[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15445-15467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               EDUCATION JOBS AND MEDICAID ASSISTANCE ACT

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1606, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1586) to modernize the air traffic control system, 
improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by 
air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic 
control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and 
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment thereto, and offer the motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:


                              short title

       Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``______Act 
     of____''.

                                TITLE I

                          EDUCATION JOBS FUND


                          education jobs funds

       Sec. 101. There are authorized to be appropriated and there 
     are appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise obligated for necessary expenses for an Education 
     Jobs Fund, $10,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount under 
     this heading shall be administered under the terms and 
     conditions of sections 14001 through 14013 and title XV of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5) except as follows:
       (1) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available only for allocation by the Secretary of Education 
     (in this heading referred to as the Secretary) in accordance 
     with subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 14001 
     of division A of Public Law 111-5 and subparagraph (B) of 
     this paragraph, except that the amount reserved under such 
     subsection (b) shall not exceed $1,000,000 and such 
     subsection (f) shall be applied by substituting one year for 
     two years.
       (B) Prior to allocating funds to States under section 
     14001(d) of division A of Public Law 111-5, the Secretary 
     shall allocate 0.5 percent to the Secretary of the Interior 
     for schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs on the basis of the schools' respective needs for 
     activities consistent with this heading under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may determine.
       (2) Reservation.--A State that receives an allocation of 
     funds appropriated under this heading may reserve not more 
     than 2 percent for the administrative costs of carrying out 
     its responsibilities with respect to those funds.
       (3) Awards to local educational agencies.--
       (A) Except as specified in paragraph (2), an allocation of 
     funds to a State shall be used only for awards to local 
     educational agencies for the support of elementary and 
     secondary education in accordance with paragraph (5) for the 
     2010-2011 school year (or, in the case of reallocations made 
     under section 14001(f) of division A of Public Law 111-5, for 
     the 2010-2011 or the 2011-2012 school year).
       (B) Funds used to support elementary and secondary 
     education shall be distributed through a State's primary 
     elementary and secondary funding formulae or based on local 
     educational agencies' relative shares of funds under part A 
     of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year 
     for which data are available.
       (C) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 14002 of division A 
     of Public Law 111-5 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     under this heading.
       (4) Compliance with education reform assurances.--For 
     purposes of awarding funds appropriated under this heading, 
     any State that has an approved application for Phase II of 
     the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund that was submitted in 
     accordance with the application notice published in the 
     Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 59142) 
     shall be deemed to be in compliance with subsection (b) and 
     paragraphs (2) through (5) of subsection (d) of section 14005 
     of division A of Public Law 111-5.
       (5) Requirement to use funds to retain or create education 
     jobs.--Notwithstanding section 14003(a) of division A of 
     Public Law 111-5, funds awarded to local educational agencies 
     under paragraph (3)--
       (A) may be used only for compensation and benefits and 
     other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain 
     existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and 
     to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood, 
     elementary, or secondary educational and related services; 
     and
       (B) may not be used for general administrative expenses or 
     for other support services expenditures as those terms were 
     defined by the National Center for Education Statistics in 
     its Common Core of Data as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (6) Prohibition on use of funds for rainy-day funds or debt 
     retirement.--A State that receives an allocation may not use 
     such funds, directly or indirectly, to--
       (A) establish, restore, or supplement a rainy-day fund;
       (B) supplant State funds in a manner that has the effect of 
     establishing, restoring, or supplementing a rainy-day fund;
       (C) reduce or retire debt obligations incurred by the 
     State; or
       (D) supplant State funds in a manner that has the effect of 
     reducing or retiring debt obligations incurred by the State.
       (7) Deadline for award.--The Secretary shall award funds 
     appropriated under this heading not later than 45 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act to States that have 
     submitted applications meeting the requirements applicable to 
     funds under this heading. The Secretary shall not require 
     information in applications beyond what is necessary to 
     determine compliance with applicable provisions of law.
       (8) Alternate distribution of funds.--If, within 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, a Governor has 
     not submitted an approvable application, the Secretary shall 
     provide

[[Page 15446]]

     for funds allocated to that State to be distributed to 
     another entity or other entities in the State 
     (notwithstanding section 14001(e) of division A of Public Law 
     111-5) for support of elementary and secondary education, 
     under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
     establish, provided that all terms and conditions that apply 
     to funds appropriated under this heading shall apply to such 
     funds distributed to such entity or entities. No distribution 
     shall be made to a State under this paragraph, however, 
     unless the Secretary has determined (on the basis of such 
     information as may be available) that the requirements of 
     clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph 10(A) are likely to 
     be met, notwithstanding the lack of an application from the 
     Governor of that State.
       (9) Local educational agency application.--Section 442 of 
     the General Education Provisions Act shall not apply to a 
     local educational agency that has previously submitted an 
     application to the State under title XIV of division A of 
     Public Law 111-5. The assurances provided under that 
     application shall continue to apply to funds awarded under 
     this heading.
       (10) Maintenance of effort.--
       (A) Except as provided in paragraph (8), the Secretary 
     shall not allocate funds to a State under paragraph (1) 
     unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the 
     Secretary that--
       (i) for State fiscal year 2011, the State will maintain 
     State support for elementary and secondary education (in the 
     aggregate or on the basis of expenditures per pupil) and for 
     public institutions of higher education (not including 
     support for capital projects or for research and development 
     or tuition and fees paid by students) at not less than the 
     level of such support for each of the two categories, 
     respectively, for State fiscal year 2009;
       (ii) for State fiscal year 2011, the State will maintain 
     State support for elementary and secondary education and for 
     public institutions of higher education (not including 
     support for capital projects or for research and development 
     or tuition and fees paid by students) at a percentage of the 
     total revenues available to the State that is equal to or 
     greater than the percentage provided for each of the two 
     categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2010; or
       (iii) in the case of a State in which State tax collections 
     for calendar year 2009 were less than State tax collections 
     for calendar year 2006, for State fiscal year 2011 the State 
     will maintain State support for elementary and secondary 
     education (in the aggregate) and for public institutions of 
     higher education (not including support for capital projects 
     or for research and development or tuition and fees paid by 
     students)--

       (I) at not less than the level of such support for each of 
     the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006; 
     or
       (II) at a percentage of the total revenues available to the 
     State that is equal to or greater than the percentage 
     provided for each of the two categories, respectively, for 
     State fiscal year 2006.

       (B) Section 14005(d)(1) and subsections (a) through (c) of 
     section 14012 of division A of Public Law 111-5 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated under this heading.
       (11) Additional requirements for the state of texas.--The 
     following requirements shall apply to the State of Texas:
       (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(B), funds used to support 
     elementary and secondary education shall be distributed based 
     on local educational agencies' relative shares of funds under 
     part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the most recent 
     fiscal year which data are available. Funds distributed 
     pursuant to this paragraph shall be used to supplement and 
     not supplant State formula funding that is distributed on a 
     similar basis to part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
       (B) The Secretary shall not allocate funds to the State of 
     Texas under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State 
     provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will 
     for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 maintain State support 
     for elementary and secondary education at a percentage of the 
     total revenues available to the State that is equal to or 
     greater than the percentage provided for such purpose for 
     fiscal year 2011 prior to the enactment of this Act.
       (C) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), no distribution shall be 
     made to the State of Texas or local education agencies 
     therein unless the Governor of Texas makes an assurance to 
     the Secretary that the requirements in paragraphs (11)(A) and 
     (11)(B) will be met, notwithstanding the lack of an 
     application from the Governor of Texas.

                                TITLE II

       STATE FISCAL RELIEF AND OTHER PROVISIONS; REVENUE OFFSETS

          Subtitle A--State Fiscal Relief and Other Provisions


                   extension of arra increase in fmap

       Sec. 201. Section 5001 of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``first calendar 
     quarter'' and inserting ``first 3 calendar quarters'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Phase-down of general increase.--
       ``(A) Second quarter of fiscal year 2011.--For each State, 
     for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, the FMAP 
     percentage increase for the State under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     (as applicable) shall be 3.2 percentage points.
       ``(B) Third quarter of fiscal year 2011.--For each State, 
     for the third quarter of fiscal year 2011, the FMAP 
     percentage increase for the State under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     (as applicable) shall be 1.2 percentage points.'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``July 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2011'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``July 1, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (4)(C)(ii), by striking ``the 3-
     consecutive-month period beginning with January 2010'' and 
     inserting ``any 3-consecutive-month period that begins after 
     December 2009 and ends before January 2011'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:

     ``Notwithstanding paragraph (5), effective for payments made 
     on or after January 1, 2010, the increases in the FMAP for a 
     State under this section shall apply to payments under title 
     XIX of such Act that are attributable to expenditures for 
     medical assistance provided to nonpregnant childless adults 
     made eligible under a State plan under such title (including 
     under any waiver under such title or under section 1115 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) who would have been eligible for 
     child health assistance or other health benefits under 
     eligibility standards in effect as of December 31, 2009, of a 
     waiver of the State child health plan under the title XXI of 
     such Act.'';
       (5) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``September 30, 2011'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 2012'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``of such Act'' after 
     ``1923''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Certification by chief executive officer.--No 
     additional Federal funds shall be paid to a State as a result 
     of this section with respect to a calendar quarter occurring 
     during the period beginning on January 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2011, unless, not later than 45 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the chief executive officer 
     of the State certifies that the State will request and use 
     such additional Federal funds.''; and
       (6) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``December 31, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``June 30, 2011''.


       treatment of certain drugs for computation of medicaid amp

       Sec. 202. Effective as if included in the enactment of 
     Public Law 111-148, section 1927(k)(1)(B)(i)(IV) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(1)(B)(i)(IV)), as 
     amended by section 2503(a)(2)(B) of Public Law 111-148 and 
     section 1101(c)(2) of Public Law 111-152, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``, unless the drug is an 
     inhalation, infusion, instilled, implanted, or injectable 
     drug that is not generally dispensed through a retail 
     community pharmacy; and''.


    sunset of temporary increase in benefits under the supplemental 
                      nutrition assistance program

       Sec. 203. Section 101(a) of title I of division A of Public 
     Law 111-5 (123 Stat. 120), as amended by section 4262 of this 
     Act, is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Termination.--The authority provided by this 
     subsection shall terminate after March 31, 2014.''.

                      Subtitle B--Revenue Offsets


rules to prevent splitting foreign tax credits from the income to which 
                              they relate

       Sec. 211.  (a) In General.--Subpart A of part III of 
     subchapter N of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 909. SUSPENSION OF TAXES AND CREDITS UNTIL RELATED 
                   INCOME TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

       ``(a) In General.--If there is a foreign tax credit 
     splitting event with respect to a foreign income tax paid or 
     accrued by the taxpayer, such tax shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of this title before the taxable year in 
     which the related income is taken into account under this 
     chapter by the taxpayer.
       ``(b) Special Rules With Respect to Section 902 
     Corporations.--If there is a foreign tax credit splitting 
     event with respect to a foreign income tax paid or accrued by 
     a section 902 corporation, such tax shall not be taken into 
     account--
       ``(1) for purposes of section 902 or 960, or
       ``(2) for purposes of determining earnings and profits 
     under section 964(a),

     before the taxable year in which the related income is taken 
     into account under this chapter by such section 902 
     corporation or a domestic corporation which meets the 
     ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section 
     902 with respect to such section 902 corporation.
       ``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Application to partnerships, etc.--In the case of a 
     partnership, subsections (a) and (b) shall be applied at the 
     partner level. Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, 
     a rule similar to the rule of the preceding sentence shall 
     apply in the case of any S corporation or trust.
       ``(2) Treatment of foreign taxes after suspension.--In the 
     case of any foreign income tax not taken into account by 
     reason of subsection (a) or (b), except as otherwise provided 
     by the Secretary, such tax shall be so taken into account in 
     the taxable year referred to in such

[[Page 15447]]

     subsection (other than for purposes of section 986(a)) as a 
     foreign income tax paid or accrued in such taxable year.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Foreign tax credit splitting event.--There is a 
     foreign tax credit splitting event with respect to a foreign 
     income tax if the related income is (or will be) taken into 
     account under this chapter by a covered person.
       ``(2) Foreign income tax.--The term `foreign income tax' 
     means any income, war profits, or excess profits tax paid or 
     accrued to any foreign country or to any possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(3) Related income.--The term `related income' means, 
     with respect to any portion of any foreign income tax, the 
     income (or, as appropriate, earnings and profits) to which 
     such portion of foreign income tax relates.
       ``(4) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means, 
     with respect to any person who pays or accrues a foreign 
     income tax (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the 
     `payor')--
       ``(A) any entity in which the payor holds, directly or 
     indirectly, at least a 10 percent ownership interest 
     (determined by vote or value),
       ``(B) any person which holds, directly or indirectly, at 
     least a 10 percent ownership interest (determined by vote or 
     value) in the payor,
       ``(C) any person which bears a relationship to the payor 
     described in section 267(b) or 707(b), and
       ``(D) any other person specified by the Secretary for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(5) Section 902 corporation.--The term `section 902 
     corporation' means any foreign corporation with respect to 
     which one or more domestic corporations meets the ownership 
     requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section 902.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this section, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provides--
       ``(1) appropriate exceptions from the provisions of this 
     section, and
       ``(2) for the proper application of this section with 
     respect to hybrid instruments.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 909. Suspension of taxes and credits until related income taken 
              into account.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) foreign income taxes (as defined in section 909(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) 
     paid or accrued in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010; and
       (2) foreign income taxes (as so defined) paid or accrued by 
     a section 902 corporation (as so defined) in taxable years 
     beginning on or before such date (and not deemed paid under 
     section 902(a) or 960 of such Code on or before such date), 
     but only for purposes of applying sections 902 and 960 with 
     respect to periods after such date.

     Section 909(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by this section, shall not apply to foreign income 
     taxes described in paragraph (2).


denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income not subject 
   to united states taxation by reason of covered asset acquisitions

       Sec. 212.  (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 
     (m) as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Denial of Foreign Tax Credit With Respect to Foreign 
     Income Not Subject to United States Taxation by Reason of 
     Covered Asset Acquisitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a covered asset 
     acquisition, the disqualified portion of any foreign income 
     tax determined with respect to the income or gain 
     attributable to the relevant foreign assets--
       ``(A) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     credit allowed under subsection (a), and
       ``(B) in the case of a foreign income tax paid by a section 
     902 corporation (as defined in section 909(d)(5)), shall not 
     be taken into account for purposes of section 902 or 960.
       ``(2) Covered asset acquisition.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `covered asset acquisition' means--
       ``(A) a qualified stock purchase (as defined in section 
     338(d)(3)) to which section 338(a) applies,
       ``(B) any transaction which--
       ``(i) is treated as an acquisition of assets for purposes 
     of this chapter, and
       ``(ii) is treated as the acquisition of stock of a 
     corporation (or is disregarded) for purposes of the foreign 
     income taxes of the relevant jurisdiction,
       ``(C) any acquisition of an interest in a partnership which 
     has an election in effect under section 754, and
       ``(D) to the extent provided by the Secretary, any other 
     similar transaction.
       ``(3) Disqualified portion.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `disqualified portion' means, 
     with respect to any covered asset acquisition, for any 
     taxable year, the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of--
       ``(i) the aggregate basis differences (but not below zero) 
     allocable to such taxable year under subparagraph (B) with 
     respect to all relevant foreign assets, divided by
       ``(ii) the income on which the foreign income tax referred 
     to in paragraph (1) is determined (or, if the taxpayer fails 
     to substantiate such income to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary, such income shall be determined by dividing the 
     amount of such foreign income tax by the highest marginal tax 
     rate applicable to such income in the relevant jurisdiction).
       ``(B) Allocation of basis difference.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(i)--
       ``(i) In general.--The basis difference with respect to any 
     relevant foreign asset shall be allocated to taxable years 
     using the applicable cost recovery method under this chapter.
       ``(ii) Special rule for disposition of assets.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, in the case of the 
     disposition of any relevant foreign asset--

       ``(I) the basis difference allocated to the taxable year 
     which includes the date of such disposition shall be the 
     excess of the basis difference with respect to such asset 
     over the aggregate basis difference with respect to such 
     asset which has been allocated under clause (i) to all prior 
     taxable years, and
       ``(II) no basis difference with respect to such asset shall 
     be allocated under clause (i) to any taxable year thereafter.

       ``(C) Basis difference.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `basis difference' means, with 
     respect to any relevant foreign asset, the excess of--

       ``(I) the adjusted basis of such asset immediately after 
     the covered asset acquisition, over
       ``(II) the adjusted basis of such asset immediately before 
     the covered asset acquisition.

