Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H485-H509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOVERY REBATES AND ECONOMIC STIMULUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ACT OF
2008

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5140) to provide economic stimulus through recovery rebates
to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in
conforming and FHA loan limits.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5140

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Recovery
Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of
2008''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--RECOVERY REBATES AND INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESS INVESTMENT

Sec. 101. 2008 recovery rebates for individuals.
Sec. 102. Temporary increase in limitations on expensing of certain
depreciable business assets.
Sec. 103. Special allowance for certain property acquired during 2008.

TITLE II--HOUSING GSE AND FHA LOAN LIMITS

Sec. 201. Temporary conforming loan limit increase for Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.
Sec. 202. Temporary loan limit increase for FHA.

TITLE I--RECOVERY REBATES AND INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESS INVESTMENT

SEC. 101. 2008 RECOVERY REBATES FOR INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Section 6428 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 6428. 2008 RECOVERY REBATES FOR INDIVIDUALS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2008 an
amount equal to the lesser of--
``(1) net income tax liability, or
``(2) $600 ($1,200 in the case of a joint return).
``(b) Special Rules.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer described in
paragraph (2)--
``(A) the amount determined under subsection (a) shall not
be less than $300 ($600 in the case of a joint return), and
``(B) the amount determined under subsection (a) (after the
application of subparagraph (A)) shall be increased by the
product of $300 multiplied by the number of qualifying
children (within the meaning of section 24(c)) of the
taxpayer.
``(2) Taxpayer described.--A taxpayer is described in this
paragraph if the taxpayer--
``(A) has earned income of at least $3,000, or
``(B) has--
``(i) net income tax liability which is greater than zero,
and
``(ii) gross income which is greater than the sum of the
basic standard deduction plus the exemption amount (twice the
exemption amount in the case of a joint return).
``(c) Treatment of Credit.--The credit allowed by
subsection (a) shall be treated as allowed by subpart C of
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1.
``(d) Limitation Based on Adjusted Gross Income.--The
amount of the credit allowed by subsection (a) (determined
without regard to this subsection and subsection (f)) shall
be reduced (but not below zero) by 5 percent of so much of
the taxpayer's adjusted gross income as exceeds $75,000
($150,000 in the case of a joint return).
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Net income tax liability.--The term `net income tax
liability' means the excess of--

[[Page H486]]

``(A) the sum of the taxpayer's regular tax liability
(within the meaning of section 26(b)) and the tax imposed by
section 55 for the taxable year, over
``(B) the credits allowed by part IV (other than section 24
and subpart C thereof) of subchapter A of chapter 1.
``(2) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual'
means any individual other than--
``(A) any nonresident alien individual,
``(B) any individual with respect to whom a deduction under
section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable
year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual's
taxable year begins, and
``(C) an estate or trust.
``(3) Earned income.--The term `earned income' has the
meaning set forth in section 32(c)(2) except that--
``(A) subclause (II) of subparagraph (B)(vi) thereof shall
be applied by substituting `January 1, 2009' for `January 1,
2008', and
``(B) such term shall not include net earnings from self-
employment which are not taken into account in computing
taxable income.
``(4) Basic standard deduction; exemption amount.--The
terms `basic standard deduction' and `exemption amount' shall
have the same respective meanings as when used in section
6012(a).
``(f) Coordination With Advance Refunds of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of credit which would (but
for this paragraph) be allowable under this section shall be
reduced (but not below zero) by the aggregate refunds and
credits made or allowed to the taxpayer under subsection (g).
Any failure to so reduce the credit shall be treated as
arising out of a mathematical or clerical error and assessed
according to section 6213(b)(1).
``(2) Joint returns.--In the case of a refund or credit
made or allowed under subsection (g) with respect to a joint
return, half of such refund or credit shall be treated as
having been made or allowed to each individual filing such
return.
``(g) Advance Refunds and Credits.--
``(1) In general.--Each individual who was an eligible
individual for such individual's first taxable year beginning
in 2007 shall be treated as having made a payment against the
tax imposed by chapter 1 for such first taxable year in an
amount equal to the advance refund amount for such taxable
year.
``(2) Advance refund amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the advance refund amount is the amount that would have
been allowed as a credit under this section for such first
taxable year if this section (other than subsection (f) and
this subsection) had applied to such taxable year.
``(3) Timing of payments.--The Secretary shall, subject to
the provisions of this title, refund or credit any
overpayment attributable to this section as rapidly as
possible. No refund or credit shall be made or allowed under
this subsection after December 31, 2008.
``(4) No interest.--No interest shall be allowed on any
overpayment attributable to this section.''.
(b) Treatment of Possessions.--
(1) Mirror code possession.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall make a payment to each possession of the United States
with a mirror code tax system in an amount equal to the loss
to that possession by reason of the amendments made by this
section. Such amount shall be determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury based on information provided by the government
of the respective possession.
(2) Other possessions.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
make a payment to each possession of the United States which
does not have a mirror code tax system in an amount estimated
by the Secretary of the Treasury as being equal to the
aggregate benefits that would have been provided to residents
of such possession by reason of the amendments made by this
section if a mirror code tax system had been in effect in
such possession. The preceding sentence shall not apply with
respect to any possession of the United States unless such
possession has a plan, which has been approved by the
Secretary of the Treasury, under which such possession will
promptly distribute such payment to the residents of such
possession.
(3) Definitions and special rules.--
(A) Possession of the united states.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``possession of the United States''
includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(B) Mirror code tax system.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``mirror code tax system'' means, with
respect to any possession of the United States, the income
tax system of such possession if the income tax liability of
the residents of such possession under such system is
determined by reference to the income tax laws of the United
States as if such possession were the United States.
(C) Treatment of payments.--For purposes of section
1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, the payments
under this subsection shall be treated in the same manner as
a refund due from the credit allowed under section 6428 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section).
(c) Appropriations to Carry Out Recovery Rebates.--
(1) In general.--The following sums are hereby
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008,
to implement the provisions of this section (including the
amendments made by this section):
(A) For an additional amount for ``Department of the
Treasury--Financial Management Service--Salaries and
Expenses'', $52,510,000, to remain available until September
30, 2009.
(B) For an additional amount for ``Department of the
Treasury--Internal Revenue Service--Taxpayer Services'',
$48,920,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
(C) For an additional amount for ``Department of the
Treasury--Internal Revenue Service--Operations Support'',
$149,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
(2) Reports.--No later than 15 days after enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a plan to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate detailing the expected use of the funds
provided by this subsection. Beginning 90 days after
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit a quarterly report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the
actual expenditure of funds provided by this subsection and
the expected expenditure of such funds in the subsequent
quarter.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 6428'' after
``section 35''.
(2) Paragraph (1) of section 1(i) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(3) The item relating to section 6428 in the table of
sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 of such Code is
amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 6428. 2008 recovery rebates for individuals.''.

SEC. 102. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF
CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 179 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Increase in limitations for 2008.--In the case of any
taxable year beginning in 2008--
``(A) the dollar limitation under paragraph (1) shall be
$250,000,
``(B) the dollar limitation under paragraph (2) shall be
$800,000, and
``(C) the amounts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
shall not be adjusted under paragraph (5).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.

SEC. 103. SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY ACQUIRED
DURING 2008.

(a) In General.--Subsection (k) of section 168 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special allowance
for certain property acquired after September 10, 2001, and
before January 1, 2005) is amended--
(1) by striking ``September 10, 2001'' each place it
appears and inserting ``December 31, 2007'',
(2) by striking ``September 11, 2001'' each place it
appears and inserting ``January 1, 2008'',
(3) by striking ``January 1, 2005'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2009'', and
(4) by striking ``January 1, 2006'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(b) 50 Percent Allowance.--Subparagraph (A) of section
168(k)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ``30 percent''
and inserting ``50 percent''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subclause (I) of section 168(k)(2)(B)(i) of such Code
is amended by striking ``and (iii)'' and inserting ``(iii),
and (iv)''.
(2) Subclause (IV) of section 168(k)(2)(B)(i) of such Code
is amended by striking ``clauses (ii) and (iii)'' and
inserting ``clause (iii)''.
(3) Clause (i) of section 168(k)(2)(C) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and (iii)'' and inserting ``, (iii),
and (iv)''.
(4) Clause (i) of section 168(k)(2)(F) of such Code is
amended by striking ``$4,600'' and inserting ``$8,000''.
(5)(A) Subsection (k) of section 168 of such Code is
amended by striking paragraph (4).
(B) Clause (iii) of section 168(k)(2)(D) of such Code is
amended by striking the last sentence.
(6) Paragraph (4) of section 168(l) of such Code is amended
by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) and inserting before
subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated) the following new
subparagraph:
``(A) Bonus depreciation property under subsection (k).--
Such term shall not include any property to which section
168(k) applies.''.
(7) Paragraph (5) of section 168(l) of such Code is
amended--
(A) by striking ``September 10, 2001'' in subparagraph (A)
and inserting ``December 31, 2007'', and
(B) by striking ``January 1, 2005'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
(8) Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(b)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2005'' and inserting
``January 1, 2010''.
(9) Paragraph (3) of section 1400N(d) of such Code is
amended--
(A) by striking ``September 10, 2001'' in subparagraph (A)
and inserting ``December 31, 2007'', and
(B) by striking ``January 1, 2005'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``January 1, 2009''.

[[Page H487]]

(10) Paragraph (6) of section 1400N(d) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Exception for bonus depreciation property under
section 168(k).--The term `specified Gulf Opportunity Zone
extension property' shall not include any property to which
section 168(k) applies.''.
(11) The heading for subsection (k) of section 168 of such
Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``September 10, 2001'' and inserting
``December 31, 2007'', and
(B) by striking ``January 1, 2005'' and inserting ``January
1, 2009''.
(12) The heading for clause (ii) of section 168(k)(2)(B) of
such Code is amended by striking ``pre-january 1, 2005'' and
inserting ``pre-january 1, 2009''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007, in taxable years ending after such date.

TITLE II--HOUSING GSE AND FHA LOAN LIMITS

SEC. 201. TEMPORARY CONFORMING LOAN LIMIT INCREASE FOR FANNIE
MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

(a) Increase of High Cost Areas Limits for Housing GSEs.--
For mortgages originated during the period beginning on July
1, 2007, and ending at the end of December 31, 2008:
(1) Fannie mae.--With respect to the Federal National
Mortgage Association, notwithstanding section 302(b)(2) of
the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12
U.S.C. 1717(b)(2)), the limitation on the maximum original
principal obligation of a mortgage that may be purchased by
the Association shall be the higher of--
(A) the limitation for 2008 determined under such section
302(b)(2) for a residence of the applicable size; or
(B) 125 percent of the area median price for a residence of
the applicable size, but in no case to exceed 175 percent of
the limitation for 2008 determined under such section
302(b)(2) for a residence of the applicable size.
(2) Freddie mac.--With respect to the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, notwithstanding section 305(a)(2) of
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C.
1454(a)(2)), the limitation on the maximum original principal
obligation of a mortgage that may be purchased by the
Corporation shall be the higher of--
(A) the limitation determined for 2008 under such section
305(a)(2) for a residence of the applicable size; or
(B) 125 percent of the area median price for a residence of
the applicable size, but in no case to exceed 175 percent of
the limitation determined for 2008 under such section
305(a)(2) for a residence of the applicable size.
(b) Determination of Limits.--The areas and area median
prices used for purposes of the determinations under
subsection (a) shall be the areas and area median prices used
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in
determining the applicable limits under section 202 of this
title.
(c) Rule of Construction.--A mortgage originated during the
period referred to in subsection (a) that is eligible for
purchase by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation pursuant to this
section shall be eligible for such purchase for the duration
of the term of the mortgage, notwithstanding that such
purchase occurs after the expiration of such period.
(d) Effect on Housing Goals.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, mortgages purchased in accordance with the
increased maximum original principal obligation limitations
determined pursuant to this section shall not be considered
in determining performance with respect to any of the housing
goals established under section 1332, 1333, or 1334 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C.
4562-4), and shall not be considered in determining
compliance with such goals pursuant to section 1336 of such
Act (12 U.S.C. 4566) and regulations, orders, or guidelines
issued thereunder.
(e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the securitization of mortgages by the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation plays an important role in providing liquidity to
the United States housing markets. Therefore, the Congress
encourages the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to securitize
mortgages acquired under the increased conforming loan limits
established in this section, to the extent that such
securitizations can be effected in a timely and efficient
manner that does not impose additional costs for mortgages
originated, purchased, or securitized under the existing
limits or interfere with the goal of adding liquidity to the
market.

SEC. 202. TEMPORARY LOAN LIMIT INCREASE FOR FHA.

(a) Increase of High-Cost Area Limit.--For mortgages for
which the mortgagee has issued credit approval for the
borrower on or before December 31, 2008, subparagraph (A) of
section 203(b)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(b)(2)(A)) shall be considered (except for purposes of
section 255(g) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(g))) to
require that a mortgage shall involve a principal obligation
in an amount that does not exceed the lesser of--
(1) in the case of a 1-family residence, 125 percent of the
median 1-family house price in the area, as determined by the
Secretary; and in the case of a 2-, 3-, or 4-family
residence, the percentage of such median price that bears the
same ratio to such median price as the dollar amount
limitation determined for 2008 under section 305(a)(2) of the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C.
1454(a)(2)) for a 2-, 3-, or 4-family residence,
respectively, bears to the dollar amount limitation
determined for 2008 under such section for a 1-family
residence; or
(2) 175 percent of the dollar amount limitation determined
for 2008 under such section 305(a)(2) for a residence of the
applicable size (without regard to any authority to increase
such limitation with respect to properties located in Alaska,
Guam, Hawaii, or the Virgin Islands);

except that the dollar amount limitation in effect under this
subsection for any size residence for any area shall not be
less than the greater of (A) the dollar amount limitation in
effect under such section 203(b)(2) for the area on October
21, 1998; or (B) 65 percent of the dollar amount limitation
determined for 2008 under such section 305(a)(2) for a
residence of the applicable size. Any reference in this
subsection to dollar amount limitations in effect under
section 305 (a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation Act means such limitations as in effect without
regard to any increase in such limitation pursuant to section
201 of this title.
(b) Discretionary Authority.--If the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development determines that market conditions
warrant such an increase, the Secretary may, for the period
that begins upon the date of the enactment of this Act and
ends at the end of the date specified in subsection (a),
increase the maximum dollar amount limitation determined
pursuant to subsection (a) with respect to any particular
size or sizes of residences, or with respect to residences
located in any particular area or areas, to an amount that
does not exceed the maximum dollar amount then otherwise in
effect pursuant to subsection (a) for such size residence, or
for such area (if applicable), by not more than $100,000.
(c) Publication of Area Median Prices and Loan Limits.--The
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall publish the
median house prices and mortgage principal obligation limits,
as revised pursuant to this section, for all areas as soon as
practicable, but in no case more than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act. With respect to existing areas
for which the Secretary has not established area median
prices before such date of enactment, the Secretary may rely
on existing commercial data in determining area median prices
and calculating such revised principal obligation limits.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we extend the
debate by 80 minutes, resulting in 2 hours equally divided between both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 20 minutes
of my time to be controlled by the chairman of the Financial Services
Committee, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee
on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of
the provisions of H.R. 5140. The technical explanation expresses the
committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important
legislation. This explanation, document JCX-5-08, is currently
available on the Joint Committee's Web site.
Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow the
ranking member of the Financial Services Committee the ability to
control 20 minutes of the time on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, we're here this afternoon to discuss a
matter that the President, the Treasury Department, former officials of
the Clinton administration, all agree is extremely important for the
economic health of the country.
When we speak of the economic health, Mr. Speaker, we are talking
about not only the rate of GDP growth,

[[Page H488]]

not only the health of the financial markets, we're talking about the
impact on real people of a decline in the country's economic health;
that means job losses, that means financial hardship for individuals
and families. So the leadership, Mr. Speaker, of the House, Democratic
and Republican, have worked hand in hand with the White House, the
Treasury Department, to craft a package that we can call an economic
growth package, an economic stimulus package. It doesn't matter to me
what we call it.
But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the weight of the evidence, if
we listen to the opinions of respected economists, respected former
officials of the Treasury Department, current members of the Treasury
Department, the weight of the evidence indicates to me, at least, that
the downside of this Congress doing nothing right now is much greater
than any downside of our doing something around the level that is being
proposed by the leadership in this House and the White House in this
package that we're considering this afternoon.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am eagerly awaiting passage of this. I hope that
the other body follows suit in an expeditious manner, and that we can
get this package to the White House for the President's signature. And
we hope that this will have the intended effect, which is to avert a
recession, and to reduce the downturn that everybody agrees is underway
right now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank Mr. McCrery for getting his views and his
willingness to listen to mine, with both of us understanding that, at
the end of the day, that people are not concerned with our differences,
but they are concerned about the United States Government responding to
their needs. And to that extent, of course, I want to thank our Speaker
in recognizing the legislative and political pressures as she
negotiated with using the skills of Secretary of the Treasury Hank
Paulson and working with the distinguished minority leader in
recognizing that we were a part of trying to make certain that the
American people knew that we weren't able to do everything that we
wanted to do, but we did not ignore our obligations to come together
with some type of a compromise. And I think it was historic as we
expanded to reach people who would have been ignored had it not been
for changes that were made in how we get the money to people.
So I want to thank the leadership of the House, but make it
abundantly clear that all of us thought, at the time that we agreed to
this agreement, that the Senate was prepared to accept our agreement
without change. It's my understanding now, as we talk, that the Senate
Finance Committee is marking up their own stimulus package, and I
assume that it will not deviate substantially from what the leadership
of this House has done. But I do hope that it's made abundantly clear
that the House has done its responsibility, and that if there's
anything that impedes the Senate from complying to the mandate that the
President has set on our Congress, that they too have an obligation to
make the type of compromises that's necessary so that we can move
forward.
I also would like to add that sometimes it's very difficult in being
chairman of a committee that not only do we have partisan differences,
but we have differences among my own party.

