[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 27, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H535-H543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND 
                        REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H536]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 88

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job 
     preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy 
     efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and 
     State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
     three and one half hours equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, who may yield control of blocks of that time. 
     After general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise 
     without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be 
     in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Dreier). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 88.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 88 provides for general 
debate on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I would 
like to think this rule is not controversial because it is only about 
general debate, but it will lead the way to an important debate on the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act.
  Madam Speaker, George W. Bush left this country with an economy much 
worse off than the one he inherited from the Clinton administration. 
Eight years after being handed record budget surpluses, President Bush 
passed on to President Obama an economy that has record budget deficits 
and is in worse shape since the Great Depression.
  Unemployment is rising. Fifty-five thousand more jobs were lost 
yesterday alone. Wages are stagnating. And work hours are being cut 
back. People are having trouble making ends meet, including putting 
food on the table.
  And that is where this recovery package steps in. The provisions that 
make up the American Recovery and Reinvestment Package range from 
investments in infrastructure and green technology to extending 
unemployment for workers who have exhausted their benefits. We provide 
aid to struggling State governments and tax cuts for low and middle-
income families and small businesses. These are all good investments 
that we hope will help reinvigorate our economy. And I look forward to 
voting for them tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, some of the most important parts of this package, in 
my opinion, are the antihunger provisions that will not only stimulate 
the economy, but will also help combat hunger in this country. This 
recovery package includes $20 billion for the Food Stamp program, $200 
million for elderly nutrition services, including Meals on Wheels and 
Congregate Meals, $726 million to increase the number of States that 
provide free healthy dinners to children in need, $150 million to 
purchase commodities for food banks to refill emptying shelves, and 
$100 million to improve State management information systems for the 
WIC program.
  Madam Speaker, food stamp increases will reach about 14 million low-
income households as soon as 25 days after enactment. About 90 percent 
of all food stamp households have income below the poverty line. In 
other words, these are benefits that are timely and they are targeted.
  It is important to note that every dollar in food stamps that a low-
income family receives enables that family to spend an additional 
dollar on food or other items. And don't just take my word for it. 
Leading conservative economists support inclusion of these benefits in 
the recovery package. Former Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein 
has said that a temporary food stamp increase would place resources in 
the pockets of people with a high propensity to spend quickly, rather 
than save, the limited income that they have.
  Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to the McCain campaign, says 
that a temporary increase in food stamp benefits gives the best ``bang 
for buck.'' Specifically, he estimates that such an increase would 
generate $1.73 in increased economic activity for each $1 in cost.
  Madam Speaker, increasing food stamps is not charity. It is stimulus. 
It is not a handout or a give-away. But investments in antihunger 
programs do fulfill our moral commitment to make sure our fellow 
citizens have enough to eat. More than 36 million Americans went hungry 
in 2007, before the economy took this drastic spike downward. Yet the 
last stimulus plan signed into law didn't include increases for food 
stamps or any kind of antihunger programs.
  The fact that hunger remains a problem in America should make every 
single Member in this Chamber feel ashamed. H.R. 1 gives us a chance to 
begin to solve this problem and to prevent many more American families 
from slipping into hunger.
  Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act includes large investments in our infrastructure to 
help rebuild our roads and our bridges, to help with our water and 
sewer plants, to help State and local governments deal with the 
financial burdens and crises they are currently faced with. This is a 
bill that will help put people back to work and that will create 
millions of jobs that will hopefully stimulate this economy. The one 
thing I do know, Madam Speaker, is that doing nothing is not an option. 
That is what has been happening in the previous administration. They 
ignored this problem for far too long. And their response when the 
probably became a huge problem was grossly inadequate.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to 
support this package.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my 
appreciation to my friend from Worcester for yielding me the 
traditional 30 minutes and I yield myself, as I said, such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we all know that the United States of America is 
facing one of the greatest challenges we have ever had. This is a very 
tough and painful time for Americans all across the economic spectrum. 
People have been losing their homes. We have seen the jobless rate 
surge. And we have challenging and difficult days ahead of us. Every 
one has acknowledged that. Conservative, liberal, moderate, wherever 
you stand on the political spectrum, we all know that we are dealing 
with extraordinarily difficult times.
  I have to say at the outset as my friend went through the litany of 
challenges that President Barack Obama has now inherited, it is true, 
we are facing very tough times. But I think it is very important to 
note that I was privileged to come to this institution in 1981. And 
when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, if you look 
at the numbers that existed in 1980 and 1981, the time of the 
transition from the Carter administration to the Reagan administration, 
the inflation rate was 13.5 percent, the unemployment rate was 7.1 
percent and interest rates were well into double digits.
  Now, no one knows what tomorrow is going to bring. And most people 
have said that tomorrow is going to be challenging and difficult. And I 
personally believe that it is. But I think that it is important to note 
that the challenge which President Obama has inherited and which we, as 
elected leaders in this country, have inherited is a tough one. But it 
may or may not be unprecedented.
  We do know this. And I'm very pleased that President Obama is at this 
moment right here in the Capitol meeting with members of the Republican 
Conference. And I have just come

[[Page H537]]

from that meeting to begin the debate on the issue of the so-called 
economic stimulus package. President Obama, in his presentation to us, 
provided a very nice, encouraging message with which I agree. He said 
that as we deal with this economic stimulus package, let's work as hard 
as we possibly can to put politics aside.
  This is a message that President Obama has carried repeatedly 
throughout his campaign. And 1 week ago today, as he stood on the west 
front of the Capitol, he made it very clear that that was that exactly 
what he wanted to do, was to put politics aside.