       ``(ii) Built-in loss assets.--In the case of a relevant 
     foreign asset with respect to which the amount described in 
     clause (i)(II) exceeds the amount described in clause (i)(I), 
     such excess shall be taken into account under this subsection 
     as a basis difference of a negative amount.
       ``(iii) Special rule for section 338 elections.--In the 
     case of a covered asset acquisition described in paragraph 
     (2)(A), the covered asset acquisition shall be treated for 
     purposes of this subparagraph as occurring at the close of 
     the acquisition date (as defined in section 338(h)(2)).
       ``(4) Relevant foreign assets.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `relevant foreign asset' means, with 
     respect to any covered asset acquisition, any asset 
     (including any goodwill, going concern value, or other 
     intangible) with respect to such acquisition if income, 
     deduction, gain, or loss attributable to such asset is taken 
     into account in determining the foreign income tax referred 
     to in paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Foreign income tax.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `foreign income tax' means any income, war profits, 
     or excess profits tax paid or accrued to any foreign country 
     or to any possession of the United States.
       ``(6) Taxes allowed as a deduction, etc.--Sections 275 and 
     78 shall not apply to any tax which is not allowable as a 
     credit under subsection (a) by reason of this subsection.
       ``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including to 
     exempt from the application of this subsection certain 
     covered asset acquisitions, and relevant foreign assets with 
     respect to which the basis difference is de minimis.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to covered asset 
     acquisitions (as defined in section 901(m)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) after 
     December 31, 2010.
       (2) Transition rule.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any covered asset acquisition (as so 
     defined) with respect to which the transferor and the 
     transferee are not related if such acquisition is--
       (A) made pursuant to a written agreement which was binding 
     on January 1, 2011, and at all times thereafter,
       (B) described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal 
     Revenue Service on or before July 29, 2010, or
       (C) described on or before January 1, 2011, in a public 
     announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission.
       (3) Related persons.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     person shall be treated as related to another person if the 
     relationship between such persons is described in section 267 
     or 707(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.


 separate application of foreign tax credit limitation, etc., to items 
                        resourced under treaties

       Sec. 213.  (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 904 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Separate application to items resourced under 
     treaties.--
       ``(A) In general.--If--
       ``(i) without regard to any treaty obligation of the United 
     States, any item of income would be treated as derived from 
     sources within the United States,
       ``(ii) under a treaty obligation of the United States, such 
     item would be treated as arising from sources outside the 
     United States, and
       ``(iii) the taxpayer chooses the benefits of such treaty 
     obligation,


[[Page 15448]]


     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section and sections 
     902, 907, and 960 shall be applied separately with respect to 
     each such item.
       ``(B) Coordination with other provisions.--This paragraph 
     shall not apply to any item of income to which subsection 
     (h)(10) or section 865(h) applies.
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provides that related 
     items of income may be aggregated for purposes of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


 limitation on the amount of foreign taxes deemed paid with respect to 
                         section 956 inclusions

       Sec. 214.  (a) In General.--Section 960 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation With Respect to Section 956 Inclusions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If there is included under section 
     951(a)(1)(B) in the gross income of a domestic corporation 
     any amount attributable to the earnings and profits of a 
     foreign corporation which is a member of a qualified group 
     (as defined in section 902(b)) with respect to the domestic 
     corporation, the amount of any foreign income taxes deemed to 
     have been paid during the taxable year by such domestic 
     corporation under section 902 by reason of subsection (a) 
     with respect to such inclusion in gross income shall not 
     exceed the amount of the foreign income taxes which would 
     have been deemed to have been paid during the taxable year by 
     such domestic corporation if cash in an amount equal to the 
     amount of such inclusion in gross income were distributed as 
     a series of distributions (determined without regard to any 
     foreign taxes which would be imposed on an actual 
     distribution) through the chain of ownership which begins 
     with such foreign corporation and ends with such domestic 
     corporation.
       ``(2) Authority to prevent abuse.--The Secretary shall 
     issue such regulations or other guidance as is necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection, 
     including regulations or other guidance which prevent the 
     inappropriate use of the foreign corporation's foreign income 
     taxes not deemed paid by reason of paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to acquisitions of United States property (as 
     defined in section 956(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) after December 31, 2010.


      special rule with respect to certain redemptions by foreign 
                              subsidiaries

       Sec. 215.  (a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 304(b) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) Special rule in case of foreign acquiring 
     corporation.--In the case of any acquisition to which 
     subsection (a) applies in which the acquiring corporation is 
     a foreign corporation, no earnings and profits shall be taken 
     into account under paragraph (2)(A) (and subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply) if more than 50 percent of the dividends 
     arising from such acquisition (determined without regard to 
     this subparagraph) would neither--
       ``(i) be subject to tax under this chapter for the taxable 
     year in which the dividends arise, nor
       ``(ii) be includible in the earnings and profits of a 
     controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957 and 
     without regard to section 953(c)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to acquisitions after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.


  modification of affiliation rules for purposes of rules allocating 
                            interest expense

       Sec. 216.  (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     864(e)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the 
     preceding sentence, a foreign corporation shall be treated as 
     a member of the affiliated group if--
       ``(i) more than 50 percent of the gross income of such 
     foreign corporation for the taxable year is effectively 
     connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the 
     United States, and
       ``(ii) at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of 
     all outstanding stock of such foreign corporation is owned 
     directly or indirectly by members of the affiliated group 
     (determined with regard to this sentence).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


 termination of special rules for interest and dividends received from 
      persons meeting the 80-percent foreign business requirements

       Sec. 217.  (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 861(a) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (A) and by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 
     (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
       (b) Grandfather Rule With Respect To Withholding on 
     Interest and Dividends Received From Persons Meeting the 80-
     percent Foreign Business Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 871(i)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) The active foreign business percentage of--
       ``(i) any dividend paid by an existing 80/20 company, and
       ``(ii) any interest paid by an existing 80/20 company.''.
       (2) Definitions and special rules.--Section 871 of such 
     Code is amended by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as 
     subsections (m) and (n), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (k) the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Rules Relating to Existing 80/20 Companies.--For 
     purposes of this subsection and subsection (i)(2)(B)--
       ``(1) Existing 80/20 company.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `existing 80/20 company' means 
     any corporation if--
       ``(i) such corporation met the 80-percent foreign business 
     requirements of section 861(c)(1) (as in effect before the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection) for such 
     corporation's last taxable year beginning before January 1, 
     2011,
       ``(ii) such corporation meets the 80-percent foreign 
     business requirements of subparagraph (B) with respect to 
     each taxable year after the taxable year referred to in 
     clause (i), and
       ``(iii) there has not been an addition of a substantial 
     line of business with respect to such corporation after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(B) Foreign business requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iv), a 
     corporation meets the 80-percent foreign business 
     requirements of this subparagraph if it is shown to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that at least 80 percent of the 
     gross income from all sources of such corporation for the 
     testing period is active foreign business income.
       ``(ii) Active foreign business income.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), the term `active foreign business income' means 
     gross income which--

       ``(I) is derived from sources outside the United States (as 
     determined under this subchapter), and
       ``(II) is attributable to the active conduct of a trade or 
     business in a foreign country or possession of the United 
     States.

       ``(iii) Testing period.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `testing period' means the 3-year period ending with 
     the close of the taxable year of the corporation preceding 
     the payment (or such part of such period as may be 
     applicable). If the corporation has no gross income for such 
     3-year period (or part thereof), the testing period shall be 
     the taxable year in which the payment is made.
       ``(iv) Transition rule.--In the case of a taxable year for 
     which the testing period includes 1 or more taxable years 
     beginning before January 1, 2011--

       ``(I) a corporation meets the 80-percent foreign business 
     requirements of this subparagraph if and only if the weighted 
     average of--

       ``(aa) the percentage of the corporation's gross income 
     from all sources that is active foreign business income (as 
     defined in subparagraph (B) of section 861(c)(1) (as in 
     effect before the date of the enactment of this subsection)) 
     for the portion of the testing period that includes taxable 
     years beginning before January 1, 2011, and
       ``(bb) the percentage of the corporation's gross income 
     from all sources that is active foreign business income (as 
     defined in clause (ii) of this subparagraph) for the portion 
     of the testing period, if any, that includes taxable years 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2011,

     is at least 80 percent, and
       ``(II) the active foreign business percentage for such 
     taxable year shall equal the weighted average percentage 
     determined under subclause (I).

       ``(2) Active foreign business percentage.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (1)(B)(iv), the term `active foreign 
     business percentage' means, with respect to any existing 80/
     20 company, the percentage which--
       ``(A) the active foreign business income of such company 
     for the testing period, is of
       ``(B) the gross income of such company for the testing 
     period from all sources.
       ``(3) Aggregation rules.--For purposes of applying 
     paragraph (1) (other than subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(iv) 
     thereof) and paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) In general.--The corporation referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) and all of such corporation's subsidiaries shall be 
     treated as one corporation.
       ``(B) Subsidiaries.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term `subsidiary' means any corporation in which the 
     corporation referred to in subparagraph (A) owns (directly or 
     indirectly) stock meeting the requirements of section 
     1504(a)(2) (determined by substituting `50 percent' for `80 
     percent' each place it appears and without regard to section 
     1504(b)(3)).
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this section, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provide for the proper 
     application of the aggregation rules described in paragraph 
     (3).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking subsection (c) and by redesignating 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (c), (d), and 
     (e), respectively.
       (2) Paragraph (9) of section 904(h) of such Code is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(9) Treatment of certain domestic corporations.--In the 
     case of any dividend treated as not from sources within the 
     United States under section 861(a)(2)(A), the corporation 
     paying such dividend shall be treated for purposes

[[Page 15449]]

     of this subsection as a United States-owned foreign 
     corporation.''.
       (3) Subsection (c) of section 2104 of such Code is amended 
     in the last sentence by striking ``or to a debt obligation of 
     a domestic corporation'' and all that follows and inserting a 
     period.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2010.
       (2) Grandfather rule for outstanding debt obligations.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not apply to payments of interest on obligations issued 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Exception for related party debt.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to any interest which is payable to a related 
     person (determined under rules similar to the rules of 
     section 954(d)(3)).
       (C) Significant modifications treated as new issues.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), a significant modification of 
     the terms of any obligation (including any extension of the 
     term of such obligation) shall be treated as a new issue.


limitation on extension of statute of limitations for failure to notify 
                 secretary of certain foreign transfers

       Sec. 218.  (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 
     6501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In the case of any information'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any information''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Application to failures due to reasonable cause.--If 
     the failure to furnish the information referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is due to reasonable cause and not willful 
     neglect, subparagraph (A) shall apply only to the item or 
     items related to such failure.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in section 513 of the Hiring 
     Incentives to Restore Employment Act.


      elimination of advance refundability of earned income credit

       Sec. 219.  (a) In General.--The following provisions of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are repealed:
       (1) Section 3507.
       (2) Subsection (g) of section 32.
       (3) Paragraph (7) of section 6051(a).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking paragraph (8) and by redesignating 
     paragraph (9) as paragraph (8).
       (2) Section 6302 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (i).
       (3) The table of sections for chapter 25 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 3507.
       (c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by 
     this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2010.

                               TITLE III

                              RESCISSIONS

       Sec. 301.  There is rescinded from accounts under the 
     heading ``Department of Agriculture--Rural Development'', 
     $122,000,000, to be derived from the unobligated balances of 
     funds that were provided for such accounts in prior 
     appropriation Acts (other than Public Law 111-5) and that 
     were designated by the Congress in such Acts as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 302.  Of the funds made available for ``Department of 
     Commerce--National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration--Broadband Technology Opportunities Program'' 
     in title II of division A of Public Law 111-5, $302,000,000 
     are rescinded.
       Sec. 303.  Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are 
     rescinded from the following accounts in the specified 
     amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 2008/2010'', $21,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 
     2008/2010'', $21,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 2008/2010'', 
     $17,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 2008/2010'', $75,000,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 2008/2010'', $26,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 2008/2010'', $42,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2008/2010'', $13,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2008/2010'', 
     $102,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2008/2010'', $28,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force, 2008/2010'', 
     $7,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2008/2010'', $130,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide, 2008/2010'', $33,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2009/
     2010'', $76,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2009/2010'', $164,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     2009/2010'', $137,000,000;
       ``Operation, Test and Evaluation, Defense, 2009/2010'', 
     $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army, 2010'', $154,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 2010'', $155,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, 2010'', 
     $25,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 2010'', 
     $155,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, 2010'', 
     $126,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve, 2010'', 
     $12,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve, 2010'', 
     $6,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve, 2010'', 
     $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve, 2010'', 
     $14,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, 2010'', 
     $28,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard, 2010'', 
     $27,000,000.
       Sec. 304. (a) Of the funds appropriated in the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), the 
     following funds are rescinded from the following accounts in 
     the specified amounts:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army, 2009/2010'', 
     $113,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 2009/2010'', 
     $34,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, 2009/2010'', 
     $7,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 2009/2010'', 
     $61,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve, 2009/2010'', 
     $3,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve, 2009/2010'', 
     $8,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve, 2009/
     2010'', $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve, 2009/
     2010'', $2,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, 2009/
     2010'', $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard, 2009/
     2010'', $2,500,000; and
       ``Defense Health Program, 2009/2010'', $27,000,000.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated in the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252), the following 
     funds are rescinded from the following account in the 
     specified amount:
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2009/2011'', $122,000,000.
       Sec. 305. (a) Of the funds appropriated for ``Procurement 
     of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' in title III 
     of division A of public Law 111-118, $116,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated for ``Other Procurement, 
     Army'' in title III of division C of Public Law 110-329, 
     $87,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 306.  There are rescinded the following amounts from 
     the specified accounts:
       (1) $20,000,000, to be derived from unobligated balances of 
     funds made available in prior appropriations Acts under the 
     heading ``Department of Energy--Nuclear Energy''.
       Sec. 307.  Of the unobligated balances of funds provided 
     under the heading ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission'' in prior 
     appropriations Acts, $18,000,000 is permanently rescinded.
       Sec. 308.  Of the funds made available for ``Department of 
     Energy--Title 17--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee 
     Program'' in title III of division A of Public Law 111-5, 
     $1,500,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 309.  There are permanently rescinded from ``General 
     Services Administration--Real Property Activities--Federal 
     Building Fund'', $75,000,000 from Rental of Space and 
     $25,000,000 from Building Operations, to be derived from 
     unobligated balances that were provided in previous 
     appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 310.  Of the funds made available for ``Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs--Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account'' in 
     title VII of division A of Public Law 111-5, $6,820,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 311.  Of the funds made available for ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency--Hazardous Substance Superfund'' in title 
     VII of division A of Public Law 111-5, $2,600,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 312.  Of the funds made available for ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency--Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust 
     Fund Program'' in title VII of division A of Public Law 111-
     5, $9,200,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 313.  Of the funds made available for transfer in 
     title VII of division A of Public Law 111-5, ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency--Environmental Programs and Management'', 
     $10,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 314.  Of the funds made available for ``National Park 
     Service--Construction'' in chapter 7 of division B of Public 
     Law 108-324, $4,800,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 315.  Of the funds made available for ``National Park 
     Service--Construction'' in chapter 5 of title II of Public 
     Law 109-234, $6,400,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 316.  Of the funds made available for ``Fish and 
     Wildlife Service--Construction'' in chapter 6 of title I of 
     division B of Public Law 110-329, $3,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 317.  The unobligated balance of funds appropriated in 
     the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 
     (Public Law 103-333; 108 Stat. 2574) under the heading 
     ``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' is 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 318.  Of the funds appropriated for the Commissioner 
     of Social Security under section 2201(e)(2)(B) in title II of 
     division B of Public Law 111-5, $47,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 319.  Of the funds appropriated in part VI of subtitle 
     I of title II of division B of Public

[[Page 15450]]

     Law 111-5, $110,000,000 are rescinded, to be derived only 
     from the amount provided under section 1899K(b) of such 
     title.
       Sec. 320.  Of the funds appropriated for ``Department of 
     Education--Education for the Disadvantaged'' in division D of 
     Public Law 111-117, $50,000,000 are rescinded, to be derived 
     only from the amount provided for a comprehensive literacy 
     development and education program under section 1502 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       Sec. 321.  Of the funds appropriated for ``Department of 
     Education--Student Aid Administration'' in division D of 
     Public Law 111-117, $82,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 322.  Of the funds appropriated for ``Department of 
     Education--Innovation and Improvement'' in division D of 
     Public Law 111-117, $10,700,000 are rescinded, to be derived 
     only from the amount provided to carry out subpart 8 of part 
     D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       Sec. 323.  Of the unobligated balances available under 
     ``Department of Defense, Military Construction, Army'' from 
     prior appropriations Acts, $340,000,000 is rescinded: 
     Provided, That no funds may be rescinded from amounts that 
     were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     or as appropriations for overseas deployments and other 
     activities pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 324.  Of the unobligated balances available under 
     ``Department of Defense, Military Construction, Navy and 
     Marine Corps'' from prior appropriations Acts, $110,000,000 
     is rescinded: Provided, That no funds may be rescinded from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement or as appropriations for overseas deployments and 
     other activities pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985.
       Sec. 325.  Of the unobligated balances available under 
     ``Department of Defense, Military Construction, Air Force'' 
     from prior appropriations Acts, $50,000,000 is rescinded: 
     Provided, That no funds may be rescinded from amounts that 
     were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     or as appropriations for overseas deployments and other 
     activities pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 326.  Of the funds made available for the General 
     Operating Expenses account of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs in section 2201(e)(4)(A)(ii) of division B of Public 
     Law 111-5 (123 Stat. 454; 26 U.S.C. 6428 note), $6,100,000 
     are rescinded.
       Sec. 327.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title X of division A of Public Law 111-5, the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, under the 
     heading `` Departmental Administration, Information 
     Technology Systems'' $5,000,000 is hereby rescinded.
       Sec. 328. (a) Millennium Challenge Corporation.--Of the 
     unobligated balances available under the heading ``Millennium 
     Challenge Corporation'' in title III of division H of Public 
     Law 111-8 and under such heading in prior Acts making 
     appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs, $50,000,000 are rescinded.
       (b) Civilian Stabilization Initiative.--
       (1) Department of state.--Of the unobligated balances 
     available under the heading ``Department of State--
     Administration of Foreign Affairs--Civilian Stabilization 
     Initiative'' in prior Acts making appropriations for the 
     Department of State, foreign operations, and related 
     programs, $40,000,000 are rescinded.
       (2) United states agency for international development.--Of 
     the unobligated balances available under the heading ``United 
     States Agency for International Development--Funds 
     Appropriated to the President--Civilian Stabilization 
     Initiative'' in prior Acts making appropriations for the 
     Department of State, foreign operations, and related 
     programs, $30,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 329.  There are rescinded the following amounts from 
     the specified accounts:
       (1) ``Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation 
     Administration--Facilities and Equipment'', $2,182,544, to be 
     derived from unobligated balances made available under this 
     heading in Public Law 108-324.
       (2) ``Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation 
     Administration--Facilities and Equipment'', $5,705,750, to be 
     derived from unobligated balances made available under this 
     heading in Public Law 109-148.
       Sec. 330.  Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned 
     to each State under chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, $2,200,000,000 are permanently rescinded: Provided, 
     That such rescission shall be distributed among the States in 
     the same proportion as the funds subject to such rescission 
     were apportioned to the States for fiscal year 2009: Provided 
     further, That such rescission shall not apply to the funds 
     distributed in accordance with sections 130(f) and 104(b)(5) 
     of title 23, United States Code; sections 133(d)(1) and 163 
     of such title, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of Public Law 109-59; and the first sentence of 
     section 133(d)(3)(A) of such title: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 1132 of Public Law 110-140, in 
     administering the rescission required under this heading, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall allow each State to 
     determine the amount of the required rescission to be drawn 
     from the programs to which the rescission applies.