{time} 1230

And while we are reaching out to provide assistance to people who are
suffering economically, I cannot help but remind myself that these
people were not selected out of any compassion of wanting to help the
poor and those in need.
Indeed, the main reason that these people are targeted is because
economists, conservative or liberal, agree that the assistance that we
are giving has to be timely, fast. It has to be targeted to people that
are going to have to spend the money, and it has to be temporary so
that we don't do severe additional damage to the deficit.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about the heart of
America, hardworking American middle-class people that are now being
targeted because they can't afford to take care of their families.
Yes, they have to spend the money to put food on the table, put shoes
on their kids' feet, put clothing on their backs, to pay for shelter.
And I submit that we shouldn't walk away from this House, because we
give economic assistance, proud of the fact that millions of people in
this country find themselves in that predicament and for that the
Congress cannot be charged.
And I do hope after we finish going through this bipartisan effort,
which we have to do, that we might find some way to tell these people
that we are going to provide relief without considering a stimulus, but
we are going to provide relief because it's the right thing to do.
And no man and woman in this country that works hard every day should
have to be stigmatized that they can't afford to provide a different
type of lifestyle for their family because they can't meet their
obligations.
And so I hope in the way we, in a bipartisan way, have cooperated
with this administration, that they recognize that the Tax Code, which
is tilted toward the wealthy and therefore supposed to create the jobs
of the wealth for the middle class, didn't work this time. And maybe we
can think in terms of how we can bring more equity to the moneys that
are available to disposable income to those people who work hard every
day and not have to target them because of their inability to meet
their needs, but to know that we did what we should have done, and
that's to provide them with the dignity and the means to continue to
contribute toward the economy of this great Nation of ours.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to recognize the
majority whip from the sovereign State of South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn)
for 2 minutes.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rangel, for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this economic stimulus
package, and I commend the House leadership on both sides of the aisle
for their efforts in quickly getting this important legislation to the
floor. And while the deal may not be perfect--very few, if any, are--it
will go a long way towards stimulating our economy while helping many
Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, these are turbulent times for many working families:
unemployment numbers are up, and the housing market is down; energy
costs are rising, and stock values are falling.
In short, Mr. Speaker, our economy is underperforming, and the
American people are looking to us for leadership.
This measure seeks to stimulate growth by helping businesses and
workers. It extends tax rebates to 117 million families and offers
write-offs to small businesses to assist them in the creation of much-
needed jobs. This legislation serves as an important first step towards
moving our economy in a new direction.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. The American
people are looking for a new direction, and this legislation provides
just that.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry. Is my
understanding correct that, as the Chair of the Financial Services
Committee, I will control 20 minutes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct, under the order of
the House by unanimous consent.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, what's in this stimulus package is, A, good; B, not
enough. But I believe it is important to move it. I say ``not enough''
because the Committee on Financial Services has been dealing
particularly with the subprime crisis and the troubles that's
generated.
We have in this stimulus package, by agreement between both sides
here and the administration, some things that would be very helpful.
There are further things that are important that are not in this
package. No one should think that because they're not in this

[[Page H489]]

package we are not going to go and deal with them.
As soon as this is done today, the staff of the Committee on
Financial Services will be working closely, we've been in consultation
with the Senate and others, on a broader set of measures that will both
diminish the economic problems that the subprime crisis causes and also
try to deal with the distress that results.
But let me talk today about what we do. We increase in this bill loan
limits for the FHA and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We made a
mistake at some point in public policy by setting as a limit for those
three agencies, which deal with housing finance and facilitate housing
finance, one flat nationwide dollar limit. In fact, nothing in our
economy varies in the pricing area as much as house prices, because
houses are immobile. Automobile prices, clothing prices, food prices,
there are some regional variations; but they tend to be closer.
House prices have a very great variation, for obvious reasons; and,
in fact, the limits that have been set which were intended to prevent
luxury housing from benefiting from these public or public/private
programs in much of the country excludes not just luxury housing but
housing for people of moderate and middle incomes.
Now, that's always been a problem to many of us, but recently it's
become part of an economic problem. The mortgage market, we understand,
has been suffering at the lower end, at the subprime end, because
people with weaker credit were charged too much with, we should always
note, a racial and ethnic discriminatory factor; but, in general, there
was a problem there.
What we now face, and have for some time, is a problem at the higher
end. Because of the uncertainty in the mortgage market, people are
unwilling to invest. People are unwilling to buy the mortgages. We have
come to be dependent, unhealthily so it seems to me, on the secondary
market in which the originators have to sell their loans.
People will not now invest in buying loans that are above the levels
at which the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac can provide assurance.
Those levels are too low.
So what we do in this stimulus bill is to raise the levels of Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA, not uniformly but sensibly, as a
percentage of median income with a cap. And that's a very important
piece in trying to unlock the mortgage market and getting money flowing
again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of the bipartisan economic stimulus package, and
let me share with the Members a conversation I had yesterday.
I traveled to New York City, and there I met with 20 to 25 of the
financial leaders of our country. The executives were from some of the
largest banks and other lending institutions, insurance companies, in
America. And almost to the person they told me that they had been
talking to businesses all over the United States, and the message they
continue to get from the majority of those business leaders is our
business is good, we're making the money, we are receiving new orders,
we want to expand, we want to hire people, we want to invest in new
equipment, we want to invest in new technology. But we're holding back
because we hear that things are getting worse, we hear that things may
get worse, we're reading that in the newspaper, and we're not sure.
So I believe that what we have here in America today, and let's not
minimize the problems. I'm going to speak about the housing market in a
minute, and as Chairman Frank said, I'll not minimize the difficulties
that we have in the housing market or subprime, but let me say to the
Members, let's not talk ourselves and the American people into a
recession. And I'm not saying that any of us are. This is not directed
at any Member. I say it this way: I want to encourage the Members and
all Americans to have confidence in this country, have confidence in
our market, because I will tell you that people in New York that are
looking out there in America are saying that a lot of businesses are
good, they want to invest, they want to hire people.
So part of what I think is so good about this stimulus package is
that I believe it will encourage people to have confidence. It will
encourage people to invest or spend.
The Financial Services Committee, as Chairman Frank said, was
responsible for the housing portion of the stimulus package, and I will
direct some statements to those portions in a minute.
Before I do, I want to add a few words in strong support of the tax
cuts contained in this stimulus package, and they are tax cuts. The
stimulus package that we're considering today recognizes the basic
economic reality that getting money back in the hands of people who
earned it is the best way to help our economy.
The tax element of this package has been called a rebate, but in
essence, it's a tax cut, a tax cut for millions of low- and middle-
income Americans, those who need it the most, those with a moderate
income.
I believe this will be immediate tax relief for hardworking
taxpayers, and the improvement into our economy that always results
from allowing taxpayers to decide how their hard-earned money will be
spent will be beneficial.
Some have said not all Americans will spend this money. Some will
save it. I think our answer to that ought to be, yes, some will spend
it, most economists tell us that the vast majority. Some will save it,
but that's their choice, not our choice. That's America. I am confident
that whether they save it, whether they spend it, whether they pay down
their bills, whether they invest as businesses will in new equipment,
that it will all be good for America.
Hopefully, it will stimulate not only the economy but it will also
prompt my colleagues to enact additional tax cuts in the future and
make the Bush tax cuts that have worked so well permanent.
It is widely recognized that the troubled housing market is a
significant contributor to the current downturn in our economy. It is
not contributing to our economy as it has in the past. We all know
housing prices are down. This stimulus package includes several
provisions designed to address that lack of liquidity, that weak market
in certain segments of the mortgage market. The bill increases, but
only on a temporary basis, the loan limits that apply to mortgages that
can be purchased by the housing GSEs, Fannie and Freddie, and by
ensuring that the Federal Housing Administration and those that are
insured by the Federal Housing Administration, most people refer to as
FHA, it will increase the size of those mortgages and mortgages that
they can insure and offer.
Greater availability of higher-cost mortgages and FHA-insured loans
will help get prospective homebuyers off the sidelines and into the
housing market. We're hearing that today from the national Realtors. In
those markets, there have been price declines. In some they have been
particularly severe.
This legislation will assist existing homeowners to refinance loans
that they're struggling with. It will also allow those who want to buy
and are on the sidelines now to begin making offers and to restore our
housing market.

{time} 1245

The combined changes, I believe, will help restore confidence to our
economy, and we need that confidence. The higher GSE and FHA loan
limits, like the other provisions of the package, are both targeted and
temporary, they expire at the end of this year, thereby addressing the
concerns of those who fear that expanding the eligibility for the GSEs
and FHA loan products will unduly increase Federal housing subsidies. I
share those concerns.
While I would have preferred that the increases be implemented as
part of a comprehensive GSE and FHA reform, I'm encouraged, very
encouraged, by the commitments that Chairman Frank and the chairman of
the Senate Banking Committee have made to us that achievement of those
broader reforms in the GSEs and FHA are a priority for them, also, and
that achievement of those broader reforms will be among the highest
priorities of this congressional session. I look forward to that
important work.
As the GSEs purchase larger mortgages and take on more risk, it is
incumbent that this Congress produce legislation that creates a world-
class

[[Page H490]]

regulator for these enterprises and fully protects U.S. taxpayers. We
have heard from both the Treasury Secretary and the President about the
need for this reform. This House has passed legislation making that
reform law. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to follow our example.
Let me close by saying the bottom line, I believe, is we must not
only take the measures we do today, which are going to offer real
solutions, but also do whatever we can to increase and encourage
optimism among Americans. That's what we need. Hope has been mentioned
very often in this Presidential campaign. Our message needs to be to
the American people that our economy is strong. There are businesses
that are ready to hire, ready to invest, ready to buy new technology.
There is a legitimate reason for optimism today, and we should promote
that optimism.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by commending President Bush, Chairman
Frank, Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, and all the Republican
and Democratic leadership of the House for coming together so quickly
for this stimulus package. There is hope for America. There is reason
for optimism. This package, I believe, will contribute to that optimism
and that hope.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward to pass this historic
piece of legislation that has been requested of us, I am, indeed,
honored to yield 1 minute to our Speaker, who, on December 9, called us
together to decide what we should be doing if, indeed, the economy was
moving the way it has. Not only did she bring us together, but she
brought Republicans and Democrats together in dealing with the
administration in a way that some of us never thought was possible.
It's a great honor for me to support and yield 1 minute to our
distinguished Speaker.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his kind and generous remarks.
I especially thank him for his tremendous leadership, because under his
leadership we are able today to vote on something that is relevant to
the lives of the American people.
I commend Leader Boehner for his leadership as well. It has been a
privilege to work in a bipartisan way to help relieve the pain of the
American people.
For a long time now, homemakers, homeowners, and hard workers across
America have known that there is a problem in our economy. They've had
a hard time making ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, with rising
costs for gasoline, for groceries, for health care, you name it.
American families felt this pain early on, and they knew that our
economy was facing perhaps a serious downturn, but a downturn
nonetheless.
On December 7, actually, I remember because my seventh grandbaby was
born that day, Thomas Vincent, on December 7 we had a meeting, a
bipartisan meeting with leaders from the business community,
economists, leaders of industry, of labor, the academic community,
people representing workers in the diversity of our country, and we
talked about what we could do to head off a serious downturn in our
economy. We knew from that meeting that it would have to be timely,
that we would need to act quickly; that it would have to be targeted,
that it would put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans who
would immediately spend the money to meet their needs, inject demand
into the economy to help create jobs; and it had to be temporary. The
tax incentives in the package would have to be such that they would
have to be acted upon in this calendar year so that the full impact
could be felt for job creation and stimulus to the economy. Previous
stimulus packages have not had that. They had a 2-year period of time
in which the incentives would work, and therefore they lost impact.
Previous stimulus packages did not have a cap on who received the
rebate, or the tax cut as Mr. Bachus calls it. And so, therefore, a lot
of money went into the hands of people who never really spent it and
injected it back into the economy.
But this is timely. We're acting very quickly, not hastily, but
quickly and firmly in a disciplined way on a package that has as its
one criterion for anything that's in the package, is it stimulus, is it
stimulus, and does it meet the test of enabling us to move in a timely
fashion, targeted and temporary.
I was pleased that, working with my colleague, Mr. Boehner, and with
the administration under the leadership of Secretary Paulson, that we
were able to come to terms on how we would proceed. We could only do
that because of the extraordinary respect in which Mr. Rangel is held,
and Mr. McCrery, and them working cooperatively as they have for a
while. We could only include in the package those features that related
to the subprime crisis because of the extraordinary reputation of the
distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank,
understanding the terms under which we wanted to proceed, and
respecting his expertise in those areas and those of Mr. Bachus as
well. So, this has been bipartisan in terms of committee, in terms of
working together over time, and bipartisan in terms of the leadership
working together a short time frame, benefiting from the work that had
gone before us.
It's important in this package to have a level of discipline, because
one of the features that the economists, business leaders, labor
leaders, et cetera, had told us in the course of all these discussions
is you don't want to do anything in a stimulus package that will hinder
your ability to act in a recovery.
So, it's important that this bill not get overloaded. I have a full
agenda of things I would like to have in the package, but we have to
contain the price, and in doing so, you have to establish your
priorities. And the priority we had was to put $28 billion in the hands
of 35 million families who had never received a rebate or a child tax
credit before, and to do it quickly. That was our priority. Because if
you do, to do that, again, is true stimulus. All the other things,
while worthy and important, again, we made a decision, because that's
where we could find our common ground. But if we heap too much on top
of that package, it will then take us deeply into debt.
And PAYGO is important to us. And while in recession the PAYGO law
allows for us to take certain initiatives, you don't want to abuse that
by again adding to the deficit for items in the package that are not
strictly timely, temporary, targeted or stimulus.
So, I think we have a good product here. It's all a compromise. It's
all about decisions and priorities that have to be established. But it
also speaks to the fact that we really do, hopefully, we need to work
in a bipartisan way, to have a very aggressive initiative for job
creation in our country. And we've already laid the framework for that
in a bipartisan way. We've had overwhelming votes in this Congress, for
example, on SCHIP, expanding health care to many more children in
America. Health care needs health-trained professionals at every aspect
of the delivery of health care. So, it creates good-paying jobs in
America when you expand health care accessibility to Americans.
Education, innovation, all of those are about keeping us competitive,
keeping us number one; again, creating good-paying jobs in America so
that we prevail in the global marketplace.
And we talk about infrastructure, that we must have a package for
rebuilding our roads, our highways, mass transit, taking initiatives
for new projects as well, creating good-paying jobs in America. And
global warming. We, as a generation and as a Congress, will be judged
by posterity as to how we deal with the issue of a global climate
crisis. This affords for us a whole new world of job opportunity where
we're all on the ground floor, largely, where we go into urban America
and our inner cities or we go into rural America and create good-paying
green jobs that are new.
It's about being entrepreneurial about this, to thinking in new and
different ways about how our decisions have to be seen in the light of
``do they create good-paying jobs in America.''
So, again, while we stand ready to present a stimulus, if need be, we
want to, in the long term, not that long term but longer term than a
stimulus, create jobs to avoid such a downturn and, in any event, raise
the living standard of the American people. And so, whether it's about
this rebate and

[[Page H491]]

what it means to these hardworking Americans who are facing rising
costs and need help to live paycheck to paycheck, and I'm telling you,
that's not just the working poor, that is the middle class in America.
This is a middle-class tax rebate bill. We call it the Recovery, Rebate
and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act. It targets the
middle class and those who aspire to it. And for that same middle
class, we must have an ongoing aggressive initiative for job creation
so that across the board America's families have the confidence that
they need. Because in a downturn, what you need is confidence. You need
consumer confidence. You need confidence in the markets. And as Mr.
Rangel always tells me, a message of confidence is given to the
American people when Members of Congress can work with the
administration in a bipartisan way to put the American people first.
So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
McCrery, and Mr. Bachus, and to my colleagues, Mr. Serrano, Ms.
Velazquez, and Charlie Rangel, again, for all their leadership in terms
of the territories, which is a very important part of this legislation.
I think it's a good day for us here. And let's hope that the Senate
will take its lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally
responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf
of meeting the needs of the American people.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
5140.
There is no question that our economy is in trouble, and the best way
Congress can help fix it is to cut taxes. But this bill is too little
and too late.
Rather than sending checks that won't arrive until June, 5 months
from now, Congress can give the economy the immediate shot in the arm
it needs by eliminating Federal income tax withholding for a month or
two. That would give wage earners a boost in their take-home pay next
month, which they can spend or save or reduce their debt. Individual
income tax rates could be adjusted so that taxpayers won't be hit when
they file their 2008 tax returns a year from now.
Rather than telling the country that the check's in the mail in June,
let's do the right thing that will put money into taxpayers' pockets in
the quickest and least bureaucratic way possible by canceling Federal
income tax withholding for a limited period of time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, a man who had a major
role in our dealing with the structural issues going forward, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

