[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22080-22095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7110, JOB CREATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT 
                           RELIEF ACT OF 2008

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1507 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1507

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     7110) making supplemental appropriations for job creation and 
     preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and 
     energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2009, 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 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit,
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7110 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1507.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1507 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008. The 
rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and 
controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, the past 8 years have not been kind to American workers 
and their families. Since President Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, 
people's wages have stagnated while the cost of food and energy have 
skyrocketed.
  Over the past 8 years, more people have been forced into poverty. 
Over the past 8 years, student loans have become even harder to get, 
denying access to a college education. Over the past 8 years, more 
people have trouble putting food on their table. Over the past 8 years, 
more people have lost their jobs. Over the past 8 years, our 
infrastructure, our roads and our bridges and levees have deteriorated, 
and in some cases have collapsed. I hope that the American public sees 
a pattern here.
  And these problems didn't just magically happen. We're in this mess 
today because of the way the Republican party has turned their backs on 
anyone not fortunate to make millions of dollars, because of President 
Bush's insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy, and because of the 
reckless spending originating from the then Republican-controlled 
Congress.
  My friends, we are in this mess today because of reckless fiscal and 
financial mismanagement proposed by this President and rubber-stamped 
by the Republicans in Congress. And now that the past 8 years has led 
us to the biggest and most desperate financial crisis since the Great 
Depression, the Republicans in the House are proposing more tax breaks 
for their rich friends on Wall Street. Their answer to a frozen market 
is more tax cuts for the people who got us into this mess in the first 
place.
  When the times get tough, the Republicans try to cut taxes for the 
rich. That's not leadership, Mr. Speaker; that's just more of the same 
bad policies that got us here. There is a different way, a way that 
looks out for Main Street.
  We recognize, those of us in the Democratic Caucus, we recognize that 
everyday Americans, not the Donald Trumps of the world or the big oil 
companies, need help in these very tough times. We know that rising 
food prices are causing people to cut back on the food that they're 
putting on their tables. We know that jobs are increasingly hard to 
find, and that unemployed Americans are exhausting the unemployment 
benefits that are helping them scrape by as they look for new jobs. We 
know that the crumbling infrastructure in our Nation must be fixed, 
that we cannot risk another bridge collapse like the one that took 
place in Minnesota last year. And we know that investments in 
infrastructure will create new jobs and make our people safer.
  The people who are calling our offices angry about the bailout for 
Wall Street are saying, ``Wait a minute. What about us? What about 
us?'' And that is exactly the question we are here to answer today. 
Today, Democrats are saying to the American people, to the people of 
Massachusetts, ``We hear you.'' That's why we have an economic stimulus 
bill that will provide a $60 billion jump start to the economy.
  In this bill, Democrats will provide almost $37 billion in 
infrastructure development. That means more highway

[[Page 22081]]

construction, funding for passenger rail improvements, increases in 
clean water and flood control. There is funding for school 
modernization and public housing in this bill. These are not just 
improvements in our infrastructure--which are badly needed after years 
of neglect by this President and his allies in this Congress, these are 
jobs programs. More funding for infrastructure programs will mean more 
people being hired to build roads and bridges, to repair schools, and 
to improve our waterways.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that we are providing funding 
for communities like those in my district that are struggling with 
complying with clean water requirements and are looking to the Federal 
Government for just a little bit of help.
  As a Member of Congress who represents a regional airport, I know how 
important airport improvement grants really are. In this bill, 
Democrats provide $600 million for AIG grants to help regional airports 
alleviate the massive congestion at our major hubs.
  In this bill, Democrats provide $1.6 billion for development of 
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. In particular, $1 
billion will be dedicated to an advanced battery loan program, which 
will allow for U.S. companies to invest and develop technology for 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
  In this bill, Democrats provide an increase in the Medicaid matching 
rate to prevent cuts in health insurance and health care services for 
low-income children and families.
  And in this bill, Democrats provided an additional 7 weeks of 
extended benefits for workers who have exhausted regular unemployment 
compensation. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the quickest, 
most cost-effective forms of economic stimulus because workers who have 
lost their paychecks spend benefits quickly.
  And very importantly, Mr. Speaker, in this bill, Democrats provide 
$2.6 billion to address rising food costs for seniors, people with 
disabilities, and very poor families with children. We know that 
millions of our fellow citizens are struggling to put food on the 
table. Seniors are being forced to choose between eating and taking 
their medications. And we know food stamps will provide a targeted 
stimulus to the economy. We know that every Federal food dollar 
generates twice that in economic activity. Experts at CBO and Moody's, 
as well as economists from across the political spectrum, agree that 
increasing money for food stamps is a powerful economic stimulus that 
can reach the low-income families who may not have benefited from the 
first stimulus package.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to Chairman Obey for including 
this provision in this bill. I am also grateful for the leadership of 
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their 
advocacy on behalf of food and nutrition programs.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I expect many of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to oppose this package. I expect them to say that it's too 
much money and that it's unnecessary. Well, if I'm right, then it will 
show the American people just how out of touch they really are.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a stimulus package today, not just for Wall 
Street, but for Main Street. People are struggling, and they need and 
deserve our help. They don't need your empathy, they don't need your 
sympathy, they don't need your kind words, they don't want you to feel 
their pain, what they want is your vote, your vote on a stimulus 
package that will help them, that will benefit everyday people on Main 
Street.
  So I hope the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, will finally join us in 
meeting the real needs of the working families of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning, our Democrat colleagues spoke about the 
need to ``pay as you go'' as that relates to government spending. They 
insisted that if we are going to extend existing tax relief to protect 
Americans from big tax increases, that those tax extenders must be paid 
for. So that is, to put it another way, to have tax relief, they insist 
on having massive tax increases. This is the reason that the House 
Democrats are staying away from passing a bipartisan compromise tax 
relief bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 93-2 and which 
President Bush said he would sign into law.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again; these are tax extenders, 
meaning that tax relief currently exists for the people I'm going to 
mention here, and without action, taxes will go up; like tuition 
deduction for students. That means that tuition will go up for students 
trying to improve themselves. State and local sales tax deductions for 
States that don't have an income tax. There are seven States; my State 
of Washington, Florida, Texas, and others, are involved in that. There 
is a research and development credit to enhance and help businesses 
innovate to help the economy move. That would go away also. And also, 
for our teachers that are teaching our school children, they get an 
expense deduction when they have to go out and buy other materials in 
order to teach the students that they are teaching.