                                TITLE IV

                          BUDGETARY PROVISIONS


                          budgetary provisions

       Sec. 401. The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, jointly submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record by the Chairmen of the House and Senate 
     Budget Committees, provided that such statement has been 
     submitted prior to the vote on passage in the House acting 
     first on this conference report or amendment between the 
     Houses.


                       Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
     H.R. 1586.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1606, the 
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today we have heard from our friends on the minority 
side an ample amount of sarcasm and cynicism and partisan hyperbole 
mixed in with fiscal fiction. I hope we can cut through that today.
  Today, we can either sit frozen in the ice of our own indifference, 
as Franklin Roosevelt once said, or we can take action to help States 
meet their safety net obligations and to protect our children's 
education by keeping teachers in the classroom while we continue to 
claw our way back from the most devastating economic crisis since the 
Great Depression.

                              {time}  1350

  Last year, in the first job recovery package, we recognized two 
reasons for providing Federal aid to States and school districts. The 
first was to reduce the human carnage that occurs when we take kids off 
health care coverage or let their education suffer because of teacher 
layoffs. The second was that standing by while States, localities, and 
school boards cut essential investments in services and impose 
significant new taxes will cripple the ability of the economy to grow 
and cause additional job weakness in both private and public sectors.
  It is important, Madam Speaker, to remember how we got here. The 
failed economic policies of the previous 8 years obliterated hard-won 
budget surpluses inherited from President Clinton. Federal oversight of 
Wall Street banks was gutted, allowing them to morph into casinos, and 
drive the economy into catastrophic collapse. That produced monthly 
losses of 750,000 jobs in each of the last 3 months of the Bush 
administration.
  We now know that the economic crisis was even deeper and more broad 
than we initially expected. While the economy has improved, the effects 
of the recession are still not behind us. They are still affecting 
people's lives and livelihoods.
  Three times before today, in December, in May, and in July we tried 
to take additional actions to ease the problems, and three times we 
were blocked. Now, today we have this much-reduced bill to provide $10 
billion in funding to save somewhere around 160,000 education jobs and 
$16 billion in health assistance to the States.
  Our friends in the minority accuse us of including job-killing tax 
increases to pay for it. That's ridiculous. The bill closes a tax 
loophole that encourages companies to ship jobs overseas. Not only will 
that help pay for this package, it will fix a hole in the tax code

[[Page 15451]]

that is rewarding companies for sending American jobs elsewhere.
  Still others, including the leadership of the minority, call this a 
special interest bailout. To that I say since when do we regard 
America's kids as a special interest group?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
  You don't get a second chance to educate kids. We should not fool 
ourselves into thinking that this package will do as much as we ought 
to be doing to ease the squeeze on the national economy. We will have 
partially offset with this bill the human wreckage caused by the 
recession, but we will still have done nothing in this round to address 
the macro reality that the economy is still incredibly weak. This bill 
will soften the blow of State budget cutbacks, but those very cutbacks 
have had a negative and neutralizing effect on the Federal fiscal 
stimulus in the first place.
  This is a far less dramatic action than the Nation needs to recover 
from the recession. But this aid is long overdue, and the time for 
arguing is past. The cutbacks in food stamps in the bill are plain 
wrong. But face it, the minority party in the Senate is using the rules 
of the Senate to give them the functional equivalent of the majority's 
ability to determine the agenda of that body, and they have decided to 
follow a rule or ruin approach to governance, blocking every action 
they can, and in this case delaying action to the point of complete 
confusion.
  Our Nation's kids are getting ready to go back to school. They need 
this help now, inadequate though it is. I urge all Members to vote 
``yes'' to give it to them. It's the least we should do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  States across America have as their number one responsibility the 
education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own 
spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never 
solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar 
bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow. 
That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy.
  Why are we talking with each other here today? We should be meeting 
with our constituents, holding town hall meetings, and listening to 
what's on the hearts and minds of our voters. The folks in my district 
have made their concerns very clear. They're saying, ``Jerry, tell 
those big spending politicians in Washington to stop spending our 
money.'' But the Democrat majority is so addicted to spending that they 
have called Congress back just to vote on yet another multibillion-
dollar bailout.
  I'm left scratching my head, because in the past few months this 
Congress has done virtually none of the work that the voters sent us 
here to do. We haven't passed a budget, we haven't funded defense and 
homeland security. We made our troops wait months before passing funds 
to support their fight against international terrorism.
  The majority leadership calls the bill before us a major 
accomplishment. They hope it will please teachers' unions and inspire 
the Democratic base 2 months before the November election. I believe 
most voters will see it for what it is, further evidence that this 
Congress has a spending problem. To the voters, the 111th Congress will 
go down in history as the bailout Congress. The Congress has already 
spent $75 billion in stimulus dollars to help States with education. 
That was supposed to be a one-time, temporary bailout, approved by the 
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
  I am very proud of the fact that three of my four children are 
teachers. They work very hard to provide quality education in the 
classroom. They know that schools should be run by parents, teachers, 
and local communities. The more we approve these bailouts, the more the 
Federal Government takes over that role.
  Madam Speaker, I know that my Democrat colleagues say that this 
legislation is quote, ``fully paid for.'' On the other hand, the bill 
spends the entire $26 billion in just 2 years, while the offsets take 
place over 10 years. The so-called offsets in this legislation are 
produced by almost a $10 billion increase in taxes, $13.4 billion in 
reductions in two programs that are popular with Democrat leaders. That 
is the food stamp program and renewable energy projects. Some Democrat 
leaders have already pledged to restore funding to these programs. Some 
of these so-called cuts could be eliminated as soon as November in a 
lame duck session.
  Madam Speaker, beware of a lame duck session called by this Congress. 
I want to emphasize this again to my colleagues. The voters do not want 
us to throw more money at our Nation's problems, yet that is exactly 
what this bill does. It's time, Madam Speaker, to put Uncle Sam on a 
diet and put an end to the congressional spending spree.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
I want to thank him for his persistence in pushing this legislation, 
and finally to have this legislation back from the Senate today so that 
we can help school districts.
  The scandals that were permitted under the Bush administration cost 
middle class families trillions of dollars in the loss of their wealth 
in their pension plans, in their jobs, in the value of their homes. Now 
the question is whether or not school children in this Nation should be 
further victims of these financial scandals that were tolerated, and 
whether or not these school districts that have had the revenues that 
they rely on to fund the schools that have been ripped away because of 
the loss of property values, because of the loss of sales tax, because 
of the loss of income tax, because of the results of those scandals. 
The answer in this bill is no, that in fact we should help school 
districts make sure that children can get a first class education, that 
they don't lose a year of education because of those financial scandals 
that happened on the watch of the past administration as the banks and 
Wall Street ran amok.
  So we should pass this bill and make sure that those 160,000 teachers 
can return to the classroom. I would like to ask the gentleman a 
question.
  It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, that 
when the governor makes application for these funds, under the bill the 
Secretary can require the governor to choose one of two formulas, the 
State allocation formula or the title I formula, and to post that 
formula so school districts would then be able to know their allocation 
as soon as possible so they could start to rehire people and start to 
reduce class sizes or other decisions that school boards hope to make 
to provide for that education. Is that your understanding that that's 
permitted under this legislation?

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. OBEY. That is the committee's intent.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So the Governor would put that in 
the application, declare the formula, and post that, so that school 
districts would be on the earliest possible notice.
  Mr. OBEY. That is our intent.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Again I want to thank you. You have 
sent the bill to the Senate, the House sent it last year, and you sent 
it three times this year. Thank you again for your persistence and your 
work on this issue.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes 
to the former chairman of the Education Committee, now the senior 
Republican on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase 
domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, 
the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this

[[Page 15452]]

teacher bailout, paid in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense 
programs. As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, 
I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need of these 
funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our 
educational system as the former chairman and ranking member of 
Education and Labor.
  Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously 
identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for 
higher priorities, but this arguments misses two larger points.
  First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, diverting money from 
the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any 
opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated 
money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.
  Second, rescissions to the defense budget this late in the fiscal 
year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of 
Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this 
rescission will require that Defense restructure or postpone programs, 
and in some cases the money is no longer available in these accounts.
  Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery 
slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to 
generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over 
the next 5 years, the only secretary that has been asked to do this. My 
ultimate concern is these savings will not be reinvested into America's 
defense requirements, but will be harvested by congressional Democrats 
for new domestic spending and entitlement programs.
  We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats, 
with the full support of the White House, are taking critical defense 
funding to pay for another State bailout.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will 
increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. 
Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this 
teacher bailout, paid for in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense 
programs. As the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, 
I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need for these 
funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our 
educational system, as the former Chairman and Ranking Member of 
Education and Labor.
  Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously 
identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for 
higher priorities. This includes $683.5 million unspent from last 
year's economic stimulus package and $325 million for military 
construction projects. They will use this argument to convince members 
that these cuts will not harm the Department and to assure you that 
this next bailout is fully paid for.
  But this argument misses two larger points. First, as yesterday's 
Military Times observed, ``. . . diverting money from the defense 
budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the 
Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one 
defense program to spend on another defense program.'' For example, in 
the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, we used the 
unobligated balances for military construction projects to fund other 
more pressing infrastructure needs, such as barracks and armories, and 
many of the services' unfunded requirements. Now these funds will no 
longer be available for these purposes and the services will have 
outstanding needs go unmet.
  Second, rescissions to the DoD budget this late in the fiscal year 
are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of 
Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this 
rescission will require that DoD restructure or postpone programs. I am 
confident the Department will try to avoid adverse effects on the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when this nation is fighting two wars, 
Congress should not be pulling the financial rug out from under DoD at 
the end of the year.
  Moreover, while these funds were identified as ``unspent'' earlier 
this year, some of these ``unspent'' dollars have already been diverted 
to other defense programs. When we cut the original accounts now, it 
will mean that some of these accounts no longer have enough money in 
them. Think about your own checking account--at the beginning of the 
year, you see that you have $1000 more than your budget says you'll 
need. So you move $800 into another account or give it to one of your 
children. If the government comes and takes $1000 from you at the end 
of the year, your remaining account balance may not be sufficient and 
you find yourself in an overdraft situation. In the case of government 
agencies it is against the law to overdraft an account. We have been 
told that the Department of Defense may find itself in violation of the 
Antideficiency Act in some accounts.
  Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery 
slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to 
generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over 
the next five years. Yesterday he announced a series of spending 
freezes and closures of organizations within his office and combatant 
commands. Secretary Gates plans on plowing these savings back into 
force structure and modernization accounts. As elected officials, 
Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer 
dollars are not wasted on inefficient, wasteful or redundant programs. 
All of us support efforts to identify and curb such programs. Yet, as 
Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are also tasked with 
the unique responsibility of providing for America's national defense 
and meeting the needs of our military services, which is why we will 
need to receive more information from the Department of Defense so we 
fully understand the rationale behind each decision and potential 
impact of every cut.
  My ultimate concern is that these savings will not be reinvested into 
America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by Congressional 
Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see 
today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats--with the 
full support of the White House--are taking critical defense funding to 
pay for another state bailout. What's to stop them from taking this 
money, too?
  At his press conference yesterday Secretary Gates stated, ``. . . my 
greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the 
defense budget as the place to solve the Nation's deficit problems, to 
find money for other parts of the government . . . And as I look around 
the world and see . . . more failed and failing states, countries that 
are investing heavily in their militaries . . . as I look at the new 
kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise 
missiles and so on--my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense 
budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an 
effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. 
I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today 
and what we're likely to see in the years to come.''
  I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of the Secretary in this 
matter and vote no to a cut in defense spending. Instead of another 
Federal bailout, let's make sure our men and women in uniform have the 
resources and equipment they need. Leave this money in the Department 
of Defense where it belongs.
  Mr. OBEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute 
to our former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
opposition to this legislation.
  H.R. 1586, the State bailout bill, extends many of the same 
provisions included in the original stimulus bill by increasing taxes 
and using questionable offsets. It increases taxes on American 
businesses, America's job creators, by $9.8 billion over 10 years, and 
these tax increases will kill jobs, reduce American competitiveness, 
discourage investment, and prevent economic recovery. This is a 
permanent tax increase on job creators in exchange for a temporary fix 
for the States.
  A series of international tax changes in the bill could have far-
reaching consequences on the competitiveness of worldwide American 
businesses. The National Association of Manufacturers states that an 
estimated 22 million people in the United States, more than 19 percent 
of the private-sector workforce, and 53 percent of all manufacturing 
employees are employed by companies with operations overseas.
  Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing $9.6 billion tax increases 
on these companies as proposed in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586 
will jeopardize the jobs of American

[[Page 15453]]

manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.
  The new spending in the bill is meant to give states money to deal 
with their current fiscal problems, rewarding states for years of 
excessive spending in their budgets. It is not the responsibility of 
the federal government to bail out the states when they have difficulty 
balancing their budgets--the federal government should balance its own 
budget instead.
  The bill is not really ``fully'' paid for because it spends the 
entire $26.1 billion in just two years while the ``offsets'' take place 
over ten years, relying on future Congresses to abide by the offsets--
spending money today that we won't ``pay for'' until years from now. 
Once again, this Congress kicks the can down the road.
  This is a very detrimental tax increase. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this bill ignores a simple truth: Government cannot 
inject a single dollar into the economy that is not first taken out of 
the same economy. We see the jobs that are saved or created when the 
government puts the money back in. What we don't see directly are the 
jobs lost or prevented when the government first takes that money out 
of the economy. Those lost jobs are seen in chronic unemployment rates 
and a stagnant job market, despite unprecedented government spending.
  Nor is this necessary to save teaching jobs. A school board faced 
with the choice between a couple of good teachers and an overpaid 
bureaucrat is probably going to keep the teachers and fire the 
bureaucrat. But this bill says it doesn't have to make that choice. 
Indeed, this actually prohibits school boards from doing anything that 
would reduce their spending below last year's levels.
  Madam Speaker, it is time to invoke the first law of holes: When you 
are in one, stop digging.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I inquire how many speakers the gentleman has?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have no additional 
speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply say yes, this bill spends 
money. Yes, it saves money. It saves more than it spends to the tune of 
$1.3 billion, according to CBO.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is now prepared to recognize 
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I rise in strong support of this bill for education, jobs and 
Medicaid assistance. This will provide critical relief for the States 
and local governments. This is a vote for jobs, for education, for 
health care.
  The States and local governments are faced with a decrease in income 
or taxes as people have lost their jobs, and yet in the Medicaid area 
there is an increase for services, as some people have lost their 
insurance. This will help the States avoid the massive cuts in Medicaid 
eligibility payments and payments to providers.
  The Federal Medicaid Assistance Program was adopted in February of 
2009. It expires in December. This will extend that temporary FMAP 
program for an additional 6 months through June 30, 2011, when most 
State fiscal years end. There would be no change in the current formula 
for targeting additional fiscal relief at States with high unemployment 
rates.
  I urge support for this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that we have to be here today to spend 
money that the taxpayers don't have, that Congress can't afford, for an 
economic stimulus program that doesn't work.
  The provision that is in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee is the Federal Medicaid Assistance Program, specifically 
called FMAP. This is a program to help low-income constituents in a 
cost-share between the State government and the Federal Government.
  Spending on this program over the last 2 fiscal years has gone up 
almost 50 percent. The stimulus package that was enacted last year 
increased it an additional 6 percent, I believe, through December of 
this year. The bill before us would extend that extension until June of 
next year.

