Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 30 (Friday, February 13, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1524-H1536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 168 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 168

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points
of order against consideration of the conference report are
waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The
conference report shall be considered as read. All points of
order against the conference report are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the conference
report to its adoption without intervening motion except: (1)
90 minutes of debate and (2) one motion to recommit if
applicable.

Point of Order

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page H1525]]

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against this
resolution because the resolution is in violation of section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act.
The resolution before us violates the provisions of 426(a) because it
contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report,
including a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which
prohibits the consideration of a conference report in violation of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
We got this 1,000-page package online after midnight, totally in
violation of the 48-hour commitment that was made by every Member to
support that period of time during which it could be read; and we have
no idea, Madam Speaker, as to whether or not there are in fact unfunded
mandates in this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California makes a point
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of
consideration.
The gentleman from California and the gentleman from Colorado each
will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration,
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying I see my friend
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) here. It was announced late last night
when we were in the Rules Committee that the distinguished Chair of the
Committee on Rules, Mrs. Slaughter, would be managing this rule; and I
can only surmise that she is not here due to the very tragic news that
we got overnight of the loss of 48 lives in the Continental plane crash
that took place just outside of Buffalo.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Yes, I am happy to the yield to my friend.

{time} 0915

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes, the plane crash is why she is not here today.
And it is a tragedy that we all feel this morning.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what I wanted to say.
As we begin this debate, our thoughts and prayers go to all of the
victims and the families and Mrs. Slaughter whom I know is dealing with
that issue, Madam Speaker.
Let me say, as we now focus on this very, very important debate, we
had a unanimous vote here in the House, a unanimous vote, that called
for 48 hours to be provided for Members of Congress and the American
people to see this measure before we would have a chance to vote on it.
We all know, as Speaker Pelosi said yesterday, that this is both
transformational and historic. And for that reason, I believe that if
we have a measure before us that is historic and transformational, we
should comply with the vote that was cast by every single Member who
was present at the time saying that 48 hours should be provided. And
unfortunately, there was virtually no time provided. We had a copy of
the bill placed before us in the Rules Committee very late last night.
And it is my understanding that the online measure at that point, which
was touted by Members who were in the Rules Committee, actually omitted
three sections of the bill and that it was not placed online as we're
going to be voting on it today until after midnight; after midnight. So
that means earlier this morning is when it was placed online.
Now, Madam Speaker, I have a statement here from our good friend, the
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, who said, ``The House is
scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed
directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
conference report. The conference report text will be filed this
evening, giving Members enough time to review the conference report
before voting on it tomorrow afternoon.''
Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting. We are going through
one of the most difficult economic challenges that we've faced in
modern history. There is no doubt about it. In fact, if one looks at
the economic downturn, we suffered in 1991 and 2001 very, very shallow
economic recessions. The early 1980s was the last time we faced a
challenge as difficult as the one we are in the midst of today. We have
put forward a very pro-growth economic package that I know that the
American people would be able to support. And I'm convinced, based on
the empirical evidence that we have of what took place in 1961 and
1981, it would unleash the potential of the American people, because we
are the most productive worker on the face of the Earth. We are the
people who are the most innovative in the world. And for us to, in any
way, constrain that growth potential is, I believe, wrong.
And what we have before us is a 1,000-page bill. This is 1,000 pages,
Madam Speaker. And I'm reminded when Ronald Reagan was delivering a
State of the Union message when he held up a document that was just
about like this, and he dropped it right there on the lectern. And he
said that he would never sign anything like that again. And here we are
on Friday the 13th of 2009, we are in the midst of considering a
measure following a campaign that promised transparency, disclosure,
accountability and hope. And as we listened to the debate last night in
the Rules Committee, which went on for quite a while, I have to say
that there is a lot of hope involved in this 1,000-page bill. But there
are things about it that we know. It is approaching $1 trillion when
you take interest in consideration. I know it is $790 billion, but when
you take into consideration the interest that will be shouldered, it is
a $1 trillion package. We know that.
The hope is that people are saying it is this or nothing else, Madam
Speaker, this or nothing else. And I have got to tell you that that is
not the case. That is not the case. We, as Republicans, have come
forward with a package from our economic stimulus working group which I
believe would prevent us from having to deal with anything like this
whatsoever. And the point of order that I'm raising, Madam Speaker, has
to do with the fact that we don't know what is in here. I don't think
that anyone knows whether or not there are unfunded mandates in here
that have been imposed on the private sector, on the American people,
or on local governments.
And so with that, I would like to, at this juncture, reserve the
balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider
the rule and ultimately the underlying bill. But we know what it is
really about, and that is about trying to block the bill without any
opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down
vote on the legislation itself. And that is just plain wrong.
I sincerely hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider
this critical legislation today on its merits and not kill it on a
procedural motion. We have a long day ahead. Let's not waste any more
time on trying to stop this legislation from being debated or enacted.
Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. That is
their prerogative. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this
conference report for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act today.
I have the right to close. But in the end, I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on the debate on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to my good
friend from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, procedure is important. Procedure rules are important
because they are placed there for a reason. This House unanimously
voted that there should be 48 hours after a bill is filed before we
voted on it. The