                              {time}  1545

  Also just another example, there are many more examples, Mr. Speaker, 
is more standard deduction for real property taxes, when they are 
feeling the crunch right now, that should stay. These are current tax 
reduction principles that are in place.
  But in order to put them in place, the Democrats would increase taxes 
in another way. Now that was what they were talking about this morning. 
It is now 3:45 this afternoon. And the tune of the remarks that they 
were making as relates to PAYGO has changed, because now they are 
proposing to increase government spending by billions and billions of 
dollars.
  But it, Mr. Speaker, is not paid for.
  So when it comes to lower taxes and preventing tax increases, 
Democrats insist on raising taxes. But when it comes to government 
spending, they just spend and spend and spend with no concern on how 
it's going to be paid for. I just want to kind of get a handle on this. 
Where is the impassioned opposition to deficit spending that came from 
those that opposed the tax extenders from those within the Democrat 
Party? The Democrat pay-as-you-go promise has been revealed 
unfortunately just today as nothing more than something that is hollow 
and meaningless. And it is really nothing, if you look at the examples, 
but an excuse to raise taxes.
  Democrat leaders claim that this economic stimulus bill, this is a 
job creation bill, yet nothing could be better for our economy in 
creating jobs than ensuring the extension of the tax relief that I was 
talking about in just those small examples. But it is the House 
Democrats who are refusing to allow the House to vote on a bipartisan 
tax bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 93-2.
  Tax increases would hurt our economy and cost jobs. History is full 
of examples like that. Yet House Democrats won't even let this House, 
the people's House, have a vote on a Senate bill that is focused on 
lowering taxes and not raising them. So House Democrats are the only 
ones that are standing in the way of tax relief and tax fairness from 
becoming law. And again, Mr. Speaker, this is existing tax law.
  Just this morning, I spoke with the junior Democrat Senator from 
Washington State, my State, Maria Cantwell, who, by the way, is a 
member of the Senate Finance Committee. And she helped put this tax 
relief package together in the Senate. She called me because of her 
deep concern that the House's action or refusing to act might put this 
bill in jeopardy. I fully agree with her. And I told her that I am 
committed in a bipartisan way of supporting her work in voting on the 
Senate bill, and I said that yesterday, if of course the House 
Democrats would quit blocking the vote.

[[Page 22082]]

  So here we are. Rather than voting on the Senate tax relief bill to 
help our economy, the House chooses to consider this cobbled-together 
appropriations bill. Now I have talked about this before. And it's 
probably well known. But the House Appropriations Committee 
unfortunately has failed to pass into law even one of the 12 annual 
appropriation bills to fund this government despite the fact that the 
fiscal year ends in only 4 days. That committee has failed to do its 
job of passing these bills unfortunately. I might say, and this is also 
well known, in the middle of a committee markup last summer, House 
Democrats just gaveled the meeting to a close, and they got up and 
walked out.
  So now the House is considering this appropriation bill that was 
first unveiled to us around 9:30 this morning. And of course it was 
revealed without any consultation from House Republicans. So it would 
have to have been written in total secret if that is the case. And with 
this rule that we are considering, the House Democrats are now closing 
down any Member from offering any amendment to improve, to add, or even 
to subtract if one would desire, or to offer their own ideas on this 
spending bill.
  It is a closed rule. And it has set another record in this Congress 
for having closed rules. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a 
serious effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs because the 
Senate has defeated even considering a stimulus package in that body. 
So this bill isn't going to go anywhere. And frankly I think we all 
know that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address another issue that we have had a 
great deal of discussion on in the past 2 days, and that is the issue 
of the Secure Rural Schools Act. This program affects hundreds of rural 
counties and thousands of school districts across the country. And 
these school districts and counties are running out of money. As a 
result, they are laying off teachers and closing lunchrooms. And 
frankly they are in deep pain. But this bill does nothing to help them. 
We were told this week by House Democrats that Rural Schools was left 
out of the tax bill because it's not paid for. But now they bring an 
unpaid-for appropriation bill to the floor and they left out Rural 
Schools in this bill.
  House Democrats say Rural Schools isn't a tax bill because it's not a 
tax issue. I guess I can concede that. Then when we have an 
appropriations and spending bill, why then would you leave out Rural 
Schools because clearly it's a spending bill?
  Mr. Speaker, I think this House needs to stop with the excuses, to 
stop wasting time, and stop paying lip service to these rural 
communities and the thousands of kids that attend schools in these 
communities.
  In the Senate tax bill there is a provision to extend the Rural 
Schools Act for 4 years, 4 years, to help them. But the House 
apparently won't let us even vote on that proposition. So, Mr. Speaker, 
I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop 
standing in the way. Let's get on with this business as this Congress 
winds down.
  And with that I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think my friends 
on the Republican side just don't get it. This President, with their 
help, has driven this economy into a ditch. And we need to take the 
responsibility to get us out of that ditch. And that is what this 
stimulus package in part is about.
  People are hurting, not just people on Wall Street, but people on 
Main Street. People are hurting all over this country. People have lost 
their jobs. There are more people after 8 years of this President who 
are unemployed. There are more people who are hungry. There are more 
people without health care. I could go on and on and on. And our 
infrastructure is crumbling. This is an attempt to help those people.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his work on this absolutely 
essential bill. It's inconceivable that Congress would go home without 
a bill that is just as important as the so-called ``bailout.'' Even if 
the bailout becomes some kind of quid pro quo, and many are trying hard 
to make it acceptable, I don't believe it will quell the outrage about 
the economy, particularly the major part of the economy where people 
work and where they do business, because that economy is also falling. 
And the outrage comes because the American people think we don't even 
notice the steep rise in joblessness, the deficits mounting in their 
own State and local governments where there is decreasing revenue from 
property and income taxes.
  They think we are oblivious to that. We're all focused on Wall 
Street, yes, but it's unconscionable to go home without taking action 
on a bill that would put money directly into the economy where it can 
be spent now and where it's targeted directly to be spent in this 
country, unlike the well meaning last stimulus. The Saudis got that 
stimulus. We will be lucky if the bailout of Wall Street even 
stabilizes the economy.
  But we can't fail to understand that Wall Street's firestorm has now 
spread throughout the economy. We see it in unemployment. We see it in 
the halt in job creation and continuing foreclosures and delinquencies 
and mortgage and rent payments, in penalties for withdrawal from 
people's retirement. We can't let this collapse go on for 4 months 
while Congress is gone and then come back and think that everything is 
going to be all right. Paulson and the Fed came forward to try to catch 
Wall Street before it collapsed. We have to do the same thing for the 
economy on which the American people are focused. And we can't forget 
history. I reread history. Here is what we learned from the 1930s.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. NORTON. It is very important to note because it's the closest 
history on which we are now relying. ``What made matters worse was a 
big drop in U.S. consumer economy, far more than can be explained by 
the stock market crash.'' Another commentator said: ``The basic lesson 
from the Great Depression is that government cannot permit massive 
collapses of banks or spending.'' And, finally, after Roosevelt 
stabilized the economy, and it still didn't come back, something called 
the, ``Roosevelt recession,'' came, and then he began to stimulate the 
economy, and the economy began to go.
  October to January is too long to leave the American people to fend 
for themselves while Congress hopes that rescuing Wall Street will 
rescue workers and unemployment. If we are going to help Wall Street, 
we must not leave the American people paying for it without any help 
for them.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This has been quite a week, Mr. Speaker. I would venture to say that 
this is the most expensive week in the history of the Republic. I don't 
think anything ever will even come close to this in a number of years. 
We are talking about a $700 billion bailout. We had CRs that passed. 
And then we have this that comes to the floor. And if those at home are 
wondering why there are so few here in attendance, it's probably 
because they know that this isn't going anywhere. Gratefully, this 
stimulus package isn't going anywhere.
  The Senate already tried to pass something and failed. And so this as 
a vehicle is not going anywhere. And people around the country should 
be very grateful for that. We call it a stimulus bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I would for 15 seconds.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply point out the Senate package failed because 
they loaded it up with 32 additional items. We tried to keep this 
skinny and thin