                              {time}  1300

  Now I will say to my friend that pointing the finger of blame is an 
unfortunate thing, and I think it is really being political, and that 
is why I hope very much that we can follow the words of encouragement 
that President Obama has just given Republican Members, and that is to 
put politics aside and as we debate this stimulus package, focus on the 
merits. ``Focus on the merits'' are the exact words that the President 
of the United States just used within the last few minutes downstairs.
  I believe it is absolutely imperative that we look at the merits. 
Everyone knows that we need to take action to stimulate our economy, to 
get people back to work, to help people buy and keep homes, to keep 
businesses investing, job creating, and to ensure that the very 
important societal needs that are out there are adequately addressed.
  The problem that we have, Madam Speaker, is that as we look at this 
package that is before us, unfortunately there has not been the kind of 
bipartisan cooperation that President Obama has encouraged and has 
personally sought.
  As we look at the legislation, the measure that we are going to be 
working on further today upstairs in the Rules Committee, it is an $825 
billion package. It is an $825 billion package which, based on the 
report that was released yesterday from the professional, nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, has levels of expending that go not just a 
year beyond where we are, not just 2 years beyond where we are, but to 
10 years. And, Madam Speaker, I know very few Members have recognized 
this, one of our crack staff members found this out last night in 
looking at budget authority versus outlays, there is actually $2.3 
billion, according to the professional, nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, that in this stimulus packaged is expended beyond 10 
years, beyond 2019.
  Now again, following the words of encouragement that we as Republican 
Members have just received from President Obama downstairs focusing on 
the merits of the stimulus package versus politics is going to be a 
high priority for us. And that is why, again, this study which just 
came out from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, remember this is not a Republican publication. Yes, I am a 
Republican, proud to be a Republican, I am simply reporting to the 
House, Madam Speaker, what it is that was included in this 
Congressional Budget Office study which I commend to every single one 
of our colleagues. I encourage people to look at the professional, 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study, and the reason I am 
focusing on it is I want to share, along with the information that I 
just provided, that $2.3 billion of this is actually expended beyond 
2019, 10 years from now.
  I would like to share a couple of paragraphs from this study. It is 
on page 4 and this is entitled H.R. 1, American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act 2009 as introduced in the House of Representatives 
yesterday on January 26. It provides a summary. This is, again, from 
the CBO. It reads: ``CBO expects that Federal agencies, along with 
States and other recipients of the funding, would find it difficult to 
properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so 
as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources 
provided for their ongoing programs.''
  This study goes on to say: ``Lags in spending stem in part from the 
need to draft plans, solicit bids, enter into contracts, and conduct 
regulatory or environmental reviews. Spending can be further delayed 
because some activities are by their nature seasonal. For example, 
major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid 
disrupting classes, and construction and highway work are difficult to 
carry out during the winter months in many parts of the country.'' It 
is snowing outside right now. We know that to be the case.
  And then, Madam Speaker, this report, not a partisan report from the 
professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office goes on to say: 
``Brand new programs pose additional challenges. Developing procedures 
and criteria, issuing the necessary regulations and reviewing plans and 
proposals would make distributing money quickly even more difficult--as 
can be seen, for example, in the lack of any disbursements to date 
under the loan programs established for automakers last summer to 
invest in producing energy-efficient vehicles. Throughout the Federal 
Government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than 
expected and rarely been faster.''
  Madam Speaker, again, these are not my words. There is nothing 
partisan about this. These words came from the study released yesterday 
from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. I focus on this 
because I believe that President Obama was absolutely right 15 minutes 
ago when he said to Republican Members of this institution that we 
should focus on the merits and not on politics. We don't want to focus 
on politics because we know it is absolutely essential that we come 
together with a package that will truly stimulate our economy, get 
Americans working, create jobs and deal with this very serious economic 
challenge.
  Now as we move ahead, Madam Speaker, what needs to be done is we need 
to have a package that will not do as the Congressional Budget Office, 
the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated, 
create slow, wasteful, duplicative spending, and that is basically what 
they are saying here. They are talking about in their independent 
analysis how difficult it is going to be to get these dollars out 
there, and to not spend $2.3 billion of this 11 years from today, we 
should instead focus on fast acting, immediate action.
  Now what is it that we can do to deal with the issue of immediacy 
that faces us? Well, on the opening day I was pleased to introduce 
legislation which is included in the alternative package that we are 
going to bring forward. That legislation is focused on addressing a 
particular problem that is out there in our economy, and that is the 
housing industry. Traditionally, the housing industry has played a very 
important role in reigniting our economy.
  Yesterday the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in his 
testimony before the Rules Committee, said there is no way the housing 
or the auto industry will be able to play a role in bringing us out of 
economic recession. And I challenged him on that because I don't 
believe that is in any way accurate in concluding it because we can 
take action.
  On opening day I introduced legislation which calls for incentivizing 
Americans to purchase and have an interest in keeping their homes. What 
it consists of, and we will have this in our package, is a $7,500 
exclusion to help people offset the downpayment they make on their 
home. Everyone has recognized that a big part of this problem in the 
housing industry has been the fact that people put absolutely nothing 
down and had subprime rates of interest. And those subprime rates of 
interest allowed people, unfortunately, to treat their homes like 
rental units. So they had no vested interest in it, and so they were 
actually encouraged to walk away.
  If we can say to an American, and we all know that the savings rate 
has gone up because of these challenging economic times, that they put 
some dollars aside that actually utilizes that to increase the 
percentage of their downpayment on that home purchase will play a role 
in dealing with that inventory of housing that is out there.
  We saw the reports of the layoffs at Home Depot and a wide range of 
other companies yesterday. We know if we are able to encourage people 
to have a vested interest in their home and purchase their home, that 
will go a long way towards encouraging responsibility and seeing that 
they have a vested interest in that home. That is just one example.