                              {time}  1410

  There is no emergency in this program. There is no pending financial 
catastrophe in Medicaid. There is a long-term unfunded mandate, 
obviously, but in the short term this is not something that absolutely 
has to be done.
  The $16 billion that would be spent on this program ostensibly is to 
be spent for Medicaid, low-income health care assistance, but if you 
read the fine print, it doesn't have to. As we all know, Madam Speaker, 
money is fungible, and under this particular bill, while the nameplate 
says for Medicaid, the truth is the money can be spent for whatever 
purpose the State wants to spend it for. I don't think that's 
appropriate.
  We on the Republican side were prepared to offer an amendment in the 
Rules Committee last evening that would have at least said, if you're 
going to say the money is for Medicaid, it actually has to be spent for 
Medicaid. We were told that no amendments would be made in order and 
that they were put in what's called a martial law lock-down rule. So we 
did not offer that amendment, but it is an amendment that should have 
been offered and should be accepted.
  What this bill really is about is, in my opinion, some sort of a 
panic attack on the Democratic leadership side, that they see the 
election coming up and they need to get more money to their special 
constituencies, and this is a bill that would do that. So we're going 
to spend $180 million a day. We're going to be paying taxes on this 
money for the next 10 years. This $180 million a day is only for 6 
months. It's not going to reduce the unemployment rate, which right now 
is a little under 10 percent. It's going to be used, purely and simply, 
for some of those States to have more money that might help 
constituencies that might help our friends on the majority side of the 
aisle. As I said earlier, the money that is in the jurisdiction of the 
committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce, doesn't have to be spent 
for Medicaid.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my chairman.
  I want to differ strongly with the gentleman from Texas, as much as I 
admire him as our ranking member. I would remind the gentleman that 
this bill is fully paid for by eliminating tax loopholes that send jobs 
overseas. The fact of the matter is that many States have already 
budgeted for these Federal dollars and simply don't have their own 
State dollars to make up for it if they lose the Federal dollars.
  Traditionally, in the past, this was a bipartisan issue. Republicans 
supported it. And I would say that many Republican governors, including 
my own in my State of New Jersey, have asked for this money because 
they know that if they don't get it they're going to have a huge 
shortfall in their budget. I don't see this at all as a partisan issue, 
and I really don't understand why our ranking member continues to look 
at it that way.
  I think it's crucial that Congress extend extra help to the States to 
pay for their citizens who are on Medicaid. The Medicaid rolls have 
expanded considerably for States because of unemployment. Many people 
have lost their jobs

[[Page 15454]]

and a lot more people are on Medicaid, and States with high 
unemployment will continue to receive additional percentage points. 
This legislation simply allows States to avert Medicaid cuts at a time 
when the economic recession requires a strong safety net.
  It's also the most efficient way to help States avoid further layoffs 
and service cuts that would otherwise slow the economic recovery. It is 
really bipartisan. Many Republican governors have asked for it, and 
this is something that in the past has always been done on a bipartisan 
basis. I urge support.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, the Obama stimulus plan was a waste of taxpayer 
dollars, and I'm proud that the elected officials in the Texas 
Statehouse had the good sense to keep those funds in reserve. If a 
Member of this body has a problem with the way the rightfully elected 
representatives of the people of Texas choose to use their money, then 
I have some advice for him or her: Go to Austin.
  Madam Speaker, the eyes of Texas will be watching her congressional 
delegation as they cast their votes. You will either be for Texas or 
against her. You will either stand for our State and national 
constitutions or ignore them. This is exactly the sort of arrogance, 
pettiness, and political chicanery that the people of America are tired 
of. I know that Texans are.
  I have great hope that November will bring a much-needed change in 
direction in Washington.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no-no-no against this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it seems like we have a lot 
of Texas voices here today, and I want to share mine. I thank my chair 
of our Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding to me.
  I support, obviously, the full passage of the bill, but, Madam 
Speaker, I rise in support of the students and teachers who will 
benefit from passage of the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record two letters from 
education groups supporting this legislation.
  At a time when local and State governments from coast to coast are 
cutting funding for basic services such as education, public safety, 
and transportation, this legislation will bring much-needed assistance 
to keep 161,000 educational professionals working now; 14,500 
educational jobs in Texas will be saved.
  I want to speak to the important provision my Texas colleagues on 
this side of the aisle worked hard to get into this bill. Last year, 
the governor of Texas took $3.25 billion in Federal stabilization funds 
specifically designated for educational purposes and used it to build 
up the State's rainy day fund, which may sound good, but it was nothing 
more than the governor taking much-needed resources from the students 
and educators of Texas.
  In order to make sure the governor of Texas does not repeat history 
and misuse the Federal education funds, my colleagues and I pushed to 
have language added to the bill that will require the governor provide 
assurance to the Secretary of Education that the funds allocated to 
Texas be used to supplement and not supplant State K-12 education 
funding through fiscal year 2013. The governor and his political allies 
have stated in recent days that it cannot make such assurances because 
of its being unconstitutional. Well, our governor obviously is not a 
constitutional lawyer, so let the record show that the governor had 
made the same assurance before, including in the State's Fiscal 
Stabilization Program application last year.
  This language is supported by the Texas Association of School Boards 
as well as Statewide groups representing teachers, principals, and 
school administrators across the State and ensures that these funds get 
to the classrooms and will hopefully delay property tax increases.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

 Texas Democratic Delegation Statement on Protection for Schoolchildren

       Last year, we voted for the Economic Recovery Act, which 
     included $3.25 billion to support local Texas school 
     districts. But instead of using these funds as Congress 
     intended, State Republican Leadership used them to replace 
     state education funding, thereby denying an increase in 
     support for our local school districts.
       We want to ensure that any new emergency funds Congress 
     provides for education actually help our Texas schools. We 
     have requested additional protections be incorporated into 
     any Supplemental Appropriations legislation specifically for 
     Texas schoolchildren to ensure local districts actually 
     receive this federal help. These protections will ensure that 
     the $820 million in new emergency federal funds for education 
     go to preserve teacher jobs throughout the State and meet 
     other local education needs.
       These funds would go to local schools as long as the 
     Governor certifies that (1) federal funds are not used merely 
     to replace state education support, and (2) education funding 
     will not be cut proportionally more than any other item in 
     the upcoming Texas General Appropriations Act. This prevents 
     any further shell games with federal education dollars at the 
     expense of local school districts. This approach has been 
     endorsed by Texas statewide education organizations 
     representing teachers, principals, school boards, school 
     administrators, and nearly 40 superintendents.
       A solid education is the foundation on which our economy 
     and our democracy rest. Our support for our local school 
     districts reflects a twofold understanding: First, local 
     districts know best what the needs of their students, 
     teachers, and administrators are. Second, especially in times 
     of a difficult economy, we need to invest in our schools.
       Our language helps ensure local school districts in Texas 
     have the support they need.
         Charles A. Gonzalez; Sheila Jackson Lee; Silvestre Reyes; 
           Henry Cuellar; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Ciro D. 
           Rodriguez; Lloyd Doggett; Solomon P. Ortiz; Ruben 
           Hinojosa; Gene Green; Chet Edwards; Al Green.
                                  ____

                                                    June 22, 2010.
     Hon. Arne Duncan,
     Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. David Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Duncan, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader 
     Hoyer, and Chairman Obey: Last year, before the education 
     Stabilization funds were provided to Texas, many of us joined 
     together to urge you to ensure that these funds would 
     increase the funding for Texas schools instead of merely 
     replacing state education funding. Unfortunately, as the 
     legislation was written the State was able to reduce its own 
     obligations to fiscally support public education and supplant 
     those funds with $3.25 billion of federal stabilization 
     monies. As the Administration considers additional emergency 
     education funding to save teachers' jobs, we urge you to 
     prevent history from repeating itself and ensure that any 
     funds Texas receives go to help Texas schools, teachers, and 
     students.
       We support the legislative language that Members of the 
     Texas Delegation have proposed that would guarantee these 
     emergency federal education funds are actually spent on 
     education in Texas. As drafted, this Texas fix has no impact 
     on any other state and would ensure that the law is 
     implemented as Congress and the Administration intended: to 
     save and create teacher jobs. Specifically, this language 
     includes four provisions that we would like to see included 
     in any emergency education jobs bill: Limits the additional 
     requirements to states with Texas-sized rainy day funds; 
     requires the emergency education jobs funds be distributed to 
     local education agencies within the state according to the 
     Title I-A formula; prohibits supplanting of state Title I-
     type funds with these new emergency federal funds for 
     education jobs; and requires maintenance of state primary and 
     secondary education support in FY11, FY12, and FY13 at the 
     current percentage of revenue provided for FY11.
       This language does not prohibit cuts to education in 
     Texas's budget, but it does prevent the state from singling 
     out education for more cuts than other budget items due to 
     the influx of funds from the emergency federal monies for 
     education jobs. With Texas facing a serious budget shortfall 
     in the coming biennial budget, the last thing we need to 
     allow is these funds to be diverted to fill non-education 
     gaps in the budget. We hope that you will ensure that Texas 
     school districts do not fall through the legislative cracks 
     this time around.
       The Texas superintendents and education organizations 
     listed below are in agreement with this letter and have given 
     permission to add their names in support.

[[Page 15455]]




                         Texas Superintendents

               Total of 33 From Across the State of Texas

         Wanda Bamberg, Aldine ISD;
         Meria Carstarphen, Austin ISD;
         Jamey Harrison, Bridge City ISD;
         Brett Springston, Brownsville ISD;
         Reece Blincoe, Brownwood ISD;
         Jeff Turner, Coppell ISD;
         Scott Elliff, Corpus Christi ISD;
         David Anthony, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD;
         Michael Hinojosa, Dallas ISD;
         Leland Williams, Dickinson ISD;
         Bob Wells, Edna ISD;
         Lorenzo Garcia, El Paso ISD;
         Melody Johnson, Fort Worth ISD;
         Paul Clore, Gregory-Portland ISD;
         Jeremy Lyon, Hays CISD;
         Terry Grier, Houston ISD.
         A. Marcus Nelson, Laredo ISD;
         Michelle Carroll Smith, Lytle ISD;
         James Ponce, McAllen ISD;
         Richard A. Middleton, North East ISD;
         John M. Folks, Northside ISD;
         Sharron L. Doughty, Port Aransas ISD;
         Alfonso Obregon, Robstown ISD;
         Robert J. Duron, San Antonio ISD;
         Mike Quatrini, San Elizario ISD;
         Patty Shafer, San Marcos CISD;
         Greg Gibson, Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD;
         Rock McNulty, Smithville ISD;
         Lloyd Verstuyft, Southwest ISD;
         Robert Santos, United ISD;
         Richard Rivera, Weslaco ISD;
         H. John Fuller, Wylie ISD;
         Michael Zolkoski, Ysleta ISD.


                     Texas Education Organizations

        Teachers, Principals, School Boards, and Administrators

         Sandi Borden, Executive Director, Texas Elementary 
           Principals and Supervisors Association;
         Linda Bridges, President, Texas AFT;
         James B. Crow, Executive Director, Texas Association of 
           School Boards;
         Rita Haecker, President, Texas State Teachers 
           Association;
         Doug Rogers, Executive Director, Association for Texas 
           Professional Educators;
         Johnny L. Veselka, Executive Director, Texas Association 
           of School Administrators;
         Brad Willingham, President, Texas Classroom Classroom 
           Teachers Association.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of 
the committee from the great Hoosier State of Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. I am leaving this body here in the next 6 months. Now, one 
side is saying this is all about protecting jobs, about protecting 
teachers, firefighters, police officers. That's great spin. I'm going 
home. This is about protecting the ignominious conduct and behavior of 
legislators that didn't do their job and they're too frightened right 
now, 84 days before an election. They don't want to increase taxes, 
they don't want to cut spending, and they don't want to monetize the 
debt.
  So what do they do? They turn to the Federal Government and have us 
monetize the debt, issue bonds, have China do it so they don't have to 
make tough judgments.
  This is the bailout. This is another bailout. Folks, we cannot 
continue to do this. We talk about what type of Nation we want to pass 
on to our children. Let's not do this. I am distressed about it.
  When we passed the SCHIP as a body and came together, we said that we 
would do so and make eligibility at 133 percent of poverty. Then what 
happened? A lot of these States thought that the good economic times 
would never end, and so they mushroomed the eligibility.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. BUYER. Two States are the worst offenders: New York and New 
Jersey. Instead of 133 percent, they are at 400 and 350 percent 
respectively, eligibility to poverty.
  Oh, no, no; they don't want to make the tough decisions. Guess what; 
not only do the State legislators not want to make tough decisions, 
this Congress also doesn't want to make tough decisions. That is why we 
are facing almost a $1.5 trillion annual budget deficit.
  America, please, please, wake up, and remember in November.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
increasing Medicaid funding for States that is contained in this 
legislation. I have been leading the effort on this issue, and I am 
determined to see it through.
  During this economic crisis, our States have suffered, which means 
our citizens have suffered. States are facing severe budget shortfalls, 
and without Federal help will have to take extreme action. Who would 
this hurt? It would hurt our most vulnerable: our children, our elders, 
our sick, and our frail. People who rely on Medicaid benefits would see 
them slashed. States would be forced to make cuts where we can least 
afford it.
  Not only does Medicaid funding protect citizens, it also promotes 
them. The Congressional Budget Office found that increased Medicaid 
assistance creates jobs and increases demand in the economy.
  The recovery is underway, but it is slow. Families in Wisconsin and 
across the Nation are struggling to make ends meet and find good jobs. 
We in the House have time and again passed legislation to try to 
address this through additional Medicaid funding and dedicated dollars 
for teachers in our schools. Finally, today we have the opportunity to 
send this bill to the President.
  In Wisconsin alone, passing this measure will prevent between 2,000 
and 3,000 teachers from being laid off, and it will prevent $650 
million in Medicaid cuts.
  I have heard from students, doctors, and State employees who have 
known for months what Congress was too slow in realizing, these cuts 
would be catastrophic and we must prevent them.
  I want to thank Chairman Waxman for his steadfast commitment to 
creating jobs and supporting American families. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Republican Conference chairman from the great State of Indiana, Mr. 
Mike Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  The American people are hurting. In the city and on the farm, 
families are struggling in the midst of the worst recession in 25 
years.
  Coming home to me especially today, Madam Speaker, because at this 
very hour more than a thousand Hoosiers are gathered at a job fair in 
my district. Some 65 companies have come together with a few cherished 
openings. My duty is here. But to be honest with you, I would rather be 
there, standing with those courageous Hoosiers who have come out, put 
on their Sunday best, and are reaching for a better future.
  Congress ought to be taking action; but not this, not more of the 
same. Here we go again. Another jobs bill, another bailout. Washington, 
DC now after a year and a half of failed economic policies, a stimulus 
and borrowing and spending and bailouts and takeovers, says we need to 
do another jobs bill, so let's do another bailout: $26 billion to 
States, putting off the hard decisions that States ought to be making, 
and paying for it with more than $9 billion in tax increases.
  You know, the American people are fed up with more taxes, more 
bailouts, more wasteful stimulus; yet here we go again. More spending, 
more bailouts and more taxes won't mean more jobs. Millions of 
Americans are asking: Where will it all end?
  When will this Congress start to come together to make the hard 
choices to put our fiscal house in order and to preserve and promote 
the kind of tax policies that will release the trapped, inherent power 
of the American economy.
  It is my hope and my prayer for those families gathered in Muncie at 
my job fair today that we will not have to wait until after November. 
But if we do, then we will. And the American people will remember 
November.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, let the American people know that we are 
trying to help kids get educated, and make sure that those who are 
vulnerable get health care; while the Republicans are urging that we 
continue the tax cuts for people making more than $300,000 a year. That 
to me is a distortion of priorities.
  I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel).