{time} 1300

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the President and the
bipartisan House leadership for quickly coming to an agreement to
stimulate the economy through legislation that is timely, targeted, and
temporary.
The bill before us today contains an important provision that I
helped to craft as the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.
This reform will temporarily increase the conforming loan limits of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enhance the liquidity of several local
mortgage markets. I support this short-term change.
I would, however, also like to take the opportunity to encourage the
Congress to expand the economic stimulus plan to include cash benefits
for those citizens whose only source of income is Social Security. Our
Nation's seniors and disabled individuals are facing difficult economic
times. For years these men and women have been forced to survive on
less and less, and their costs continue to increase and their incomes
remain the same.
In my home State of Pennsylvania, home heating prices are up 19
percent in the last year. Gas prices are up 86 percent in 5 years. Food
prices continue to rise. And seniors continue to struggle with high
prescription drug costs. Low-income senior citizens and disabled
individuals are forced to make terrible choices to try to cope with
these realities. These Americans need cash rebates just as much as the
individuals currently included in this stimulus bill.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I applaud the bipartisan effort that brought
this economic stimulus package to the floor. We should also work to
ensure that our Nation's seniors and disabled individuals are included
in this worthwhile legislation.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in unenthusiastic support of this legislation.
Perhaps it is a true sign of bipartisanship. I think if we were all
honest with ourselves, we would say there was much about this
legislation that disappoints us; yet most of us will support it.
Mr. Speaker, my own personal disappointment is I see very little
economic stimulus in this so-called economic stimulus package. I see
tax relief, income tax relief, for those who do not pay income taxes. I
see tax relief for middle-income families, which is very important,
very important, Mr. Speaker, at a time when their paychecks are
squeezed with high energy costs, with high food costs, and high health
care costs. But I don't confuse temporary tax rebates with economic
growth.
Now, I did look closely, and there is some economic growth component
of this legislation of which I approve. But ultimately, true growth
doesn't come from temporary tax rebates. It comes from allowing
entrepreneurs and families and capitalists to actually have their own
capital to expand and grow the economy.
The last time our Nation was facing a recession, I went to a small
factory in my district called Jacksonville Industries. They employed 21
people. They were an aluminum die cast business. Because of competitive
pressures, they were on the verge of laying off two people. But because
of the tax relief passed by this Congress, particularly expensing
capital gains tax relief, they bought a new piece of equipment. And
that new piece of equipment made them more competitive, and instead of
laying off two people, they hired two new people.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, surely middle-income families, I
know they need help, but this package, I fear, is more akin to helping
them pay one month's worth of credit card bills at a time when people
are getting laid off at the local factory when, instead, what they
really need to know is that their paycheck is preserved and that they
have opportunities to even grow that paycheck and that their employer
can become more competitive and give them more opportunities to advance
and grow that paycheck. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately those
components are sadly lacking.
If we wanted those components in the bill, the first thing we would
do, Mr. Speaker, is try to prevent all of these scheduled tax increases
on families and the economy that our friends on this side of the aisle
have put in place. The second thing we would do, Mr. Speaker, is try to
make our business tax rate more competitive with our international
competitors. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the
industrialized world. That's what we need to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, many people here come with their theories. I come
with evidence. If you look early on in 2003, if you look to the Reagan
administration, the Kennedy administration, when you're faced with a
recession, lower marginal tax rates, lower capital gains rates, and you
will grow people's paychecks. That's the economic growth that we need.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the committee has reported out a bill that
reduces corporate taxes from 35 percent to 30.5. I'm not saying that we
have all of the answers, but it does challenge the administration to
come forward either with support, opposition, or compromise. But I
agree with the last speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it's my great honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the vice chairman of our caucus, a
leader in the Democratic Party, a leader in the Congress and in our
country.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman for those generous
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Speaker Pelosi and commend Leader
Boehner for working together to bring this package before us and
working in

[[Page H492]]

conjunction with the President. Speaker Pelosi, I think, was correct in
reaching out to the President first through letter and then, of course,
by making sure that we could bring to fruition this important package.
It wouldn't happen, though, without the leadership of Charlie Rangel
and Jim McCrery, who have epitomized in this Chamber what working
together is all about and the productive results that can come from
that.
I am so pleased and honored to see that this package reaches out to
35 million people, 35 million Americans who would otherwise never know
the benefits of a stimulus package and debunks once and for all the
myth that they do not pay taxes. They pay the most regressive of taxes.
And, therefore, this is money that will help stimulate this economy
immediately. And, again, I commend the leadership for coming up with
this progressive approach.
We also recognize that there is much more that needs to be done as
well. Again, I want to commend our chairman, Charlie Rangel, for
recognizing the kind of long-term stimulus that we're going to need.
President Roosevelt said of another generation they had a
``rendezvous with destiny.'' For America today what Mr. Rangel
understands and recognizes is that we have a rendezvous with reality.
It's a reality that people face every day when they stare across the
kitchen table and look at their spouses and understand what's happening
to our economy. When you look at the national debt, when you look at
the trade imbalance, when you look at personal credit card debt, when
you look at the college tuition debt that people are experiencing,
that's what's happening with this middle-class crunch. That's why long-
term investment in infrastructure is so important. And, again, I
commend Mr. Rangel and the entire body for pursuing it.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the ranking
member on the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp).
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are increasingly concerned about the U.S.
economy, and in Michigan economy is the number one issue families worry
about. It's critical for Congress to address this issue and enact
legislation that will encourage job growth, renew consumer confidence,
and spur new business investment today. We can't afford to wait and
waste time loading up a bill with extra spending measures.
The bill before us is a positive step and one we should take. I want
to thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery and the leadership
on both sides for bringing this bill forward today. However, I don't
know a single American who prefers a tax rebate, even a rebate as
generous as this one, to a good-paying job. So by no means is this the
only step we should take if we are to become truly competitive and
create long-term job growth in this country. The Tax Code continues to
be a drag on families and businesses. If we're serious about putting
America on a growth track, we must tackle substantive tax reform sooner
rather than later.
In 1960 America was home to 18 of the world's 20 largest corporations
and their employees. By 1996, however, only eight of the world's
largest companies and their employees were based in America. This
shouldn't surprise us. The United States has the second highest
corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. While the average rate
is 31 percent, the U.S. rate is a whopping 39 percent, exceeded only by
Japan at 40 percent.
So before we congratulate ourselves on this economic stimulus
package, we ought to address this jarring trend that is far more
dangerous to American prosperity than next quarter's economic forecast.
I urge my colleagues to send this bill to the President as quickly as
possible and to begin to address long-term strategies such as
regulatory relief, tax reform, and expiring tax relief measures for
sustained job creation and economic growth.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee of our committee, who has
played a very significant role and will be in a major role as we go
forward in the necessary next steps after this, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I first would like to thank all
of our leaders who were involved in the negotiations on this most
important stimulus package. Despite the fact there are some differences
and some things we would have liked to have seen differently, this was
a good effort, and I think we all have to get behind this effort and
move forward with it. I'm thankful for the work that the Speaker did in
particular.
And I rise in support of the economic stimulus package before us
today. It is urgently needed in light of home foreclosure rates that
are 70 percent above the same time last year. Labor Department figures
show that a sharp slowdown in job creation actually took place in
December and the worst holiday season in over 5 years.
Americans need help, and I applaud Speaker Pelosi for working with
the administration and Minority Leader Boehner to provide it to them
and quickly. This package will provide rebates to 117 million
households, the kind of broad-based relief required to help jump-start
consumer spending and the economy. Individuals can look forward to up
to $600 in tax relief, while married couples may get as much as $1,200
to meet their expenses, including skyrocketing costs of fueling their
cars and heating their homes.
Equally critical, this package is not tilted toward the high income
to the extent that the President's original proposal was. Indeed,
thanks to Speaker Pelosi's efforts, the package includes tax relief of
up to $300 for 35 million working individuals who earn too little to
pay income taxes, a group that had been left out of the initial plan.
Further, the bill will temporarily raise loan limits for the GSEs and
the FHA, which will allow these entities to play an increased role in
helping distressed homeowners across the country, especially in high-
cost housing markets like my home State of California. As the lead
sponsor of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007,
I am pleased that the bill incorporates loan limit increases for loans
written by the Federal Housing Administration. The reforms in H.R. 1852
are critical in addressing the current foreclosure crisis, and I look
forward to ensuring enactment of other elements of this much-needed
legislation.
There are a few critical measures to assist our Nation's lowest
income households, those who are most likely to inject any assistance
they receive directly into the economy, that I am disappointed were
left out of the final stimulus package.
In particular, extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits and a 10
percent increase in Food Stamp benefits would provide critical
assistance to the Nation's poor families. Moreover, both could start
injecting more consumer purchasing power into the economy within 1 to 2
months, even faster than the planned rebate checks are likely to go
out. A recent analysis by Economy.com found that for each dollar spent
on extended Unemployment Insurance benefits, $1.64 in increased
economic activity would be generated and for each dollar in increased
food stamp benefits, $1.73 in new economic activity would be generated.
This is substantial ``bang-for-the buck'' in fiscal stimulus.
Nonetheless, I recognize that Speaker Pelosi had to make some hard
choices in negotiations with the Administration and our colleagues from
across the aisle, who view appropriate economic stimulus very
differently; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this negotiated
proposal.

{time} 1315

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have some reservations about the
effectiveness of this economic stimulus package and its impact on our
Federal deficit; however, I am going to support it. One of the reasons
I am going to support this package is it takes an important step toward
providing more options for homeowners and homebuyers in America. By
temporarily increasing the size of mortgages for our GSEs and FHAs,
they will be able to purchase mortgages in high-cost areas across the
country where some of those people

[[Page H493]]

have been locked out of those particular markets.
By bringing additional buyers into this marketplace and rather than
leaving them on the sidelines, we are going to help reduce housing
inventories that, as you know, have been increasing all across the
country. Increasing these conforming loan limits for these particular
entities adds additional liquidity to a marketplace that is in dire
need of additional liquidity and will help provide additional mortgages
around the country.
However, their taking this action is not nearly enough. Congress has
completed important legislation that reforms FHA, and we must complete
this legislation. We have passed legislation that brings reform to our
GSEs. It's time for Congress to sign that legislation as well. We need
to do this without siphoning important resources from these entities at
a time where we are going to be relying on them to help provide
additional mortgages and liquidity in the marketplace.
In order to increase the loan limits to have its full desired
effects, we need to also make sure that we increase the portfolio caps
of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Congresswoman Bean and I have introduced
legislation to increase these caps, and I urge the administration and
Congress to act on these immediately. This marketplace is in need of
liquidity, and by raising the loan portfolio limits and the caps, it
will allow Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and FHA to come into the market and
help bring back additional robustness in those markets.
In hindsight, we see that borrowers, lenders and investors made poor
decisions. In Congress' attempt to help stabilize this downturn we must
avoid more poor decisions.
Congress must ensure that we cause no further harm as we facilitate
bringing more liquidity to the marketplace.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the Chair of our Democratic Caucus. No one has
received more creative ideas of how to improve this legislation than
him. But I want to thank him publicly for his leadership and directness
toward this bipartisan historic legislation.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my chairman.
While other speakers have noted some of the shortcomings and their
reluctant support, I enthusiastically support this legislation. Unlike
the 2001-2003 tax cuts, in 2001, 36 percent of the tax benefit went to
folks earning more than $200,000 a year. In the 2003 tax cut, 67
percent of the tax rebates and tax refunds and tax cuts went to those
earning over $200,000 a year. In this stimulus package, zero. The
lion's share of the tax rebate goes to people earning between $40,000
and $80,000 a year.
I enthusiastically support the middle class of this country, and we
are doing it in this bill. Thirty-seven million Americans who were left
out of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut will get close to $28 billion of this
tax cut. I enthusiastically support that type of economic prosperity.
Like my colleague on the other side from Michigan, once we right this
economy hopefully with this stimulus package and interest rate cuts, we
need to deal with long-term issues. On those issues, how did we get
here? In the last 7 years, our debt went from $5.7 trillion to $9.2
trillion. President Bush inherited 3 years in a row of surplus, to 6
years in a row of deficit spending. Health care costs went from $6,000
for a family of four to doubling to $12,000 for a family of four.
College costs increased by over $2,000 a year for a middle-class
family. Energy costs went from $1.39 a gallon to $3.07 a gallon.
So I look enthusiastically to debating long-term future economic
challenges the middle class have been feeling. The reason this is so
important is because we are reversing and beginning to reverse the
economic policies leading, and have been the leading causes, to middle-
class squeeze: rising energy costs; rising health care costs; rising
home values that shut out the middle class; depleting savings rates in
this country; and a median household income that has shrunk by $1,000
in the last 6 years, while in 2000, over the last 6 years leading into
2000, median income rose by $6,000.
So in the long-term debate about this country, we have got to come to
the rescue of middle-class families, and this stimulus package begins
to do that.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a ranking member on the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Over the last couple of months I have watched with growing
trepidation as the economic news turned worse and increasingly in the
market there were uncertainties about the large tax increases being
threatened from the other side of the aisle, and generally a sense of
pessimism about the economy. I came to the conclusion we needed to
consider moving forward with a stimulus package.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say our Chamber has an opportunity
to find common ground and rally, despite our ideological differences,
behind a short-term stimulus package that will have limited utility but
will provide the ailing American economy with the right incentives at
exactly the right time.
Through bipartisan dialogue and agreement, we have been able to
settle on a plan that will benefit both wage earners and job creators,
encourage investment, and put more money back in the pockets of
America's hardworking middle-class families. As a result of this plan,
working Americans will have access to extra cash to cushion increased
costs in food and energy; families, in fear of losing their homes, will
have new opportunity to refinance their mortgages and retain
homeownership; and businesses will be rewarded for making capital
investments here in the domestic economy, which, in turn, will jump-
start spending and create more good-paying jobs.
This compromise was negotiated as a simple, clean, and targeted bill.
It is the best that we can do that we can pass quickly and accomplish
our goal of stimulating the economy in the near term. I urge my
colleagues to join me to vote for jobs, to vote for American workers,
and to vote for economic growth.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), a member of the Financial
Services Committee, who has been particularly creative in trying to
make sure that there are tax incentives in here that will help the
business community play its most productive role.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5140, the
stimulus package that will strengthen the economic health of our
businesses, our Nation, and the families we represent. Recently, I
introduced legislation to double the section 179 expense tax deduction,
which allows small business owners to write off expenses immediately. I
am pleased that this meaningful tax incentive was included in the House
stimulus package, which encourages small businesses to increase
investment and hiring.
In my district, Chris Dahm, owner of Dahm Trucking in Woodstock,
Illinois, is an example of how this will make a difference. In 1980,
Chris started his company with one truck; 28 years later, he has a
fleet of 33. His success, like small businesses across the country, is
a cornerstone of our economy. However, over the last 3 months, his
business has declined and he has reduced the workweek for many of his
drivers. When I talked to Chris about this incentive, he said, ``If
something like this came out, I'd go full speed.'' Instead of stalling
expansion plans, he would invest now.
I commend our leadership and administration in crafting this
bipartisan legislation and urge its swift passage.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
One year into the liberal Democrat majority in Congress, the economy
is struggling. In the wake of more government spending, threats of tax
increases, and energy legislation that did nothing to expand our access
to domestic reserves, this massive American economy is slowing down.
The time has come for Congress to act to stimulate the economy and
stave off the possibility of a Democrat recession. This stimulus bill
that will come to the floor today, while welcome, will not do enough to
stimulate this economy.

[[Page H494]]

Congress must do more. The Recovery, Rebate and Economic Stimulus Act
is a shot in the arm for a patient in need of major surgery.
I will support this bill because I believe the American people are
overtaxed. Putting money in the pockets of American families is a good
thing. I never met a tax cut I didn't like. But this one comes close.
Showering the landscape with government rebates is no way to truly
strengthen the foundations of a free market economy. If we are serious
about bolstering this economy and helping America's working families,
we must make the President's tax cuts permanent and implement other tax
reform focused on capital formation.
Congress should do more. But this is a small move in the right
direction. For families struggling to make a mortgage payment or meet a
college loan, for families ready to invest in a new car or a home, or
for families simply fighting to keep food on the table, this relief is
needed and welcomed. With this rebate, the American consumer will do
their part to revive this economy, but I challenge Congress and all of
our colleagues in both parties to do our part and demand that this
legislation ultimately include tax relief for the wage payer as well as
for the wage earner.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the gentleman
from Indiana the fact that we should blame the Congress for this
because clearly we have had no leadership from the executive branch. So
I guess the blame has to fall on us. For those who are concerned about
tax reform, we waited 7 years, and we have got nothing. So either
accept what we have got, or ask the President to at least bring
something to the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), who is a subcommittee chairman of this committee, that has
fought hard for the creation of jobs but has just as much compassion
for those who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. I
publicly thank you for your service.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the stimulus package before us today is a
call to arms for Congress to act on behalf of the American people. The
President waited too long and offered too little. While he spent months
pretending the economy was just fine, Americans were losing their jobs,
their homes, and their confidence.
Last week, he apparently woke up, noticed the problem, and, to her
credit, Speaker Pelosi negotiated a stimulus package that, for the
first time in 7 years, recognized our first responsibility to the
middle class and America's vulnerable families. People earning $200,000
a year don't need a rebate to weather the economic storm, but people
earning $20,000 do need one.
But, for all the stimulus package does, we must recognize it is a
work in progress, because there is unfinished business we must address
in the coming months. This package falls silent on the plight of
Americans who have already lost their jobs in the economy, and this
package does not address the reforms needed to our unemployment
insurance programs to deal with the reality of the modern-day workforce
competing in a global economy.
Two-thirds of the people who pay unemployment insurance can't draw
benefits. People with part-time jobs can't draw benefits. Spouses whose
husbands are transferred elsewhere and lose the second job the family
has been depending on can't draw benefits. Those are the kinds of
things that need to be done. But there's nothing new today.
The gentleman from Indiana was a wonderful counterpoint. In 1935,
when we passed the Social Security Act in Congress, during the middle
of the Depression, and unemployment insurance was right in the middle
of it, the last issue the Republicans fought in the United States
Senate at the very end of the bill was whether or not they should have
unemployment insurance. The gentleman from Indiana would have fit
beautifully in the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate in 1935. And
that is why we got rid of them.
This is not a day for a victory lap. It's a day when we begin to
restore the faith of the American people in the ability of their
government to act as an agent for positive change. This is the first
day, but it must not be the last day, or we will fail the American
people when they need us most. But I don't want to see unemployment
brought out here, married to the war funding, like we had to accept
when we had the raise in the minimum wage. This ought to stand on its
own. We should stand behind the American workers in their time of need.
It shouldn't be mixed with a lot of other things.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I don't need much of an excuse to
give people back their own tax money, especially the way we spend it up
here in Washington. So I support this measure and appreciate the
leadership of President Bush and the bipartisan way this came together.
But let's not hold a parade for ourselves just yet. While economic
estimates vary, I am somewhat skeptical about how much impact this tiny
package will have on America's large and complex economy. I hope it
does. But I worry this yet may become more a political stimulus package
than a true economic stimulus.
The truth is our economy is so strong and resilient that it bounces
back and recovers quickly from major challenges, whether it's the
attacks of 9/11 or the dot-com crash. There's no question the housing
downturn and future credit crunch are real and serious, and we ought to
look at every way to limit their impact, but not in any way that
prolongs those problems or creates an excuse for a spending spree that
we cannot afford.
Our goal as a government should be to do no harm. At this point, this
package accomplishes that.