[[Page H538]]

  We also believe when it comes to tax relief that we should provide 
tax relief to Americans who pay taxes. That is why in our package we 
are going to call for an across-the-board cut for every single 
American, reducing from 10 percent to 5 percent on the first level of 
income that is taxed.
  Action like this, I believe, Madam Speaker, will provide an immediacy 
which is what the American people want. They want an immediate 
response. And yes, some spending is necessary. We recognize that 
infrastructure spending is necessary. But as we look at the litany of 
items that have been included in this package that in no way stimulate 
our economy, I believe that we should in fact focus on responsibility, 
private sector job creation, and economic growth. That, I believe, will 
mitigate the pain which so many of our fellow Americans are suffering 
at this moment.
  Madam Speaker, because of the direction in which we are headed, I am 
going to encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule. I recognize it is 
only a general debate rule, but I am very troubled with the legislation 
that we have seen, some of the actions that have been taken in the 
committees of jurisdiction. With that, I am going to urge opposition to 
this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am all for bipartisanship, but I find it curious that the gentleman 
is preaching bipartisanship when this morning, and I read from 
Politico, there is a story that says this morning House minority leader 
John Boehner went for the jugular, urging his members to oppose the 
economic centerpiece of Obama's first term just hours before the 
President paid the Republicans the compliment of coming to the Capitol 
for a private meeting, even before he did the same for House Democrats.
  I will yield to the gentleman in just a second.
  It seems to me if we want to be bipartisan, then everybody should 
reserve judgment until all the facts are on the table. I would like to 
think that the House minority leader would have reserved his judgment 
on the overall package until he and the Republican Members of this 
House had an opportunity to hear the new President out. That did not 
happen.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say that I 
stand here, having just left the meeting with the President to come up 
to voice my strong opposition to the $825 billion package that was 
unveiled without consultation with the Republican leadership. The 
partisanship has, unfortunately, been demonstrated through actions of 
my friend on the other side of the aisle. So we are seeking opposition 
to it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is the 
economic downturn is no longer subject to debate. In the last 4 months, 
the country has lost 2 million jobs and is expected to lose another 3 
to 5 million in the next year. This recovery package represents a 
crucial first step forward in a concerted effort to not only save but 
create millions of more jobs in this country. This is a defining moment 
for every single person in this Chamber. We need to act. We need to 
move forward with something big and bold, and not the same old, same 
old.
  And bipartisanship, Madam Speaker, doesn't mean that Democrats should 
capitulate to every request that the Republicans make. Bipartisanship 
doesn't mean that we should embrace policies that have failed in the 
past, embracing the same old, same old.
  Chairman Obey was before the House Rules Committee last night and 
talked about the Republican amendments that he accepted during debate 
on this package in the Appropriations Committee. This is not everything 
I would like, Madam Speaker. Quite frankly, I think the package needs 
to be bigger. But this represents, I think, the best judgment of our 
new President, working with his advisers, and I think this package is a 
crucial first step forward in trying to bring this economy back from 
where it is today. This is a crucial step in trying to create millions 
of more jobs to put people back to work to try to stimulate this 
economy to get things moving again.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I assume my friend 
has seen this Congressional Budget Office study, and I want to add, as 
we talk about this Congressional Budget Office study, that it is 
important to note that while our friend, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee talked about his acceptance of amendments, it 
is fascinating that the Energy and Commerce Committee had a rigorous 
debate on a number of amendments. They accepted four Republican 
amendments by voice vote that dealt with things like COBRA 
qualification, health information technology, the rights of 
pharmacists, and they dropped those four amendments from the bill. So 
what kind of bipartisanship is that, I ask my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that the 
Congressional Budget Office study report is disputed by many, many on 
the House Appropriations Committee and many on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. In fact, Mark Zandi who is a conservative 
economist and former adviser to John McCain, your Presidential 
candidate in the last go-around, projected that this stimulus package 
would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010 and it will provide a 
vital boost to this lagging economy.
  The bottom line is, I think it is obvious that the kind of 
investments that are in this package, infrastructure, green jobs, 
investments in education, investments in Food Stamps and investments in 
medical technology, investments in making sure that we have more nurses 
and more primary care doctors, all of those things create more jobs and 
will stimulate the economy.
  We can debate reports all we want, but those of us who have been here 
for awhile know that when you invest in things like infrastructure, you 
create jobs back home. That is what we are doing here. There are 
expedited provisions here to make sure that the money gets out quickly.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this point 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
  I think it is very important for us to get our hands around exactly 
what the situation is now. Our house is on fire. There are two things 
we need to do. We got to get the water, and we got to get the water 
quickly and put this fire out. Our economy is crumbling right before 
our eyes. We are losing 6,300 homes to foreclosure every day. We are 
losing almost that many jobs every day. Each day there is a new 
headline, 5,000 jobs here, 6,000 jobs here. Ladies and gentlemen, we 
can't wait.
  Now, let us talk about this economic recovery and investment package, 
because that is what it is, and let's be fair and accurate with the 
American people as we talk. We have a new administration that is 
saddled with the responsibility of leading and applying the executive 
decisions. This administration, the Obama administration, has come to 
Congress, and with them, together, we have put together this package, a 
package that has a great many things in it because our economy has a 
great many things in it.
  Now, if you want to stimulate the economy, there are only three basic 
ways to do it: You can cut taxes, which is in here; you can do huge 
government spending, which is in here; and you can also use the Fed to 
cut the interest rates, which we have already done and they are frozen 
at zero. So we are left with these two things. And this package is 
equally balanced in terms of the impact that is needed. We need to get 
stimulus in as quickly as we can.
  Madam Speaker, if I may just share with you a little letter I 
received from one of my constituents in a high school in Clayton County 
in Forest Park. Let me just read this.
  It says, ``Dear Congressman Scott. I am a high school student that 
attends Forest Park High School here in Clayton County, Georgia. This 
school is in bad shape and I hope you can help us get money for the 
school. The school needs new tile for restrooms and new

