[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.''

                          ____________________