50 percent of all project funds be used 
     for projects that are primarily dedicated--
       ``(1) to road maintenance, decommissioning, or 
     obliteration; or
       ``(2) to restoration of streams and watersheds.

     ``SEC. 205. RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

       ``(a) Establishment and Purpose of Resource Advisory 
     Committees.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     establish and maintain resource advisory committees to 
     perform the duties in subsection (b), except as provided in 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of a resource advisory 
     committee shall be--
       ``(A) to improve collaborative relationships; and
       ``(B) to provide advice and recommendations to the land 
     management agencies consistent with the purposes of this 
     title.
       ``(3) Access to resource advisory committees.--To ensure 
     that each unit of Federal land has access to a resource 
     advisory committee, and that there is sufficient interest in 
     participation on a committee to ensure that membership can be 
     balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the 
     functions to be performed, the Secretary concerned may, 
     establish resource advisory committees for part of, or 1 or 
     more, units of Federal land.
       ``(4) Existing advisory committees.--
       ``(A) In general.--An advisory committee that meets the 
     requirements of this section, a resource advisory committee 
     established before September 29, 2006, or an advisory 
     committee determined by the Secretary concerned before 
     September 29, 2006, to meet the requirements of this section 
     may be deemed by the Secretary concerned to be a resource 
     advisory committee for the purposes of this title.
       ``(B) Charter--A charter for a committee described in 
     subparagraph (A) that was filed on or before September 29, 
     2006, shall be considered to be filed for purposes of this 
     Act.
       ``(C) Bureau of land management advisory committees.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior may deem a resource advisory 
     committee meeting the requirements of subpart 1784 of part 
     1780 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, as a resource 
     advisory committee for the purposes of this title.
       ``(b) Duties.--A resource advisory committee shall--
       ``(1) review projects proposed under this title by 
     participating counties and other persons;
       ``(2) propose projects and funding to the Secretary 
     concerned under section 203;
       ``(3) provide early and continuous coordination with 
     appropriate land management agency officials in recommending 
     projects consistent with purposes of this Act under this 
     title;
       ``(4) provide frequent opportunities for citizens, 
     organizations, tribes, land management agencies, and other 
     interested parties to participate openly and meaningfully, 
     beginning at the early stages of the project development 
     process under this title;
       ``(5)(A) monitor projects that have been approved under 
     section 204; and
       ``(B) advise the designated Federal official on the 
     progress of the monitoring efforts under subparagraph (A); 
     and
       ``(6) make recommendations to the Secretary concerned for 
     any appropriate changes or adjustments to the projects being 
     monitored by the resource advisory committee.
       ``(c) Appointment by the Secretary.--
       ``(1) Appointment and term.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary concerned, shall appoint 
     the members of resource advisory committees for a term of 4 
     years beginning on the date of appointment.
       ``(B) Reappointment.--The Secretary concerned may reappoint 
     members to subsequent 4-year terms.
       ``(2) Basic requirements.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     ensure that each resource advisory committee established 
     meets the requirements of subsection (d).
       ``(3) Initial appointment.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     concerned shall make initial appointments to the resource 
     advisory committees.
       ``(4) Vacancies.--The Secretary concerned shall make 
     appointments to fill vacancies on any resource advisory 
     committee as soon as practicable after the vacancy has 
     occurred.
       ``(5) Compensation.--Members of the resource advisory 
     committees shall not receive any compensation.
       ``(d) Composition of Advisory Committee.--
       ``(1) Number.--Each resource advisory committee shall be 
     comprised of 15 members.
       ``(2) Community interests represented.--Committee members 
     shall be representative of the interests of the following 3 
     categories:
       ``(A) 5 persons that--
       ``(i) represent organized labor or non-timber forest 
     product harvester groups;
       ``(ii) represent developed outdoor recreation, off highway 
     vehicle users, or commercial recreation activities;
       ``(iii) represent--
       ``(I) energy and mineral development interests; or
       ``(II) commercial or recreational fishing interests;
       ``(iv) represent the commercial timber industry; or
       ``(v) hold Federal grazing or other land use permits, or 
     represent nonindustrial private forest land owners, within 
     the area for which the committee is organized.
       ``(B) 5 persons that represent--
       ``(i) nationally recognized environmental organizations;
       ``(ii) regionally or locally recognized environmental 
     organizations;
       ``(iii) dispersed recreational activities;
       ``(iv) archaeological and historical interests; or
       ``(v) nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and 
     burro interest groups, wildlife or hunting organizations, or 
     watershed associations.
       ``(C) 5 persons that--
       ``(i) hold State elected office (or a designee);
       ``(ii) hold county or local elected office;
       ``(iii) represent American Indian tribes within or adjacent 
     to the area for which the committee is organized;
       ``(iv) are school officials or teachers; or
       ``(v) represent the affected public at large.
       ``(3) Balanced representation.--In appointing committee 
     members from the 3 categories in paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     concerned shall provide for balanced and broad representation 
     from within each category.
       ``(4) Geographic distribution.--The members of a resource 
     advisory committee shall reside within the State in which the 
     committee has jurisdiction and, to extent practicable, the 
     Secretary concerned shall ensure local representation in each 
     category in paragraph (2).
       ``(5) Chairperson.--A majority on each resource advisory 
     committee shall select the chairperson of the committee.