[[Page H539]]

windows. The hallways need new lockers so that the lockers that don't 
open can be replaced. Classrooms need new desks so that some of the 
desks that have graffiti and old gum stuck to them can be replaced. We 
need more space in the lunchroom. Congressman Scott, the lines are so 
long in the lunchroom that when some students just get their food, it 
is time for them to go back to the classroom.''
  Well, in this package we have $43 million into this Clayton County 
school system. In another county in my district, $50 million. And I am 
sure every Member of this House can get a letter saying the same thing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, our country is riveted with 
those moments that try men's souls. We are at such a moment in our 
history. And when the history books are written on this moment, let it 
be said that both Republicans and Democrats came together and responded 
at this moment with the confidence that the American people are looking 
to us with a way out of this dilemma that we are in. That is why they 
elected us, to lead, to lead with confidence and with boldness, and to 
rise to the occasion of this moment that tries men's souls as those 
moments in our past history from the foundation of this country to now 
have.
  Let us move with quick dispatch and get this measure off, passed and 
over to President Obama, so he can execute this plan immediately.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to say to my good friend from Clayton County, Georgia, who does a 
spectacular job, that we all want to ensure that schools and the other 
very pressing needs out there are addressed. Getting our economy 
growing is critical for that and I know my friend concurs with the 
importance for us to do that, and that is why I point to this 
independent, professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
study which has indicated that there is going to be a tremendous lag 
time in getting those resources to those schools to which my friend has 
referred.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and distinguished 
ranking member of the Rules Committee from California for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. 
Let me say at the outset, I respect the Rules Committee and the very 
important function that it carries out as a former member, but it is 
preeminently, as it should be, the Speaker's committee. In this case I 
believe the Speaker has presented us with legislation in a format that 
is unlikely to receive significant minority support and participation, 
and, frankly, that is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, because I think it is 
avoidable.
  There is much in the current situation that, frankly, the two parties 
in this body agree on. We agree that we are in a serious recession. We 
agree that dramatic Federal response is required to deal with job loss 
and the mounting economic challenges we face. We agree that tax cuts 
are an important part of that solution. We have some disagreement over 
which ones and how much, but clearly it is an area we can find common 
ground on.
  We agree that infrastructure is important to moving us forward, 
although I regret there is very little of this bill, frankly, that 
deals with infrastructure. Less than 10 percent in total actually goes 
to infrastructure spending. I think that is something we could find 
common ground on and enlarge. We disagree, quite obviously, over a 
whole range of other spending issues which constitute over half the 
bill.
  In our opinion, the spending is simply too much. There are too many 
new programs that have not been authorized and gone through the 
appropriate committee process. There is unsustainable spending in this 
program, things like Pell Grants and IDEA money that is good, but 
frankly will ramp up and then immediately crash down. Or we will set 
ourselves up for a future tax increase, which I don't think anybody, 
certainly on my side of the aisle, is anxious to do. So there are areas 
of agreement and disagreement.
  Madam Speaker, it is not too late to find common ground. We could 
defeat this rule and ask the Rules Committee to send us back three 
items that we could consider sequentially and separately. We could root 
out the bad programs. We could find common ground. We could find common 
ground on tax cuts. We can find common ground on infrastructure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my good friend, the former Rules 
Committee member and a great appropriator, an additional minute.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  We could then have our disagreements over the spending portion of the 
bill. We could vote on each of these items separately. They could later 
be merged and sent on as a separate bill. In that process we would find 
significant bipartisan participation and agreement. But, unfortunately, 
the rule under which we are likely to bring the legislation to the 
floor is going to make that impossible and give us the old partisan 
debates that the country would like to see us move past.
  So I would ask my colleagues to reject this rule and ask my capable 
friends on the Rules Committee in both parties to go back and to give 
us the type of process and the type of bill that will yield a 
bipartisan outcome, a bipartisan victory. That is what the country 
wants, that is what America needs, that is what the President has asked 
us to do. That is what we are capable of doing if we will address this 
matter in the appropriate manner.
  So I urge the rejection of this rule and the beginning of a 
bipartisan process where we can find so much common ground.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker, who I 
had the pleasure of serving with on the Rules Committee for many years, 
but what we seem to be hearing over and over from the other side is 
they care about job loss, but. They care about the survival of small 
businesses, but. They care about the fact that hunger is a growing 
problem in America, but. They care about the infrastructure, but.
  Well, ``but'' nothing. The time has come, because things are so bad, 
and we don't have to argue about how we got here, but the reality is I 
think there is a consensus that we are in a serious economic meltdown 
right now and that in fact we need to do something. We need to do 
something big and bold. We need to try to jump-start this economy.
  This may not be all that needs to be done, quite frankly, but the 
fact is, if you care about infrastructure, you need to support a bill 
that spends and invests in infrastructure. If you care about job losses 
in this country, then you have got to do something other than just talk 
about it, and invest in programs that will help create more jobs. If 
you care about the fact that hunger is a growing problem in the United 
States of America, which is shameful, then you need to do something 
that will not only help feed hungry people, but stimulate the economy. 
And this bill does that, and more.
  So there are lots of things in this bill that I think will stimulate 
this economy. We could all find something that we don't like. But the 
fact of the matter is, if everybody had the opportunity to write this 
bill, there would be 435 different bills. This bill I think represents 
the best judgment of the new President of the United States, working 
with the Democratic leadership and working with Members in this House, 
and I think it deserves support.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Well, how we got in this situation is that ideology 
triumphed over reason. For the last eight years, and a little longer, 
we have been told that there are few problems in America that can't be 
solved other than by more tax breaks and a permissive attitude toward 
corporate law enforcement. Now we have the results, the Bush recession, 
and if we don't pass this legislation it will soon become the Bush 
depression.
  Now, the real question we need to be asking is, ``how do we get the 
biggest