[[Page 15456]]


  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I want to take up where the chairman left 
off. This is $26 billion that is paid for, and my Republican friends on 
the other side of the aisle don't want to do that, even though it is 
paid for. It will bring back teachers and it will bring back first 
responders. And instead, they want a $700 billion tax break for the 
rich that is not paid for. So that doesn't make any sense to me at all.
  Madam Speaker, 160,000 education jobs could be lost if we do nothing, 
including 8,000 in my home State of New York. Congress can't sit by and 
let these jobs disappear and hurt our children. This assistance is 
critical to States as they struggle through the recession. This 
includes a $10 billion education jobs fund that will save 140,000 
teachers. It is not a payoff to the teachers union, it is a payoff to 
our children and for the future of this country.
  This will prevent deep cuts in education, health care, and social 
services. So, Madam Speaker, we should not play politics with American 
jobs. I continue to urge support for this bill to ensure that Americans 
are working and our economy is well onto the road to recovery.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
starting third baseman on the congressional Republican baseball team, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, those who advocate for this legislation are 
forgetting one very, very important thing: we are broke.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished member of the committee from the great Pelican State of 
Louisiana, Mr. Steve Scalise.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding.
  As American families, as Louisiana families are asking where are the 
jobs, and they are looking to Congress for those answers, all that they 
get from this tone-deaf liberal group that is running Congress today is 
more spending, more taxes, and just continuing with this bailout 
mentality. Americans are saying enough is enough.
  In fact, if we want to get the economy back on track, what we need to 
do is go back to those principles that have been proven to work every 
time, and that is to cut taxes for small businesses so that the 
businesses that are creating jobs can go out and do what they need to 
do. In fact, businesses today are scared to hire anybody because of the 
policies coming out of Washington. So you cut taxes and you cut 
spending. Instead, all we see is more spending, more bailouts, and more 
tax increases on the backs of businesses that are going to run more 
jobs out of this country. It is the wrong answer. We should be here 
focusing on creating jobs, not running more off.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what we have here is a failure to 
communicate. My friends on the Democratic side are talking about things 
to help the economy. My friends and myself on the Republican side are 
pointing out that this is money that we don't have. There is no 
national emergency. The items that are being funded are items that 
historically have been funded at the State level with the exception of 
Medicaid, which is a State-Federal expenditure. And in that the 
program, the money doesn't absolutely have to be spent for low income 
health care assistance. If you look at the way the money is actually 
allocated, one State, the great State of New York, the Empire State, 
gets over 12.5, 13 percent of the funds. In fact, if you exclude 
California, New York gets more money than every State west of the 
Mississippi. As has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer of Indiana, New York 
has a Medicaid reimbursement rate at 350 percent of poverty, which is 
pushing about $80,000 for a family of four.
  This is money we don't have being spent on programs that are not in 
dire emergency at a time when the unemployment rate is 10 percent. 
Please vote no on this bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, this is assistance to the States for 
Medicaid. No State has 300 percent of poverty for Medicaid. That's just 
not the way the States run it. We're talking about the poorest of the 
poor to get Medicaid assistance. There may be additional people who can 
get it for children under the CHIP program but not under Medicaid. The 
States can't afford Medicaid, and we're going to help them by directing 
Federal dollars so that those very poor people can get health care, and 
this legislation assists the States in paying for teachers and first 
responders.
  What can be more important? It isn't one State versus another. All 
throughout this country we've got to make sure that we have an educated 
population and a chance for health care for those who need it who 
cannot afford it. That's why this bill is important. It will also 
provide jobs that will otherwise be lost if the States do not receive 
these funds. Put that into perspective of the Republican call for tax 
cuts to be continued without paying for them for people that make over 
$300,000 a year.
  Who deserves our help? Let's help the vulnerable. Let's help the next 
generation. Let's provide the funds that are in this legislation for 
health care, for first responders, for teachers. I urge support for the 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is now prepared to recognize 
members from the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The minority comes here and talks about wishing to be back at a jobs 
fair for those who are unemployed and looking for work, having voted 
against continuing unemployment compensation for those out of work and 
looking for it. The minority comes here talking about help for small 
business, having voted against Democratic bills to help small business.
  On this bill this is not an increase in taxes on job creation. What 
it is is closing a tax loophole used by some to escape taxes and 
thereby encouraging them to ship jobs overseas, purely and simply.
  This is a fact: U.S. companies that operate overseas owe taxes when 
they return that income to the U.S. They get a foreign tax credit for 
the taxes they paid overseas. What some companies are doing is using 
those tax credits not against income brought back home but against 
income obtained elsewhere. This is a tax loophole purely and simply, 
and closing a tax loophole used by a few is fair taxation policy for 
everybody else. That's what the people of this country demand: Close 
tax loopholes that help shift jobs overseas. We're doing just that in 
this bill, as we have done several other times in the House of 
Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, I and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Camp 
have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make 
available to the public a technical explanation of the revenue 
provisions included in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586, the ``Education Jobs and Medicaid 
Assistance Act of 2010,'' considered in the House of Representatives 
today. This technical explanation provides information on the 
Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind the 
legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at 
www.jct.gov and is listed under document number JCX-46-10.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, last Friday we learned the unemployment rate is still 
at 9\1/2\ percent, and it would be much higher if the official 
calculations also looked at the fast-growing number of Americans who 
have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. So 
while Congress should be here trying to find ways to get

[[Page 15457]]

 Americans back to work, we're here instead to complete action on 
another extension of stimulus that will also do nothing to reduce the 
unemployment rate in this country. In fact, this bill and the tax 
increases in it will hurt job creation.
  According to the methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President's 
chief economic adviser, the tax increases in this bill alone will 
destroy over 140,000 American jobs. In an open letter to Congress this 
week, the National Association of Manufacturers warned that ``imposing 
$9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the 
jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile 
economy.'' Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned they would 
``impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that 
would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American 
businesses, and deter economic growth.''
  These tax increases are a mistake, and, as I noted during the debate 
2 weeks ago, most of these have never been the subject of any committee 
hearing or markup. It is possible that, upon review, some of these 
provisions might make sense if packaged with other changes to address 
the fact that our corporate tax rate is soon to be the highest among 
all industrialized nations. Our international tax system is deeply 
flawed, and our tax code is increasingly putting our companies and 
their employees at a tremendous competitive disadvantage.
  But we never got the opportunity to hear from the American employers 
or to offer any amendments. That's a truly disappointing breakdown of 
the committee system, which is supposed to ensure that policies are 
carefully vetted and reviewed before passage.
  I also want to mention the phantom tax increases that aren't in this 
bill but we will soon see. The Speaker has already indicated that she 
opposes two of the spending offsets included in this bill. One relates 
to food stamps; the other is a cut in funding for a renewable energy 
spending program. Together, those items total $13.4 billion, more than 
half the total offsets in the bill. So next month when the House 
considers some other legislation, don't be surprised to see another $13 
billion in higher taxes to prevent those spending cuts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has been a champion on the 
issue of tax loopholes, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Today we close international tax loopholes and open more 
educational opportunities.
  Last year in Texas, Governor Perry and his cohorts misdirected $3.2 
billion in Federal aid to education simply to replace State education 
commitments, leaving our schools not one dime better off than if we had 
never offered them that Federal aid to education in the first place. 
Given this very unfortunate history for our schoolchildren and the many 
unique educational challenges that Texas faces, we have good reason to 
include in this legislation Texas-specific safeguards to prevent more 
such shenanigans with a formula that assures that this year Federal 
education aid will get directly to our local schools. Our approach 
enjoys the support of school trustees, of superintendents, of 
principals, of teachers.
  We have been listening across Texas to our parents at this time of 
excitement as so many young people are going back to school, some for 
the first time, and we are offering those families and those local 
schools the important support they need for local education, paying for 
every dime of it, and we are supporting those local education decisions 
by local school trustees to achieve quality education free of 
interference from the State. We are demanding accountability from the 
State of Texas.
  For some reason accountability seems like a good concept for everyone 
except some Republican leaders and some international corporate tax 
avoiders. I want to be sure that there's a level playing field for 
taxpayers so that the small business down the street that could face a 
property tax increase if we don't have adequate support for education, 
that that business doesn't continue to have to pay a much higher rate 
than some international corporate tax group that has all the fancy CPAs 
to avoid paying its fair share.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I think that it is important for us to 
realize what is happening here today, and I do oppose the legislation 
that the majority is bringing forward today.
  Today, we are being asked to raise taxes for 10 years in order to pay 
for Medicaid for 6 months. Now, think about that. Only here in 
Washington would an action like that seem to make sense or even be 
thought to be sustainable: 10 years to pay for 6 months.
  Now, this is why the people across this Nation oppose this type 
action, and I think if my friends were home listening instead of here 
in D.C. spending some more that what they would hear from people is 
they are sick and tired. They have really gotten their fill of 
continuing to tax, continuing to spend, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and 
going through this process of kicking the can down the road but not 
addressing the problems.
  The spending is out of control, the American people are overtaxed, 
this government is overspent, and it is time that we demand 
accountability.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my true pleasure to yield 1 minute to our very 
distinguished majority leader, the colleague from the great State of 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  The hour is late and Members have come back, properly so, to address 
an issue that we addressed months ago. The Senate sent it to us; we 
were gone. We thought it our responsibility to ask Members to come back 
because if we hadn't come back, if we didn't pass this bill, what could 
happen? 160,000 teachers would be at risk of being laid off and 
probably would be laid off. What would that mean? It would mean larger 
class sizes for teachers to deal with, children not receiving the kind 
of education that they need to be competitive in the global 
marketplace. What might have also happened? Some 160,000 police and 
fire personnel, emergency response teams, may have had to be laid off.
  That's why we came back. That's why we believe this is so important. 
And how we paid for this, because we do not add a nickel to the 
national debt, notwithstanding the previous speaker, we paid for this 
because we believe if we're going to invest in our future, we also are 
going to pay for it, not ask our grandchildren to pay for it. Now, 
that's a concept that was jettisoned under Republican leadership but 
we've reestablished. So we pay for this.
  One of the ways we pay for it is to ask people is, look, if you're 
going to send jobs overseas we're not going to give you a tax break. I 
know there are some that apparently are not for that, and they're going 
to vote against this bill, but my view is what we're doing is making 
sure that our children have the proper education they need, making sure 
that our communities are safe, and yes, making sure that we try to keep 
every job in America so that we can continue to make things in America, 
so people can make it in America. That's what this bill is all about.
  The hour is late. I think everyone knows the issue, and I ask my 
colleagues, vote for this critical piece of legislation. Keep our 
teachers, our police, our fire personnel on the job. That's why the 
Senate passed this bill with over 60 percent majority in a bipartisan 
vote. Let's follow suit. Pass this bill. Make America better.
  Let's consider what would happen if Republicans had their way and 
this bill failed. Some 160,000 teachers' jobs would be eliminated.
  Some 160,000 jobs for police officers, firefighters, nurses, and 
private-sector employees would go, as well--a total of 320,000 lost 
jobs. And the impact would extend far beyond the laid-off employees.

[[Page 15458]]

  Our children's educations would be shortchanged--bigger class sizes, 
programs eliminated, and summer school cancelled in communities across 
our country. In our neighborhoods, we'd find fewer cops patrolling the 
streets and longer waits before first responders arrive at the scene of 
an emergency.
  More vulnerable Americans--already struggling through the greatest 
economic crisis of our lifetimes--would go without health care.
  And don't think that the economic impact would be limited to the 
320,000 laid-off workers alone.
  It would mean families struggling to pay the mortgage or their 
student loans; it would mean local businesses losing customers; it 
would mean businesses forced into new layoffs of their own as a result.
  It would mean, in short, a step closer to a double-dip recession.
  I understand that States are obligated to cut spending when times are 
hard; but the fact that States' revenues are largely tied to sources 
that dramatically shrink in bad times, such as property and sales 
taxes, creates a vicious cycle that helps prolong recessions.
  When States cut spending, the results include layoffs, less consumer 
demand, and a struggling private sector--making hard times hard for 
longer. And if Republicans had succeeded in blocking the Recovery Act 
and other measures to help pull our economy out of recession, State 
budgets would be even worse off today.
  Preventing another vicious cycle of budget cuts and layoffs is 
exactly why it is both right and smart for the Federal Government to 
step in and lend a hand today.
  This bill will do so--and it will prevent the dangerous chain-
reaction of layoffs and drastically cut services for families that I've 
described. And this bill will do so in a fiscally responsible way: it 
includes savings for all of the dollars it spends, which means that it 
adds nothing to the deficit.
  In fact, much of this bill's savings can help keep jobs in America: 
by passing this bill, we can end the tax loopholes for corporations 
that send American jobs overseas. And that's another way this 
legislation strengthens our economy and our recovery.
  I don't understand how Republicans can add this bill to their year-
and-a-half record of obstructing our recovery.
  I don't understand how anyone, Democrat or Republican, can be against 
keeping teachers in the classroom, keeping cops on the beat, and 
keeping firefighters protecting our homes.
  But some who oppose this bill cynically call teachers, cops, 
firefighters, and nurses ``special interests.''
  That's how they will justify their vote against this bill--but with 
the very same vote, Mr. Speaker, they will vote to protect corporations 
that exploit the tax code to outsource American jobs.
  How first responders are ``special interests'' and those corporations 
are not, is beyond me--but I'm eager to hear my Republican friends 
explain it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this fiscally responsible bill, 
which the communities we represent desperately need.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, Congress adjourned without doing anything useful over 
the last year and a half to get this economy turned around. America 
knows it. Sadly, this bill isn't going to change that fact.
  My colleagues know that they've bankrupted the States with ObamaCare, 
and they know full well this won't be the last time the Federal 
Government borrows money to bail out the States.
  As for the education jobs funding, the money provided in the 
stimulus, the $54 billion as a matter of fact, provided in the stimulus 
was supposed to do the trick, but like the stimulus as a whole it just 
didn't work, did it?
  This $10 billion is a transparent handout to the teachers union, who 
not only continue to insist on greater pay but actually got their 
Democrat buddies to put it in the bill. If States take the money, their 
hands are actually tied on making any tough budget decision choices, 
including pay. As a result, the States will be back here again, and 
very soon, asking for more Federal bailouts, which the current majority 
will probably be very happy to give to them.
  My Democrat colleagues are incredibly generous when it comes to 
spending OPM--that's other people's money. The only problem is that the 
other people, each and every taxpayer in our great country, already owe 
$130,000 apiece in Federal debt. That's why the American people are fed 
up.
  Finally, any claim that the bill is ``paid for'' is utterly nonsense. 
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. This bill 
before us represents another $14 billion in sham accounting gimmicks 
that the majority cannot resist using. Never mind that you've already 
used the money, the tax revenues, several times to pay for three 
different spending bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  We all know that the $14 billion in food stamp cuts will never 
actually really take place. So it is really a sham isn't it, folks? 
Just like the doc fix and everything else, you will kick the can down 
the road and far enough, so far, in fact, that it won't have to be 
counted in today's budget.
  Madam Speaker, the bailouts must end. The borrowing must end. The 
gimmicks must end. If we are ever again to have a competitive country, 
the relentless tax increases on job creators also must end.
  I urge a vote against this.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. 
Kilroy).
  Ms. KILROY. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, across America, summer is coming to an end and parents 
are thinking about their children's return to school. These parents 
have big hopes and dreams for their children, and also worries about 
the future. They want their children to succeed in school. They want 
them to be able to go to college, to get a good job in a competitive 
global economy, and they know they need a dedicated teacher in that 
classroom guiding their children's learning.
  But school boards have been making cuts and laying off teachers. 
Schools in Ohio rely on property tax, and because of Wall Street's 
reckless gambles with predatory lending and resulting record 
foreclosures, schools have seen their revenues decline. Schools also 
rely on State assistance, and Ohio, like many States, have real budget 
challenges. This bill is essential to keep teachers in the classroom. 
In Ohio, that means over 5,500 teachers.
  It will provide the necessary funding to the States for Medicaid 
assistance as well, responding to urgent requests from Republican and 
Democratic Governors. In order to pay for this bill, we are closing tax 
loopholes that have been abused, that have sent jobs overseas. Not only 
will this help pay to keep those teachers in the classroom, it will end 
a job drain and help us to make things here in America.
  So why are my colleagues across the aisle so opposed? They don't seem 
to understand that investing in our Nation's future means investing in 
our Nation's schools. They call our children special interests. Well, 
our children don't have big K Street lobbyists like Wall Street does. 
They need us to stand up for them. But those who have been enjoying 
those tax loopholes are the special interests with those lobbyists. 
Perhaps opponents of this bill are listening to them, but that's the 
wrong way to go. That's the way of the past.
  It's time to end business as usual and politics as usual and stand up 
for America's workers and stand up for America, to keep jobs here, and 
it's time to stand for America's children and America's teachers and 
America's schools. It's time to keep our communities safe, to keep 
firefighters and police on the streets.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. CAMP. I am prepared to reserve or prepared to close if the 
gentleman has no further speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have before me letters from the Chamber of Commerce, the National

[[Page 15459]]

Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, as well as PACE, 
Promote America's Competitive Edge.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business 
federation, representing more than 3 million business organizations of 
every size. They strongly oppose this legislation because they say it 
would place ``draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies 
that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of 
American businesses, and deter economic growth'' and the jobs that come 
from that.
  Likewise, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's 
largest industrial trade association representing small and large 
manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States, they also 
oppose this legislation. ``An estimated 22 million workers in the 
United States, more than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 
53 percent of all manufacturing employees, are employed by companies 
with operations overseas.'' They oppose these tax increases because, 
again, it will ``jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing 
employees and stifle our fragile economy.''
  Likewise, the Business Roundtable, which, again, is an association 
that represents more than 12 million employees, has also sent a letter 
opposing this legislation because they say that this legislation will, 
again, only make matters worse, make it more difficult for U.S. 
companies to compete in the world economy and then actually puts U.S. 
jobs at stake because of that.
  Again, PACE, which represents more than 63 million American jobs that 
depend on the competitiveness of American employers worldwide, said, 
``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract business, 
this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the effect of 
discouraging business investment and job creation in the United 
States.''
  I think it's actually unfortunate that, again, here on the floor I am 
having to submit these letters here, when actually the appropriate 
place would be in the Committee on Ways and Means. But, unfortunately, 
the Committee on Ways and Means has never had a hearing on these 
provisions, never had a markup on this legislation. We have not had a 
process that has been open to employers to come forward before the 
committee and be heard on the record so that we might be able to adjust 
this or put this in context.
  As I said, we need broad-based international tax reform in the U.S. 
This piecemeal approach doesn't work, hurts our competitiveness.
  Again, I think if we could have had a system where there was actually 
a committee hearing or a markup, that on review you might be able to 
improve upon this or find a way to actually address the serious issue 
that pretty soon our corporate tax rate will be the highest among all 
the industrialized nations, and we could actually put on the record the 
deep flaws in our international tax system and the deep flaws in our 
Tax Code.
  Instead, what we are doing today is rushing to the floor again, 
without transparency, without openness, without hearing--certainly no 
opportunity for American employers to come forward and be heard on this 
issue. We are putting them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage at 
a time when they need to be competing around the world for jobs.
  With that, I urge opposition to this legislation.