[[Page 21819]]

       ``(e) Approval Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), each resource 
     advisory committee shall establish procedures for proposing 
     projects to the Secretary concerned under this title.
       ``(2) Quorum.--A quorum must be present to constitute an 
     official meeting of the committee.
       ``(3) Approval by majority of members.--A project may be 
     proposed by a resource advisory committee to the Secretary 
     concerned under section 203(a), if the project has been 
     approved by a majority of members of the committee from each 
     of the 3 categories in subsection (d)(2).
       ``(f) Other Committee Authorities and Requirements.--
       ``(1) Staff assistance.--A resource advisory committee may 
     submit to the Secretary concerned a request for periodic 
     staff assistance from Federal employees under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       ``(2) Meetings.--All meetings of a resource advisory 
     committee shall be announced at least 1 week in advance in a 
     local newspaper of record and shall be open to the public.
       ``(3) Records.--A resource advisory committee shall 
     maintain records of the meetings of the committee and make 
     the records available for public inspection.

     ``SEC. 206. USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       ``(a) Agreement Regarding Schedule and Cost of Project.--
       ``(1) Agreement between parties.--The Secretary concerned 
     may carry out a project submitted by a resource advisory 
     committee under section 203(a) using project funds or other 
     funds described in section 203(a)(2), if, as soon as 
     practicable after the issuance of a decision document for the 
     project and the exhaustion of all administrative appeals and 
     judicial review of the project decision, the Secretary 
     concerned and the resource advisory committee enter into an 
     agreement addressing, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) The schedule for completing the project.
       ``(B) The total cost of the project, including the level of 
     agency overhead to be assessed against the project.
       ``(C) For a multiyear project, the estimated cost of the 
     project for each of the fiscal years in which it will be 
     carried out.
       ``(D) The remedies for failure of the Secretary concerned 
     to comply with the terms of the agreement consistent with 
     current Federal law.
       ``(2) Limited use of federal funds.--The Secretary 
     concerned may decide, at the sole discretion of the Secretary 
     concerned, to cover the costs of a portion of an approved 
     project using Federal funds appropriated or otherwise 
     available to the Secretary for the same purposes as the 
     project.
       ``(b) Transfer of Project Funds.--
       ``(1) Initial transfer required.--As soon as practicable 
     after the agreement is reached under subsection (a) with 
     regard to a project to be funded in whole or in part using 
     project funds, or other funds described in section 203(a)(2), 
     the Secretary concerned shall transfer to the applicable unit 
     of National Forest System land or Bureau of Land Management 
     District an amount of project funds equal to--
       ``(A) in the case of a project to be completed in a single 
     fiscal year, the total amount specified in the agreement to 
     be paid using project funds, or other funds described in 
     section 203(a)(2); or
       ``(B) in the case of a multiyear project, the amount 
     specified in the agreement to be paid using project funds, or 
     other funds described in section 203(a)(2) for the first 
     fiscal year.
       ``(2) Condition on project commencement.--The unit of 
     National Forest System land or Bureau of Land Management 
     District concerned, shall not commence a project until the 
     project funds, or other funds described in section 203(a)(2) 
     required to be transferred under paragraph (1) for the 
     project, have been made available by the Secretary concerned.
       ``(3) Subsequent transfers for multiyear projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the second and subsequent fiscal 
     years of a multiyear project to be funded in whole or in part 
     using project funds, the unit of National Forest System land 
     or Bureau of Land Management District concerned shall use the 
     amount of project funds required to continue the project in 
     that fiscal year according to the agreement entered into 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(B) Suspension of work.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     suspend work on the project if the project funds required by 
     the agreement in the second and subsequent fiscal years are 
     not available.