[[Page H1526]]

reason for that is to give us time to read it. It is unconscionable
that we would vote on a 1,000-page bill without at least reading the
bill. But we didn't get 48 hours. I guess the motion really meant 4 to
8 hours, because that is all we've really received, 4 to 8 hours to
decide whether or not to proceed.
We need more time to read the bill. Let's stay here until tomorrow or
Sunday or Monday. But let's read the bill, regardless of our position
on it, and then we can be knowledgeable to vote on this $1-trillion
package one way or the other. The idea that we're going to vote on a
bill we haven't read because we didn't get time to do it is absurd,
Madam Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
say this saddens me greatly. President Obama has come forward and
talked about the issue of transparency, disclosure and accountability,
and he has talked about hope, and he has talked about change. And we've
all been very inspired by the words of President Obama. And we've been
inspired by many of his actions and his effort to reach out and work
with us in a bipartisan way to deal with the challenge of getting our
economy back on track. It is something that I believe is terrific. It's
wonderful. And it's what is needed at this time.
But I will say, Madam Speaker, that as we look at what has been put
before us, a 1,000-page bill, and we are told by so many that if we
don't vote for this bill, we're choosing to do nothing, in fact, I will
say that I did not like it when the President said that there are some
out there who want to do nothing. And Madam Speaker, I will say that I
know of no Republican, no Democrat, I know of no one in this country
who wants to do nothing. Because just the other night when I had a
telephone town hall meeting and listened to a number of people,
including a small contractor, a small businessman who is a building
contractor, having trouble getting access to credit so that he can get
to work, I was struck with the fact that he told me, looking at a $1-
trillion measure is not only not going to help him, but in fact, it
will exacerbate, it will worsen the challenges that he has. We talked
about our alternative.
In fact, in this town hall meeting, Madam Speaker, one of my
constituents asked me at the outset to support President Obama and his
package. And when I began explaining the difficulty with this package
and the alternative that we have that is focused on small businesses,
entrepreneurs, the self-employed and families across this country,
focusing on marginal rate reduction, focusing on encouraging
responsibility so that people can gain equity in their homes by
incentivizing them to make a greater down payment on that home and to
take up the inventory that exists there, as I walked through these
provisions, this person who began saying to me that it was imperative
that I support this package then said, your alternative makes much more
sense.
And so, Madam Speaker, I want to disabuse any of my colleagues of
this notion that we want to do nothing. We very much want to work
diligently to ensure that we can get our economy back on track. And we
have a pro-growth package which is modeled after what John F. Kennedy
did in 1961 and what Ronald Reagan did in 1981.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, again I want to urge a ``yes'' vote so
that we can consider this rule and consider the legislation today. It
is not a time for delay. It is not a time for inaction. For 8 years,
we've had continued deferred maintenance, we've had continued problems
in the economy to the point we are now required to move forward and
move forward in a bold way. That is the purpose of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It has been discussed and debated over
the course of the last month in full view of the American people. And
it is time to take it up here in the Congress and pass it.
And with that I urge a ``yes'' on the consideration of the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider
the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for debate only.
And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 168.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, America is in a tough spot today.
Today we face one of the greatest economic challenges we've seen in the
history of this Nation. With this great economic crisis comes great
responsibility for this body which is vested to represent the best
interests of the American people. Madam Speaker, the Bush
administration left us with the worst economy we've faced since World
War II. Like President Franklin D. Roosevelt did over 75 years ago, we
must build a floor under our economic downward spiral and set America
on a new, more prosperous course.
Since this recession began, 3.6 million Americans have lost their
jobs. Last month alone, the country lost nearly 600,000 jobs, the
equivalent of losing every job in the State of Maine. Even more
troubling is the news that our Nation is expected to lose another 3 to
5 million jobs within the next year if we don't take action now. And it
must be taken now. In fact, 2008 was the worst year for job loss since
1945, while unemployment has skyrocketed to the highest level in 26
years.
Madam Speaker, Americans are worried. Nothing is on the minds of
American workers and families more than the troubled state of our
economy.