{time} 1330

In fact, incentives for small businesses I think will help create new
business investment in the economy, which keeps and creates jobs. And
we should never miss an opportunity to help families at all income
levels to stretch their budgets, especially with prices so high.
In the end, we should remember that it is not Washington that creates
jobs, but rather a business climate that rewards rather than punishes
Americans for working smarter, for succeeding, and developing the
innovations that our changing world demands.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the member of the
leadership who has had a major role in recognizing the need for this
package.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, from negative economic data on wages and
consumer prices, to a falling stock market, there is almost no margin
for error in today's tight economy. We face an urgency and a moral
obligation to get it right and ensure no American is forced to live in
those margins.
This legislation represents a strong bipartisan agreement on an
economic stimulus package that will begin to provide financial relief
and income security to middle-class Americans most at risk in a
prospective recession.
Building on our work to extend the child tax credit, and my belief
that all hardworking low- and middle-income families should receive at
least a partial credit, this package will ensure that any family that
pays taxes and earned at least $3,000 last year will get a $300 rebate
per child. It is long past time that we finally recognize that the
child tax credit should be available to all families, including those
who serve in our military.
With the economy in so much difficulty, this is the right approach:
immediate, focused on those who need resources, and who will spend it.
Unlike previous efforts to stimulate the economy, this package is
focused on the middle class, and provides real, not token, relief. That
includes $28 billion in tax relief for 35 million families who work but
make too little to pay income taxes, but they pay sales tax, FICA tax,
property taxes, families who otherwise would not have been included in
this recovery effort, more than 19 million of them with children.
To meet our obligation, boost our struggling economy, and provide
real assistance for middle-class Americans, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

[[Page H495]]

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for the
opportunity to speak. Of course, I come before this body today to stand
in support of our bipartisan agreement put together by the President
and our leadership in an effort to boost our economy. I do want to
express to my chairman and my ranking member my disappointment,
however, that this product didn't come through the committee, since I
know we have good leaders, beginning with our chairman and ranking
member, who have good ideas; and I believe this product should have
come through the committee with committee action and committee input.
But I do stand in support of what I feel is a good compromise.
Under this plan, a family of four making $70,000 a year in the
district I represent in Illinois will see an extra $1,800 that they can
use for family expenses, and that is a good thing, money that can be
spent locally and creating local jobs.
I would like to focus on the component that I feel is the centerpiece
of this stimulus package, which is the 50 percent bonus depreciation, a
mechanism that works. It should be called, rather than bonus
depreciation, it should be called the ``invest in American jobs
component'' of the stimulus package. Because this extra 50 percent
bonus depreciation goes to invest in new computers and company
equipment and assembly lines, manufacturing lines, they are going to
get an extra 50 percent for depreciation purposes.
That is an incentive to invest in American jobs here in America, and
that is why bonus depreciation is so important. Because when we did it
in 2003, it worked. You look at this chart here; and when bonus
depreciation was passed into law, we saw an immediate jump in demand
for U.S. manufactured goods. The law had an impact, and it had a big
impact.
Now, I have heard reports today that our friends in the Senate, the
Senate Finance Committee, according to reports, may be considering
cutting in half the bonus depreciation. Well, in 2001, in the first
Bush tax cut, we tried 30 percent bonus depreciation back in this
period of time; and as you can see on the chart, it had a little bit of
an impact, not very much.
As the House and Senate work out our differences if we pass different
legislation, I urge that we keep the 50 percent bonus depreciation,
again, the ``invest in American jobs'' provision that is in the
stimulus act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge bipartisan support of this important legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Levin
of Michigan and congratulate him for the outstanding contribution that
he makes to the committee and the Congress.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your kind words, and
congratulations to the bipartisan leadership that has worked this out.
Yesterday in this very place, the President said: ``Our economy is
undergoing a period of uncertainty.'' For millions of people in this
country, our economic difficulties are very, very certain indeed, and
that is true of the over 7 million who are unemployed.
Economists agree that unemployment insurance is one of the most
stimulative approaches that can be undertaken. Unemployment is rising
significantly. In December, the total number of unemployed was 900,000
higher than the same month in the prior year, and long-term
unemployment is now twice as high as it was in the last recession.
Almost a fifth of those who are unemployed have been unemployed over 26
weeks, and in Michigan, 72,000 people will exhaust their jobless
benefits in the first half of this year.
In the past, the extensions of unemployment compensation have come
too late. The time for action on extension is here and now.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I guess this afternoon I am going to be a fairly lonely voice in
opposition to this bipartisan agreement, and I hope that my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle will listen as in the next 3 minutes I
present to you five reasons why I think we should not be passing this
bill.
First of all, it is not really going to be stimulative. Look at what
caused the problem that we are in right now. This is a credit problem
and a capital problem. We got into this arguably because people
borrowed and spent too much money. So what are we going to do? We are
going to send people a check and say, spend it. Go buy a flat screen TV
and save America. I just don't think that is the proper stimulus or the
right way to go about this.
Second, it is really wealth redistribution. People who pay well over
50 percent of the taxes in this country get nothing, zero, nada. But
yet a substantial portion of this package will go to people who pay
nothing in taxes. So we call it a tax rebate, but people are going to
get a rebate who paid nothing, and people who paid most of the taxes
will get nothing.
Third, it increases the deficit. We have had three years of decline
in this deficit. We are finally seeing perhaps the end of these
deficits. And now with this and everything going on, we are looking at
increasing it for the first time in 4 years, maybe going back to a
deficit as much as $400 billion, which gets us back almost to where we
were before 9/11.
Fourth, I know that it says in there that nonresident aliens, meaning
illegal aliens, are not supposed to get a check. However, this is a
2007 1040 form, and if you look at it, you can look around all over the
place and see there is no box to check where it says I am a nonresident
or illegal alien and therefore am not eligible to receive this check.
This thing is ripe for fraud, because you send in a tax return paying
no money and get a check. So there will be opportunities for fraud.
Finally, fifth, it goes against all of our long-term goals. We all
sit in here on a bipartisan basis, particularly my friends on the
Democratic side have talked about reducing the deficit and getting to a
balanced budget. We have talked in this country that we don't save
enough. We talked in this country that many times we need to invest
more, as some of our friends in some of the emerging markets are doing.
We are sending completely the wrong message here, a message which is
don't save, spend; a message for the government which is don't save,
don't balance, but spend. We do need stimulus.
We should be providing stimulus that attacks the problem. If your leg
hurts, don't do something to try and help your arm. Help your leg. Our
leg hurts. The leg that hurts is credit and capital, and there is
stimulus we could do that would enhance the availability of credit and
encourage the movement and investment of capital. Unfortunately, this
doesn't do that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend
from California, I was struck as he excoriated the President's program,
that in his metaphor he seemed to think the President can't tell one
body part from another, which is a troubling thing.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the
remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Larson).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Connecticut will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our very
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Before the gentleman who spoke before me leaves, I just wanted to
make sure that we correct the record. He said we might go back to the
deficits that we had prior to 9/11. I will remind the gentleman that
this President inherited a surplus and we had three surplus years
preceding the fiscal year 2001, and in fact the Clinton administration
ended up with a net surplus, the only President in our lifetimes to
have done so. I know he misspoke and I knew what he meant, and I share
his view on the deficits.
However, I am very supportive of this package because uniquely
deficits I think are justified in the time when you have a crisis
economically confronting you and you want to stimulate

[[Page H496]]

the economy. That is in fact I think classic economics in many ways,
and it is what we hear almost every economist telling us, from
conservative economists to liberal economists and in between.
Mr. Speaker, for several years the American people have been
confronting an economy that most working people are not being
advantaged by. We were told that if we adopted an economic policy in
the early part of this administration that that would turn our economy
around, grow jobs, stimulate growth. In point of fact, of course, less
than one-third of the number of jobs that were created from 1993 to
2001 have been created from 2001 to today, less than a third in the
private sector, 6 million versus 20 million under Bill Clinton.
This prediction of economic well-being was not in fact true, and it
is now abundantly clear that millions of hardworking American families
are struggling and that the American economy needs a strong shot in the
arm.
I want to congratulate my friend Hank Paulson, the Secretary of the
Treasury. I want to congratulate the Joint Economic Committee that
provided good statistics, our Budget Committee and Ways and Means
Committee for the work they have done. I want to congratulate Mr.
Boehner and Mr. Blunt for the leadership they have shown, and I
certainly want to congratulate our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, all of whom
worked together tirelessly to try to come to agreement. And I want to
congratulate Mr. Rangel and Mr. McCrery, who in a bipartisan way worked
together to try to get us to where we are today.
I think this is good news for the American public, because we are
going to vote in an overwhelmingly and bipartisan fashion to reach out
to try to get this economy moving and help a lot of Americans.
The number of Americans living in poverty and the number of uninsured
is up by 5 million and 7 million respectively. Job growth has been
unimpressive. Foreclosures have hit record levels, and Americans all
across this country are struggling with exploding gasoline prices,
higher grocery bills, and increasing college and health care costs.

{time} 1345

Thus, I am very pleased that Members on both sides of the aisle and
the White House have come together in the spirit of bipartisanship and
good faith to produce the economic stimulus package that we will have
the opportunity to vote on today.
In particular, the Speaker, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, as I
said, and Treasury Secretary Paulson deserve great credit for their
efforts. The Speaker clearly, as someone who has watched her work on
this for the last 2 weeks, I can tell you, she was indefatigable and
focused, as was Mr. Boehner.
In short, this stimulus will put money in the hands of hardworking
Americans to give them the help they need and at the same time
stimulate the economy. That is what economists tell us we ought to be
doing.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers told the New York Times last
Friday about this stimulus package: ``It is a much-needed and very
constructive step. It will provide some confidence, but policy-making
will need to be on standby, because more may be needed.'' That is
obviously a fact. We hope this will do the job, but we will be on alert
to make sure that we do not recede further.
I am pleased that this stimulus package adhered to the principles
that Democrats have stressed for weeks, that an economic stimulus
package be timely, targeted, and temporary. That is not just an
alliterative phrase that rolls from your mouth relatively easily. It is
a premise on which we have based this package so it would be stimulus,
so it would be temporary and not exacerbate long-term deficits, and
would be targeted to those people who need it and will help stimulate
the economy.
Democrats are particularly pleased that under this package 35 million
working families who would not otherwise have been helped will receive
tax relief. My friend who spoke before me spoke about transfer of
wealth from one to the other. We treat, unfortunately, 50 percent of
America who pays more FICA taxes than they do income taxes, 50 percent
of working Americans pay more FICA tax than they do income tax, we
treat them as if somehow they are not paying taxes. They pay property
taxes, franchise taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes. They pay a lot of
taxes, and they are hurting. This is a tight economy for them, and this
bill added 35 million additional Americans, middle-income and lower-
income working Americans, with help. They will help stimulate the
economy.
This economic package also will expand financing opportunities for
Americans in danger of losing their homes. I congratulate Mr. Frank for
the extraordinary leadership he has shown on this issue. The mortgage
crisis obviously is squeezing many, many Americans and putting them in
danger. Too many have already lost their homes, and many are in danger
of losing their homes.
It also gives that business stimulus that is a concurrent partner of
this stimulus package, not only giving people the opportunity to
purchase but giving people the opportunity to expand jobs, expand their
businesses, and grow our economy.
I commend it to both sides. I thank both sides for working on this.
My friend Charlie Rangel said during the course of these negotiations,
he said that not only will the stimulus package through its economic
impact give confidence to our country, but the fact that we have in a
bipartisan way come together and concluded that we can work together in
time of challenge will also give our citizens confidence. I think they
will be pleased with the work we do this day.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the
Speaker and the leader for bringing this bill to the floor with such
expediency. I do hope this is the beginning of a year in which we can
count on cooperation for strong pro-growth fiscal policy.
Now, there is not a person in here who likes everything in this bill,
and I certainly would be one who is counted that there are provisions
in here I would rather not see. But I want to focus on the provisions
that I think work, and they work because they will point towards job
creation. At the end of the day, if we are talking about stimulus, the
best stimulus is a job.
There are two provisions in here, one which is the bonus depreciation
and the other, 179 small business expensing, which mean incentives for
our entrepreneurs and our small businesses and large businesses to have
cash come to the bottom line to be able to create more jobs.
If we can imagine the entrepreneurs in our communities at home who
are dealing with the question of whether they can deal with an economic
downturn or not, whether they have to let off jobs or not, this is real
relief to those entrepreneurs and those small businesses. That is why I
am excited about these provisions that will create jobs.
In response to some of the discussion which has ensued on the floor
here, I want to say that unemployment insurance and other things that
may or may not be what one is for, if we are talking stimulus, let's
call those what they are. Unemployment insurance extension of benefits
are enhancing a safety net. I don't think any of us would say that is
stimulative because, frankly, it allows individuals a safety net while
they are looking for a job. That is not stimulus for our economy.
Long term I would like to see this House continue to focus on the
uncertainty in the investment environment. My colleague from California
was here saying it is about capital, it is about the lack of investment
going on. We need to focus long term on lifting the cloud of
uncertainty for the investors and families in this economy so they can
count on the fact that their allocation of capital from a risk-based
standpoint is going to be rewarded, and that means keeping cap gain
dividend rates low, lowering corporate rates so that we can reward
those who take risks in our economy to create jobs.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for 2 minutes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, while the Bush Administration's reaction to

[[Page H497]]

the economic downturn was to continue whistling ``Don't Worry, Be
Happy,'' we were at work on a prompt response. But today's stimulus is
far less effective than it could have been and should have been because
those who doubted that we needed to do anything insisted on supporting
only action that would give one of every $3 to corporate America and
would delay until this summer giving any assistance to ordinary working
families.
And now there is even an effort to add tax cut rebates to this bill
for multi-millionaires. That is hardly ``stimulus'' unless they decide
to increase their tips to the butler or the limousine driver.
Although the risk of recession is very real and it requires a
bipartisan response, let's be very clear: this danger did not result
from any bipartisan cause.
Like the Republican mythology that tax cuts pay for themselves, this
downturn had its genesis in the wrongheaded notion that markets can do
no evil, whether the subject is environmental protection or economic
stability. They think the only desirable action is for the government
to get out of the way. Well, the Bush Administration got way out of the
way, and as a result we had overzealous lending and sometimes fraud in
the subprime market while the Bush Administration stood by.
We wouldn't need a $150 billion stimulus today if they had done their
job. Whatever we do here, it can still be a stimulus without letting go
of the pay-as-you-go rule and adding to our soaring national debt.
Borrowing too much is what helped create this Bush economic mess.
Borrowing even more can make it even worse. Political expedience should
not trump sound fiscal policy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama has 1\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Louisiana has 27 minutes. The gentleman
from Connecticut has 20 minutes. The gentleman from Massachusetts has
8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the financial
economic stimulus package we have before us. As we know, our economy
has begun to slow after a robust growth period of 52 months. It is
imperative that we act swiftly in a bipartisan manner. I congratulate
the Speaker, the minority leader, and the President for their ability
to work together and come forth with this package.
We have learned about tax rebates for filers. I think this is good
for family budgets. Furthermore, they are targeted to the low- and
moderate-income Americans who are most in need. I am also pleased that
this package includes important tax incentives for small business
growth. In a State like West Virginia, business is small business, and
they are the job creators. It is critical that we provide them with the
assistance that they need to keep their businesses viable and growing.
This agreement includes much-needed incentives to encourage the
investment that creates jobs and seeks to maintain our Nation's
competitiveness.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the long-overdue step toward
modernizing the Federal Housing Administration to provide support for
Americans who are struggling in this current housing crunch. This bill
will make it easier for many Americans to refinance their mortgages and
receive the support to do so. Yet while I am encouraged by this step,
we must continue to work towards more comprehensive FHA modernization
to make sure that this program continues to be the resource for
creditworthy borrowers that may not qualify for conventional market
loans.
I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and Ranking
Member Bachus on this important issue, and our colleagues in the other
body, to proceed with negotiations and produce a final product we can
all support.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member
of the committee who has been a hard worker on this, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate in here
this afternoon. What is on the American people's mind right now are two
words: ``quickly'' and ``now.'' They want this economy turned around
quickly and now.
The best way to do that is in our plans, getting money to the people
who will spend it quickly and now, extending the limits on our lending
capacity in FHA quickly and now, and in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Mr. Speaker, about 143 years ago, Abraham Lincoln, as well as Robert
E. Lee, came before this Congress at the end of the Civil War, and they
said to this Congress: we need to move. It is not incumbent upon us to
complete this task, but neither are we free to desist from doing all we
possibly can quickly and now.
Those are the words that are tripping off the tongues of the American
people. We need to stop them from being put out of their homes with
foreclosures. That is why we have the limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, as well as for the FHA loans.
Americans want to be able to have their jobs. You do that by
stimulating the economy and putting the money in the hands of the
people who will spend it quickly and now.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade.
Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman.
I commend the House leaders for coming together in a bipartisan way
on today's tax relief bill. But I believe we must do much more to truly
foster business certainty, economic expansion, and a prosperous America
for workers and their families.
The doubled small business expensing and bonus depreciation tax
relief in this bill will help employers invest in their businesses,
retain the workers they already have, and hire new employees in 2008.
It would be even more beneficial if we were focused on permanent
relief. Even today, U.S. industry is looking 2 and 3 years down the
road and making investment plans based on the expectations of the
massive Democrat tax increases. Absent predictable, low rates on
capital formation, tax increases will take a toll on economic activity
and growth, meaning fewer jobs, lower wages and tougher times for
families in the future.
Such a hit to our economy would far outweigh any static revenue loss
we would see from enacting big-picture tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, we should also focus on putting our employers on an even
tax footing with countries around the globe. Currently, the United
States has the second highest business tax rates among world market
economies.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to encourage a sound and prosperous American
economy tomorrow, we have to begin by planting the seeds of prosperity
and growth today.