                                          Business Roundtable,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 2010.
       Dear Member of Congress: We write today to express our 
     strong opposition to inclusion of international tax revenue 
     raisers in H.R. 1586, as approved last week by the Senate.
       The measure would raise nearly $10 billion in new taxes on 
     worldwide American companies through fundamental changes in 
     U.S. tax law, despite the fact that U.S. tax rules already 
     put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
       Keeping American companies and workers competitive should 
     be the number one goal of U.S. tax policy, yet changes in the 
     tax systems of our major trading partners now place the 
     United States at a decided tax disadvantage--which runs a 
     high risk of severely undermining U.S. economic growth and 
     job creation.
       The United States already has the second highest tax rate 
     among developed countries and an international tax structure 
     that is a relic of an era in which U.S. companies faced 
     little competition from foreign-headquartered corporations as 
     they competed around the world. The current U.S. system is 
     inconsistent with the free flow of trade and investment, and 
     it inhibits use of foreign earnings to invest in the U.S. 
     economy. The provisions included in the House legislation to 
     be considered today will only make matters worse.
       We urge the House to remove the counterproductive 
     international tax provisions now included in H.R. 1586, and 
     that any future consideration of U.S. tax policy be done only 
     in the context of comprehensive tax reform designed to 
     improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the world 
     economy. U.S. jobs are at stake.
       Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive 
     officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in 
     annual revenues and more than 12 million employees. Our 
     members share your goal of restoring the U.S. economy to 
     strong economic growth and job creation.
           Sincerely,
     Larry D. Burton.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the Nation's largest industrial trade 
     association representing small and large manufacturers in 
     every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to 
     oppose the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs 
     and Medicaid Assistance Act.
       While the NAM has taken no position on the spending 
     provisions in the legislation, we remain adamantly opposed to 
     using proposed tax increases on American worldwide companies 
     to fund unrelated spending initiatives.
       An estimated 22 million people in the United States--more 
     than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53 
     percent of all manufacturing employees--are employed by 
     companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel 
     strongly that imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these 
     companies as proposed in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586 
     will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees 
     and stifle our fragile economy.
       Some of the proposed tax increases, which are 
     mischaracterized as closing tax loopholes, actually represent 
     significant changes to pro-growth tax policy supported by 
     Congress and the Administration.
       We are disappointed that many of the legislation's proposed 
     tax increases have not been adequately scrutinized during 
     congressional hearings. In many cases, taxpayers have relied 
     on these longstanding tax provisions in structuring their 
     businesses. Changing the rules without fair and adequate 
     hearings will cost in terms of jobs, investment and 
     manufacturers' ability to compete overseas.
       Manufacturers believe strongly that changes to our 
     international tax laws should be considered in the broader 
     context of tax reform that makes the United States more 
     competitive--not as ``pay fors'' for unrelated policy 
     initiatives. Moreover, targeting some international tax law 
     changes in advance of the tax reform debate would make the 
     goal of pro-growth, pro-competitiveness reform that much more 
     difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes related to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, including 
     procedural votes, may be considered for designation as Key 
     Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Jay Timmons.
                                  ____

                                              Chamber of Commerce,


                                           Government Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, August 5, 2010.
       To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, 
     and region, strongly opposes H.R. 1586, which would impose 
     draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that 
     would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of 
     American businesses, and deter economic growth.
       This legislation would change longstanding U.S. 
     international tax law, the impact of which has never been 
     given proper consideration in hearings or other bills. For 
     example, by denying the foreign tax credit in certain 
     scenarios involving covered asset acquisitions, this 
     legislation hampers acquisitions by American worldwide 
     companies, threatening their ability to create jobs while 
     simultaneously narrowing the tax base. Stripping away the 
     benefits of this provision would likely impede the 
     competitiveness of American worldwide companies in their bids 
     for foreign targets.
       Additionally, limiting the use of Sec. 956 for foreign tax 
     credit planning (i.e., the ``hopscotch'' rule) harms the 
     ability of companies

[[Page 15460]]

     to repatriate cash to the United States in a tax efficient 
     manner. Foreign business acquisitions generally result in a 
     series of intermediate foreign holding companies, which block 
     the repatriation of earnings for a variety of reasons such as 
     local statutory earnings deficits or other local restrictions 
     on actual dividends. American worldwide companies have had 
     the ability to overcome such obstacles through the use of 
     Sec. 956. This provision was particularly beneficial during 
     the recent economic downturn and ensuing credit crunch when 
     it was necessary for American worldwide companies to 
     repatriate significant funds in order to meet the financial 
     needs of their U.S. businesses. By limiting the use of 
     Sec. 956, this amendment would significantly reduce the 
     repatriation of foreign earnings, hurting economic growth and 
     job creation.
       The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 1586 because of the 
     significant changes it makes to U.S. international tax law, 
     which would hurt the competitiveness of American worldwide 
     companies, hinder their ability to create jobs, and harm the 
     U.S. economy. The Chamber may consider votes on, or in 
     relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted 
     scorecard.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                                 Promote America's


                                             Competitive Edge,

                                                   August 6, 2010.
       Dear Member of Congress: The PACE Coalition--a broad-based 
     organization dedicated to promoting and increasing the more 
     than 63 million American jobs that depend on the 
     international competitiveness of worldwide American 
     companies--opposes inclusion of the proposed international 
     tax increases in H.R. 1586, as amended by the Senate.
       The members of PACE, including the undersigned trade 
     associations, advocate that the United States should provide 
     a level playing field for taxation of international 
     operations of U.S. businesses. U.S. tax law already 
     disadvantages worldwide American companies and their 
     employees. U.S. companies face the second highest corporate 
     tax rate among developed countries and an international tax 
     system that impedes the ability of U.S. companies to expand 
     into new markets and reinvest foreign earnings at home. The 
     $9.6 billion in proposed international tax increases in this 
     bill would further disadvantage U.S. companies--harming their 
     competitiveness and reducing the earnings U.S. companies 
     bring back from their foreign operations, thereby reducing 
     reinvestment in U.S. plant and equipment, funding U.S. 
     research, and expanding U.S. payrolls.
       At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract 
     business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite 
     message, with the effect of discouraging business investment 
     and job creation in the United States.
       PACE urges policy makers to consider comprehensive tax 
     reform designed to increase the competitiveness of U.S. 
     companies both at home and abroad. Changes to our 
     international tax system that fail to consider the 
     competitive global marketplace will further disadvantage U.S. 
     workers. When worldwide American companies become less 
     competitive in their ability to serve foreign markets, demand 
     for U.S. produced goods and services will decline.
       PACE looks forward to working with Member of Congress to 
     modernize our international tax system to improve the 
     competitiveness of the U.S. economy and create jobs at home. 
     Because H.R. 1586 contains these detrimental international 
     tax increases, we respectfully request that you vote against 
     the bill.
           Sincerely,
     Business Roundtable,
     Information Technology Industry Council,
     National Association of Manufacturers,
     National Foreign Trade Council,
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to our 
distinguished Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for bringing 
this important legislation to the floor, working closely with the 
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee.
  This must be about the third time, Mr. Chairman, that we have brought 
this pay-for to the floor, the provision that repeals that provision of 
the law which rewards businesses for sending jobs overseas.
  This is not a new subject to the Congress. It is not a new subject to 
the floor, thanks to your leadership.
  Madam Speaker, today, we have an opportunity to create jobs. With the 
press of a button, each of us will play a role in creating over 300,000 
jobs, saving over 300,000 jobs across the country.
  Their jobs, these people are consumers. It's important to our economy 
that they are employed, but it goes well beyond that. It's about jobs 
for teachers. It's about the education of our children. It's about the 
innovation of our Nation. It's bigger than just a job. It's about the 
future.
  These are jobs of firefighters and police officers, about the safety 
of our neighborhoods and our communities where our children can thrive. 
It's about nurses and health care providers, to keep our country strong 
in terms of the health and well-being of the American people.
  It's about the stability of State budgets. Economists have told us 
that if this legislation were not passed and these jobs are not saved 
and the budgets of the States were not stabilized, we would go into 
another deep recession, like the one we inherited from the previous 
administration; and it would be a much longer path out of that 
recession.
  I thank the distinguished chairman for bringing us to the floor with 
this legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle for 
responding so quickly to the call to return to Washington to save and 
create jobs for the American people.
  The pay-for in this legislation, which repeals the opportunity for 
businesses to get a tax break for sending jobs overseas, is part of our 
make-it-in-America agenda. Make it in America means manufacture it in 
America. It also enables people to make it in America.
  This is about innovation, innovation that's created here with our 
creativity and the benefit of our education system and our 
entrepreneurial spirit and the rest; and then it says when we have the 
idea and we create the innovation that we create the jobs here to 
produce it, to manufacture it, and not to scale up overseas, invent 
here and create the jobs overseas. No, invent here, manufacture here, 
and market to the world.
  This is really important legislation also because of the way it is 
paid for. While I don't support all of the provisions, I am not happy 
about taking money from our energy sector or from food stamps, but I 
hope that we can, Mr. Chairman, make that up in another way.
  I am very pleased about the funds that are obtained by repealing the 
provision to send jobs offshore.
  This legislation is fiscally responsible and fully paid for. It 
invests in America's communities, again, by closing that tax loophole 
that allows corporations to ship jobs overseas. Have I said that enough 
times?
  Those who claim that the legislation will add to the deficit are 
simply wrong. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, this bill reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion.
  Madam Speaker, it's about time that we got this bill passed. We first 
passed it in the House last year, the end of last year. We passed it 
again, some features of it, in the spring. Finally, the Senate acted 
last week. Finally, they were able to get enough votes to pass it with 
a super majority in the Senate.
  The minute we anticipated that that would happen, the word went out 
and we called to the House to come back to Washington so that not 
another day would go by without our, again, pressing that button for 
over 300,000 jobs.
  My grandchildren, the ones who are in public school, went back to 
school yesterday. It's about time, again, that children in other parts 
of the country may be preparing to go back to school in another week or 
so or at the beginning of September, and they cannot afford to wait for 
us to put teachers back into the classroom.

                              {time}  1500

  That's why it was urgent that we act. Communities struggling to keep 
policemen on the beat and firefighters on the job that were on the 
brink of layoffs, this is good news for them. And tens of thousands of 
Americans will not be joining the ranks of the unemployed.
  So I thank the gentleman again for his leadership, for making this 
part of what we have been doing for a matter of months so that we were 
ready when,

[[Page 15461]]

finally, thank God, the Senate acted so that we can educate our 
children, innovate for our country, protect our neighborhoods and our 
homes, as well as keep the American people healthy, in a fiscally sound 
way. Again, we are doing so in a way that helps people make it in 
America.
  For that I am grateful to the chairman and to the distinguished 
Democratic Leader Mr. Hoyer, who coined the phrase, but for all of our 
Members who worked so hard to have America continue to be the shining 
star, the lead competitor, the innovator, number one.
  President Kennedy, when he launched the campaign to send a man to the 
Moon and back safely many, many decades ago, he said he would do so 
within 10 years, and he did. But when he did it, he said if we are to 
honor the vows of our Founders, we must be first, and therefore we 
intend to be first.
  This legislation is yet another piece of legislation that enables 
America to be first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us that 
privilege, and to Mr. Obey as well.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, this is a vitally important 
bill. In my state of Wisconsin alone, it will save the jobs of 2000-
3000 teachers. With the school year right around the corner, it is 
essential that we keep these teachers in our schools--where our 
children need them. This legislation will also ensure that some of the 
most vulnerable in our society continue to receive Medicaid while 
protecting states from drastic cuts to their budgets. Without this 
Medicaid assistance, states would be forced to lay off more workers, 
cut more services, and raise taxes more than they would otherwise to 
balance their budgets.
  However, I am outraged by a reduction in Supplementary Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits that is used to pay for this 
measure. Those who receive the meager SNAP benefits are the most poor 
and the most vulnerable in our society. Currently, 6 million Americans 
receiving SNAP report that they have no other source of income. In my 
district, about 20 percent of all people and 38 percent of children are 
SNAP beneficiaries.
  Before this bill was considered, I offered an amendment to the Rules 
Committee that would have ameliorated the SNAP cut. My amendment would 
have rescinded $2.972 billion in unspent Race to the Top funds in order 
to provide an additional year of more adequate SNAP benefits. Race to 
the Top funds benefit only a few chosen students and schools while on 
the other hand saving teacher positions benefits the masses of children 
who would face larger class sizes and cuts to vital programs such as 
libraries, computers, and gym classes. This is just one example of a 
more appropriate offset than cutting SNAP.
  While I support the bill on the floor today, I abhor this cut and 
will work to restore it.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the 
House was called back into session to take up and pass this critical 
jobs measure today. This bill will bolster working-class Americans, 
ensure that our teachers are protected from layoffs and reduce the 
deficit.
  However, I am very concerned that the Senate chose to take $1.5 
billion out of the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Fund to help pay for 
this legislation.
  Congress already tapped this program once when it took $2 billion out 
of this program to extend the very successful ``Cash for Clunkers'' 
program that did so much to jump-start auto sales last year. While the 
House voted last December to restore that funding, the Senate failed to 
act. Now, with this bill, Congress will be taking another huge bite out 
of the program. That's $3.5 billion cut out of a $6 billion program.
  Through discussions with the Department of Energy, I understand that 
this fund will still have enough money to finance renewable energy 
projects through the first quarter of next year. But the funds that we 
are borrowing today must be replenished before then.
  The $1.5 billion in loan guarantee funds would pull an additional $15 
billion of private investment off the sideline and put it into the 
economy at a time when we need that investment the most. It would 
continue to build on the 190,000 new jobs that this program and others 
from the Recovery Act have created in the clean energy sector.
  American consumers currently send half a billion dollars a day 
overseas to pay for foreign oil--money that goes to the Middle East, 
OPEC and countries that wish us harm. Instead, we should invest that 
money here at home, putting people to work building electric vehicles, 
wind turbines, solar panels and smart grid technology.
  Make no mistake, we are in a global race with China for clean energy 
manufacturing jobs and technology. The country that leads the world in 
developing clean energy will lead the world in creating jobs.
  China just threw down the gauntlet with a $738 billion investment in 
renewable energy over the next ten years. We must respond to that 
challenge rather cutting our own investment.
  This bill is worthy of our support and I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``Aye'' on the underlying bill. But let's make sure we work to 
replenish the renewable energy loan guarantee fund so that our young 
industry has a shot at winning the clean energy race with China.
  Vote ``aye.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act and urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this much needed legislation.
  The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act will provide 
necessary, temporary relief for the States at a time when officials 
must make tough budget decisions. Governors across the country face 
declining revenues at the same time the economic downturn has left more 
of their citizens looking for help. My colleagues across the aisle will 
use their best political spin to characterize this legislation as 
fiscally unsound. They have stated that this is just another bailout 
for special interest groups. My friends, this couldn't be further from 
the truth. I don't know when our school children became a special 
interest group. The reality is many Republicans would rather avoid 
making tough decisions, cross their fingers and hope just saying ``no'' 
helps their election prospects in November.
  I am proud that my colleagues and I prefer to provide real leadership 
and make the tough, necessary choices to put this country back on a 
sound fiscal track and address the pressing needs of our people. So, 
while my Republican colleagues spin, let me state the facts. This bill 
will:
  Help to save or create 319,000 jobs, of which 161,000 are teacher 
jobs and 158,000 are for police officers and firefighters as a result 
of the Medicaid fund increase;
  Provide an estimated $600 million to my home state of Michigan, 
saving the jobs of 4,700 teachers in Michigan, and 242 teachers in the 
15th District;
  Provide $16 billion for State Medicaid programs. This means an 
estimated $380 million in additional Medicaid funding to Michigan to 
avert drastic cuts in their Medicaid program; and
  Further protect jobs here at home, by closing tax loopholes that 
encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas.
  The bill before us is fiscally sound; it is totally paid for and 
decreases the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years. These facts cannot 
be disputed.
  The threat of teacher and public service layoffs, and medical benefit 
cuts are not partisan issues. Our dire economic situation facing the 
States and our people affect both Democrats and Republicans alike.
  Again Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, including my Republican 
colleagues--many of whom have decided to gamble with the lives of our 
children and paychecks of public servants by playing politics with this 
bill--to support this common sense legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed over the 
past year, as our country has faced some of the greatest economic 
difficulties imaginable, is that there have been very few easy or 
inconsequential votes taken on this floor. Our nation's problems are 
vast and deep and they have tested this Congress, as we have again and 
again been forced to rise and meet unforeseen challenges while, at the 
same time, working to restore the promise inherent in the American 
dream to our fellow countrymen and women.
  Today is no different. The bill we bring to the floor today is a 
necessary measure. The fiscal fate of our states and over 300,000 jobs 
weigh in the balance. If we do not act, many of our nation's children 
will be left without teachers when they return to school in a few 
weeks. Worse, inaction could exacerbate an already unfolding crisis in 
our state and local governments, where budget shortfalls have cost 
100,000 public servants their jobs in the past three months.
  So, we must act. It is unfortunate that in doing so, we must also cut 
$11 billion in benefits from the food stamp program to offset the cost 
of this necessary state aid. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow.
  In real terms, this means that monthly benefits for a family of three 
will drop by $47 dollars in April 2014. Now, $47 dollars may not seem 
like a lot of money to many in this