[[Page H540]]

bang for the buck?'' We want to be concerned about every single one of 
these taxpayer dollars, that they do the most possible to ensure an 
economic recovery. And one of the people that we have turned to is a 
principal economic adviser to Senator John McCain and his presidential 
campaign.
  He, like other economists, has analyzed the provisions of this bill, 
and he has told us that we will add to our gross domestic product $1.72 
for every 1 dollar that we spend in this bill on food stamps to help 
hungry people in this country. He also told us that on some of the 
corporate loss carryback provisions, we will get only 19 cents added 
per dollar spent, and that with a permanent corporate tax cut, as some 
have advocated, we will get only 30 cents for every dollar we invest.
  I think we need to focus our attention where it does the most good in 
order to ensure an economic recovery for families across our country.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. On your time, later.
  Mr. DREIER. I will yield time to you if you will agree to yield for a 
question here.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Let me give an example of what this bill does with 
regard to one provision in this bill that I was involved in writing 
that deals with the illegal action of the Secretary of the Treasury 
under President Bush, Mr. Paulson, to just suspend the law that 
President Ronald Reagan signed so that corporations wouldn't go out and 
dodge their taxes by taking over some other corporation's tax losses. 
Secretary Paulson suspended that law without any legal basis for banks 
in this country, and some have estimated that could result in a drain 
on the Treasury of $140 billion. This bill closes that loophole.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. On your time.
  Mr. DREIER. I will be happy to yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute, if he will yield.
  Mr. DOGGETT. May I have regular order and may I be assured that I 
have my full minute to discuss what I want to discuss?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
  The gentleman from California, the gentleman from Texas has been 
recognized.
  Mr. DREIER. I just yielded him an additional minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. That is great. I have got an additional minute yielded 
here and a minute there. Which, Madam Speaker, may I take first?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. All right, I yield for 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I simply wanted to engage in a little debate here, if I might, and 
that is the reason I yielded time to my friend, so that we could ask 
the question as to whether or not the gentleman has looked at the 
Congressional Budget Office study, the professional, nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office Study.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Not only looked at it, but I heard testimony all this 
morning in the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could complete my thought, my question is, have you 
in fact looked at the professional, nonpartisan CBO study that came out 
last night talking about the slowness with which we will have to 
contend at getting these resources? And I agree with my friend on the 
need to try and get it in, and I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I have not only looked at the report, but I have spent 
most of the morning listening to the testimony of Dr. Elmendorf, who 
wrote that report, and indeed it is from that very report that the kind 
of language that I was referring to earlier, some of the proposals that 
you are advocating, are the ones that are the least effective for 
getting our recovery going, and that is why I think we have a blended 
proposal here. But some of the changes you want are not efficient. They 
are a weak way of getting recovery, and we should be focused on the 
biggest bang for the buck.
  Now, let me focus on the minute that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
was kind enough to yield to me, because there is one provision in this 
bill that I think is very important. It is $13.5 billion in additional 
assistance to many working families, many middle-class families, 
concerning higher education.