{time} 0930

At dinner tables across this Nation, American families are concerned,
not only about our country's economy, but about their own futures and
their own well-being. Will they have a job next week? Will they be able
to retire when they plan to? Will they be able to afford their
mortgage? Can they sell their house? What about the rent and the
child's education?
We must act now to turn things around. If nothing is done, our
economy will continue its downward spiral, jeopardizing the futures of
all Americans.
As President Roosevelt once said, ``In our seeking for economic and
political progress, we all go up, or else we all go down.''
And, Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues here today determined to
make sure that all Americans go up, each and every one of us. We are
here to take swift, bold action to boost our economy and put Americans
back to work. Our actions today may determine the prosperity and well-
being of Americans for generations to come.
This compromise of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a
major victory for the American people. It will help strengthen our
economy and help Americans hurt by this recession today, as well as
investing in our shared future.
This bill will create and save nearly 4 million jobs, jump-start our
economy, and bring the process of transforming it for the 21st century
with carefully targeted priority investments. We will also provide
immediate direct tax relief to over 95 percent of all Americans.
Madam Speaker, for our future, we will significantly increase clean,
renewable energy production, invest in a new smart power grid, put
people to work in the short-term, while freeing us from our dependence
on foreign oil in the long run.
We'll renovate buildings and homes to make them more energy
efficient, and create jobs that can't be sent overseas, while helping
to curb global warming at the same time. We will rebuild our crumbling
infrastructure and improve our roads, bridges, and schools, and in
doing so, we will strengthen our path forward.
We will invest in our health care system, cutting red tape and
ensuring broader coverage, while saving countless lives and dollars.
Finally, this legislation will assist those who have been impacted
most by

[[Page H1527]]