     ``SEC. 207. AVAILABILITY OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       ``(a) Submission of Proposed Projects To Obligate Funds.--
     By September 30, 2008 (or as soon thereafter as the Secretary 
     concerned determines is practicable), and each September 30 
     thereafter for each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal 
     year 2011, a resource advisory committee shall submit to the 
     Secretary concerned pursuant to section 203(a)(1) a 
     sufficient number of project proposals that, if approved, 
     would result in the obligation of at least the full amount of 
     the project funds reserved by the participating county in the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(b) Use or Transfer of Unobligated Funds.--Subject to 
     section 208, if a resource advisory committee fails to comply 
     with subsection (a) for a fiscal year, any project funds 
     reserved by the participating county in the preceding fiscal 
     year and remaining unobligated shall be available for use as 
     part of the project submissions in the next fiscal year.
       ``(c) Effect of Rejection of Projects.--Subject to section 
     208, any project funds reserved by a participating county in 
     the preceding fiscal year that are unobligated at the end of 
     a fiscal year because the Secretary concerned has rejected 
     one or more proposed projects shall be available for use as 
     part of the project submissions in the next fiscal year.
       ``(d) Effect of Court Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--If an approved project under this Act is 
     enjoined or prohibited by a Federal court, the Secretary 
     concerned shall return the unobligated project funds related 
     to the project to the participating county or counties that 
     reserved the funds.
       ``(2) Expenditure of funds.--The returned funds shall be 
     available for the county to expend in the same manner as the 
     funds reserved by the county under subparagraph (B) or (C)(i) 
     of section 102(d)(1).

     ``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--The authority to initiate projects under 
     this title shall terminate on September 30, 2011.
       ``(b) Deposits in Treasury.--Any project funds not 
     obligated by September 30, 2012, shall be deposited in the 
     Treasury of the United States.

                       ``TITLE III--COUNTY FUNDS

     ``SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) County funds.--The term `county funds' means all 
     funds an eligible county elects under section 102(d) to 
     reserve for expenditure in accordance with this title.
       ``(2) Participating county.--The term `participating 
     county' means an eligible county that elects under section 
     102(d) to expend a portion of the Federal funds received 
     under section 102 in accordance with this title.

     ``SEC. 302. USE.

       ``(a) Authorized Uses.--A participating county, including 
     any applicable agencies of the participating county, shall 
     use county funds, in accordance with this title, only--
       ``(1) to carry out activities under the Firewise 
     Communities program to provide to homeowners in fire-
     sensitive ecosystems education on, and assistance with 
     implementing, techniques in home siting, home construction, 
     and home landscaping that can increase the protection of 
     people and property from wildfires;
       ``(2) to reimburse the participating county for search and 
     rescue and other emergency services, including firefighting, 
     that are--
       ``(A) performed on Federal land after the date on which the 
     use was approved under subsection (b);
       ``(B) paid for by the participating county; and
       ``(3) to develop community wildfire protection plans in 
     coordination with the appropriate Secretary concerned.
       ``(b) Proposals.--A participating county shall use county 
     funds for a use described in subsection (a) only after a 45-
     day public comment period, at the beginning of which the 
     participating county shall--
       ``(1) publish in any publications of local record a 
     proposal that describes the proposed use of the county funds; 
     and
       ``(2) submit the proposal to any resource advisory 
     committee established under section 205 for the participating 
     county.