                              {time}  1330

  This was not in the bill as originally proposed by President Obama 
and his advisers, but he said, as he is saying to Republicans, I'm 
sure, right now, ``If you've got a better idea, I'm open to it.'' And 
in this case, the better idea was an idea he advanced in the campaign 
that we need to do more, particularly at a time of economic downturn, 
to get more of our young people and perhaps not so young people back 
into community colleges, into higher education institutions across this 
country.
  What this tax credit will do, in addition to the important increase 
in Pell grants in this bill, is to provide a refundable credit to many 
working families of up to $1,000, up to $2,500 to other families that 
will for the first time cover textbooks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. This credit will for the first time cover textbooks, 
will supplement Pell grants, will provide a real opportunity not only 
for individuals to retool their skills but in the process retool our 
whole economy with a better trained workforce.
  I think this is a very effective way to address economic recovery. 
I'm pleased it has been incorporated in this bill. There is not a 
family that has a stake in higher education, trying to get someone into 
a higher education institution, or who has someone there now that is 
not likely to gain, middle-class families, working families, from this 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will say that I truly do believe that we are making an attempt to 
follow the directive that was provided to us within the last hour by 
President Obama in his address to the Republican Conference when he 
talked about the need to focus on merits rather than politics here.
  We are, in fact, offering an alternative. We are, in fact, saying 
that we believe that encouraging private sector growth and, yes, 
putting into place spending that will help to develop our 
infrastructure is important. So we acknowledge that.
  The fact is if you look at what Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981, as I 
was saying in my opening remarks, an inflation rate of 13\1/2\ percent, 
interest rates that were beyond 15 percent, an unemployment rate that 
was in excess of 7 percent, what was it that was done the last time 
that we faced a challenge that, quite frankly, according to the numbers 
as of right now was even greater than it is today? What was the 
response, in a bipartisan way, of Democrats and Republicans alike? And 
I remember very vividly as we did this in May of 1981 and August of 
1981. What happened, Madam Speaker, we put into place a package that 
restrained the rate of growth of Federal Government, cutting by 17 
percent the rate of growth of Federal spending. That was done in May of 
1981, known as the Gramm-Latta budget package. Then in August of 1981, 
the bipartisan Conable-Hance economic growth package brought about a 
broad across-the-board marginal rate reduction which tripled the flow 
of revenues to the Federal Government as it unleashed tremendous 
economic growth.
  So, Madam Speaker, this notion that we are saying we are for small 
business but, we are for all these other things but, as my friend from 
Worcester has said just a few minutes ago, is preposterous. We have a 
very, very strong and positive track record on what needs to be done to 
get this economy growing. We have the ability to do that. And I believe 
that President Obama is sincere when he says we need to talk about the 
merits and not the politics.
  Again, looking at 1981, when a number of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle joined in a bipartisan way to do this, that is the 
prescription for the challenges that we face today. It worked then, and 
I believe very strongly that it can work now. Encouraging

[[Page H541]]