{time} 1400

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am honored
to recognize the preeminent authority on smart growth in the Congress,
and I dare say this Nation, the gentleman from Oregon, a distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer, for 2 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his
leadership on this issue.
I rise in support of this legislation, but, frankly, we've waited too
long to get to this point. We have watched as this administration has
exploded the national debt. We have watched the growth in the gross
domestic product slow 35 percent in this administration over the
previous one. Median incomes declined. The savings rates have gone
negative, and the trade deficit has doubled.
Most important, they ignored the symptoms of the subprime mortgage
markets, a failure to exercise reasonable oversight. This legislation
is an important first step towards rebalancing the equity.
I commend the Speaker for targeting aid for those who need it most. I
appreciate what my friend from Massachusetts Mr. Frank has focused on,
to make it easier for hard-pressed families to refinance their loans. I
hope before we get through this process that we'll be able to add to it
unemployment and food stamp benefits, which will have even more
stimulative effect.

[[Page H498]]

After this bill, we need to deal with issues of infrastructure,
making sure that we don't shut down our wind energy production tax
credit, and deal with bankruptcy equity so that homeowners get the same
protections as people who speculated in property.
Last but not least, I hope that this is the beginning of real
progress in Congress that becomes a critical issue of accountability on
the campaign trail so that next year we won't have to make compromises
that compromise what we need to do for the American family.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, the basic principle of this economic
stimulus package I agree with, and that is allowing taxpayers to keep
more of what they contribute to the government in order to keep more of
what they earn so they can spend it for their families and the
communities.
Yesterday, the Speaker said that she estimates that each dollar of
broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth. Now, that's a
wonderful thing, 26 percent return on your investment for allowing
people to keep what they earn. That's wonderful and that's a very good
thing. Tax relief spurs economic growth. That is true.
But we have to also go a step further in this economic stimulus
package. At a time when people are concerned about high gas prices,
rising costs of health care, as well as keeping their homes, we have to
be acutely aware of helping them. And I think what we can do as a
Congress is go a step further in this stimulus package, one step
further, and that is to take the rising taxes, the tax increases that
are on the table and take them off the table.
Look, we need to do a whole lot more to keep this economy strong, to
keep it consistently strong. We need to make permanent the tax relief
from 2001 and 2003. I think it would be immoral for Washington
politicians to take more out of people's hard-earned incomes for
wasteful spending programs. And I think we have to go further.
By taking that tax increase off the table, we will help every kitchen
table in America, for every middle-class family in America.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield now 1 minute to a
member of the Financial Services Committee whose expertise in the world
of business and finance has been very helpful to us, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, the good news is the debate is
over. The President, Congress, and the American people all agree that
the economy is in trouble and that the old cures that the Bush
administration has used to grow our economy have failed to provide
working and middle-class Americans a better life and a secure future.
I support this economic stimulus package because American families
are hurting and small business needs help and they need it now.
Unlike the President, both Wall Street and Main Street know that we
need a bold new vision to ensure America's economic leadership is a
global economy.
Americans understand that we need to reward companies that create
jobs here at home, and we must stop giving American businesses
incentives to move our jobs overseas. We need to once again be the
place where entrepreneurs from around the world come to live their
dream.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take the first step today by
giving families and small businesses a helping hand. I also ask my
colleagues to come together with the courage and resolve to give
America an economic plan that ensures our children's American Dreams.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan
economic stimulus package. I believe we have talked ourselves into a
recession, and confidence in our economy is waning. By passing this
legislation, we are taking an important step to lessen the impact of an
economic slowdown, but there is more work to be done.
I am pleased the legislation includes the bonus depreciation and
section 179 expensing provisions, which will encourage companies and
especially small businesses to immediately purchase new equipment and
expand their businesses.
Allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHA to purchase larger
loans gives needed flexibility to support sound lending in the 21st
century. The recent slump in the housing market has been a major factor
in our current economic uncertainty, so it is appropriate we address
home loans in the stimulus package. In doing this, we increase the need
for a new regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which I am hopeful
we will enact into law soon.
While this is a start, the bipartisanship displayed in crafting this
legislation, which will have an impact in the short term, must continue
to develop long-term solutions to address the increased cost of energy,
uncertainty about future tax increases, and unsustainable growth in
health insurance costs. Only by tackling the issues that impact the
American people will we restore confidence in our economy.
In closing, I am disappointed the stimulus package being considered
today does not have a cost-of-living differential for regions. There
are many residents of the Fourth Congressional District who make over
$75,000 but are struggling to keep up with education, energy, and
health expenses in our region.
It would have been better if the legislation before us today
recognized it costs more to live in a State like Connecticut than it
does other parts of the country.
With that being said, this is a good bill and worthy of all Members'
support.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, it is my honor and
privilege to introduce the person in Congress who knows more about
article I in the Constitution than anyone else, the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) for 1 minute.
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, today we will pass a bipartisan economic
stimulus package that will help American families and jump-start our
growing economy.
Throughout our great country, hardworking citizens are making major
sacrifices to make ends meet, cutting back on winter clothes to pay for
heat, scaling back groceries to pay for kids' medical bills, or
sacrificing college in attempt to prevent mortgage foreclosure.
For 117 million families, 1.6 million in Kentucky alone, rebate
checks of $600 per individual, $1,200 per couple and an additional $300
per child will be in their mailboxes by as early as May. This is
dramatic departure from the old strategy in which leaders hoped tax
breaks for billionaires would trickle down to the people who really
needed help.
Hope is a wonderful thing. But as the last 7 years have taught us, it
is not effective fiscal policy for most Americans. By targeting those
who need help, who we know without doubt will spend and invest and put
money back in the economy, we aren't depending on hope; we're providing
it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in providing that hope and jump-
starting the economy today.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I'm now going to yield to
the Chair of the Financial Institution Subcommittee, who has been a
very important part of our effort to try and deal with this crisis, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 1 minute.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would also like to yield
1 minute as well to the distinguished lady from New York.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The gentlewoman from New York
is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlemen for yielding the
time, and I appreciate their leadership.
Madam Speaker, today we will vote on an important bipartisan
achievement, an economic stimulus package that is truly timely,
temporary and targeted. Under the plan, more than 100 million families
squeezed by the high cost of basic living expenses will get a
meaningful tax rebate, and it is targeted to those families most in
need. Millions of families can get help to avoid losing their homes,
and small

[[Page H499]]

businesses can take advantage of tax cuts that will help spur
investment and job creation.
This package will provide a boost to the economy by putting hundreds
of dollars into the hands of middle and lower income families who will
generate demand without the fear of igniting inflation.
Our plan also temporarily raises the mortgage lending limits for FHA,
Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to increase affordable refinancing options
for those facing foreclosure and to inject much needed liquidity into
the housing markets.
I regret that many of the aspects of the FHA reform were cut out of
the bill, and we hope to have them passed in the Senate. These efforts
build on the hard work of Democrats in Congress to help families stay
in their homes and to prevent other crises like this from happening in
the future.
This package is an important first step, but there is much more to
do. We will keep fighting to restore the American Dream and to help
America's hardworking families.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield the
distinguished lady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished manager of this
legislation and vice chairman of our caucus.
Madam Speaker, the United States, the American people asked us to
act, and I'm proud today to rise and to support the kind of stimulus
that provides opportunity not only for those who you would expect or
those who are argued for, but the working men and women, middle-income
Americans in my congressional district in Houston making less than
$50,000, allowing them to get either $600 as a single person, $1,200 as
a family, and $300 as a married couple.
The most important aspect is that economists estimate that each
dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth. But I hope
that we will look to the addition of food stamps, summer job programs,
and extension of the unemployment. And we must have the language, I
hope, in the final bill, a sense of Congress that there should be a
moratorium on foreclosures that are happening in America today; 2.4
million foreclosures expected in this coming year. It is imperative
that we give a sense that these individuals can reconstruct their loans
and survive.
This is a package that is needed for America. I ask my colleagues to
support it.
Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of the Recovery Rebate and
Economic Stimulus for the American People Act. I would like to thank
Speaker Pelosi for her leadership on this issue, as well as my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked together to
overcome partisan divisions to work together to stimulate our national
economy. This legislation will inject $145.9 billion into the economy
in 2008, over two-thirds of which will come in the form of tax rebate
checks, given directly to individuals and families.
However, while I support this legislation, I would like to express my
concern about some of this bill's omissions. I requested and had hoped
that this legislation would include language declaring that it is the
sense of Congress that a moratorium of up to 90 days should be declared
on all home foreclosures, and that it is the sense of Congress that the
financial industry should allow for the reconstruction and
reconfiguration of the mortgage loan market.
Madam Speaker, I would like to see the following language included in
the final legislation, agreed on by both Houses and signed into law by
the President:
(i) It is the sense of Congress that a moratorium of up to 90 days
should be declared on all home foreclosures.
(ii) It is the sense of Congress that the financial industry should
allow for the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the mortgage loan
market.
It was my sincere hope, shared by many economists, that a temporary
economic adjustment period would provide relief for millions of
Americans, and that this added time would give them time to look for
other resources. By delaying foreclosure, Congress would have declared
that millions of Americans deserve to make their payments, or to get
their loans restructured before they lose their homes. Those who can
keep paying would continue putting money back into our economy. Madam
Speaker, we must act now to prevent what could be a disaster for
millions of Americans.
There are a number of additional proposals that I would like to see
included in the final economic stimulus package. I believe it should
include a summer job program, aimed at helping our Nation's youth gain
the crucial work experience and job skills that will allow them to be
competitive in today's increasingly difficult employment market. By
working to provide Americans with the skills they need to successfully
secure and keep employment, we cannot only help both adults and youth
to develop their careers and to support themselves and their families,
but we can bolster the whole economy by combating poverty and
unemployment.
I would also like to see the extension and expansion of several
existent programs which are already doing important work toward helping
Americans. Under the strain of current financial circumstances, I
believe that we must bolster these important programs. Madam Speaker, I
call for the expansion of food stamps and Medicaid programs, and for
the extension of unemployment benefits. Given the current economic
climate, I believe that is our responsibility, as the leaders of our
Nation, to do all in our power to ensure that the most vulnerable
populations are protected.
Madam Speaker, now is the time for innovative leadership and
concerted action. Recent data shows economic growth is slowing, and
many economic analysts predict a 50 percent chance of recession.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rose from 4.7
to 5.0 percent in November 2007 alone. This data, coupled with a
struggling housing market and overall slowing economic growth, has
caused a ``credit crunch'' that has reduced available funding and has
caused rising prices for housing and food.

Over the past year, we have seen a crisis in subprime mortgage
lending, which has threatened the stability of the housing market and
the livelihoods of large numbers of Americans. During the third quarter
of 2007, the Nation's home foreclosures doubled from the previous year.
This Democratic Congress is committed to strengthening the housing
market and stabilizing the economy, and we have passed important
legislation to address this crisis.
Because of the lack of regulation by the Federal Government, many
housing loans were accompanied by fraud, predatory lending, inadequate
information and other failures of responsible marketing. With
exceptionally high--and rising--foreclosure rates across the country,
homeowners all over America are losing their homes. Homeowners are
surprised to find out that their monthly payments are spiking and they
are struggling to make these increasingly high payments.
The subprime mortgage crisis has impacted families and communities
across the country. Home foreclosure filings rose to 1.2 million in
2006, a 42 percent jump, due to rising mortgage bills and a slowing
housing market. Nationally, as many as 2.4 million subprime borrowers
have either lost their homes or could lose them in the next few years.
In my home State of Texas, citizens are feeling the impact of the
looming financial crisis. In November 2007 alone, there were 11,599
foreclosure filings in Texas. According to the Center for Responsible
Lending, in Harris County alone 11,944 homes were lost from 2005 to
2006 through foreclosure on subprime loans. During the same time
period, the average home decreased $1,355 in total value.
Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that this agreement should include a
moratorium on foreclosures of at least 90 days on owner-occupied homes
with subprime mortgages. Any agreement should also include a rate
freeze on adjustable mortgages of at least 5 years or until the loan is
converted into a fixed-rate mortgage. The freeze on foreclosures would
give the housing market time to stabilize and homeowners time to build
equity. It is critical that we address this crisis. The Bush
administration and the mortgage industry must reach an agreement that
matches the scale of the problem. The U.S. Treasury Department has been
pushing the mortgage industry to agree to temporarily freeze interest
rates for some borrowers who took out loans with low teaser rates that
will soon be resetting much higher.
Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we address the serious
underlying housing issues faced by our Nation. Seventeen million
households, or one in seven, spend more than 50 percent of their income
on housing. On any given night, approximately 750,000 men, women, and
children are homeless. Constructing more affordable housing is
necessary to help families who have lost their homes in the subprime
mortgage crisis or due to a family financial crisis, such as illness or
job loss. In my home district in Houston, homelessness remains a
significant problem. Houston's homeless population increased to
approximately 14,000 in 2005, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and
hurricane evacuees remaining in the Houston area could result in the
homeless population increasing by some 23,000. Approximately 28 percent
of homeless Americans are veterans.
In August, I, in coordination with the Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs, hosted a workshop on the introductory concepts
and considerations in applying for

[[Page H500]]

Housing Tax Credits in Texas. This workshop was designed to create new
incentives for developers to expand business opportunities in housing
development, as well as to generate a significant increase in the
availability of low-income and affordable housing for the residents of
Houston and Harris County. I believe that an increase in affordable
housing and job opportunities will help reduce the high rates of
homelessness among Houston residents.
Madam Speaker, today's economic stimulus legislation will make
important strides towards helping hardworking Americans who are
struggling with the high costs of gas, health care, and groceries. By
putting several hundred dollars directly into the hands of 117 million
American families, this legislation will make important strides toward
invigorating our economy, giving money to those who will quickly spend
it, reinvesting this money in the American economy.

This bill provides broad-based relief for individuals and families,
valued at approximately $109 billion over 10 years. The packages
includes tax cuts for 117 million families, providing up to $600 per
individual, $1,200 per married couple, and an additional $300 per
child. On top of these recovery rebate checks, which could be sent as
early as mid-May, this legislation will provide unprecedented tax
relief for working families, with $28 billion in tax relief for 35
million families who work but make too little to pay income taxes, who
would therefore otherwise not be included in this recovery effort. It
is targeted to reach those who need the relief the most: Of these 35
million working families, over 19 million are families with children. I
support provisions in this legislation providing tax relief to middle-
income Americans, as well as those aspiring to the middle class,
leaving out the wealthiest taxpayers. Nearly $50 billion of the rebate
will go to those making less than $50,000.
Madam Speaker, family incomes and home prices are down, even as the
costs of health care, energy, food, and education are on the rise.
Combined with the jump in mortgage foreclosures, the American economy
is struggling, with American families falling behind on their bills and
consumer confidence hitting a 5-year low.
This bill also contains some provisions to help families avoid
foreclosure. It increases affordable refinancing opportunities and
liquidity in the housing market, increasing the Federal Housing
Administration loan limits to $729,750 for 2008. This will expand
affordable mortgage loan opportunities for families at risk of
foreclosure. Further, it includes a 1-year increase in loan limits for
single family homes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, enhancing credit
availability in the mortgage market.
While this legislation includes provisions intended to provide a
short-term ``fix'' to many of the economic difficulties our economy is
currently facing, I do not believe that it addresses the long-term
needs of our Nation. While short-term response is critical, we must not
neglect infrastructure, energy independence, and innovation needs,
without which we will not be able to establish a vibrant U.S. economy.
I look forward to working with House leadership, and with my fellow
Members on both sides of the aisle, to look to the future, and to build
innovative and long-term solutions to the underlying problems our
economy faces.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is not perfect, but I believe it is
an important step. I continue to advocate for a 90-day moratorium on
home foreclosures to give financially troubled borrowers time to work
with lenders and avoid losing their homes. I also believe we, together,
must address the underlying infrastructure problems plaguing our
economy. However, I do believe today's legislation will provide
important benefits to millions of Americans, to the entire economy, and
to our Nation as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of
this legislation.

[Discussion Draft]

Amendment to H.R. __

Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:

SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HOME MORTGAGE
FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM AND MARKET.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) a moratorium of up to 90 days should be declared on all
foreclosures on home mortgage loans; and
(2) the financial industry should allow for the
reconstruction and reconfiguration of the home mortgage loan
market.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, it is now my high honor to
call upon the chairman of the Select Revenue Committee for the Ways and
Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Springfield,
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for 2 minutes.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I want to first
congratulate the Speaker and Chairman Rangel and Chairman Frank for
negotiating this economic stimulus bill which will provide relief to
working families and businesses in these difficult times.
The bill provides $100 billion in tax relief to working families,
targeting this relief to families that really need it. A family earning
between 10 and $20,000 will see their taxes cut by 50 percent. For New
England families facing rising energy bills, this is well-timed relief
and cash in the hands of those most likely to use it to spur on
economic growth.
Like others, I believe we can and will do more. But I'm a strong
supporter of the legislation that's in front of us and urge its
adoption.
Some have quibbled with the impact of this stimulus, but I believe
this is how the Congress should respond in a troubled economy. Abe
Lincoln noted that ``The legitimate object of government is to do for a
community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at
all in their separate and individual capacities.''
Working families, businesses, homeowners, and investors are hurting.
This quick infusion of cash to low- and middle-income families, to
small businesses and large businesses where necessary, making capital
purchases, will jump-start our economy in a quick and efficient way.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it possible? Yes.
Is there more work to be done? Certainly. We will come to that as
well in late winter and early spring.