this crisis, by increasing food stamp and unemployment benefits, and
making it easier for those who lose their jobs to keep their health
insurance. These are just a few highlights of this comprehensive bill.
Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting and they demand
action. But they are also justifiably concerned about government
spending in such difficult times. I want them to know that this bill
contains strict transparency and accountability measures. It is open
and visible and will be for people to look on the Web for each dollar
that is spent. Americans will be able to go on-line to see how their
tax dollars are being spent and provide comment.
The bill contains no earmarks, and provides important protections to
State whistleblowers who report fraud and abuse.
Furthermore, this legislation does not waste any time. It will
immediately help put people to work, maintain their jobs, and begin to
stabilize our economy. Just this week the CEO of Google said his
company would ``absolutely'' hire new people if we pass this bill.
Additionally, economists and elected officials from across the
ideological spectrum have broadly endorsed this bill, and beseech us to
pass it, because they agree we need bold action to turn our economy
around.
President Roosevelt told us that ``One thing is sure, we have to do
something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment. If it
doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along.''
Madam Speaker, it took us many years to get into this situation. We
know this bill alone will not solve all of our economic woes overnight.
We know that the road back to economic stability and prosperity will
require hard work over time. But this bill is the right size and scope
necessary to truly help us turn things around. I'm proud to say that
America has faced great challenges before and turned crisis into
opportunity.
This legislation gives us the means to address this crisis
immediately, and the opportunity to build the foundation for long-term
prosperity. Like it has in the past, the ingenuity of American workers
will be the engine of growth and prosperity if we just give them a
chance to get back on the job.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report on the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and, by doing so, restore confidence,
strengthen our economy, and ensure a brighter future for our citizens
from coast to coast.
I now reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume to begin by expressing my great appreciation to my friend from
Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Let me begin, as I did at the outset of the debate on the
unfunded mandate point of order, Madam Speaker, by saying that we are
all saddened with the very tragic news that Ms. Slaughter and her
constituents have faced with the tragic plane crash which has taken
place just outside of Buffalo with, reportedly, 48 people killed, and
our thoughts and prayers continue to be with all of them.
Let me say, at the beginning of this, Madam Speaker, I asked my
friend who's managing this rule to yield to me, because I find it--I
will associate myself with many of the points that he made. I will
associate myself with certainly his closing remarks about the ability
of the United States of America to take on great challenges that we
face.
But, Madam Speaker, to stand here and somehow talk about the great
degree of transparency, when we, at midnight, were sitting in the Rules
Committee, and the questions being posed to us could not be answered;
that we were posing could not be answered, number one. And number two,
we had before us a bill that we were told was exactly what the
gentleman had said, made available on-line so that the American people
could see it, and then I arrived just a few hours later, had come in
early this morning to find that the measure was not even available on-
line until well after midnight because three sections of the bill were,
in fact, missing.
And so, my point is that we all know how much pain there is right now
across this country. When you look at the people who have lost their
jobs, if you look at people who are losing their homes, if you look at
the tragic loss of life that is taking place, I talked to a good friend
of mine yesterday who told me that his son's best friend's father had
just committed suicide because of the economic downturn that we are
facing.
Madam Speaker, we know how personal this is. We know how terrible the
situation that we face is. And that's why I believe that the commitment
that has been made overwhelmingly, across the board, by Democrats and
Republicans alike, that we would spend time deliberating over this
issue to ensure that we get it right, that we would work in a
bipartisan way, as President Obama repeatedly has promised, from his
inaugural address right here on the west front of the Capitol to speech
after speech that he's delivered, and through many of his actions.
Now, last night, as we sat approaching midnight in the Rules
Committee, my very good friend, the distinguished chair of the
Committee on Appropriations was before us, talking about the fact that
every single day, since the election, save two, he and members of his
staff have been working to try and put this bill together. He referred
to the fact that members of his staff, for the second time in a week or
two, have gone 2 days without any sleep, working to put this bill
together.
We all understand, Madam Speaker, the urgency that is there. No one
wants to delay action. No one wants to delay action on this very
important bill because of the fact that the American people are
hurting.
But we do know this: What we've been able to see in this measure, in
fact, goes way beyond the goal that is stated, that being stimulating
our economy. We understand that important infrastructure spending
cannot only play an important role in creating jobs, but it also can
deal with the very important issue of goods movement, ensuring that our
constituents are able to move around. We know that the grid and
broadband infrastructure development is critical if we are going to
remain competitive in this global marketplace. And yet, that is a very
small fraction of this nearly $1 trillion measure, Madam Speaker.
Now, as we listened to the testimony that was delivered in the Rules
Committee, an exchange took place between the distinguished chair of
the Committee on Appropriations and our new Rules Committee colleague,
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). And in that exchange,
the question that was asked by Ms. Foxx was, how many jobs are going to
be created by this measure?
And I congratulate the distinguished chair of the Committee on
Appropriations for pointing to the fact that he has no idea how many
jobs are going to be created. And he correctly said that we can all
find our own economists who support the notion of a certain number of
jobs being created.
Now, I will say that the chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, Christina Romer, under President Obama, has, based on her
study, found that the alternative proposal that we Republicans offered
would create nearly twice as many jobs in half the amount of time than
this package that is before us. So using one of his economists, Madam
Speaker, I will say it buttresses our argument to ensure that we put
into place our package for commission growth, as opposed to a massive
spending bill.
So the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said he has no
idea how many jobs are going to be created.
And what is it that we have before us? We have before us a package
that is indicative of what I describe as the ideological baggage of the
past. It is nothing but throwing money at the problem, without the kind
of oversight that is necessary, without the kind of scrutiny that is
necessary.
And as my friend from Texas, Judge Poe, said earlier, one of his
constituents wants to opt out of this plan because the estimates are
that it will cost $10,000 per family. Well, unfortunately, that's not
an option that we have before us right now, because this is the measure
that people are going to be voting on and I suspect will pass.
I believe that it's a mistake. I believe it's a mistake, and I will
tell you who