[[Page 22083]]

so that it's fiscally responsible and has a chance of getting the 
President's support.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. And if somebody can call a $61 
billion bill ``slim,'' then let them try. But this one, you can try to 
call it ``stimulus.'' But stimulus to me, and I didn't like the last 
stimulus bill we passed here in Congress. And I didn't vote for it. But 
to call this ``stimulus'' is a real stretch. People at home want to 
keep more of their own money and not send it to Washington and then to 
have Washington turn around and say, well, I think that what we really 
need and what we needed to take your money for in the first place was 
so we can spend another $500 million in Amtrak for Amtrak projects, or 
another billion for transit and energy assistance grants, or $3 billion 
for green school improvements. I don't think anybody sitting at home 
thinks that that is very stimulating at all. I think they would be much 
more stimulated if you let them keep the money they have.
  Let's be honest here. What this is is a stimulus bill. And it's meant 
to stimulate the electoral prospects of a couple of hundred Members 
here. That is what it's about, so Members can come to the floor or send 
out a press release saying, do you know what I got? I got $1 billion 
for capital management activities for public housing agencies. It's 
nothing more than that. That is what this is about.
  But I think the danger in this is with a 9 percent approval rating, I 
think we could go into more historic lows here when people say they 
aren't really serious, a bill that isn't going anywhere, and they stand 
up and just say all right, this is if we could spend this money, here 
is where we would spend it.
  We have to keep in mind that earlier this week, we did something that 
in my 8 years we have never done. Now I wasn't kind to my own party on 
earmarks. I thought that we let it go out of control. And the new 
majority came in and put in some decent rules which we have now broken 
just about every month. And what we did earlier this week was pass a CR 
where we brought to the floor a bill that had not even gone through the 
Appropriations Committee. And then we added 1,200, or there were 1,200 
earmarks that were put in this bill that were not known to the Members 
of this body until a day before it came to the floor. Now we've done 
that kind of thing before. But what we have never done before that we 
did earlier this week is not give Members of this body the ability to 
even challenge those 1,200 earmarks.