[[Page 15462]]

chamber, but during this recession this additional funding has served 
as a lifeline for many of those who have been hit the hardest by this 
recession. Our food stamp program is already chronically underfunded. 
At current levels, these benefits are often insufficient to allow a 
family to purchase enough food to last an entire month.
  Madam Speaker, this is why many of our fellow citizens are frustrated 
with Washington. It is why they think we are out of touch. We offer aid 
with one hand and take from the neediest with the other. It makes no 
sense whatsoever. As my friend, the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, noted the other day: those who need help the most had 
finally caught a break, only to now have it taken away.
  That said, I want to reiterate that this bill, taken as a whole, is a 
good bill and I will support it. This is the burden of governing; we 
have a duty to make tough decisions and live with them. While I 
disagree with the decision to phase out these important benefits in 
2014 and pledge to work to ensure that they are reinstated, I respect 
the work my colleagues on this side of the aisle have put into crafting 
this necessary jobs package. It is certainly much more admirable and 
serious than what the other side offers: a resolution calling for 
Congress to shut down and take a paid two-month vacation.
  I may not agree with the choices some of my Democratic colleagues 
make, but never for a moment do I doubt their commitment to facing down 
and solving the challenges facing the American people. This debate, 
frankly, illustrates the choice offered to our fellow citizens this 
fall: serious, difficult, deliberation and governance or silly and 
trivial gimmicks aimed at scoring political points. The American, 
people will have to decide.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary, job-saving bill.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.
  Madam Speaker, weeks before students go back to school in Illinois, 
20,000 teachers are on the front line of huge layoffs due to deep state 
budget cuts.
  For several months, I joined Chairman Miller and Chairman Obey in 
leading the call to pass emergency education funding to protect quality 
public schools. And with great pride, I will vote for the Education 
Jobs Fund before the House today that will keep 350 teachers in my 
district in the classroom and off the unemployment line.
  Madam Speaker, in keeping with our promise to restore fiscal 
responsibility abandoned by Republicans, the bill is fully paid for 
primarily by closing tax loopholes for corporations who ship jobs 
overseas and reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade.
  Madam Speaker, teachers out of work threaten our recovery, so I ask 
all of my colleagues to support passage of the Education Jobs Fund.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. It is essential 
that we get this legislation to the President's desk as soon as 
possible.
  In the wake of the Great Recession, state budgets across the country, 
faced with historic funding gaps, simply do not have the funds 
available to respond to the increased demands placed on Medicaid and 
school budgets. Unless we provide help by passing this bill, they will 
need to take resources away from other essential services, laying off 
firefighters and police officers.
  H.R. 1586 extends Medicaid assistance for an additional 6 months, and 
provides Illinois with $545 million, to ensure that women and children, 
seniors, and people with disabilities do not lose access to their 
health care. There has been a bi-partisan call for this funding--
sixteen Republican governors have publically expressed their dire need 
for this money. For the past several month I have heard from 
physicians, nurses, hospitals, patients, small clinics, all asking that 
Congress act to extend Medicaid support. Today their call has been 
heard.
  Local school districts, teachers, and parents have also been in touch 
regarding the need for financial support during these tough economic 
times. H.R. 1586 provides $10 billion in educator support that will 
save 5,700 teacher, school counselor, and school support service jobs 
in my state alone. Because of this legislation, teachers will not be 
greeted with class sizes of 50 students, or worse, a pink slip, on 
their first day of school. It will help ensure that our children can 
continue get the education they need to be productive members of their 
community and be able to compete in the 21st century global economy.
  This bill will save and create an estimated 319,000 jobs. That 
includes teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses--all critical 
employees who get a paycheck from the state. It will also save private 
jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every 100 
layoffs in the public sector, the private sector sheds 30 jobs. This 
bill is not a handout provided during tough times--this is smart policy 
that will stem job loss and get us out of the Great Recession sooner.
  Although this legislation is critically needed, I am greatly 
disappointed that the Senate included as a ``pay-for'' a provision 
reducing ARRA-enacted increases in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program benefits, or food stamps, beginning in 2014. SNAP provides 
vital, short-term support to individuals during their greatest time of 
need, ensuring that there is food on the table for themselves and their 
children. While we need to pass this bill today, I am committed to 
working with my colleagues to find the funding to restore SNAP funding 
before 2014.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. I support 
this legislation because it will save and create 319,000 American 
jobs--many of them in the education and health sectors.
  In less than a month, millions of American students will return to 
school eager to begin a new year of academic and personal growth. 
However, the quality of the schools they return to is a matter to be 
determined. Throughout the country, thousands of teachers have lost, or 
risk losing, their jobs. This is something our children and our 
educators can ill afford. As we work to regain economic ground, this 
legislation provides a total of $10 billion in funding for education 
jobs to sustain thousands of schools educating millions of children. 
Moreover, this includes $830.2 billion dollars for primary and 
secondary schools in the state of Texas.
  I am pleased that this legislation includes a provision that requires 
Governor Perry to certify that these emergency appropriations for 
public education will be used solely to add new funds for public 
education and not misused for other purposes. We all recall what 
happened last year when Governor Perry misused the Economic Recovery 
Act State Stabilization funds. In that instance, Governor Perry used 
$3.2 billion in similar aid last year as a substitute for, not an 
addition to, state aid to school districts. That was outrageous. It 
ignored the intent of our legislation, and it denied our children the 
education that they deserved.
  I want to stress that the provision will not create a compliance 
burden on the state of Texas. Rather, it says only that the state 
cannot take the federal aid and then use it as an excuse to make 
disproportionate cuts in state education aid to school districts, 
relative to other parts of the state budget that might also have to 
take a hit in the next budget cycle. This required assurance is no more 
onerous than assurances Governor Perry has given previously to receive 
billions of dollars in other federal funds. Texas cannot afford to be 
left out again, and I join my colleague Lloyd Doggett and groups of 
teachers, principals and administrators from across the state of Texas 
who strongly support this provision.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud you for reconvening this week to pass this 
crucial legislation. We have a bold vision for creating and sustaining 
an education system that prepares our children to excel. As President 
Obama said yesterday in Texas, ``education is the economic issue of our 
time.'' I could not agree more. Today we have the opportunity to pass 
legislation that will impact education jobs today and our children's 
job prospects tomorrow. With schools forced to make difficult personnel 
decisions before the start of the school year, this legislation is the 
necessary action at the necessary time. According to updated estimates 
from the Department of Education, the $10 billion education funding 
will save 161,000 teacher jobs.
  In addition to education jobs funding, this legislation will also 
save and create jobs in the health sector. According to an analysis by 
the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, the Medicaid 
funds will save and create 158,000 jobs, including preventing the 
layoff of police officers and firefighters. More than half these jobs 
will be in the private sector, including workers who contract for or 
supply services to state and local governments.
  Under the Recovery Act, enacted in February 2009, the federal 
Medicaid matching rate was increased by 6.2 percentage points for all 
states and by additional percentage points for states with high 
unemployment. These temporary provisions were enacted in response to 
the state fiscal crisis--with the increased Medicaid caseloads and 
decreasing state revenues resulting from the deep recession. However, 
these provisions are scheduled to expire

[[Page 15463]]

on December 31, 2010 with dire consequences for our economy.
  As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found: ``if Congress 
does not extend the enhanced Medicaid matching funds in last year's 
Recovery Act, most states will cut public services or raise taxes . . . 
without more federal aid, state budget-closing actions could cost the 
national economy 900,000 public- and private-sector jobs.''
  Due to the deep and enduring recession, states have lost tax revenue 
for the last two years and revenues are projected to remain at 
severely-reduced levels throughout fiscal year 2011. As a result, 
states have been forced to scale back spending and implement large 
service cuts to balance their budgets. While fiscal austerity is 
important, budget cuts impact more than a bottom line--the local health 
and emergency personnel need their jobs to make ends meet for 
themselves and their families. By extending the Medicare matching 
funds, we will help state and local governments save money and allow 
them to stay afloat while the economy improves. At least 34 states will 
cut jobs and services if this assistance is not enacted. This 
legislation will have a direct impact on Texas by providing an 
estimated $858,000,000 for Medicaid fiscal relief which will, in turn, 
save and create thousands of jobs.
  Madam Speaker, I thank you again for calling us back to session to 
save America's jobs.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of the Motion to Concur to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, 
which provides emergency education and Medicaid funding for the States. 
This $10 billion in education funding will save thousands of teacher 
jobs across this country. In my congressional district in Dallas, 
nearly 700 teacher jobs will be preserved with these emergency dollars.
  In particular, I'd like to thank House and Senate Leadership for 
including within this bill Texas specific language that would prevent 
the State of Texas from misusing federally directed dollars for 
educational purposes. When Texas was awarded $3.25 billion for the 
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, this money never made it to the local 
education agencies. Instead, it was placed in a rainy day fund by the 
Texas Governor. This was not the intent of these funds, and it has 
forced Congress to prevent this situation from happening again.
  Provisions inserted into this bill would prevent Texas from placing 
these emergency dollars meant for teachers into any other fund. It 
would tie funding to Title I schools, so that this money goes to our 
neediest schools. It would also prevent the State of Texas from making 
a severe and disproportionate cut to state education funding next year. 
We did this, so that the Texas Governor could not say to Dallas 
schools, since you received $39 million extra from the federal 
government last year, we're going to cut your funding by the same 
amount for 2011. If the State of Texas cannot abide by this and rejects 
the funding, then the Department of Education will provide the money 
directly to the local education agencies. No matter what this money 
will go to our schools and students.
  The State of Texas has shown it cannot act in good faith when it 
relates to federal funding for our schools. These dollars are 
imperative and will save 14,500 teacher jobs across Texas.
  I do have some concerns regarding this legislation and offsets that 
are made to fund this bill. In particular, I disagree with a funding 
cut to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. At a time when 
we have record enrollment in the SNAP program, a decrease in funding to 
this program is very disconcerting. We must not target the poorest 
among us in providing emergency funds for others in need. Despite my 
concerns I recognize the importance of this funding and support the 
passage of this legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Education Jobs 
and Medicaid Assistance Act. This bill will supply much needed fiscal 
relief to Rhode Island, providing $33 million in education funding to 
prevent hundreds of teacher layoffs, as well as $70 million in Federal 
Medicaid funding that will help the state close a significant budgetary 
gap.
  While Congress has taken unprecedented actions over the past two 
years to avert a full economic depression and put our country back on 
the path of positive economic growth, the recovery has been slow and 
painful. This is particularly true in Rhode Island, which has the 
fourth highest unemployment rate in the country at 12 percent. Rhode 
Islanders are still struggling to find jobs; and we are finally 
beginning to see glimmers of hope in a still fragile economy. We simply 
cannot afford to lay off more dedicated workers, create longer 
unemployment lines and slash social services at a time when people need 
them the most.
  This legislation includes $10 billion in emergency support to school 
districts and ensures that states use these funds for the preservation 
of jobs serving elementary and secondary education. It is anticipated 
that the $33 million in funding to Rhode Island will save 500 education 
jobs. Investing in our children's education not only has long-term 
benefits to our economy, but it also delivers on our nation's promise 
to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed.
  Also included in this measure is $16.1 billion in health assistance 
to states, $70 million of which will be allocated to Rhode Island. This 
funding will prove vital to reducing the state's budgetary shortfalls, 
and will help keep many workers on the job, including our police 
officers and firefighters. It is expected that more than half these 
jobs nationally will occur in the private sector, including workers who 
contract with, or supply services to, state and local governments.
  Finally, this bill is completely paid for, with no increase to the 
federal deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill 
reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years by closing 
international tax loopholes and cutting back on other federal programs. 
However, I am disappointed that one of the programs slated for cuts is 
the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, particularly given the 
increased need for food assistance as our families continue to recover 
from the economic downturn.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and protect the jobs of our 
teachers, first responders and other employees, in both the public and 
private sector.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, the Senate proposes rescissions totaling 
nearly $2.2 billion to Department of Defense programs in their 
amendment to the 2010 Supplemental Appropriation. These rescissions 
will not harm DoD programs and will not affect the conduct of 
continuing operations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
  The Senate bill proposes rescissions in three categories.
  First, in section 303, the Senate amendment proposes $1.6 billion in 
rescissions based on the Department of Defense accounting reports. 
These rescissions are a reflection of balances that would likely expire 
at the end of this fiscal year, or be reprogrammed for other efforts.
  Second, in section 304, the Senate amendment proposes $382.5 million. 
Of this amount, $260.5 million is from funding appropriated in the 
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act for facilities sustainment, 
restoration and modernization. This funding is available for rescission 
based on contract savings. This section also rescinds $122 million of 
funding from Marine Corps procurement because the Marine Corps has not 
been able to spend this money.
  Third, in section 305, the Senate amendment proposes $203 million. Of 
this amount, $116 million is derived from an Army procurement program, 
the Non Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS), which the Department of 
Defense terminated earlier this year. This section also includes $87 
million of funding from Other Procurement, Army due to slower than 
planned spending rates in Army truck and communications programs.
  The Senate amendment would not affect contingency operations in 
Afghanistan or Iraq. Those funds are provided separately to the 
Department of Defense, and are given special designation. None of the 
funds proposed for rescission are those designated for Overseas 
Contingency Operations.
  The DoD budget is sufficient to shoulder part of the burden to 
provide financial relief recommended in this bill. I urge your support 
for this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity 
to vote on this important bill that will provide critical aid to states 
and local governments. The House of Representatives twice has passed 
bills to provide federal assistance for education and health. I am 
pleased that we finally are able to deliver this desperately needed 
federal support to our constituents.
  I support this legislation because it will provide essential 
assistance to Chicago, Illinois, and the nation. The Illinois 
Association of School Administrators estimates that Illinois will lose 
more than 20,000 education-related jobs for the upcoming school year. 
The State of Illinois anticipates receiving approximately $415 million 
to keep 5,700 teachers in the classroom. My congressional district is 
expected to receive approximately $36 million to keep 508 educators 
teaching my young constituents. This $415 million will provide a 
lifeline to local school districts with straining budgets to preserve 
some of these jobs, improving children's learning and the economic 
well-being of my state and the nation.
  In addition to this vital education funding, this bill will provide 
$550 million to help cover 300,000 Illinoisans on Medicaid--preserving