{time} 1415

This is good work and the leadership should be commended. Mr. Rangel,
Mr. Frank, and Speaker Pelosi all should be acknowledged for the work.
I thank our friend from Hartford, Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for giving
me time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like
to recognize the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for 1
minute.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, the administration's policies of the
past 7 years have led us to this point. The American people know that
prices have gone up for everything, from groceries to heating oil to
gasoline, while at the same time jobs are moving overseas, the housing
market is in a crisis and the economy is struggling. This is what
happens when there is no oversight for 7 long years and mismanagement
is allowed to run rampant.
I'm pleased that we did come together in a bipartisan manner to
produce this bill. Over 117 million American families will receive
rebates under this plan, including 600,000 in my own State of New
Hampshire.
This bill also helps small businesses, which are at the heart of our
Nation. It is a very good start, but we need to do more for senior
citizens and for those who receive Social Security. We need to do more
for families who need to stay warm this winter. They are the most
vulnerable members of our society. They need help the most, and we know
they will put the money directly into the economy.
We must continue to turn this Nation's attention towards restoring a
vibrant, robust middle class.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, at this time it is an honor
to call upon the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for
1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and vice-
Chair of our caucus for yielding me the time.
If his chairman, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Frank had had their druthers,
not to mention the Speaker, this would have been a far better bill than
it is today. It would have included the extension of unemployment
insurance and food stamp benefits; it would have helped out States with
their Medicaid funding crisis.
It would also have included home mortgage foreclosure mitigation
which has had a tremendous impact upon thousands of families throughout
the country. We know that a one-time payment of $600 will do nothing to
help a family facing foreclosure, as some 250,000 American families are
expected to do every month this year.
The Bush White House insisted that this mortgage foreclosure
counseling be taken out over the objections of Mr. Frank, and it is a
darn shame when this could have had such a positive impact.
The impact of home foreclosures isn't limited to the lender and
borrower, as we so well know. They have a negative impact on the entire
community.

[[Page H501]]

The reality is that across this country over the ensuing year there
will be nearly 45 million homes that will be foreclosed on. This will
shrink the local property tax base by $223 billion this year as a
result of the foreclosure of home mortgages. And, yet, when we look
around at what has worked, we find that one hotline, for example, is
currently taking more than 1,000 calls a day preventing an estimated
200 foreclosures by empowering borrowers with the skills and education
they need to work out terms with their lenders and to stay in their
homes.
That's one of the things that this this bill needs to be about. It
needs to be about extending unemployment insurance and the kind of
helping hand to America's working class that this party stands for. We
are going to pass the bill, but we could and should have done better.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the ranking member on the
Financial Institutions Subcommittee of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this important bill
and urge its swift passage.
I'm pleased that House leaders, both Republican and Democrat, and the
administration have been able to come together quickly on a clean,
targeted economic stimulus package. The bill promises to relieve the
financial strain on hardworking Americans while providing a much-needed
boost to the economy and the housing market.
Today, I want to highlight a few provisions in the bill produced by
the Financial Services Committee. These provisions increase the
conforming loan limits for both the Federal Housing Administration and
the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And what will this do? It will
keep property values from falling further by temporarily permitting
Fannie, Freddie and the FHA to help homeowners and buyers finance and
refinance mortgages in high-cost areas like the City of Chicago.
In short, it will help save the neighborhood.
These are important first steps; but as the President indicated last
night, there are additional steps that require our full attention in
the days to come if we are to reinvigorate the economy. We need to
prevent a return of the marriage penalty, the death tax and the
alternative minimum tax, along with higher taxes on income dividends
and capital gains. We also need to send comprehensive FHA and GSE
reform to the President.
During the last two Congresses, our committee in the full House has
passed bills to modernize the FHA and reform Fannie and Freddie, but
these efforts have yet to become law. The latest FHA proposal was even
rumored to be part of the stimulus package, but it is not.
And that is why I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to
conference these two bills and get a final product to the President
immediately.
A modernized FHA program will provide insurance so that more
struggling American homeowners can refinance their existing mortgages
and keep their homes. It will give first-time homebuyers a viable
alternative to bad subprime loans. By providing Fannie and Freddie with
a world-class regulator, we can infuse the housing market with
liquidity so that more financing is available for perspective
homeowners.
In addition, we need to supply more funding for housing counseling.
Counselors can help guide homeowners into a loan that best meets their
budgets and needs, steering them away from a situation that could lead
to foreclosure down the road.
Madam Speaker, it is critical to the housing market and our economy
that we finalize GSE and FHA reform and increase housing counseling.
Adding liquidity and consumer confidence to the flagging housing market
can restore vigorous growth to our economy, and we must do it without
delay.
And in the near term, I urge my colleagues to support this economic
stimulus package as a critical first step.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to a
member of our committee who has been very active in trying to deal with
housing and especially with the area of manufactured housing, which is
such an important part of our efforts to meet the housing needs, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).
Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan economic stimulus
package. These are difficult times for working families. From rising
energy prices and health care costs, to mortgage concerns and a
volatile job market, families in my district are feeling the squeeze in
almost every facet of their lives.
This stimulus package before us is carefully crafted to provide
immediate tax relief to working families, while maximizing the benefit
to the economy.
It is estimated that 2.6 million middle-class Hoosier families will
receive $2.4 billion in tax relief.
In addition, this stimulus package also recognizes the important role
that small businesses play in creating jobs and strengthening our
economy. The package doubles the amount small businesses can write off
their taxes for new investments made in 2008, and it increases the
number of small businesses that are eligible for this basic tax relief.
Madam Speaker, I'm proud to support this stimulus package.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, we only have one remaining speaker to
close. So assuming that the gentleman from Connecticut has additional
speakers, I would ask that he be allowed to yield time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Louisiana.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
New York City, Mr. Serrano, who is loved dearly by her citizens. Only
Roberto Clemente is respected more in his great City of New York.
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. I have no voice, but I have a lot
of joy. This is a great day.
This is the first time that a package of this kind has included so
many poor people and so many folks in the middle class, but I
especially want to thank the leadership on both sides for including the
Territories. This is the first time in the history of this country that
the people who live in the Territories are treated as equal, as
Americans as they are, living under the American flag.
And where will they spend the money? At the same retail stores that
we will be spending our money here in this country. It's the same
economy; but for the first time, this Congress in a bipartisan way has
accepted the fact that it is one economy and the Territories are as
much a part of this Nation as any other part, and I thank you for that.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to now
prevail upon the distinguished gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for
2 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan stimulus
package. This bill will provide tax relief for over 1 million Nevada
families who will receive an average rebate of over $800.
With the unemployment rate in my State climbing above the national
average to a 5-year high of 5.8 percent, this timely support will help
these families weather the financial storm while they search for and
find new employment.
I'm also especially supportive of the provisions of the bill that
address the housing crisis. Unfortunately, my State of Nevada has the
highest rate of foreclosures in the country. The increased funding for
mortgage counseling, along with new higher loan limits for loans from
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHA, will help thousands of Nevadans
avoid foreclosure and keep their families in their homes.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the gentleman for
giving me so much time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like
to prevail upon the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for 1
minute.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson, and I want to
thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for working together,
for the give and take that's gone into this bill.

[[Page H502]]

I rise in support, but I do recognize the complaints that Mr.
Campbell raised in connection with this bill and this package. This is
a short-term fix to some long-term fundamental economic problems that
we have in the country, but it gives us a chance now to focus mid term
and long term on strategies and investments that will strengthen our
families and our Nation. These are strategies and investments that will
call for sacrifice on the part of the Nation, as well as each one of us
as individuals.
We will get a chance now, I hope, in future packages to look at the
infrastructure of this Nation in energy and transportation, but this
today will give the shot in the arm this country needs and give us a
chance to really plan for the future.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, can I inquire from the gentleman from
Connecticut how many speakers he has remaining.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Yes, we would be prepared to close at this
time. I don't know whether the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to
close as well. So, with that, we would reserve the balance of our time
and be prepared to close.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, so am I to understand that the majority
has two remaining speakers, one from Financial Services, one from Ways
and Means?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. That is correct.
Mr. McCRERY. Very well. In that case, Madam Speaker, I would yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member
of the Financial Services Committee, and then we will have one
remaining speaker to close.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, let me say this to the membership on both
sides. I believe that we've come together in a bipartisan way to pass
this legislation today because we have confidence in America. We have
confidence in the American people. We believe the American people have
a right to have confidence.
And I would say whether we're Members or Americans, I would say to
all of us, you have every reason to have confidence in this country.
You have every reason to have confidence in the workers of this
country, their innovative ability and their ability to produce and
compete in the world economy. You have every reason to be confident in
the American economic system.

{time} 1430

That's the message that I heard in New York City from many
institutions that said they had money to loan. There are companies out
there who are making money, that want to hire people, that want to
build new plants, that want to expand, that want to buy equipment, that
want to invest in new technology, but because of what they read in the
paper, not because of their balance sheet, but because of what they're
hearing is that things may get worse, there is a lack of confidence out
there. I don't believe that it is entirely justified.
This country has challenges. This economy has weaknesses, and we've
talked about those. But our underlying fundamental economic system and
our financial system is sound. And I hope by us today joining together
in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation we'll be saying to the
American people, your Congress has confidence in you and the economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to announce that the
gentleman from Louisiana has 16\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from
Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Connecticut
has 8 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the argument has been made
that this is just a short-term fix, and that is what we hope it will
be. We have both a short-term and a long-term problem.
A recession is, by definition, a specific incident in the cycle, and
what we are trying to do now is to respond to what we believe and hope
to be a specific, more short-term weakness. That's why we are able to
come together in a bipartisan way.
And partisanship is, I believe, a much unfairly maligned concept.
Partisanship is essential to a healthy democracy. There has never been
a self-governing polity in the history of the world, I believe, of any
size where political parties did not emerge, because large numbers of
people trying to govern themselves need an organizing principle other
than the authority of the leadership.
In America today, a division between the two parties reflects
serious, thoughtful differences on how the public and private sectors
should interact. We're a capitalist Nation and we're all capitalists,
but we differ. On the Republican side there is, I think, an unjustified
belief in the essential self-sufficiency of the capitalist system.
We believe, following many who have done work on the technical
``doctrine of market failure,'' market failure in the economic sense,
that the free market is a great generator of wealth, but that to
achieve the quality of life we want, there must also be a vigorous
public sector that interacts with it. That's partly in expenditures,
because there are public goods that all of us want that the private
sector does not have the capacity to produce, public safety and
transportation, and including some compassion for those among us who
will not live minimally decent lives unless the rest of us show some of
that compassion.
There is also the need for regulation. And the biggest single problem
we face today, I believe, is the consequence of too little regulation.
It is possible to overregulate, but it is possible to regulate
inadequately.
Innovation is very important, and innovation does not survive and
grow if it doesn't meet a real need in the economy. One of the
innovations of recent times was securitization made possible by large
pools of money, by great liquidity that came from various places, not
from depository funds, because funds that are in depository
institutions are regulated. But a lot of money was generated now, not
by bank deposits, but in other ways. And we've also got the ability,
technically and in other ways, to sell off those loans.
The lender-borrower relationship that was at the core 30 years ago of
many transactions has been essentially diluted. And it turns out that
those who thought they had a way to substitute for that missing lender-
borrower relationship were deluded. The relationship was diluted, but
they were deluded in thinking that they had these techniques that would
allow them to deal with it.
We are in a difficult situation today because the innovation and
securitization, which has many advantages, was allowed to go forward
without adequate regulation, without people knowing, literally, what
they were doing and what they were buying and what they were selling,
and keeping things off their balance sheets, and not being reserve
requirements and not being careful about what loans they bought. We
have differences between the parties as to how to deal with those, and
we will continue to work on those.
We, however, have a short-term, we hope, shortfall that needs to be
addressed. And let me talk for a minute for those who say, Well, what
makes you think people are going to go out and spend more because of
this? The purpose of a short-term stimulus like this is not to get
people to spend more; it is to help them not to spend less. We're not
talking about the need for a surge over the norm in consumer spending.
We are talking about a fiscal crunch that faces many Americans, in
response to which they will have to cut back spending. And people are
saying, Oh, they're going to buy flat screen TVs, they're going to do
this and that. We have, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, a
bill before us that will send most of the individual money to people
who don't have the option of saying, Well, I think I'll buy another
flat screen TV, but who need the money. Helping them avoid pain in
their lives and damage to the economy is the justification for this
very narrow, short-term stimulus.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, our closing speaker on the minority side
is a gentleman who deserves much of the credit for the swiftness with
which this stimulus package was brought to the floor. He deserves much
of the credit for the balancing of the interests of the majority and
the minority that is contained in this legislation. And he deserves
much of the credit for the majority and the minority leadership being
able to bring this bill forward to the floor today under suspension.
So,

[[Page H503]]

it's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce our closing
speaker, the respected minority leader, Mr. Boehner, and yield him as
much time as he may consume.
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Louisiana for his
generous words and thank all of my colleagues for the generous spirit
that we find in the Chamber today.
I think that the bill that we have before us that embodies an
agreement that Speaker Pelosi and I came to last week, along with the
administration, is going to help middle-class families that are in a
pinch. Their cost of living is rising, whether it be the cost of health
insurance, the cost of gasoline, energy, and at a time when their
salaries and their incomes aren't rising.
And I think that what the American people want is they want
solutions, solutions to the problems that we face in our country. And I
believe that the bipartisan measure that we have will, in fact, help
give a short-term boost to our economy. It will put money in the
pockets of American families. It will give businesses reasons to invest
in new equipment, to maintain and hopefully to expand their employment.
Is the bill perfect? No, it's not perfect. Republicans gave a little,
the Speaker gave a little, and at the end of the day, we came to an
agreement that I think represents what the American people expect of
us. They expect us to find ways to work together, not reasons to
continue to fight with each other. And the bill that we have before us
is the way good legislation occurs.
I've said this many times before, if I look back over my career in
Congress: The bills that I remember most, the most significant
legislation that I've worked on, has always been done in a bipartisan
way, whether I was in the minority or in the majority. And I want to
thank Speaker Pelosi for her willingness to sit down and work together
in a bipartisan way, in a constructive way. I want to thank Secretary
of the Treasury Paulson for their work in helping to facilitate this
agreement. And I look forward to this bill passing today and hopefully
quick action in the Senate.
The sooner this happens and the sooner we get this relief in the
hands of the American people, the sooner they can begin to do their job
of being good consumers and investing this money in our economy.
Some people say it won't work, that it's too little, it's too late,
and we shouldn't be doing this. You know, I've thought about that. I've
got concerns about whether this package will, in fact, work. But I've
got bigger concerns that if we do nothing, if we do nothing, we're just
asking for our economy to slow even further. And what that will do to
Federal revenues, what that will do to inflict pain on middle-class
American families, frankly, is unacceptable. So, I think it's worth the
chance and worth the opportunity for us to do this economic growth
package and to do it now.
Now, having said that, we've got a longer term issue in terms of
economic growth in America. Our economy, frankly, has been very good
over, really, if you go back, over the last 15 years we've had a very
strong economy. We've had a couple of slowdowns along the way, but when
you look down the road, there are some clouds on the horizon that we
ought to be concerned about. The idea that the tax relief that we put
in place earlier this decade to help those who invest in our economy,
those who pay taxes on our economy, the fact that that tax relief was
temporary, it might come back, I think causes a lot of investors to
wonder whether they should invest more in America's economy. And so,
making that tax relief permanent is a very important part of our long-
term economic growth.
Secondly, corporations in America pay taxes. And a lot of Members
think corporations pay taxes. The entity pays taxes to the Federal
Government, but corporations don't pay taxes, their customers and their
employees pay taxes. And having a tax structure on corporate America
that gives them reason to wonder should they locate here or should they
locate somewhere else, I think, is, again, sending the wrong signal. If
we want people to invest in our economy, our corporate tax structure
has to be competitive with those around the world. And today, it is
not. And it needs to be done.
The tax extenders that we've talked about in the past, especially the
research and development tax credit that gives companies a reason to
invest in research and development here in the United States, is
critical to our long-term success. And why that hasn't been
reauthorized as of yet is beyond me, but I hope it will be reauthorized
soon.
Madam Speaker, many Americans, in my view, correctly believe that
Washington is broken. I hope that this agreement in this bipartisan
bill that we will move today gives Americans some hope that we really
can begin to fix the problems, that we can begin to make sure that
Washington works for the American people.
And so, I'm glad to be here today. I'm glad to join with Speaker
Pelosi and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in hailing this
agreement and moving it in a bipartisan way. And I am hopeful that the
Senate can move very quickly.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise to associate myself
with the remarks of our distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner,
and thank him for the large role that he played in putting this package
together.
As he said in his remarks, the comity that exists in this Chamber
today is warming. President Roosevelt used to say that what we need in
this Nation is the warm courage of national unity. And it's great to
see, on a day like today, that we can all pull together.
I think, again, Mr. Bachus and Mr. Frank deserve an awful lot of
credit as well. And to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts,
whose eloquence is only superceded by his wit and understanding of the
parliamentary process, he continues to amaze.
But in getting philosophical, my grandfather, Nolan, would say, in
explaining the difference in the free market system, one thing has to
apply, and that's Peter Finley Dunn's reminder to ``trust everyone, but
cut the cards.'' And I think in coming together today, that's what
we've seen is a cutting of the cards.
But as we all know, this wouldn't have happened without the great
work of the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,
Charlie Rangel, and again, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. McCrery). So, we're sad to see him leave, but the partnership that
the two of them have had, as I've said earlier, exemplifies how the
Chamber and how committees should conduct themselves.
Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi deserves so much credit for this, for
first reaching out to the President, and then working hand in glove
with Mr. Boehner to make sure that we were able to bring this important
legislation to the floor today. As Mr. Rangel has outlined and Mr.
Hoyer as well, we made sure that this was simplistic in its approach to
get money out in a timely, targeted, and temporary manner. And I
believe that we have been able to achieve those goals.