                              {time}  1600

  Nobody could stand and say, why are we spending $1 million for the 
Presidio Trust or the Presidio Heritage Center in California? What is 
that about? Who is actually getting the money? Why are we doing this? 
Nobody had that chance, because we had a secretive process where 
earmarks were added into the bill with no ability to amend it out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. FLAKE. That is simply not right, and neither is this legislation.
  You can keep going. $50 million for the cost of State administrative 
expenses associated with carrying an increase in food stamp benefits. 
How is that going to stimulate the economy? Let's be honest. It is 
meant to stimulate the electoral prospects of a couple of hundred 
Members here. That is what this legislation is about. Gratefully, it is 
not going to go anywhere, because the Senate vehicle went down.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have a great deal of 
respect for my friend from Arizona, but I have to respond by saying 
that another tax cut is not going to rebuild a broken bridge in 
Massachusetts that because of years of underfunding and years of a lack 
of commitment by the Federal Government is now dangerous. A tax 
giveaway to an oil company, another tax giveaway to an oil company is 
not going to build a school in California or Arizona or anywhere else, 
and another corporate tax break is not going to provide anybody health 
care.
  The bottom line is that I will respectfully say to the gentleman that 
this Democratic Congress has been way more fiscally responsible, by 
light-years, than his party has been. Bill Clinton left office and left 
this country with a surplus. We now have the biggest debt in the 
history of this country. We have a war in Iraq that is $10 billion a 
month, and nobody on the other side believes that we have an obligation 
to pay for it. It goes on our credit card.
  We cannot neglect the basic needs of this country, which we have been 
doing, unfortunately, for the last 8 years. We need to get back to 
basics.
  I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am glad he brought up the bridge. I didn't bring up any bridge, but 
since he has, the last transportation bill that we passed when we were 
in the majority, that all but eight Members of this body voted for, I 
believe including the gentleman, had the infamous Bridge to Nowhere and 
a few others. Included in that were 6,300 earmarks.
  If you want to know why we aren't spending on those projects, those 
bridges that are broken down that really need repair, is we are 
spending it all on earmarks, and we shouldn't be doing that. But I 
thank the gentleman for bringing that up.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but again I 
disagree with him. What I am talking about is investing in 
infrastructure to make our roads and our bridges safer, to create more 
jobs, to help stimulate this economy. So we have a very different 
approach.
  We need to do something. We are in a fiscal emergency. The President 
is asking for $700 billion, don't pay for it, $700 billion to bail out 
Wall Street, and what we are saying is, look, we have to do a little 
something for Main Street, in the area of infrastructure, education, 
health care.
  I don't think that is too much to ask. Yet this is a big deal to my 
friends on the Republican side, that we can't do this. It is too much. 
No, we can't do this. Everyday people don't deserve the same 
consideration that the President of the United States is now asking 
that we give to big companies on Wall Street.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the 
Education and Labor Committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, because our country urgently needs to create new jobs 
and provide vital relief for struggling families to get our economy 
moving forward again, I rise in strong support of our economic stimulus 
package, H.R. 7110.
  Our economy needs two things right now to help workers and families. 
First, we must restore the confidence in the credit markets, confidence 
that was destroyed by the reckless lending and risk-taking by banks and 
Wall Street institutions and the failure of the Bush administration to 
properly police and regulate those financial markets on behalf of the 
taxpayers.
  We must revive the credit markets to help the economy grow again and 
create jobs so that Americans can borrow at a reasonable rate to make 
payroll at small businesses, invest in new equipment and inventory, 
borrow for college education, start a new business, buy an automobile 
or protect their pensions.
  Wall Street and Main Street are joined at the hip. We all share an 
interest in helping to restore the confidence in these markets that 
have been so battered by the lack of regulation over the last several 
years.
  Secondly, we must invest directly in new infrastructure, roads, 
bridges, mass transit, clean water and new schools to get America 
working together, to create good, well-paying, good-paying, middle-
class jobs for Americans all across this country.
  Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their 
jobs so far this year. The unemployment rate continues to go up month 
after month after month as people are looking for jobs to support their 
families.
  Our economic recovery package will yield immediate results, helping 
to get

[[Page 22084]]

more Americans back to work. It provides for long overdue investment of 
$3 billion to repair crumbling schools and help children, while also 
creating construction jobs; much-needed support for millions of 
unemployed Americans through extending the unemployment insurance 
benefits to help cover the basic living expenses of them and their 
families; a $500 million investment in job training programs to prepare 
workers for new jobs; to create new recycling projects that are so 
desperately needed in the parts of our country that are now in 
persistent drought conditions, and we need to use water more 
efficiently so that we can continue to have economic growth and the 
growth of jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is what this legislation is 
about. It is about putting Americans to work here at home by making the 
basic investments, so that our transportation systems become more 
efficient, our water systems become cleaner, our recycling of water 
makes more efficient use of that water, and so that people and goods 
and services can move across this country as they should.
  We are not only falling behind the competition in terms of 
intellectual property, in terms of intellectual capital and science and 
engineering, we are falling behind in the basic infrastructure that is 
needed for this country to compete with the rest of the world in the 
movement of goods, in the education of our children and the improvement 
in our water systems and the infrastructure of our cities.
  This is an urgent piece of legislation, and I would encourage all of 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who probably knows 
more about the Secure Rural Schools Act than anybody in this country, 
and it is probably because his district is the second most impacted of 
any district in the country.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank my good friend and colleague from 
Washington State's Fourth District, who has been a real partner in this 
effort to try and reauthorize and fully fund not only our Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, but also to support 
additional funding for payment in lieu of taxes, because, you see, both 
of those are actual commitments that this Federal Government has had to 
rural communities across its land for upwards of 100 years.
  I know the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who is presenting 
this closed rule, a record, another time the majority has broken its 
promise to allow us to have an open rule, an open debate, and for the 
minority to offer up amendments, he is actually a cosponsor of 
legislation to reauthorize the Community Schools Act.
  The irony here is that you are creating new programs. You are going 
to go into the capital markets and compete to borrow money to fund $60 
billion in new Federal spending that you don't have an offset for in 
this bill. So you are going to be in the same capital markets trying to 
find money that is frozen now to the private sector, trying to maintain 
the jobs by maintaining their lines of credit. So you are out there 
competing to borrow money.
  Yesterday and today you said you couldn't add the rural schools 
legislation to the tax bill because, one, it wasn't in your 
jurisdiction, and two, it wasn't paid for. So you defeated it. And you 
wouldn't allow us to offer an amendment.
  Multiple times we came to this floor and came to the Rules Committee. 
We sought your grace, your indulgence, your support. This whole notion 
of bipartisanship would be a wonderful thing if it existed in the Rules 
Committee, or even here on the floor. We just wanted a chance to vote 
on an alternative to add. You wouldn't even give us that.
  So the last time today, the good gentleman from Washington went back 
to the Rules Committee, offered up an amendment to go to this bill, 
since it is an appropriation bill, since it has no offsets, since it is 
being rushed to floor to deal with the Secure Rural Schools Act, and 
you rejected even allowing that amendment to be voted on here.
  Meanwhile, I pick up this bill and on page 12 you fund a new program, 
a program for green schools. Now, I am all for conservation and energy 
efficiency and all those things. But it is $3 billion, $3 billion with 
a B dollars, for a new program for new grants to do conservation at 
existing schools, at a time when school teachers in California are 
being fired, when sheriff's deputies in Josephine and Jackson and 
Klamath Counties are getting their pink slips, when we won't have the 
people to do the search and rescue when mountain climbers and families 
get lost in the Federal forest lands and up on the mountains. All those 
people are actually losing their jobs.
  The libraries in Jackson County closed last year. This is the biggest 
county in my district. We have got counties in southern Oregon, in the 
Fourth District, that are contemplating bankruptcy. That means going 
out of business altogether. There will be no nighttime patrols.
  Why do you spend on a new program $3 billion, and not reauthorize and 
keep the commitment of an existing Federal program? Don't you care 
about those jobs? Don't you care about those people and those services?
  Let me tell you what the Portland Oregonian wrote today. ``Help for 
rural counties simply is not a priority in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. That is the only explanation for the House 
leadership's decision to strip county payments from a popular tax bill 
that just hours after the Senate voted 93-2 for a bill that would have 
continued the program that sends $185 million a year to 33 Oregon 
counties. House Democrats first tried to blame the White House,'' as 
you have heard now, ``but the Bush administration on Thursday issued a 
clear statement that it would sign the Senate bill with the county 
payments included, but would not sign the bill the House Democrats 
favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal conservatives in 
denying county payments, but that was unconvincing too.''
  They go on to write, ``It is Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Democratic 
leaders who decided to break the Nation's promise to help support rural 
counties who host vast areas of Federal timberland.''
  It is the Democrat leadership. Not the President, not some Wall 
Street bailout. It is the Democratic leadership in this House who have 
told us they will help us, and then every vehicle that comes along, the 
door is slammed just as we reach for the handle, and it drives off, 
speeds off to somewhere else and runs over our feet.
  That is what has happened here. You can talk all you want about a 
bailout of Wall Street. I don't favor a $700 billion bailout of Wall 
Street, but I do support my local communities. Further, I do believe 
this government would have more credibility in this Congress, higher 
than a 9 percent approval rating, if it simply kept its word. If you 
kept your word that the rules would be open and we would be allowed to 
have alternatives brought to this floor, then your talk about 
bipartisanship might hold some validity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Why won't you allow us to have this amendment 
on the floor? I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, why won't 
you allow us to at least have an amendment on the floor?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would just remind the gentleman that on June 5, we 
brought to the House floor H.R. 3058, which would have reauthorized the 
very program he talked about, and he and Mr. Hastings both voted 
against it. Thank you very much.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, I would explain to you why. 
Why would you refuse not to bring that back under a rule? Why?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Why didn't the gentleman vote for it when he had a 
chance to?