[[Page H1528]]

else I believe if he were alive would conclude that it's a mistake. And
we've used this quote repeatedly. It first came to my attention by our
friend from St. Louis, Todd Akin, who told me that his 88-year-old
father who obviously lived during the time of the Great Depression
found this quote. Henry Morgenthau was the Treasury Secretary under
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he testified before the House Ways and
Means Committee in 1939. And in that testimony, Madam Speaker, the
Secretary of the Treasury, under Franklin Roosevelt, obviously, not
some right-wing conservative economist, the Treasury Secretary under
Franklin Roosevelt said: ``We have tried spending money. We are
spending more than we have ever spent, and it does not work. I say,
after 8 years of this Roosevelt administration, we have just as much
unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.''
Now, that was in 1939, Madam Speaker. We are making a mistake if we
proceed with this measure. I believe that.
The American economy is going to get stronger because, as I said
earlier, we are the most productive, we are the most innovative people
on the face of the earth. We're going to get stronger. My fear is that
this measure will, in fact, slow the economic recovery that we all
would like to see take place soon.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, just two points and then I would like
to recognize my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
But I think the really sad story, Mr. Dreier, that you related about
the suicide underscores the urgency of this bill and the reason that it
needs to be handled without delay.
The second point I wanted to respond to is Christina Romer said that
the Republican House analysis is flat wrong in its claim that the House
Republican stimulus is much more effective. ``No matter what your
analytical assumption,'' she says, ``the plan that the President
supports would result in substantially greater job creation than the
House Republican plan.''
And with that I would yield 3 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern).

{time} 0945

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on January 20, President Obama and his
administration inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.
A record budget deficit and a worsening economy, an economy that is
now losing 600,000 jobs a month, was the result of failed economic
policies. For too long, the previous administration allowed the deficit
to rise through wasteful spending, including unpaid wars and tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans, while ignoring the challenges facing our
economy.
Let me be clear: This economy did not go bad overnight. No, Madam
Speaker. It took years of neglect to bring us to this position.
As a result, we are here today, trying to help our economy with a
bold and historic recovery package. Economists ranging from
conservative to liberal all agree that a recovery package is needed and
that such a package must be bold. Any recovery package, they say, must
provide a real shot in the arm to the economy, and that is what we have
before us today. We have a package that will provide immediate funding
to help the economy, but it is also designed to prevent an economic
lull like the one we saw a few years after the Great Depression.
Madam Speaker, we have people in our country who are going hungry,
and there is money in this package for food stamps--the most effective
and immediate stimulus available--and there is money for unemployment.
There is money for roads and for bridges and for other important
shovel-ready infrastructure programs. Yes, there are targeted tax cuts
that will allow middle- and low-income families to receive tax relief
during these trying times. Is it perfect? No. This is not the package I
would draft if it were solely up to me, but it is the package that came
through a bipartisan and open process.
Now, my Republican friends had the opportunity to address this
problem. Former President Bush could have acted on these programs
before he left office, but he chose not to do so, allowing the
recession to worsen. When Republicans decided to put forth an
alternative plan, it was simply comprised of the failed policies of
yesterday. When economists said there should be money for food stamps,
my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle said ``no.''
When economists said there should be money for transportation and
infrastructure, my Republican friends said ``no.'' When economists said
there should be money for unemployment and for aid to States for school
construction, my friends on the other side of the aisle said ``no.''
Madam Speaker, it is not enough to say ``no'' and to simply revert to
the failed policies of the past. My friends offered their package. We
had a vote and it failed miserably. People have had it with the failed
economic policies of George W. Bush. Yet, instead of trying to work
with President Obama and this Congress on a real recovery package, they
continued to defy the needs of the American people and continued saying
``no.''
Saying ``no'' is easy. Saying ``no'' means you don't have to take
responsibility for anything, but that is not what the American people
want, and that is not what the American people voted for in the
November elections.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the bill before us will save or create
more than 3 million jobs, and it will help people put food on their
tables and receive health care as they try to make it through this
recession.
We need to fix this economy, and Democrats, with or without the
Republicans, are going to do what is necessary to help the American
people. Enough of politics as usual. We need to move forward. The
American people are looking to us for help, and this package provides
the help that they need.
I congratulate the Speaker and the leadership and the chairman who
worked on this recovery package. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule and to support H.R. 1.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
As I listen to my good friend from Worcester, I would say, my gosh,
we certainly have seen a change in the level of debate around here. It
is fascinating to see.
Madam Speaker, as I listen to my friend from Colorado, I have got to
tell you that, when I was quoting Dr. Christina Romer, chief of the
Council of Economic Advisers, it was her methodology that was used that
created twice as many jobs at half the cost.
With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very hardworking Rules
Committee colleague, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is not petty
when we say that each Member of this House should have the opportunity
to read this legislation. We are the people's House. Every Member is
elected. We are all cognizant of the great difficulty being suffered by
the American people, of the jobs being lost, of the very, very sad
stories facing each of our districts. So it is not petty to say that,
as the House requested, we should have 48 hours to review this
legislation.
With regard to the substance, what we have been able to gauge is in
the legislation. I remember when we first started discussing this
package and, really, the tone of bipartisanship that was engulfing the
Nation at the time. I was pleased because I believed that we would be
able to modernize with this legislation. I believed we would see a
modernization of the infrastructure--of the roads and bridges--of the
United States.
When I saw the first $800 billion bill that was passed on January 28,
including $30 billion for shovel-ready infrastructure projects, I
thought that was most unsatisfactory, that a great opportunity was
being lost. Since we are going to burden the American people with all
of this debt, I thought at least we would modernize our infrastructure.
I thought, well, maybe when the bill comes back it will be improved,
and we will see more of the $800 billion, more than $30 billion within
the $800 billion for our roads and bridges and for the modernization of
our infrastructure.
When I saw the bill returning and that instead of $30 billion there
was $29