individual initiative and responsibility, stepping forward with ways in 
which we can help these industries that have been suffering greatly is 
something that can be done. And when this study that was done by the 
Congressional Budget Office made it very clear that in this package 
that has been brought before us, without consultation with the 
Republican leadership, without consultation with the Republican 
leadership, we are, in fact, expending dollars which will be slow and 
wasteful; and, Madam Speaker, we're expending dollars more than 10 
years from now in this package.
  So I will agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle we are 
never going to come to a perfect agreement, but I believe we should use 
what has, in fact, worked in the past in generating real economic 
growth.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's history 
lesson about Ronald Reagan and about what happened in 1981. I wasn't 
here in 1981. I was a senior in college, but I appreciate the 
gentleman's giving me that history lesson.
  But when he talks about the strong track record of the Republicans, I 
beg to differ. I think the American people differ. That's what the 
outcome of this election was about. People do not want more of the 
same. They're tired of the Republican track record. They want to go in 
a very different direction.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the economic recovery 
legislation before us today.
  My own State, New York, has been hard hit by the recession. The 
collapse of the markets on Wall Street have left gaping revenue holes 
that have contributed to our $15.4 billion State budget deficit.
  In this economic crisis, high unemployment and rising costs have put 
a huge strain on many American families. This legislation contains a 
series of programs to provide relief, including helping workers train 
and find jobs, extending unemployment benefits, and increasing food 
stamp benefits.
  I'm so proud that we will protect health care coverage for millions 
of Americans during this recession by providing an estimated $87 
billion in additional Federal matching funds. This will help States 
like New York maintain our Medicaid programs in the face of massive 
State budget shortfalls over the next 2 years. I have long fought hard 
for increased F-MAP funds and am grateful that the stimulus will 
provide some much-needed relief to our States as they struggle to 
maintain access to needed services. And as we marked up the bill last 
week in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was very, very proud that 
we had the monies in this bill.
  We will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making 
investments aimed at dramatically increasing renewable energy 
production and renovating public buildings to make them more energy 
efficient. In this bill we will invest wisely in U.S. development of 
advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems through loans and grants 
so that America can lead the world in transforming the way automobiles 
are powered. We will also have tax credits for private homeowners for 
new furnaces, energy-efficient windows and doors, and insulation.
  So this is a great bill, and, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to try again, Madam Speaker. I know that my friend who was 
a senior in college when I began my service here in the institution, I 
appreciate his reminding me of how much older I am than he, although I 
have to tell him I was not too much older than he when he was a senior 
in college and I was proud to begin my service here.
  The fact is, okay, I've talked about Ronald Reagan. And I know my 
friend is from Worcester, and he's very proud of that, and what I would 
like to do is talk about John F. Kennedy, the President of the United 
States from his State.
  In 1961 we all know John F. Kennedy became President. He did a lot of 
great things. He's been a model for Democrats and Republicans alike in 
so many areas. There were challenging economic times in the early 
1960s, and John F. Kennedy did exactly what Ronald Reagan did in 1981, 
and my friend describes this as the ``same old, same old.''
  Well, I believe that it's imperative for us to recognize the best way 
to get our economy growing. Not only Ronald Reagan but John F. Kennedy 
recognized it and put into place policies that unleashed the kind of 
economic growth to which we all aspire today. We know that it's been 
done many times throughout world history and it can happen.
  So if my friend wants to criticize the gentleman from his State, 
President Kennedy, just as he criticizes Ronald Reagan for the same 
old, same old, Madam Speaker, I welcome his doing that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, they never said our task and 
our job would be easy. I imagine when the Founding Fathers were trying 
to create this great Union, it was not easy then as well. But we have a 
responsibility and a duty. We have taken an oath of office. We have a 
responsibility to the American people.
  Our President has offered a solution. That is why we are here. And I 
rise to support the rule and the underlying bill because I am looking 
for an economic engine that will actually roll across America's 
railways, that will go into the hamlets and villages and communities 
where people are depressed and oppressed. And, frankly, there are items 
that I think answer the question whether or not we are concerned about 
creating jobs.
  The increase of the earned income tax credit is one that we have seen 
work and can work. I have worked with John Hope Bryant, who chairs an 
organization dealing with financial literacy. We saw the impact of the 
earned income tax credit for Hurricane Katrina families, for working 
families, and that has been increased. For those who are seeking homes, 
we don't want to kill off the homeowners market, and we see now that 
the $7,500 tax credit that had to be repaid in 15 years will now be 
waived and forgiven. We can get homeowners or home purchasers into 
homes, which Americans would like to do.
  We will be seeing $20 billion for school modernization, $14 billion 
for K-12, and $6 billion for higher education institutions. We will 
also be seeing moneys going for educational technology grants. But my 
school districts are already lining up to be able to create that 
economic engine to keep teachers at work and to train the next 
generation of workers.
  There are green jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  There is more infusion of Medicaid dollars so that those who are 
uninsured will have the resources necessary to be able to, in essence, 
provide for their family but keep looking for work.
  This is a calling of crisis. And so with the green jobs, the 
infrastructure, I do support this rule, but I would certainly like to 
see the mark of the transportation and infrastructure go from $9 
billion to $12 billion. I would like to see the language of ``use it or 
lose it'' be restored. I want to make sure that the metro system of 
Houston can fall under the transit funding. And we're going to be 
working with the chairman of the Transportation Committee and our 
congressional delegation because these will create jobs across America. 
I want to see rail travel restored. I want to make sure the 
infrastructure of America is rebuilt. I want the bridges in the 18th 
Congressional District enrolled rebuilt by the hands and labor of the 
American people. That's what this stimulus is about.
  There is no doubt that if we stand on this floor of the House or the 
other

[[Page H542]]

body and ignore the cry of Americans, we too can hold our heads in 
shame.
  Support this rule and support this legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I think that it's become very clear in this debate 
that we all recognize the fact that there is a great deal of suffering 
going on here in the United States of America. Our constituents are 
hurting. We are dealing with a very, very challenging economic 
downturn, and we all want to come together to try to find a way to 
jump-start our economy.
  President Obama has, just a few minutes ago, completed an address to 
the Republican Conference, Republican Members of this institution, and 
he went over to meet with our colleagues on the other side of the 
Capitol. And the words that really struck me that he offered to us were 
that as we deal with this economic stimulus package, Madam Speaker, 
it's important for us to focus on merits and not politics. Merits and 
not politics. And I completely concur with that. I completely concur 
with that. And, again, it was 1 week ago today that we were all 
privileged to be on the west front of the Capitol as we were able to 
witness history and we heard a similar message put forward by President 
Obama.