[[Page 22085]]


  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I will get to that. I will reclaim my time. You 
refused to bring it under a rule to the House because you wanted no 
alternative by the minority to be considered. You brought it under 
suspension.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And under the suspension of the rules, you 
denied the minority the opportunity to offer an alternative. As you 
could on many other bills and have, you could have brought H.R. 3058 
back yesterday, the day before, any day since it went down. You had 218 
votes on the House floor and you could pass it.
  I voted against it because it violates contracts. It was a 
placeholder. And you did not keep your word coming out of the Resources 
Committee that it would include payment in lieu of taxes when it came 
to the floor and it would have a different pay-for. That was another 
broken commitment.
  So bring it to the floor. Bring it tomorrow. You are on the Rules 
Committee, you could do that, and you refuse. So stop the rhetoric, and 
let's get to the facts.

                  [From the Oregonian, Sept. 25, 2008]

    For House Democratic Leaders, Rural Counties Are Not a Priority

       Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the 
     U.S. House of Representatives. That's the only explanation 
     for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments 
     from a popular tax bill just hours after the Senate voted 93-
     2 for a bill that would have continued the program that sends 
     $185 million a year into 33 Oregon counties.
       We don't blame Oregon's congressional delegation. By all 
     accounts, Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, both 
     Democrats, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., argued strongly for 
     inclusion of funding for county payments. This was not a 
     matter of their will--it was a matter of the inability of 
     Oregon Democrats to persuade their own party leaders to 
     support the aid to counties.
       House Democrats first tried to blame the White House, but 
     the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement 
     that it would sign the Senate bill, with the county payments 
     included, but would not sign the bill that House Democrats 
     favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal 
     conservatives in denying county payments, but that was 
     unconvincing, too.
       The House Democrats are only the latest leaders in 
     Washington to turn their back on rural counties, The Bush 
     White House has consistently been lukewarm to hostile on the 
     payment program. And many of the Republicans who formerly 
     controlled the Congress did not lift a finger to get county 
     payments extended.
       But this time, it is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic 
     leaders who decided to break the nation's promise to help 
     support rural counties who host vast areas of federal 
     timberland. The Senate, encouraged by Oregon's Ron Wyden and 
     Gordon Smith, provided strong backing for including the 
     county payments in the popular tax bill.
       Now that the White House has signaled its clear preference 
     for the Senate version of the tax bill, Senate President 
     Harry Reid of Nevada and other Senate Democratic leaders 
     should stand firm and send their bill right back to the 
     House, with the county payments intact.
       While all this goes on, rural Oregon counties are preparing 
     for wholesale layoffs of their sheriff's deputies and 
     shutdowns of libraries and other local services. They are 
     also watching the federal government rush to the financial 
     aid, it seems, of everyone and anyone but the timber 
     communities of Oregon and the West.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I think I responded to the gentleman. I would just say two 
other things that I think are important to make note of.
  The gentleman, while his party was in control for 12 years, 
consistently voted for budgets that underfunded the very programs that 
we are talking about. Secondly, when he talks about a closed process, I 
don't recall a single incidence when the gentleman ever voted against 
his party on a closed rule when in fact his party was in control.
  So let's get back to the point of this bill, which is to provide 
everyday people, who have been neglected by this President and by his 
allies in the Republican Congress for too long, this is to provide a 
little relief, to try to stimulate some job creation, to try to help 
with infrastructure, with rebuilding schools, with health care. I mean, 
the President of the United States is coming before the Nation saying 
$700 billion, I don't want to pay for it, for a bailout for Wall 
Street, and then he is telling us we can't do anything to help people 
on Main Street.
  I would like to yield a minute to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. The comments made by the gentleman were not 
accurate when he referred to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may address the accuracy of 
remarks by engaging in debate.
  Mr. OBEY. * * *
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to take down his words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will suspend. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin will take his seat.
  The Clerk will report the words.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of continuing the debate on 
this issue, I will withdraw my words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Now, if I may continue, what I should have said is that I 
found the gentleman's words in error. And let me explain why. He claims 
that this is a problem that was created during the Democratic control 
of this House. In fact, the program under discussion, the authorization 
expired under control of the Republican Party. Then, at the request of 
a good many Members, including you, I voluntarily agreed to extend that 
program on an appropriation bill, even though the authorization had 
expired. But I said at that time that he needed to understand that this 
would be a temporary extension, and because this matter was not under 
the jurisdiction of our committee, he needed to resolve this problem in 
the authorizing committee, the Agriculture Committee. And that is still 
where it belongs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. The fact is that the Appropriations Committee is in a no-
win situation. Every time we try to bring a bill out to extend an 
authorization, we get squawks from the membership because we are 
exceeding our jurisdiction. Then if we don't bring a bill out, we get 
squawks for not stepping into an area where we have no business 
treading.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. After I have completed my statement, I would be happy to.
  So what I would simply say is this: I gave the gentleman a year. I 
took money out of the appropriations portion of the pot to give the 
gentleman a year's grace. Now, if the gentleman voted against a 
freestanding authorization bill, as I understand, I think from the 
conversation that the gentleman apparently did, if the gentleman voted 
against that free-standing suspension bill, it is not the fault of my 
committee, and I don't have to step in and make up for somebody else's 
mistakes.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. It would seem to me, if the gentleman wants that program 
funded, he needs to find an offset and take it to the proper committee 
of jurisdiction, because I am tired of having Members of this House 
combat us from both directions at the same time.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
yielding.