[[Page H1529]]

billion to modernize our infrastructure, I realized that this
opportunity lost is more than sad, because the American people believed
that this was sacrifice for modernization, for higher productivity, for
the creation of jobs. That is not what it is.
So, with sadness, I rise not only to oppose the rule but to say that
this is an unsatisfactory package and that we can do better. We all
believe that we need to act. I hope that we all come to the conclusion
that we must, that we can do better.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on
Rules.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, it is clear that our economy is in peril.
For months, the House of Representatives has been working to develop
solutions to revive the job market, to keep people in their homes and
to restore faith in the American economy. We have held substantive
hearings and markups. We have debated the merits of different
proposals. We have listened to nonpartisan expert testimony on what the
Federal Government can do to save the jobs we have and to create
millions more.
I have listened to and have participated in this debate, and I have
weighed the opinions of the experts, but when I consider the package
before us today, I think mainly of the people in my district who are
suffering.
I think of families in my district who are living on food stamps. I
think of seniors who can no longer afford to see a doctor when they're
sick. I think of the new mother who has just been laid off and who is
not sure if she can pay her mortgage next month.
I think of Francisca Monterjano. Francisca lost most of her 401(k)
when the stock market crashed last year. She lined up outside of Raley
Field earlier this month, along with thousands of my constituents,
eager for part-time work even though she is retired.
Francisca and the rest of my constituents have spoken, Madam Speaker.
They have told me clearly:
We need this package. We need the unemployment benefits and the
increased access to health care that it represents. We need the nearly
4 million jobs it will save or create. 7,800 of those jobs will be in
my district alone, and many of these will be in the clean energy
industry that will drive our future economy. We need the public transit
and flood protection infrastructure that the bill will provide. We need
the investment in primary and secondary education that will help train
our children for work in the jobs of the future, and we need the tax
relief that this bill contains.
Today's package is a product of compromise and of negotiation. It is
not perfect. Yet the state of our economy is too bleak not to act now.
Millions of people across our country are suffering too much for this
House to shy away from its responsibility to lead. Now is not the time
for partisan bickering or for political gain. Now is the time for
action, for leadership.
So today, Madam Speaker, I choose to lead by casting my vote in favor
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I urge my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to my very distinguished colleague from Tulare, California (Mr.
Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, this legislation is not about creating
jobs. If jobs were the priority of Democrats, leaders would have
listened to my pleas to help California.
I had asked Democrat leaders to include a provision that would not
have cost one penny. It would have simply brought water to my
constituents, and it would have saved 60,000 jobs.
Folks may ask: Why didn't the Democrat leaders put this in? Well, it
is because their friends in the radical environmental community have
decided that 2-inch minnows are more important than the people in my
district. Just listen to a California deputy attorney general who
moonlights as a radical environmentalist. Here is what he said about my
constituents:
``What parent raises their child to be a farm worker? These kids are
the least educated people in America . . . They turn to lives of crime.
They go on welfare. They get into drug trafficking, and they join
gangs.''
This is pathetic. You are spending $1 trillion, and you will not put
in one provision that would create or save 60,000 jobs. This is an
insult to my constituents, an absolute insult.
Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 16 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Colorado has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I want to thank Speaker
Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman Miller, and all of my colleagues for
doing what this crisis demands and for doing what the American people
have asked us to do.
This is no ordinary economic downturn. It is a rapid meltdown that
threatens the very foundations of our capitalist system. The Bush
administration took a record budget surplus and left us the largest
deficit in U.S. history. Our national debt has doubled, and the amount
we owe to foreign countries has tripled. Five million Americans no
longer have health insurance, and 7.6 million families have fallen into
poverty. The laundry list of mistakes from the previous
administration's failed policies has left us no choice but to take
swift and decisive action to tackle these challenges head on.
This landmark legislation represents a new chapter and a new
direction for our great Nation. By creating 3.5 million jobs and by
investing in our infrastructure--physical and human--we are taking
immediate action to restore growth and prosperity to the American
people. Americans understand that a healthy environment goes hand in
hand with a healthy economy.
This bill gives States and renewable energy producers the tools they
need to green our energy infrastructure. It promotes a green workforce,
spurs green innovation and invests heavily in our public lands. It does
this while creating new and long-lasting jobs that will make our
country the economic, scientific and environmental leader that it once
was and once again will be.
Madam Speaker, we can and will regain the world's confidence in our
economy. We will retain our global competitiveness, and we will,
indeed, save capitalism and free enterprise with one of the largest tax
cuts ever.
With its robust commitment to our education system, this legislation
invests in our children's future and paves the way for generations of
success. Education is the only meaningful, long-term investment we can
make to stimulate the American economy, and there is no better way to
remain the world's leader in innovation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I applaud President Obama and my colleagues in
both Chambers for working hard to ensure that education from early
childhood through college is an important part of the recovery package.
Again, I applaud the tireless efforts of all those involved in the
crafting and in the negotiation of this historic legislation.