     ``SEC. 303. CERTIFICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than February 1 of the year 
     after the year in which any county funds were expended by a 
     participating county, the appropriate official of the 
     participating county shall submit to the Secretary concerned 
     a certification that the county funds expended in the 
     applicable year have been used for the uses authorized under 
     section 302(a), including a description of the amounts 
     expended and the uses for which the amounts were expended.
       ``(b) Review.--The Secretary concerned shall review the 
     certifications submitted under subsection (a) as the 
     Secretary concerned determines to be appropriate.

     ``SEC. 304. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--The authority to initiate projects under 
     this title terminates on September 30, 2011.
       ``(b) Availability.--Any county funds not obligated by 
     September 30, 2012, shall be returned to the Treasury of the 
     United States.

                  ``TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 401. REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall issue regulations to carry out the purposes of 
     this Act.

     ``SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2011.

     ``SEC. 403. TREATMENT OF FUNDS AND REVENUES.

       ``(a) Relation to Other Appropriations.--Funds made 
     available under section 402 and funds made available to a 
     Secretary concerned under section 206 shall be in addition to 
     any other annual appropriations for the Forest Service and 
     the Bureau of Land Management.

[[Page 21820]]

       ``(b) Deposit of Revenues and Other Funds.--All revenues 
     generated from projects pursuant to title II, including any 
     interest accrued from the revenues, shall be deposited in the 
     Treasury of the United States.''.
       (b) Forest Receipt Payments to Eligible States and 
     Counties.--
       (1) Act of May 23, 1908.--The sixth paragraph under the 
     heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 
     U.S.C. 500) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``twenty-five percentum'' and all that follows through 
     ``shall be paid'' and inserting the following: ``an amount 
     equal to the annual average of 25 percent of all amounts 
     received for the applicable fiscal year and each of the 
     preceding 6 fiscal years from each national forest shall be 
     paid''.
       (2) Weeks Law.--Section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 
     (commonly known as the ``Weeks Law'') (16 U.S.C. 500) is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``twenty-five 
     percentum'' and all that follows through ``shall be paid'' 
     and inserting the following: ``an amount equal to the annual 
     average of 25 percent of all amounts received for the 
     applicable fiscal year and each of the preceding 6 fiscal 
     years from each national forest shall be paid''.
       (c) Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6906 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:''6906. Funding
       ``For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012--
       ``(1) each county or other eligible unit of local 
     government shall be entitled to payment under this chapter; 
     and
       ``(2) sums shall be made available to the Secretary of the 
     Interior for obligation or expenditure in accordance with 
     this chapter.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 6906 and inserting the 
     following:
``6906. Funding.''.
       (3) Budget scorekeeping.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding the Budget Scorekeeping 
     Guidelines and the accompanying list of programs and accounts 
     set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee 
     of conference accompanying Conference Report 105217, the 
     section in this title regarding Payments in Lieu of Taxes 
     shall be treated in the baseline for purposes of section 257 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (as in effect prior to September 30, 2002), and by the 
     Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees, as 
     appropriate, for purposes of budget enforcement in the House 
     and Senate, and under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     if Payment in Lieu of Taxes (14-1114-0-1-806) were an account 
     designated as Appropriated Entitlements and Mandatories for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 in the joint explanatory statement of the 
     committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-
     217.
       (B) Effective date.--This paragraph shall remain in effect 
     for the-- fiscal years to which the entitlement in section 
     6906 of title 31, United States Code (as amended by paragraph 
     (1)), applies.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered, 
and a motion to suspend the rules with regard to House Concurrent 
Resolution 255.
  The vote was taken by electronic device.
  The previous question was ordered. A subsequent voice vote was taken 
on adoption of the resolution, and a recorded vote was ordered thereon.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask unanimous 
consent that that vote be vacated?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may make such a request.