                              {time}  1345

  That's why, as we move ahead on this issue, we are going to expend 
our time and our effort focusing on the merits and what needs to be 
done to get our economy growing.
  We know that there is going to be some very important government 
spending stimulus, and we support things like infrastructure spending, 
because we know that goods movement, as the economy starts to grow, is 
imperative, and it needs to be addressed. And so, yes, we support the 
kind of infrastructure spending that we have talked about.
  But, Madam Speaker, as we look at the analysis that has been done on 
this $825 billion package, it doesn't do what is essential. I believe 
that we need to make sure that every dollar expended gets into, on 
track, just as quickly as we possibly can. We all want to try and move 
that. President Obama has already talked about shovel-ready projects. 
We understand the imperativeness of this.
  Unfortunately, the study that has been provided by the professional, 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made it very clear that it 
is virtually impossible for us to achieve that goal with this package 
that has been put before us. In fact, Madam Speaker, in looking at the 
spending, it's not just beyond a year or 2 years, and the President in 
his remarks downstairs talked about the fact that he wanted us to get--
maybe not within this year, but within the next 2 years--this spending 
out.
  Yet, Madam Speaker, based on this professional, nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office study again, not a Republican statement, 
$2.3 billion of this package won't be expended until 2019. That's more 
than 10 years today, and that's what the CBO study has said, and I 
would commend that to all of our colleagues.
  What is it that needs to be done? We need to recognize that bold, 
strong, decisive, across-the-board marginal rate cuts, doing everything 
we can to encourage individual initiative and responsibility, is the 
kind of legislative action that we here can take to get our economy 
growing and, as we discussed, as the President has said, the merits of 
this, unfortunately, we don't do that in this package.
  That is the reason, Madam Speaker, that we will be coming forward 
with an alternative, an alternative, a very positive alternative that 
brings about marginal rate reduction for 100 percent, 100 percent of 
American taxpayers, so that they can save and invest. And we, of 
course, want to encourage consumption. We, of course, want to encourage 
the steps that are necessary to get our economy growing.
  I would say again, the idea of incentivizing people to get off the 
couch and into showrooms of automobile dealerships, the idea of having 
people take responsibility and being incentivized to make a greater 
down payment on a home so that they will have a vested interest in it 
and not this very, very, very failed zero down payment and subprime 
rates of interest, these are the kinds of creative, bold, policies that 
we can put into place. That's what we want to do as we deal with the 
suffering that is out there.
  I am convinced, Madam Speaker, based on the last half century and 
looking at the policies of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, that if 
we were to do that, we would do exactly what happened following the 
implementation of those policies by both John F. Kennedy and Ronald 
Reagan in the 1960s and the 1980s. We will boost the economy, increase 
the flow of Federal revenues to the Treasury and be able to address the 
challenges that are before us.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, 
because the underlying legislation itself is very, very badly flawed, 
and it's not what the American people need.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairmen Obey, 
Rangel, Waxman, Oberstar, Miller, Spratt and Gordon for their 
incredible work on this package, and I want to thank their staffs.
  I also want to thank Rosa DeLauro for championing the antihunger 
provisions in this package, which I think are so important, not only in 
terms of our moral obligation to help people in this country who don't 
have enough to eat, but it also helps stimulate the economy.
  I also am grateful to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and to Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi for their leadership in trying to put a good and solid 
reinvestment recovery package together.
  Madam Speaker, we are facing extremely tough times. This economy is 
in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Millions and millions of 
people have lost their jobs and millions more will lose their jobs 
unless this Congress, working with this President, takes decisive 
action.
  We are not talking about statistics, we are talking about people. We 
are talking about families, and they are hurting. There is not a single 
one of us in this chamber who, when we go home, do not encounter people 
who have lost their jobs or who are on the verge of losing their jobs.
  People are struggling, people are fearful. Small businesses are 
struggling. They are asking for our help. Cities and towns and States 
are facing the worst financial crisis in decades, and they are looking 
for help.
  The underlying bill before us provides a first step in helping remedy 
this terrible situation. John F. Kennedy liked to say that a rising 
tide lifts all boats. Well, that is what we are trying to do with this 
package.
  We are trying to stimulate the economy. We are trying to make sure 
that everybody, not just the few who are rich, but everybody, those who 
are in the middle class and those who are poor, gets the help that they 
deserve.
  My colleague talked about a substitute that the Republicans will 
offer. Well, that's great, and they will have an opportunity to debate 
and make their substitute and let the votes fall where they may. But 
the fact of the matter is that I personally believe that their 
approach, which I referred to as the same old same old, will not 
prevail. I hope it doesn't prevail. That's what this election was 
about. People do not want more of the same. They want a different 
direction.
  Quite frankly, this stimulus package that we debated today should 
have been what President Bush asked for a year ago. We are late in 
coming to rescue so many families across this country.
  I know it's fashionable on the other side to talk about tax cuts, tax 
cuts, tax cuts. The bill that President Obama and the Democratic 
leadership are putting together, 95 percent of American taxpayers get a 
break.
  But I should tell my colleagues that for every dollar of direct 
spending, the economy gets $1.50 in stimulus. Every dollar of tax cut 
produces 75 cents in economic stimulus. So I do think, while we can 
make the argument that tax cuts are important, investment in our 
infrastructure, investment in our schools, investment in our economy, 
is incredibly important.
  People have said, well, there is no way we can get all this money 
out. I should point out in this bill there are strict accountability 
measures to ensure that highways and transit funds get out of the door 
quickly to create

[[Page H543]]

jobs. It requires States to obligate 50 percent of the highway and 
transit funding within 180 days, or the Transportation Department can 
reclaim some of the States' highway and transportation funding in the 
bill. So there are incentives to get this money out quickly to help 
stimulate this economy.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, let me say that this really is a defining 
moment. People are looking to their government for help. They are 
looking for us to take big, bold steps. They are looking at us the same 
way that people looked at Franklin Roosevelt during the Great 
Depression to come and try to put together a package to help get people 
back to work.
  Well, that's what we're trying to do here. Madam Speaker, I will say 
this, I am proud to be on the floor today debating this rule which will 
pave the way for a debate on this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, because it shows that this government, once again, has a 
conscience.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________