{time} 1000

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it's not often that we have the
opportunity to hear the brilliance of both Diaz-Balart brothers in the
same debate.
Now I would like to yield 1 minute to our good friend from Miami, the
other Diaz-Balart.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, we clearly need a
stimulus bill, a bill that creates jobs. Unfortunately, the only thing
that this is going to stimulate is more government bureaucracy and
government bureaucrats. This will not help the economy.
Let me add some ammunition.
Only $3 billion, which is one-third of 1 percent to help the job
creators to stimulate small businesses. One-third of 1 percent for
small businesses that are the job creators? And yet, it's going to add
$9,400 for all of our American families in debt; $9,400. Less than

[[Page H1530]]

7 percent of the money goes to infrastructure. That's shameful.
You know, this House debated recently the TARP bill to try to cover
itself for the embarrassment, the embarrassment and lack of
accountability of that TARP bailout bill. This is just the ``Son of
TARP.'' We're going to be embarrassed. It's not going to help the
economy like it's supposed to, and we're going to read about the
scandals.
Please vote this bill down.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the chairman
of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), 3 minutes.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. This bill provides $64.1 billion for transportation and
infrastructure investments under the jurisdiction of our committee.
What is included in this bill from the jurisdiction of our committee
will create and sustain 1.8 million jobs, real jobs, construction jobs,
professional journeymen, career apprentice, brick layers, cement
finishers, backhoe operators. Real jobs in the U.S. economy for people
who will be paying taxes, not being paid unemployment compensation for
not working. They will get a working day's wage, and they will pay
taxes on it and their companies will pay taxes on it.
We'll generate $322 billion of total economic activity over the next
2 years.
And we are going to ensure that the States, departments of
transportation, the municipal metropolitan planning organizations, the
individual city and regional and metropolitan area planning
organizations, and the transit organizations, and the airport
authorities do what they have told this committee they will do: deliver
jobs, half of that funding in the first 90 days. And we will hold
hearings every 30 days with reports, according to a schedule we've laid
out for the State agencies, on delivery of those jobs putting the money
under contract.
The Portland Cement Association testified before our committee in
January saying 45 companies had 130 million metric tons of Portland
cement produced and invested in the marketplace in 2007. Last year it
was 95 million metric tons. For this year they project 9 million metric
tons. They can ramp up to over 90 million metric tons of cement
produced for ready-mix concrete to put people to work in the
marketplace.
In the transit sector, over 5,500 options are now on call for the
producers who can go from their now 5,000 to over 7,000 transit
vehicles ramping up in 30 days. I've been to one of the transit
producers in this country, they are ready to move.
And 82 percent of their purchases are U.S. suppliers, all final
manufacturers in the United States, and all steel. All cement in our
surface transportation program will be made in America, produced in
America, invested in America.
We can do this. We will put people to work. We will oversee the
implementation of this program, and we will put that on our Web site so
the American people will know that this program is working.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the
Conference Report on H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009''.
According to the employment statistics released by the Department of
Labor last week, as of January 2009, there are 11.6 million unemployed
persons in the U.S., for all sectors of the economy combined. In
addition, when part-time and discouraged workers who want full-time
jobs are included, the number of unemployed/under-employed workers
increases to 22.3 million.
The construction sector has been particularly hard-hit--it has the
highest unemployment rate (18.2 percent) of any industrial sector. As
of January 2009, there were 1,744,000 unemployed construction workers
in the nation.
This bill is urgently needed to put Americans back to work. The
infrastructure investments funded by this bill will create good,
family-wage jobs--jobs that cannot be outsourced to another country,
because the work must be done here in the U.S. on our roads, bridges,
transit and rail systems, airports, waterways, wastewater treatment
facilities, and Federal buildings.