{time} 1445

We further recognize, however, that we have a rendezvous with
reality, and the Ways and Means Committee and Mr. Rangel are prepared,
as we move forward in this session and into the next, to make sure that
we're addressing the long-term concerns that we know this economy
faces.
With that, again, I would like to thank the staffs of the respective
committees who have worked tirelessly to make sure that this
legislation was able to come to the floor in as speedy a manner as it
possibly can and can only pray to God that the other body acts in as
timely and targeted and temporary fashion as we have demonstrated here.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for this
needed economic stimulus legislation. This bipartisan bill will provide
timely, targeted and temporary relief to American families suffering
from the national economic downturn and provide a shot in the arm to
boost growth and avert a recession.
I commend Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader John Boehner,
Treasury Secretary Harry Paulson for working together across party
lines to find common ground. As North Carolina's only member of the
Democratic Majority on the House Budget Committee, I have been working
on a bipartisan basis to pass responsible legislation to respond to
worsening economic conditions. High energy prices, mounting national
debt, the crisis in the Nation's housing market and rising unemployment
levels have prompted calls for emergency legislation to arrest the
decline in the

[[Page H504]]

economy and put us back on a path of sustainable growth.
First, this economic trouble serves as a reminder of the importance
of putting our Nation's fiscal house in order to free America's future
generations from the crushing debt burden they now face. Unfortunately,
the record of this current Administration is the transformation of
record budget surplus projections into record national debt and massive
annual deficits without end. Although short-term deficits can be useful
to correct hurtful economic downswings, the current structural budget
problems featuring perpetual debt and deficits hamstring our ability to
invest in the future and build broad-based prosperity for hard-working
Americans.
This economic stimulus package will be effective because it is
targeted, timely and temporary. It will be targeted to families that
need the money and can be expected to spend it quickly on necessities
like food and clothing. It will be timely to yield the economic
benefits within the timeframe of the anticipated problem. And it will
be temporary to prevent exacerbation of the fiscal imbalance and make
our economic problems worse.
Specifically, H.R. 5140 will provide tax rebate checks to working
people of up to $600 for individuals and up to $1,200 for families, as
well as a $300 tax credit per dependent child. This immediate infusion
of cash will provide real relief to North Carolinians struggling to pay
their bills. Economic experts tell us this action will help stimulate
consumer spending and spur economic growth across the board to mitigate
the slowdown we are otherwise experiencing in the economy. Tax
incentives to encourage business investment and help small business
weather this economic storm should also be included in a responsible
package. I understand Governor Easley and others have raised concerns
about the impact of some of the business tax provisions in this bill.
At today's Budget Committee hearing, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence
Summers suggested slight revisions to these provisions to minimize any
negative impact, and I support modifications that will achieve that
goal as the process moves forward. I am hopeful the House will pass
this bill today and Congress can get a final version to the President
to sign into law within the next few weeks.
Over the longer term, Congress must invest in neglected priorities
like school construction to put workers back on the job and improve our
communities with better schools and healthier learning environments. We
must take better care of our military families and veterans returning
from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must expand quality health
care so working families no longer face economic ruin when a loved one
gets sick. And we must continue to support our first responders to keep
our communities safe and secure.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for this bipartisan
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass it.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the effort to
prevent our economy from sliding into recession. but I have strong
reservations about any strategy that does not take meaningful steps to
help those in need.
Just last week, the House passed my resolution (H. Con. Res. 198) to
cut poverty in half. While this stimulus bill is a step in the right
direction, it's also important to act on our words by ensuring ``the
least among us'' don't bear the brunt of an economic downturn. For
example, I'm concerned that the minimum earnings requirement of $3,000
leaves out the neediest.
And we have a lot of reasons to be concerned about the plight of
those in need. Since the Bush administration took office in 2001, the
median income is nearly 2 percent below its high in 2000, more than 5
million have fallen into poverty for a total 37 million Americans
living in poverty, and the unemployment rate has risen to 5 percent and
is almost double for African American males.
Congress must ensure that any relief it provides to stem the downward
slide reaches all Americans.
We must assist those who are going to lose their homes in the
mortgage foreclosure crisis. We must provide increased funding for food
stamps and FMAP Medicaid payments to States. Finally we must make sure
that unemployment benefits are extended.
Madam Speaker, any economic relief we provide will be a hollow
victory if those most in need are excluded. We must make certain that
the gap between the haves and have nots isn't widened by our action
here today. This is our solemn moral obligation.
Mr. PAUL. Madame Speaker, I find it odd that H.R. 5140, a bill
allegedly designed to provide a stimulus for the anemic American
economy, contains provisions that could damage the economy and hurt
American taxpayers. Specifically, the provisions increasing the loan
limitations of the Federal Housing Administration and the Government
Sponsored Enterprises (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), will
exacerbate the long-term problems in the housing market, and may even
lead to a future taxpayer bailout of the housing industry. The recent
bursting of the housing bubble should have taught my colleagues the
dangers of government polices that distort the market by diverting
resources to housing, when those resources would be more efficiently
used in other sectors of the economy.
Ironically, many of the same members who insisted that upper income
taxpayers be denied the tax rebates are enthusiastic champions of the
provisions in H.R. 5140 increasing the FHA loan limit to $633,500 and
the GSE loan limit to $729,750. This increase in the loan limits
represents a generous taxpayer subsidy to high-income homeowners.
A one-time ``rebate'' check, while it may provide a temporary boost
to many working American families struggling with the current downturn,
is not going to provide the type of sustained income growth necessary
to restore consumer confidence. In fact, history shows that when the
Government forgoes serious tax cuts in favor of one-time ``rebates''
most people either save the money for a ``rainy day'' or use it to pay
down some of their debt.
In addition, I am concerned that the 50 percent bonus depreciation
and the increase in the amount of qualifying purchases that small
businesses can expense in the year they bought their equipment will be
of limited effectiveness because they are limited to 1 year. A more
effective way to stimulate the economy would be to make the 2001 and
2003 tax cuts permanent. I also hope Congress considers the long-term
tax cuts contained in H.R. 5109, the Economic Growth Act.
Congress should also pass my Tax Free Tips Act (H.R. 3664), which
makes tips exempt from Federal income and payroll taxes. Making tips
tax-free will strengthen American families and the American economy by
allowing millions of hard-working Americans to devote more resources to
their children's, or their own, education, or to save for a home,
retirement, or to start their own businesses.
Another disturbing feature of H.R. 5140 is that, instead of taking
the fiscally responsible course and pairing the tax cuts with spending
cuts, this bill simply adds to the national deficit. Madam Speaker,
unless Congress acts soon to reign in its excessive spending the
American people will face confiscatory tax rates or skyrocketing
inflation.
Tax cuts by themselves will not restore long-term economic health
unless and until this body finally addresses the fundamental cause of
our economic instability, which is monetary policy. The inflationary
policies of the Federal Reserve are the root of the boom-and-bust cycle
that has plagued the American economy for almost 75 years. The Federal
Reserve's inflationary policies are also at the root of the steady
decline in the American people's standard of living. A good step toward
monetary reform would be for Congress to pass my H.R. 2576, which
repeals the Federal legal tender laws. This would allow people to use
alternatives to Government-issued fiat money and thus protect
themselves from Federal Reserve-created inflation.
One of the best things Congress could do for the American economy is
to repeal, or at least reform, the misguided Sarbanes-Oxley law,
particularly Section 404. Rushed through Congress in the wake of the
Enron and WorldCom scandals in order to show that Congress was
``getting tough'' on corporate crime, Sarbanes-Oxley imposes
unreasonable costs on small businesses and entrepreneurs.
A survey by Financial Executives International, an organization of
chief financial officers, put the average cost of compliance with
Sarbanes-Oxley at $4.4 million, while the American Economics
Association estimates Sarbanes-Oxley could cost American companies as
much as $35 billion. Because of these costs, many small businesses are
delisting from United States stock exchanges. According to a study by
the prestigious Wharton Business School, the number of American
companies delisting from public stock exchanges nearly tripled the year
after Sarbanes-Oxley became law, thus these companies are finding it
more costly to attract the necessary capital to grow their business and
create jobs.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5140 does not provide the kind of
permanent, deep tax relief that will protect long-term economic growth,
and will actually compound the damage Congress has already done to the
housing market. Instead of pretending that we are addressing America's
economic problems via temporary tax cuts, Congress should address the
fundamental problems of the American economy by pursuing serious
monetary reform, spending cuts, and regulatory reform. Congress should
also provide real long-term tax relief to the American people by
passing legislation such as H.R. 5109 and H.R. 3664.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support
for the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People
Act, H.R. 5140. This important measure represents a bipartisan
commitment to help hard-working Americans weather these turbulent
economic times.
Millions of Americans have been faced with the rising costs of
energy, housing and health

[[Page H505]]

care, which have taken a toll on the state of our economy. In my home
state of Rhode Island, the typical monthly housing payment is over
$2,200, making homeownership a dream out of reach for too many. The
situation for renters is not much better, as the average two-bedroom
apartment in Rhode Island rents for nearly $1,200 a month. Compounding
the cost of housing are the skyrocketing costs of energy, which rose
18.4 percent in 2007. Our employment outlook is also discouraging.
Earlier this month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the
national unemployment rate has risen to a 2-year high of 5 percent.
These harsh realities, combined with the snowballing effects of the
recent subprime lending crisis, have made it increasingly clear that
our economy will face an even sharper downturn if we do not act soon.
With that in mind, today we are taking swift and bipartisan action to
jump-start our Nation's economy with a measure that is timely, targeted
and temporary.
This measure will quickly inject $150 billion into our economy to
revitalize our markets, increase consumer confidence, and protect
against recession. Our package is targeted at low-income and middle-
class Americans who need assistance the most, providing rebates that
will put money directly into their pockets, which will, in turn,
stimulate our economy. I am particularly pleased that this package will
provide relief to 35 million Americans who work and contribute to
payroll taxes, but make too little to pay income tax.
Our measure will also temporarily increase the size of individual
mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase, offering help
to those in need of affordable housing, particularly in high-cost areas
like Rhode Island. Also included is a provision to allow the Federal
Housing Administration to insure a greater number of subprime loans so
thousands of Americans facing foreclosure may refinance their mortgages
with fairer terms.
Finally, I am pleased this package will help to stimulate our
Nation's small businesses by allowing them to write off 50 percent of
the cost of equipment the year it is purchased. This important
incentive--which expires at the end of the year--will encourage growth
and help keep our small businesses strong.
This measure solidifies our commitment to revitalize our economy in a
way that is timely, targeted, and temporary. I commend Speaker Pelosi
for her leadership in negotiating this significant bipartisan
agreement, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, this stimulus package is a small dose of
medicinal venom for an economy that has been bitten by the short-
sighted, regressive policies pursued by the Bush Administration. While
the administration pushed tax cuts for the rich and war without end
through a rubber-stamp Congress, the President gutted and stifled the
executive agencies that should have been reining in predatory lenders
and regulating what became a financial house of cards.
I support this package because we must do something to help American
families. I am disappointed, however, at the failure to adopt the
common sense initiatives that all agree would have the most effect.
At this time of economic uncertainty, in which those at the bottom
feel pinched the hardest, economists tell us that we must implement
relief in the form of stimulus that is timely, targeted, and temporary.
For a moment, it appeared that Republicans and Democrats, progressives
and conservatives, economists and activists, could actually join in
agreement that the best way to help all of us is to help the least of
us. We were told that the most ``bang for the buck'' could be
accomplished by increasing food stamps, expanding unemployment
insurance, and providing additional Medicaid funding for States
squeezed by the economic downturn. Somehow though, here we are a week
or so later, and none of that is in this package.
Never let it be said that the President, or his Republican allies,
was derailed from what he wanted to do by common sense, economic sense,
or a sense of compassion. The Republicans have a way of seeing every
bill that comes before them as a vehicle for gifts to their industry
friends, and this stimulus is no different. So instead of more
unemployment assistance for those who lost their jobs as a result of
this mismanaged economy, we get bonus depreciation for industrial
equipment. Instead of more food stamps for families facing record high
energy and food costs, we raise the Section 179 Expensing cap. If you
don't know what that is, believe me, it's not going to help you.
The refundable tax rebate will help average families, and that is why
I support this bill. I commend the Speaker for making sure that this
rebate includes some of those who did not make enough to pay taxes last
year. After all, these people will do what we are asking them to do
with these rebates--spend the money to stimulate the economy.
Unfortunately, one important group was left out of this rebate.
Millions of seniors receive their only income from Social Security.
They do not have enough ``earned income'' to receive the refund check,
yet they are among our most vulnerable. At a time when we are reaching
out to accomplish the dual goals of stimulating the economy and
providing relief for those most adversely affected, this omission is
glaring.
I join my colleagues who call for a second package going forward that
would address unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid relief to States, and
would help our most vulnerable senior citizens.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
5140, the Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008. I
especially want to congratulate you for your strong leadership, in
first reaching across the isle here in the House, then working with the
President to secure what I believe is a historic agreement that will
bring much needed help to the American people as well as provide a
badly needed shot in the arm to our slowing economy.
I also want to express my sincerest thanks to you on behalf of the
five U.S. insular areas for insisting that our residents and economies
also receive a stimulus. Because of your strong support, Americans in
the territories will be treated no differently than Americans in the 50
States, under the bill. If you qualify for a rebate in Rhode Island
then you qualify for one in the Virgin Islands.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 5140 is both timely and badly needed. As you
know, the American economy is in serious peril and our constituents are
feeling the impact. Whether it is the skyrocketing energy prices with
gasoline costing more than $3 a gallon or the continuing impact of the
subprime mortgage debacle, our national economy continues to face the
very real possibility of imminent recession.
It is imperative that we act and act now and H.R. 5140 represents a
bipartisan approach towards getting our economy moving. It would
provide more than 100 million Americans with a recovery rebate; allow
300 million families to benefit from a $300 increase in the child tax
credit; help millions of Americans get the tools to avoid losing their
homes and; provide small businesses with much needed tax cuts to spur
investment and job creation.
Madam Speaker, you and the entire House leadership are to be
congratulated for the work you have done in crafting this important
bill. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the economy needs our
help right now. And it will need our help in the long-term as well.
The American people don't need expert economic forecasts to tell them
that our country and our economy are seriously off track. They
experience it every day--when their paychecks shrink, when foreclosure
signs go up in their neighborhoods or even on their own home, and when
friends and family members receive pink slips.
It's clear that the economy needs help. The bill before us today, the
Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act,
offers an urgently-needed first step to boost the economy and help save
jobs.
The economy may be complicated, but the reasoning behind this bi-
partisan bill is not. By putting money into the hands of low- and
middle-income families who will spend it quickly, we will inject demand
back into the economy. While we can't know for sure what the future
holds for our economy, we know that we can make a difference if we pass
this stimulus package quickly.
I am very pleased that this package includes unprecedented tax relief
for 35 million American families who work hard every day but earn too
little to pay income taxes. Past economic relief packages, including
the one developed to respond to the 2001 recession, did not benefit
these families. But these families must be included to really help
boost the economy. This represents a very significant change in policy
thanks to pressure from Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in Congress and I
applaud the Speaker for working so hard to ensure that these families
and workers were included in our package.
Under this bill, a married couple with two children and an annual
income of $33,000 will see a rebate of $1,450. A single parent with an
annual income of $20,000 and two children will see a rebate of $1,035.
This financial assistance will provide substantial relief to families
struggling with the rising costs of energy, food, transportation, and
other basics.
Another important feature of our stimulus plan is the help it
provides to homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure. The bill increases
loan limits for single-family houses from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
from $417,000 to $729,750 for 2008.
This increased loan limit will enable qualified homeowners with
larger mortgages to refinance their mortgages, lower their monthly
payments, and avoid foreclosure.
In Contra Costa County, CA, where I live and which I am proud to
represent in Congress, the median home price in 2006 was