  My comments were never intended for the gentleman. I respect the fact 
that the gentleman helped us with a 1-year extension. In prior debates 
on this floor and in the last week and before, I have thanked the 
gentleman and credited him with that extension.
  I also have legislation before the House Resources Committee that

[[Page 22086]]

would not only extend this program but fully fund it.
  Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, taking back my time, if the gentleman 
did, indeed, vote against the free-standing bill that would have 
corrected the problem, then, as far as I am concerned, he has no 
complaint with this committee. We are in the middle of serious economic 
problems. We are trying, as best we can, to find ways to counter the 
recession.
  With all due respect, I don't want to get this committee into any 
more authorization fights than I have to, because I have got a long 
list of authorization issues that people have objected to when we have 
included authorization issues on appropriation matters, and you can bet 
that today there will be some squawks about the fact that we have done 
that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Sometimes getting between the dog and a fire hydrant has its problems 
right now, and let me kind of sort this out. Let me try to sort this 
out.
  The question here, the question here is on a suspension bill. Now, 
there has been several times this year where there have been suspension 
bills that have not gotten the two-thirds votes, because it takes two-
thirds, it's suspension bills, it's not open to amendment.
  After the bill, therefore, has been defeated, the bill has gone back 
to the Rules Committee for a rule to be brought to the floor. The point 
the gentleman from Oregon was simply saying was that could have 
happened on that bill aforementioned earlier this year, but it has not 
gone back to the Rules Committee, point number one.
  Point number two, and this is very, very important on this particular 
bill: if we had gone through the normal order of open, open amendment 
process on appropriation bills, which has historically been the case, 
then I suspect that my friend from Oregon--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself one additional minute.
  I suspect my friend from Oregon or others would have had an amendment 
to put the Secure Rural Schools bill in this bill and offset it with 
the green initiative that was mentioned that's also on schools. But we 
haven't had the opportunity to even do that because of this process.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will yield.
  Mr. OBEY. If we had done that, the bill would not have been in 
compliance with the rules of the House. You could not have offered that 
amendment, because it would not have been in order.
  I would suggest if you have got a problem under an authorization 
bill, take it to the committee that's supposed to handle it. Don't dump 
every dog and cat in an appropriation bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, and I wasn't 
suggesting that. As a matter of fact, I made the argument in the Rules 
Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee.
  I made the argument in the Rules Committee that we could waive the 
rules, which, of course, would have made it in order. It would have 
made it in order.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 8\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 8 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a former member of the Rules 
Committee, and a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I guess I stand as someone who also 
voted against that infamous bill, happily so, because it did not solve 
the problem.
  One of the things we should be here to do is try to solve the 
problem, regardless of whether there is some archaic rule that 
prohibits that solution from taking place, which is exactly what 
happened on that particular piece of legislation.
  There are two numbers that I want to once again reiterate, talking 
about what Mr. Walden from Oregon was saying, 52 and 4.
  This chart, everything that is blue in this chart is the amount of 
land owned by the Federal Government in each State. The 52 refers to 
those of us who live west of the Rocky Mountains. Fifty-two percent of 
everything west of the Rocky Mountains, the Speaker understands this 
very clearly, is owned by the Federal Government.
  You will notice that Montana and California don't have a whole lot, 
so the rest of us pick up that slack, my State about 80 percent, Nevada 
about 90 percent.
  Those of you who live east of the Rocky Mountains have 4 percent of 
your land owned and controlled by an absentee landlord known as the 
Federal Government. It becomes more insidious. If you were to take the 
13 States that have the most difficult time in funding their State 
education programs, the slowest growth in their State education 
programs, you will find 11 of those 13 States also are in this infamous 
blue block found in the West.
  The East, in all due respect, does not get this situation, they don't 
face it, and neither does the Democratic Party. The two solutions that 
we have right now, the best solution would be to give the land back, 
but the best solutions we have are PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, for 
county governments and Secure Rural Schools for the school sections of 
these particular areas.
  This program, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, was started when Nixon was 
president and was flat-lined in payments of 100 grand a year until 1994 
when the Republicans took over. Every year since that time, the Payment 
in Lieu of Taxes Program has increased its percentage and increased its 
actual amount of funding, not ever reaching the full authorized amount, 
which it should have been, but it increased every year until this year.
  Secure Rural Schools has found the same source of problems. This 
year, there has finally been the problem of facing it.
  Now, this is essential to us. Schools are running in the West because 
of this money. Counties are functioning in the West because of this 
money. A gentleman from New England took recreation in my State, went 
down kayaking in Black Box, which was a mistake.
  Three weeks later the county was able to recover his body. In this 
tragedy, unfortunately, it also consumed every dime they had set aside 
that year for their emergency funding processes.
  Now, the problem for those in the West, when it comes to our schools 
and our counties, is we don't have a tax base to get this money back. 
It is controlled by the Federal Government, which is why PILT and 
Secure Rural Schools are essential for those of us who are in the West.
  That's where the frustration of yesterday comes in. The Senate passed 
a tax extender, I think it was 93-2 was the vote, which does fund 
Secure Rural Schools and PILT. I want that bill over here so I have the 
opportunity to vote for it and solve the problem.
  But we were told it could not be added to the House version, because 
it did not have an offset. It violated PAYGO.
  Now, here is where I become confused, because before us right now we 
have another bill of all sorts of spending that also does not have 
offsets and violates PAYGO. Now, that's okay. Those of us in the West 
are simply saying, this is important to us, and it should be done.
  I have another problem in, as you mentioned, the Green Schools 
Initiative in this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me just say, the Green Schools Initiative, 
because I was on the committee of jurisdiction, that particular program 
adds construction money to local districts for their schools. The 
original sponsor of that bill had a program involved in