  Mr. HOYER. I ask unanimous consent that the vote that we just took be 
vacated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There was a mistake made in the notice that was given to the 
minority. That was not anybody's intention; it was a mistake. We want 
to give another opportunity to consider the rule with the minority 
having the proper information in front of them when we do so.
  I have discussed this with the minority, and I think this is the 
appropriate procedure for us to fairly follow. And I've discussed it 
with your leadership.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield to the ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to inquire of the distinguished 
majority leader if he might enlighten us as to exactly what that 
problem is with which the Rules Committee is going to have to contend.
  Mr. HOYER. I think it was discussed. There was a figure that was 
incorrectly given in the bill that you had in your possession that was 
different from the bill that was on the desk.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would continue to yield.
  It's my understanding that there were a couple of items that were put 
in in handwriting from the Ways and Means Committee that were not 
reflected in what went forward to the Rules Committee. And I thank my 
friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Frankly, I have not seen it, and I don't know. What I do know is that 
Mr. Arcuri informed me, and obviously has asked us--Mr. Arcuri feels 
very badly that a different version than was at the desk was given to 
the minority inadvertently; and as a result, the minority did not have 
the document in front of it. It was at the desk, but nobody's gone up 
to the desk to compare the items. And as a result, we think, in 
fairness, we ought to have that document in front of you.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would continue to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  It's my understanding that there also was a disparity between the 
bill that was included on the Web site as well as the bill that was 
submitted to the Rules Committee. So it sounds to me as if there is 
quite a bit of confusion around this. And I hope very much that this 
will be an issue that can be addressed.
  And I would say, if my friend would continue to yield, that to me 
this really underscores--and I know that we're in what we hope will be 
the last week of this session of this Congress--that moving rapidly 
like this does create the potential for problems. And so it seems to me 
that there may be a little more to this than appears right now, as I 
just heard that the Web site had something that was reported 
differently.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Now, frankly, I don't want to get into moving rapidly. The 
administration, of course, came here Thursday and wanted us to pass 
$700 billion, and they want us to pass this very soon. So ``rapidly'' 
sometimes is in the eye of the beholder.
  The point is, you're correct; there was a discrepancy. We think that 
was not fair. It was not intentional. But Mr. Arcuri, who gave the 
information to the minority and the information that was on the Web 
site, was not correct. We think, under those circumstances, in fairness 
to all, that we ought to redo this, and that's what we intend to do. 
And we discussed it with your leadership and we all agreed that that 
was the right thing to do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Continuing my reservation, I would say to the gentleman 
that we're not in any hurry over here in doing it right. The Republican 
Party is not in a rush, and we would wish for us to do very 
deliberately that which needs to be done.

[[Page 21821]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really very, very important because we are at 
the last days of this session and we know there is a rush to try to get 
things done. And I understand that it was a bookkeeping--it wasn't 
intentional. I understand all of that, we've been through this before. 
But the significance of this, and it needs to be understood by this 
body as we are being asked in the future to make some big decisions, 
the difference in this little error was $100 million. It wasn't small 
potatoes, so to speak. And I just want to say that the right thing to 
do--and I hope this is what's going to happen--is that the Rules 
Committee goes back upstairs and reports it out correctly so we can 
have the text. But I think that point needs to be made. And I 
appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I told the gentleman from Washington that's exactly what 
I'm trying to do, which is why I thought it best to obviate the vote so 
we can do exactly what you've suggested. I've discussed it with your 
leadership and they've agreed. I hope we can do that, and I hope 
there's not an objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the vote on adoption of 
the resolution is vacated.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both the vote on 
the adoption of the rule and the vote on the previous question be 
vacated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, under the rules, I withdraw House Resolution 
1501.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is withdrawn.

                          ____________________