[[Page 15464]]

services, allowing timely payments to providers, and creating thousands 
of jobs. These are not theoretical numbers; to people in Chicago and 
Illinois, they are very real people who benefit. The beneficiaries are 
mothers, fathers, young adults, senior citizens, and children in 
Illinois. The beneficiaries are the teachers, firefighters, and police 
officers who will continue to work as educators and protectors of our 
communities. The beneficiaries are small businesses in the private 
sector who contract with state and local governments to provide health-
related work.
  Given the desperate need for this funding in my district and state, I 
cast my vote in support for this federal aid to preserve education jobs 
and health services for low-income persons. This said, I wish to voice 
my disappointment that one of the offsets for this bill sent to us by 
the Senate is a reduction in funding for poor families in need of 
federal aid to purchase food. Children and families who receive food 
assistance are some of our most vulnerable citizens. In 2009, 1.46 
million Illinoisans in 677,000 households received food stamps with an 
average per month of about $136 for a total benefit value issued of 
$2.3 billion. There are many poor families in Chicago and Illinois who 
need the full amount of the food benefits. Even if the impact is a few 
years away, I am disappointed that my vote to provide almost $1 billion 
of federal assistance to my state occurs by reducing future benefits to 
the poor. I vow to work actively with my colleagues to replace this 
funding so that no reduction in food assistance comes to fruition.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, due to a previously scheduled 
commitment, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, on August 10, 
2010, to cast my vote in opposition to rollcall No. 518, the 
``Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act,'' incorporated as a 
Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586.
  This bill is nothing more than another state bailout that prevents 
states from making responsible budgetary decisions while increasing 
federal deficit spending. It provides $26.1 billion in temporary state 
education and Medicaid assistance paid for through a combination of 
permanent federal tax increases, spending rescissions from the Stimulus 
Act, and questionable accounting methods from the Food Stamp Program.
  As a condition of receiving the federal education funds, states are 
forbidden from reducing educational expenditures below 2009 levels and 
must use the funds to pay for teacher salaries. This assistance is 
similar to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund created in the first 
stimulus that has already distributed $53 billion to states' education 
budgets and, in many cases, was used for teacher salary raises--not to 
meet funding gaps. Providing more federal funding to states' education 
budgets will further delay the states from making sensible reforms to 
ease their budgetary pressures. Similarly, this bill will extend the 
federal Medicaid matching rate--also created in the stimulus--until 
June 2011, creating more state dependency on the federal government.
  The American people are witnessing the results of this 
administration's extraordinary deficit spending, and it is not yielding 
the promised low unemployment and increased job growth. With the 
national unemployment rate still at 9.5 percent and existing historic 
deficits, it is time for the federal government to rein in its spending 
and allow the states to take responsibility for their own budgets.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives is 
voting on a jobs bill that will keep Americans working. This is a jobs 
bill that will keep 161,000 teachers in the classroom rather than in 
the unemployment line. This is a bill that prevents thousands of first-
responders who are protecting our communities today from losing their 
jobs tomorrow. Passing this jobs bill is not a luxury or an act of 
political patronage as some Republicans claim. This bill is about 
saving and creating jobs while keeping communities in Minnesota and 
across the country safe, strong, and sustainable as this economy 
recovers.
  The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is to be commended for 
calling the House back into session during this August recess. The 
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act (H.R. 1586) needs to be 
passed and signed into law as soon as possible. Jobs are at stake. 
Families are at stake. The education of millions of students is at 
stake. Speaker Pelosi recognizes the crisis that state and local 
governments are facing, and she is committed, along with many of us, to 
making sure teachers stay in the classroom and states receive essential 
Medicaid assistance, FMAP, as soon as possible.
  With states facing a $140 billion fiscal year 2011 cumulative budget 
gap, there is a critical need for Washington to provide state fiscal 
relief that can sustain the economic recovery. The state fiscal crisis 
is tearing an already fragile safety net, hurting communities, and 
inflicting hardships on our most vulnerable citizens. Dozens of states, 
including Minnesota, have been hit hard by a loss of tax revenue as a 
result of workers losing their jobs and unemployment remaining high. 
State and local governments have been forced to cut 100,000 jobs in the 
last 3 months alone as they struggle to balance budgets. We know that 
police officers, first responders, teachers, and other vital government 
workers who keep our communities safe, strong, and sustainable are 
getting laid off when our families need them on the job.
  The $26.1 billion in federal support for teachers and Medicaid 
provided in this bill is completely paid for by closing foreign tax 
loopholes exploited by corporations, rescinding funds from outdated 
programs, and cutting funding for other programs. This bill is not 
deficit neutral; it actually reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over 
10 years.
  While paying for a bill that is projected to save or create nearly 
320,000 jobs is not easy, I cannot hide my disappointment that nearly 
$12 billion in offsets were achieved by reducing benefits to food stamp 
recipients starting in 2014. I hope the reductions in benefits, which 
are provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are 
restored and hungry families are not forced to bear the burden of 
providing fiscal relief to state governments.
  As our economy slowly recovers it remains in a fragile state. 
Congress has an obligation to act to preserve jobs, sustain the 
economic recovery, and overcome the perpetual political game playing of 
a minority party that is willing to put 161,000 teachers in the 
unemployment line rather than keep them in the classroom. In Minnesota, 
this bill will provide $167 million to prevent 2,800 teachers from 
being laid off. It will save the State of Minnesota $346 million under 
a 6-month extension of the FMAP provision in the Recovery Act, 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Minnesota's 
Fourth Congressional District, which I represent, nearly $30 million in 
funding will keep 411 public school teachers in the classroom to the 
benefit of our children and our community.
  It would be my hope that this bill will pass the House with 
bipartisan support. There is support from Democratic and Republican 
governors. Some 42 governors, including 16 Republicans, wrote to 
Congress seeking the Medicaid assistance provided in this bill. Their 
letter said the most efficient way to help states avoid further layoffs 
and service cuts that could otherwise slow the recovery is to provide a 
two-quarter extension of Medicaid aid.
  Unfortunately in Congress my Republican colleagues are more concerned 
about November's election and playing politics than keeping teachers in 
the classroom. The $10 billion provided to keep 161,000 teachers 
working for our children should be a litmus test for voters. This is a 
vote for jobs and for our children's future. This is a vote that will 
expose Republicans as either defenders of jobs or as nothing more than 
a party that cuts taxes for the rich, protects Wall Street executives, 
and is willing to throw 161,000 public school teachers out on the 
street while our children suffer.
  I am proud to vote for this bill. I am proud to support the men and 
women who have chosen a career of service as educators in public 
schools. The benefits of this bill will be felt in every state and 
every public school in the country and I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for H.R. 1586.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the bill before us makes critical 
investments in education which are fully paid for by closing tax 
loopholes that reward corporations who ship jobs overseas and by 
finding savings in other programs.
  Just this week, the New Jersey School Boards Association released a 
survey that found that 80 percent of school districts expect to have 
larger class sizes and fewer teachers when school starts this fall.
  Our children do not get a second chance to succeed in school, and our 
future economic growth depends on a well educated and innovative 
workforce. We cannot afford to shortchange our children or risk laying 
off our teachers.
  The current economic downturn has hit the tax base hard, schools have 
suffered and many are being forced to cut services. Previously, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made several sound investments 
in public education to keep teachers in the classroom and help school 
districts avoid painful cuts.
  Most, if not all, of this emergency funding has been spent. Further, 
at this most critical time, Governor Christie made the wrong call in 
cutting state aid to our local schools. Already he has cut $1.2 billion 
from education programs statewide.

[[Page 15465]]

  The $10 billion included for the Education Jobs Fund will help keep 
teachers in the classroom and make sure that class sizes do not balloon 
next fall. This funding will help keep 161,000 teachers in the 
classroom and at work, 3,900 in New Jersey and 160 in Central New 
Jersey.
  I am deeply concerned that Governor Christie is considering not 
applying for the funds our state is slated to receive. If he fails to 
do so, the legislation allows the U.S. Secretary of Education to make 
awards to other entities in New Jersey so our students do not suffer.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act--and the thousands of 
teachers, nurses, firefighters and police whose jobs it will preserve. 
Whether you look at this legislation from an economic recovery 
perspective, or a public safety perspective, or an educational 
opportunity perspective, it's simply the right thing to do.
  The $16.1 billion in temporary Medicaid assistance to our states 
through June 30, 2011, will protect Medicaid participants and prevent 
the massive layoffs of first responders and other key personnel that 
would otherwise occur. And the bill's $10 billion education jobs fund 
will save at least 161,000 teachers' jobs--including an estimated 2,500 
positions in my home state of Maryland--so that our children can 
continue to get the high quality education they deserve.
  Madam Speaker, like many Americans, I was disappointed to hear the 
distinguished Minority Leader Mr. Boehner refer to our teachers, 
nurses, firefighters and police as ``special interests.'' They are not. 
They are public servants whose efforts we're going to need to educate 
our children and keep our communities safe. But as disappointing as 
that comment was, it tells you a lot about the differences between the 
two parties as we head into a very important election season.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, the cost of keeping our teachers in the 
classroom instead of the unemployment line is fully paid for by closing 
tax loopholes that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas. 
Most taxpayers would understandably be outraged if they were told that 
in addition to paying their own taxes, they should also be required to 
pay taxes U.S. multinationals owe to foreign countries for income those 
companies earn offshore. But through a process called ``credit 
splitting,'' that's precisely what happens: U.S. multinationals are 
able to use foreign tax credits to reduce their U.S. tax liability, but 
in many cases never pay U.S. tax on the offshore income that generated 
those credits in the first place. As a result, U.S. taxpayers are 
effectively subsidizing the companies' foreign tax liability. Adding 
insult to injury, since this kind of burden-shifting isn't available 
for income earned inside the United States, our current rules actually 
encourage U.S. multinationals to invest their marginal dollar overseas.
  We can and must do better. Vote ``yes'' for jobs at home and ``no'' 
to shipping jobs overseas.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this critical 
assistance for our teachers and relief for our state budgets.
  Passage of this bill will provide over $1 billion in desperately 
needed Medicaid funding for California in order to protect essential 
health care services for our most vulnerable.
  Without this crucial assistance, California's Medicaid program, Medi-
Cal, would have to eliminate programs, reduce reimbursements and 
otherwise inhibit access to health care services at a time when more 
families than ever are relying on this safety-net program.
  In addition, the emergency funding for education will bring $19.1 
million dollars to my district just in time to begin the 2010-2011 
school year.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the preservation of 268 education 
jobs in my district alone was worth flying back to Washington to take 
this important vote.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and 
hope to see it signed by the President as quickly as possible.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Education 
Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. This bill provides much-needed 
assistance to our community, by funding jobs in our schools and helping 
states maintain health coverage for low-income families.
  Students are returning to school this fall, and states and localities 
are facing budget crunches that could lead to layoffs of teachers and 
first responders. These budget shortfalls also jeopardize health 
coverage for the millions of American families that depend on Medicaid.
  The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act extends a program in 
the Recovery Act that support local school districts to prevent teacher 
layoffs. This bill provides $10 billion in funding that will create or 
save over 160,000 teachers nationwide, including 16,500 in California.
  The legislation also extends a Recovery Act program that will provide 
$16.1 billion for states' Medicaid programs. Medicaid provides health 
care to low-income Americans, including children and pregnant women. In 
California, 7.5 million people depend on Medi-Cal, the state Medicaid 
program. If we don't provide this funding to states, many will be 
forced to balance their budgets by dropping people off their Medicaid 
rolls, cutting benefits, or weakening the program by reducing payments 
to doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
  The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act will create and save 
over 150,000 jobs--including first responders, nurses, and private 
sector jobs--because it provides an influx of funds that enables states 
to balance their budgets.
  This legislation does not add to the deficit. It is paid for by 
reducing government spending and closing tax loopholes for companies 
that ship American jobs overseas. With today's vote, this bill will go 
to the President's desk for his quick signature. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting yes.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us 
today, which takes direct action to secure an ample education workforce 
that continues to prepare our children for the future. Teachers are the 
core of our educational system, and we must do all we can to ensure 
that their jobs do not fall victim to our economy, budget cuts or state 
partisan politics.
  As Dean of the Texas Democratic delegation, I would like to thank the 
Speaker of the House, Committee Chairmen and their staffs for their 
support and willingness to work with the Texas delegation to ensure 
that Texas teachers and students directly benefit from this bill.
  Included in the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act is 
explicit language requiring the State of Texas, specifically Governor 
Perry, certify that our emergency federal appropriations for public 
education will be used solely to add new funds for public education and 
not diverted for other purposes as was done last year with the Economic 
Recovery Act State Stabilization monies. We want to ensure that any new 
emergency funds Congress provides for education goes to enhancing our 
Texas schools and not the states' rainy day fund.
  These funds will be directly distributed to local schools as long as 
the Governor certifies that (1) federal funds will not be used merely 
to replace state education support, and (2) education funding will not 
be cut proportionally more than any other item in the budgets of 
upcoming years. This prevents any further shell games with federal 
education dollars at the expense of local schools districts, who 
desperately need these dollars.
  This approach has been endorsed by Texas statewide education 
organizations representing teachers, principals, school boards, school 
administrators, and nearly 40 superintendents, including those 
representing Brownsville ISD, Corpus Christi ISD, Gregory-Portland ISD, 
Kingsville ISD, Port Aransas ISD, and Robstown ISD.
  To further address the claims from my friends across the aisle that 
this language is unconstitutional, the bill does not mandate any state 
or Governor to make a binding contract, but simply a good faith 
assurance that state education dollars will remain a priority in the 
coming years.
  My Texas Democratic delegation colleagues and I have been fighting 
for this language to be included in the bill to ensure local school 
districts in Texas have the support they need. This is a good and long 
awaited bill that will save over 700 jobs in my district.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  The Education Jobs and Medicaid Act would relieve strained state 
budgets, save jobs, protect public health and safety and ensure our 
nation's youth receive the educations they deserve.
  This critical legislation is fully paid for and would help states and 
local communities in two ways:
  First, the bill would provide states with funds to preserve the jobs 
of teachers, keeping educators in the classroom.
  Second, it would extend a temporary increase in the federal Medicaid 
matching rate, providing desperately needed assistance to already cash 
strapped states.
  These problems are known all too well in California and in my home 
town of Sacramento where we have been grappling with teacher and police 
layoffs to balance the budget.
  My district's unemployment rate is 12.6 percent and the cutting of 
any jobs for those who

[[Page 15466]]

teach and protect our children will continue to have a devastating 
impact on our future.
  And if we cannot deliver money to FMAP the state will be forced to 
cut Medi-CAL and other programs, endangering the health of families and 
jobs in the health care sector.
  These cuts would not only put the safety and well-being of our 
constituents at risk, but would also result in additional job losses, 
which we clearly cannot afford.
  H.R. 1586 would make certain that my constituents and all Americans 
get the care and services they need.
  The American people are feeling the effects of state budget 
constraints every day and they should not be forced to wait any longer 
for relief.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in 
support of the 13,500 teachers in California who will get to keep their 
jobs this fall as result of the education funding we provide today.
  I rise in support of the over $1.8 billion that will come back to 
California to help pay for Medicaid assistance for low income people.
  Without this crucial funding California would be forced into even 
more painful budget cuts that would have cascaded down to our local 
cities and counties--forcing layoffs for police, fire, EMT's and other 
critical personnel.
  While I support this aid to the states to keep people at work--I am 
disappointed that the other body would choose to pay for this 
assistance on the backs of poor people who receive food stamps.
  We spend trillions in support of two wars--funneling hundreds of 
billions of dollars into a black hole over at the Pentagon--yet we 
can't find another way to fund a good education for our kids or help 
States provide healthcare to the poor?
  Have we lost our moral compass?
  The Congress continues to throw away our children's inheritance in 
Afghanistan to pursue the longest war in American history, yet finds it 
okay to cut food stamps.
  That doesn't make any sense! We should not have to choose between 
forcing people to go hungry and our children's education.
  Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill because the States are 
desperate for this money--but the other body should have done better.
  In addition to these funds we should have been approving money to pay 
our debt to Black farmers and the Native American community, to fund 
youth employment programs, and to extend the TANF emergency contingency 
fund.
  As Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I can say with certainty 
that we will not relent and will fight to get these priorities done. We 
should not have to choose between forcing people to go hungry and our 
children's education.

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 6, 2010]

                 Congress's Serial Hits on Food Stamps

       With some shabby sleight of hand, Congress has begun 
     tapping into the food stamp program for the hungriest 
     Americans to help pay for lawmakers' higher election-year 
     priorities. The Senate approved two important measures this 
     week--the $26 billion state-aid bill and the $4.5 billion 
     school nutrition program--in part by shaving food stamp funds 
     as a target of least resistance.
       There is no denying that both of the programs are badly 
     needed. The state aid package, regrettably compromised as it 
     was, helps protect jobs for teachers and other workers facing 
     layoffs. The school nutrition program provides the first 
     improvements in a generation, including an increase in meal 
     reimbursements and the power to set federal nutrition 
     standards for schools.
       But treating food stamps as the fungible means to worthy 
     ends is a cowardly blight on Congress. After the Bush years 
     of guilt-free tax cutting and deficit budgeting, lawmakers 
     are self-righteously embracing pay-as-you-go legislation lest 
     they be demagogued at the ballot box. So they resort to 
     fiscal triage.
       Originally, school nutrition was slated to be paid for by 
     cuts in a farm conservation program. But Republicans rated 
     this a high priority for the livestock industry. A deal was 
     struck with Democrats to cut back on the scheduled boost in 
     future food stamp benefits that was part of last year's 
     economic stimulus. Food stamps took a second hit as lawmakers 
     turned to it like an all-purpose A.T.M. to help cover the 
     cost of state aid.
       Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat of Arkansas who fought 
     hard to get the school nutrition improvements, told 
     Politico.com that the food stamp increase was doomed in any 
     case: ``You saw the teachers grab for it.'' Her comfort was 
     those dollars would feed children. But this is a pale 
     rationalization that downgrades the hunger of entire 
     families. A companion bill in the House, yet to be paid for, 
     is an opportunity to right this wrong.
       In the crunch of the recession. if Congress lacks the guts 
     to meet vital needs with deficit financing, it should have 
     the decency to chisel some less-humane program than food 
     stamps.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1606, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 161, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 518]

                               YEAS--247

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--161

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn

[[Page 15467]]


     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Berry
     Blunt
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hinojosa
     Jones
     LaTourette
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Radanovich
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Snyder
     Speier
     Tanner
     Wamp
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1526

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

                          ____________________