[[Page H506]]

more than $640,000. In Solano County, which I also am proud to
represent in Congress, the price was nearly $490,000. Both prices are
well above the current $417,000 limit. So, the change our bill makes
will provide critical help to untold numbers of families in my district
and around the country who are struggling to hold onto their homes.
Indeed, foreclosures in California skyrocketed in the fourth quarter
of 2007, up 421 percent compared with the fourth quarter of 2006. This
is an economic crisis that we must address, and our bill takes a strong
first step in that direction.
We have a responsibility to do everything we can to limit the
economic trouble that our country is now facing. We have this
responsibility to American workers who could lose their jobs and to
families that could lose their financial security.
We also know that passing this legislation is only a first step.
That's because our economy faced fundamental problems well before the
housing bubble began to burst and the turmoil started in the credit
markets.
Indeed, ever since the end of the last recession in November 2001,
the economy has been growing. But the benefits of that growth went
mostly to corporate profits--not to workers' paychecks.
Indeed, despite that economic growth, median family income last year
was actually lower than it was before the 2001 recession. Since 2001,
the number of Americans living in poverty has increased. So has the
number of Americans without health insurance.
These are long-term challenges that we must continue to address after
we pass this short-term stimulus package. We have an obligation not
just to get the economy on the right track again, but also to create a
stronger economy that truly benefits all Americans for years and years
to come.
Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5140, the
Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act.
For the last 7 years, powerful interests--whether its oil and gas
companies, PHARMA, or the wealthiest Americans--have had their day in
Congress.
Today, as the economy is on the brink of recession, we are finally
providing relief to those who need it most--working families.
These tax rebates will put money back into the pockets of Americans
who are struggling to make ends meet. I recently asked a young mother
in my district how she would spend her rebate check. ``Buy new clothes
for my kids,'' she said.
While today's package is a good start, checks in the mail are not
enough. Just last week, Methode Electronics announced that it would
close its Carthage plant--costing my district an additional 850 jobs.
This is the latest example of how the Bush economy has failed average
Americans and a stark reminder that we need to do more for working
families.
I am extremely supportive of the Senate proposal to extend
unemployment benefits to millions of Americans and strongly believe we
must reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to provide a
safety net for workers who lose their jobs due to unfair trade. If we
are sincerely dedicated to stimulating the economy, we need to invest
in our greatest economic asset--our workers.
Today's legislation is just a start, but it shows that this
Democratic Congress is committed to putting working families first--in
good times and in bad.
I strongly urge the President to accept these common-sense measures
expected in the Senate's proposal as we move forward on the stimulus
package.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill
because we must act to reduce the risk of a potentially deep recession,
provide a measure of assistance to people most at risk from the
economy's troubles, and encourage job-creating investments by the
private sector. But we must recognize that the bill's scope is limited
and it isn't a full response to the economy's problems.
Ironically, the bill's limited scope reflects its best feature--the
fact that it was developed through a bipartisan process producing a
broadly-supported compromise among the leadership on both sides of the
aisle and the Administration.
Like most compromises, it has shortcomings. For example, I think
Congress should recognize growing unemployment by providing extended
unemployment-insurance coverage--and doing so now would reduce the
chance that action later will be too late to be fully effective.
Still, as it comes before the House, this is a good bill that is
undeniably timely, appropriately targeted, and--because it is
temporary--will not add excessively to the budget deficit.
It provides for payments--technically treated as refundable tax
credits--of up to $600 for an individual and up to $1,200 for a married
couple, plus $300 per child. It is estimated that some 117 million
families will receive these payments, including 35 million working
families--including more than 19 million with children--that would not
have qualified under the original Administration proposal. Nearly $40
billion in payments, which will phase out for people with incomes of
$75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple, will go
to families making less than $50,000. The Treasury Department estimates
a total of about $1.7 billion will go to 1,900,000 Colorado households
that will receive an average of $895 each.
In addition, the bill will temporarily double the amount of new
investments in plants and equipment that small businesses can write off
their taxes and increase the number of businesses eligible for this tax
treatment. This will provide an incentive with the potential to reduce
job losses and spur additional employment.
As we all know, the housing market is one of the most troubled parts
of the economy. The bill addresses that issue by providing a 1-year
increase in Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's conforming loan limits--from
$417,000 to $729,750--as well as a permanent increase in the Federal
Housing Administration's loan limit, from $367,000 up to a maximum of
$729,750. It also includes provisions intended to help people facing
foreclosure to refinance their loans and get housing counseling that
may help them avoid that outcome.
If the House was operating under a procedure that allowed amendments
to be proposed, the bill might be improved. For example, I would have
liked to address the problem of consumer credit card debt by changing
some of the predatory practices of credit card companies--even if only
on a temporary basis--because as other interest rates are being cut, I
wonder if credit card companies will extend a reduced interest rate to
consumers who are feeling the effects of high interest rates those
companies are imposing.
But the choice before us today is a simple one--whether the bill
should be approved or rejected. On that, I think the choice is clear
and the bill should be passed.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in cautious support of the
stimulus measure before us. This is an important first step.
However, it is the first step; it cannot be the last. I am
particularly concerned that increases in Medicaid funding, food stamps
and an extension in unemployment benefits are not a part of the package
to be considered by Congress today.
It is important to note that an extension of unemployment insurance
is a tried and true mechanism for not only helping out families in
need, but also for infusing much needed cash into the economy. The
Department of Labor, which administers the program, has the
administrative framework and the know-how to get benefits to people
quickly and efficiently. The IRS, on the other hand, does not have the
same know-how. Moreover, the IRS will be otherwise occupied; after all,
it is tax season.
All of this said, I am hopeful that negotiations continue on next
steps to strengthen our economy and to provide relief to working
families and would like to see the following items considered and
ultimately included in any further measures brought before the House.
Given the decrease in nationwide job creation and the growth of state
unemployment rates an emergency extension of unemployment compensation
is critically important.
We also need a uniform increase in the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage, similar to that approved by Congress in 2003. An increase
of this nature is one of the simplest, fastest, and best ways to
provide stimulus to states.
Making legislation similar to the National Affordable Housing Trust
Fund part of the stimulus package would provide much needed assistance
to communities, of which there are many in Michigan, that have been
hardest hit by the housing crisis.

In addition, swift action is needed to assist the over 2 million
homeowners who, as a result of the housing crisis, are predicted to
face foreclosure over the next year.
We need increased investment in schools, roads, water and sewer
projects, and other public infrastructure projects that are ready to
go, which will put people to work and build or repair needed capital
assets while pumping up the economy.
In addition to stimulating the economy, we must have a strategy to
create good paying jobs and prepare a workforce in transition. As such,
some of the top priorities for Congress should be:
To promote both health information technology and increased
availability of generic pharmaceuticals, both of which have the
potential to streamline the U.S. healthcare system, reducing overall
healthcare costs.
In addition, the tax code should be amended to allow the Federal
government to pay for a portion of catastrophic healthcare costs.
Congress should support the development and production of advanced
technologies. Such technologies also would aid in weaning

[[Page H507]]

our country from its dependence on foreign oil and are key to the
American manufacturing industry's ability to compete globally.
The House approved a complete overhaul of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance program last fall. We must expand the program to cover more
workers.
We must create a more level playing field for U.S. businesses and
workers by enforcing trade agreements, ending the unfair trading
practices of other nations, including currency manipulation, and
knocking down unfair trade barriers that discriminate against U.S.
goods in foreign markets.
Again, I commend leadership for acting quickly and decisively in a
bipartisan manner to bring this package to the floor. It is my hope we
can continue to work together in an effort to stimulate the economy in
a manner which will benefit middle-class families and create a 21st
century workforce.
Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill before
us and consider it a good mix of fiscal policy solutions. Others before
me today have already described this legislation in some detail, so
I'll refrain from repeating what's already been said. However, I think
the approach agreed to by the administration and House leaders from
both parties is prudent and responsible. It is no simple matter to find
an artful mix of fiscal policy solutions that will stimulate the
economy yet mitigate inflationary risks.
As this legislation moves on to the Senate for further
consideration, the House and administration should be open to other
ideas. There is much at stake and the other body knows that we can
always return to this issue if the results of this package need
adjusting. We have to recognize that we alone cannot solve an economic
slow down. The Federal Reserve will play a major role by setting
interest rates and the costs of borrowing at levels commensurate with
economic conditions. So some restraint and caution is needed at times
like these.
This stimulus package uses a variety of fiscal policy tools--some
that will have long term benefits like accelerated depreciation, and
others that will have a more immediate impact like recovery rebates.
While we can debate the particulars and merits of exactly who is
eligible and for what amount of rebate, history shows us that programs
like this do positively impact the economy as Americans pay down debt
or make modest purchases.
Homebuilding is a major part of our economy, and that industry sector
employs many, many Americans. Housing starts this year are forecast to
be half of what they were in 2007, and the current stock of new and
existing homes on the market is increasing markedly. Therefore, I am
particularly pleased that the size of loans the Federal Housing
Administration can insure is increasing, and the size of loans that
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase will be temporarily increased.
This will benefit homeowners who are in a subprime mortgage and
struggling to make payments now or when their loan resets.
Finally, the accelerated depreciation schedules included in this
package are very important components. As businesses find it
advantageous to replace existing equipment or purchase new goods for
expansion purposes, the effects of these decisions will be vast and
have a positive impact for those that manufacture the equipment or
goods, on those that install and in turn use these new or upgraded
resources.
All in all, Madam Speaker, I think we have taken some very sound
steps here with this bill. Much is at stake here, and we need to move
with care and consideration.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this stimulus
package for the relief it provides over 117 million American families
and the timely boost it delivers our slowing economy.
Let's be clear: As a product of genuine bipartisan compromise, this
legislation does not contain everything one might have included in a
stimulus package. For example, I support--and I hope the President will
accept--the Senate's proposal to extend the relief in this package to
low-income seniors and people with disabilities. That being said, this
legislation proposes to put $145 billion into the hands of those who
will use it to strengthen our economy, and it deserves our support
today.
The centerpiece of this package is tax relief in the form of rebates
of up to $600 for individuals and $1200 for married couples--with an
additional $300 available for every dependent child. Importantly, it
extends relief to 35 million hard-working families who make too little
to pay federal income taxes but do pay payroll, sales, property and
other taxes. These rebates will generate $1.26 in economic activity for
every dollar we put back into the economy.
The package before us also encourages business investment by doubling
the amount small businesses can expense for capital investments made in
2008 and by allowing all businesses to immediately write off 50 percent
of depreciable plants and equipment purchased in 2008. Finally, it
assists those facing foreclosure by increasing Federal Housing
Administration, FHA, loan limits to $729,750 in 2008, and it provides
greater liquidity to the mortgage market by temporarily increasing loan
limits for single family homes at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from
$417,000 to a maximum of $729,750.
For this initiative to be meaningful, it must be timely. Therefore,
while I agree with many of the additional elements being discussed by
the Senate--such as an appropriate extension of unemployment insurance
for those who need it--we must not let prolonged arguments over these
items delay swift enactment of the stimulus our economy so clearly
needs.
If additional steps prove necessary, we will of course stand ready to
act. But for today, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this bipartisan agreement.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
economic stimulus package. I want to congratulate our Leadership for
working in a bipartisan manner to bring much-needed economic relief to
all sectors of our economy.
Madam Speaker, our economy is on a downturn. We are seeing gas
prices, grocery prices, heating bills, and the price of consumer goods
steadily increase.
The dollar has fallen to new alltime lows, prompting inflation fears
and the standing of our currency in the world market.
Our housing foreclosure rates continue to threaten the quality of
life for our constituents. In my hometown of Sacramento, the
foreclosure rate is now the fourth highest in the Nation, with 1 out of
every 48 homeowners burdened by this crisis last year.
Madam Speaker, as more and more Americans are feeling insecure about
their future, I believe it is the right time for economic intervention
by this Congress.
This economic stimulus package put forth today is targeted,
temporary, and timely.
It will put hundreds of dollars into consumer pockets and bring
financial relief to millions of working families. It will significantly
expand the child tax credit.
Madam Speaker, this package also seeks to help those in danger of
losing their homes. Americans across our Nation are being challenged
daily by the mortgage crisis.
By raising the FHA and GSE loan limits, this bill will inject much-
needed liquidity into the California housing market, and more
importantly into the Sacramento region.
It will allow struggling homeowners to get out of bad loans and
refinance into more affordable loans.
This bill is an important first step. I am proud that we were able to
work quickly in a bipartisan fashion to start the process of relieving
the economic strain being felt by families across this great country.
Madam Speaker, I again want to thank our Leadership for their hard
work on this bill. It is critical that we get our economy back on
track. This stimulus package is a step in the right direction.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal stimulus
package.
We face mounting evidence that the economy is faltering and in
sectors like housing, clearly losing ground, and many Americans are
hurting as a result. Unemployment has spiked from 4.7 to 5.0 percent in
one month; retail sales actually fell in December by 0.4 percent from
the prior month, and last week the Federal Reserve made an emergency
cut of 75 basis points in the Fed funds rate, the largest such
reduction in 25 years. Across the country, Americans are feeling the
effects of a slump in our economy, and if we want to avert or mitigate
the effects of a recession, we need to act, and act now.
In hearings and discussions over the last 2 months, the consensus has
emerged that fiscal stimulus is needed to complement monetary policy,
and it needs to meet three criteria: it needs to be timely, targeted,
and temporary. Timely means taking effect quickly to boost the economy;
targeted means getting dollars into the hands of households more likely
to spend it quickly; temporary means that it has only a short-term
impact on the Federal budget so that it does not add to our long-term
fiscal deficits. The package before us meets all these criteria.
There is general agreement that the fiscal stimulus needs to be
roughly 1 percent of GDP. Two-thirds of this package goes to
individuals and amounts to approximately $100 billion; one-third goes
to business and amounts to about $50 billion to begin with, but since
this stimulus comes in the form of accelerated depreciation, most of it
will be recaptured over the life of the depreciable asset. If the two-
thirds allocated to individual taxpayers is spent and helps avert or
mitigate a recession, then it too may be recaptured to some extent,
because a full-fledged recession could add $150 to $300 billion to the
budget's bottom line, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
This package is a practical step to boost the economy, to bolster
confidence, and to give a hand-up to millions of hard-working
Americans. As with any compromise, no one got everything that he or she
wanted in this package--but it is critical to get a bill enacted

[[Page H508]]

quickly in order to help the economy and our people without undue
delay. I could name several features I would like to add or modify, and
there may be other aspects that we may need to address in later
legislation, such as an extension of unemployment insurance. If the
Senate adds that, and the administration concedes, I will gladly vote
for it. But moving quickly to boost our economy and fend off a
recession matters most.
I think the bill coming to the floor today is likely to be the best
agreement we can strike with the Bush administration if we want
stimulus to come quickly and be effective. The package clearly meets
our criteria of being timely, targeted, and having only a temporary
cost to the budget.
I urge its adoption.
Mr. FORTUNO. Madam Speaker, I want to commend President Bush, Speaker
Pelosi, and Ranking Member Boehner for their bipartisan leadership in
compromising on this economic stimulus package, and in their generosity
and sense of fairness in making these economic relief measures
extensive to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. I also want to take this
opportunity to thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Jose Serrano.
His leadership and sense of fairness was key in our inclusion in the
economic stimulus package.
Puerto Rico is in dire need of this economic stimulus package.
Although this measure is intended to avert a potential recession in the
U.S. economy after several years of strong growth, Puerto Rico's
economy has been in a recession for the last 2 years. Our economy is in
a ``perfect storm'' scenario with recurring fiscal imbalances caused by
uncontrolled government expense, dramatic tax increases, and misguided
economic development strategies of the local state administration,
resulting in higher unemployment and reduced consumer confidence.
Residents of Puerto Rico pay the same Social Security and Medicare
payroll taxes as our fellow citizens in the States. Payroll taxes are
especially regressive in the case of Puerto Rico since the per capita
income on the island is only one-third the national average.
My constituents are hurting badly, so it is imperative that the
assistance that this economic stimulus package provides be channeled
directly to those in need, the individual taxpayers, and not to the
state government that has repeatedly mismanaged our resources. If at
the end, this legislation provides for the Secretary of the Treasury to
make a block payment to the territorial governments, including Puerto
Rico, the Secretary must retain the capacity to guarantee our citizens
that they will receive their payments in a timely fashion and for the
correct amount. We are not asking for special treatment, I am only
asking that our workers be treated on the same terms as their fellow
citizens in the States.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I strongly support
H.R. 5140, the much needed Economic Growth Package to address troubles
in the mortgage marketplace.
In the past year, we have witnessed significant upheaval in the U.S.
housing markets. Increased delinquencies and defaults among borrowers
have contributed to turmoil in the mortgage finance sector, which has
affected our entire economy. Many areas of the country have been
heavily impacted by the mortgage crisis, with many families facing
increased payments and foreclosures.
Over the years, many hard-working families have been faced with a
situation where they are either unable to own homes, or they are forced
to resort to risky loans that might impair their ability to keep their
home. This is especially true in high cost areas of the country, like
California, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where statutory
loan limits have eliminated federal housing programs as an option to
purchase entry-level homes.
Under the current loan limits, FHA products have become unavailable
for homebuyers in high cost areas of the country because the maximum
mortgage limit is lower than housing prices. Families who need and
qualify for FHA have been unable to participate in the program due to
these geographic barriers.
The median home prices in high cost areas, like my district in
southern California, is well above the GSE conforming loan limit of
$417,000. A starter home for a family in Los Angeles, for example,
usually puts a buyer into the so-called ``jumbo'' loan market. Jumbo
loan premiums add hundreds of dollars onto a monthly payment for a
fixed rate loan. Thus, many moderate income families have been priced
out of a home loan by virtue of where they live and work.
Housing experts predict that the number of foreclosures that have
occurred over the last year may double in the next 2 years as more
adjustable rate mortgages with low introductory rates reset at
significantly higher levels. By increasing the conforming loan limits,
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA program will have the ability to
put affordable home purchases and refinancing options within reach of
more moderate-income families.
Chairman Frank and I have been working for many years to create
affordable housing opportunities for families across the country by
increasing the conforming loan limits. Many communities in America are
being underserved by the GSEs and FHA, because home prices in these
areas surpass the national loan limit. I am pleased we are addressing
this disparity in the legislation before us today and hope that the
Senate also supports this critical change.
In addition to providing much needed liquidity to the struggling
mortgage market, increasing the conforming loan limit will make safe,
conforming mortgage loans available for homebuyers across the country
and reduce aggressive lending practices that have contributed to the
current credit and housing crisis.
Foreclosure rates are rising with harmful effects for borrowers,
lenders, the neighborhood, and our overall economy. As we continue to
experience instability in the housing market, this important change
will be essential for successful homeownership. There is no more
important priority for Congress than helping to keep families in their
homes.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5140.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 5140 will be
followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules and adopting House
Resolution 933.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385,
nays 35, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 25]

YEAS--385

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry

[[Page H509]]

McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--35

Baird
Berry
Boyd (FL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Campbell (CA)
Coble
Cooper
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Flake
Forbes
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Hunter
Johnson (IL)
Kaptur
Kingston
Linder
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Taylor
Westmoreland
Wexler

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Brown, Corrine

NOT VOTING--10

Baker
Feeney
Filner
Hastings (FL)
Jones (OH)
Lantos
Lewis (KY)
Miller, Gary
Simpson
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1511

Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. GINGREY and FORBES changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PITTS, CARNAHAN, PEARCE and DELAHUNT changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 25, I was away due to a
family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 25,
had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________