[[Page 22087]]

there so they could allocate and find out what school districts needed 
the assistance.
  In the State of Utah, we have an equalization formula. The school 
districts that either have a high number of students, and, therefore, 
it is difficult for them to keep up with construction, or had the 
oddity of all their schools have been built at the same time, 
therefore, they all fall apart at the same time. There is extra funding 
from the State that goes to those districts.
  In the formula put into the school bill that is now part of this, it 
does not in any way, shape or form follow any need for school 
construction. It follows only title I funding, which means in the State 
of Utah, that has tried to solve the problem with equalization, not one 
district that has a need for extra school construction money will get 
one dollar from this program. It goes to the districts that don't need 
the money, because it's a poorly written, poorly planned bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That's why those of us in the West are confused 
and complaining. This program is essential for us. Those of you living 
east of the Rocky Mountains don't understand the significance of it.
  It could have been included in this bill, and should have been 
included, and it's not. At least let us vote on the Senate tax 
extender, which does include it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman voted 
against H.R. 3508 and, hopefully, he can offer a better explanation to 
his constituents.
  At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from Utah. I am from 
the West, although my district is not impacted as intensively as some. 
The county schools program is something that I have been working with 
the entire Oregon delegation and others to try to remedy, to keep it 
alive.

                              {time}  1630

  Because it is so important I am sorry that our Republican friends in 
the prior Congress allowed the legislation to expire. It is not 
authorized because the Republican-controlled Congress and the 
Republican administration allowed it to die. We have been playing 
catch-up ever since. I deeply appreciate the work of the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, Speaker Pelosi, and others, who worked to 
help us with funding last year.
  I want desperately to achieve funding this year. But I understand the 
concerns of my friend, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, about 
wading into this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yesterday on the floor we had the tax extender bill, 
and my Republican friends attempted to attach this despite the fact it 
is not germane. It was a tax bill, not an authorizing bill.
  Yet during that debate, we heard the Chair of the Ways and Means 
Committee say that he would work with us in conference because he 
understands it is important if it came back from the Senate in the 
bill. Mr. Rangel said he would accept it in conference where the 
germaneness would not apply. We heard the majority leader sympathize 
and say he would work with us.
  I would suggest that rather than go down a path that is a dead end 
and unfairly attack people for things that aren't in their control, 
that people get over the fact that they failed in the last Congress and 
killed the program. Instead work with us to take ``yes'' for an answer. 
Work with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, get that 
proposal coming back from the other body, and hopefully we can have the 
funding that we are all concerned about restoring.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the consideration that has been 
done. The issue is solving the problem. This vehicle would solve the 
problem. The Senate bill would solve the problem.
  Unfortunately, the bill to which the gentleman refers only has Secure 
Rural Schools and did not have PILT even though it was supposed to. 
Now, we have two problems. We need both of them solved. They both 
interrelate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 3 minutes. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to spend these 2 minutes talking about a lot of 
forgotten people in this country, the people who are looking for work, 
laid off through no fault of their own.
  This bill would address their needs. If we don't act, over a million 
Americans are going to exhaust their unemployment benefits before the 
end of the year. The unemployment rate in California has skyrocketed, 
now 7.7 percent with 1.4 million people looking for jobs. In Florida, 
the unemployment rate is 6.5 percent; 600,000-plus people looking for 
work. And in my home State of Michigan, over 400,000 people are out of 
work through no fault of their own.
  The answer to the agony of the unemployed from the minority is stony 
silence. It is inexcusable. We need to pass this bill and address the 
needs of the unemployed.
  I will read just from one letter, someone from Southfield, Michigan. 
``I am 54 years old and finding that there are no jobs available to me. 
I do not want to be part of the statistics of those who lose a home or 
worse. The unemployment benefits give me more time to secure a job so 
that I and others like me are not a burden to the system.''
  We should stand up for those people and pass this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has on 
his side?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from 
Massachusetts that I am the last speaker on my side.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker on my side, so I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am really excited about 
what I am going to say because I think we are going to get a chance, 
finally, to vote up or down on Rural Schools. I say that because I am 
going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I 
can simply amend the rule to allow the text of the Secure Rural Schools 
Act to be debated and voted on.
  Now why am I excited? I am excited because we heard that we couldn't 
do it because of PAYGO. We heard another speaker, my friend from 
Oregon, say because of germaneness.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is germane. That is not an argument. And 
we have 90 Democrat cosponsors of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat one more time. 
There are 90 Democrats who are cosponsors of Rural Schools. The PAYGO 
issue is not an issue anymore because this one here doesn't comply with 
PAYGO, at least in the spirit. Germaneness is not an issue because that 
was an issue on a tax bill. So the germaneness issue is gone. I don't 
know what other thing could stand in the way of defeating the previous 
question so we can amend this rule to have an

[[Page 22088]]

opportunity to debate and vote this issue of Rural Schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited. I think as we close this process down, we 
are finally going to get an opportunity. This is the opportunity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say with regard to the rural school 
issue, I was very proud to be able to vote on behalf of rural schools 
when the gentleman voted against it. I'm sorry he did that. But what we 
are talking about here today is an economic stimulus package to help 
everyday people. This is to help working people, to help people who 
have lost their jobs, to help people afford their health care, to help 
communities rebuild their roads and bridges and put people back to 
work. This is to help rebuild our schools. This is a bill to provide 
much-needed resources to our communities who have been neglected for 
far too long by this President and his Republican allies in this 
Congress.
  This country, this economy, is in trouble. That is no secret to 
anyone here. Read the newspapers, turn on the news, it is there. We 
need to do something. What we need to do is not just bail out Wall 
Street, we need to help people on Main Street. People are tired. They 
are sick and tired of the rhetoric, the expressions of sympathy and the 
speeches by politicians who say ``I get it.'' ``I know things are bad 
in your community, I feel your pain.'' What they want us to do is to 
take action, to actually vote on something that means something in 
their lives.
  This economic stimulus package invests in highway infrastructure. It 
invests to help rebuild our crumbling schools. It invests in clean 
water projects and in transit and Amtrak. It invests in public housing. 
It invests in energy development to help create green-collar jobs to 
get this economy moving in the right direction. It extends unemployment 
benefits. The gentleman from Michigan talked about the plight of so 
many workers who, because of this lousy economy, have lost their jobs 
and have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We are all talking 
about bailing out Wall Street, but we can't extend unemployment 
benefits to these workers? I mean, shame on us if you can't vote for 
that.
  Medicaid assistance is in this bill.
  Food assistance is in this bill. There is not a community in the 
United States of America, I am sad to say, that is hunger free. Go to 
any grocery store in your district and people will complain about the 
high cost of food. There are people in poverty and there are people who 
are working families who cannot afford their groceries. They need help. 
That is what this bill is all about.
  So for the life of me, with all that is going on in this country, 
with all that is happening to this economy, for the life of me I can't 
understand why anyone would vote against this stimulus package.
  This is a good bill. Chairman Obey deserves great credit for putting 
this together the way he did. It is not perfect. It doesn't include 
everything, but it is help. It is real help to real people, to everyday 
people, to working people, to people who have lost their jobs. This is 
absolutely necessary that we pass it. And we need to work with the 
President to make this part of the package.
  The material previously referred by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as 
follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1507 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7110) making 
     supplemental appropriations for job creation and 
     preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and 
     energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2009, 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, 
     and any amendment thereto, 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 3 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 be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent, and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7110 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. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill add the following new section:

     SEC. 5005. 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

[[Page 22089]]

     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--
       ``(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

[[Page 22090]]

     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) 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--

[[Page 22091]]

       ``(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 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.

[[Page 22092]]

       ``(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.
       ``(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.

[[Page 22093]]

       ``(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.
       ``(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: Sec. 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 105-217, 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.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal

[[Page 22094]]

     to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule 
     reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to 
     amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) 
     Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the 
     previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee 
     on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition 
     to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or 
     motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 the adoption of House Resolution 1507, if 
ordered, and motion to suspend the rules on S. 1046, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 204, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 657]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--204

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Costa
     Cubin
     Gingrey
     McCrery
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Weller
     Wexler


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KUCINICH (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, does that display with the names in the lights there, 
are those our official votes or are our official votes determined by 
the cards that we present to the Clerk if they're not recorded on 
there?
  I want a ruling from the Parliamentarian. What constitutes an 
official vote here, being up on the board there or having our vote 
recorded at the teller?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that 
the board is for display only.
  And the Chair would like Members' attention.
  The Chair has been advised that one column of the lights on the 
display panel is inoperative at this moment, but that all of those 
Members are being recorded. Members should verify their votes, however, 
at alternate voting stations.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, we're now informed 
that some Members having voted ``yes'' have a red light by their name. 
Why don't we just turn off that so there is no confusion and Members 
will know that they're voting accurately and not rely on that 
particular system until they get it fixed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk is working on fixing the display. 
The Chair is advised that one panel in the voting display is 
inoperative. The Chair would encourage all Members to verify their 
votes at an alternate electronic voting station.

                              {time}  1708

  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. ROS-LEHTININ, Messrs. BARTON of Texas, 
BLUNT, THOMPSON of California and PORTER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 22095]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 208, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 658]

                               YEAS--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--208

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cannon
     Costa
     Cubin
     Gingrey
     McCrery
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Weller
     Wexler


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KUCINICH (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KUCINICH. How am I recorded as voting?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member may verify his or her vote at any 
of the 46 voting stations by inserting his or her badge and taking note 
of which light is illuminated.

                              {time}  1721

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________