For more than a year now, I have worked to ensure that infrastructure
investment plays a key role in our nation's economic recovery.
I thank Chairman Obey for working so closely with me in this effort.
We consulted extensively on the transportation and infrastructure
provisions in the bill. Through his efforts and those of his staff, we
were able to retain many of the good provisions in the House bill that
were not in the Senate bill, and to develop good compromises where the
bills differed. I particularly appreciate the hard work of Beverly
Pheto, Staff Director, and Kate Hallahan and David Napoliello of the
Transportation Subcommittee.
The legislation before us today does not include everything I had
proposed. While I would have preferred increased funding levels, and
tighter use-it-or-lose-it deadlines, I do not intend to let ``perfect''
become the enemy of ``good''.
This is a ``good'' bill. It is desperately needed by the American
people, and it deserves our support.
This bill provides $64.1 billion for Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee infrastructure investments. This funding will
create or sustain 1.8 million jobs and generate $322 billion of
economic activity. It will get construction workers off the bench and
back on the job.
To ensure that the purpose of this legislation is achieved, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will exercise vigorous
oversight over the economic recovery funds within its jurisdiction.
Federal agencies and grant recipients within our Committee's
jurisdiction must understand that ``business as usual'' is not good
enough anymore, and they will be held accountable to a high standard.
We will insist that States, cities, and transit agencies live up to
their assurances that they will be able to have contracts in place in
90 days for a substantial portion of the funding authorized by this
bill. We will insist that projects under this bill be new projects, not
simply replacements for projects which States were planning to carry
out under existing programs. We will insist that Federal agencies
expedite the process of approving projects and awarding grants.
With aggressive action by Federal agencies and grant recipients, the
infrastructure funds provided by this bill can produce a substantial
number of jobs by June, while also improving our deteriorating
infrastructure and laying the foundation for our future economic
growth.
I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, Chairman Olver, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies, and our colleagues for working with me and other Members of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure throughout the
development of this legislation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Conference
Report on H.R. 1, a true investment in America's future.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute
to our hardworking new colleague from Tequesta, Florida (Mr. Rooney).
Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I can't tell you how disappointed I am as
a new Member of this body as to the process that we are deliberating
here today having only received this bill late last night and now we
are voting on it today. What happened to the open and transparent
Congress that I promised my constituents and that the President asked
us to do when I was elected here not too long ago? The Democrats say
that there has been transparency, but we know that this is not true.
What about the backroom deals? What about reaching across party
lines? The minority has been left out of the discussion, and the people
of my district expect and deserve better. I cannot vote for such a
large bill that levies our economic future on the backs of my children.
Where is the help for more take-home pay for Martin County? Thirteen
dollars a week? Where is the foreclosure relief for St. Lucie County?
It's been cut in half. And what about jobs? I couldn't find one
specific job for St. Lucie County which unemployment rates are now
rivaling Detroit, Michigan.
The majority says it's their plan or nothing, and we are the party of
``no.'' But we had a plan. It was a good plan. And I sincerely hope in
the future we will be able to work together as the people expect us to
do.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from California, the chairman of Education and Labor,
Mr. Miller.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the

[[Page H1531]]

House, we all know, and the people know, that the American economy is
in a crisis. It's not that this bill in and of itself will fix the
American economy, but this bill takes a major step to fill in the huge
gap, and that is the loss of spending at the local level among our
school districts, our water districts, our cities, our counties, and
our States. Why is that happening? Because they're hemorrhaging a huge
loss. And over the next couple of years, over $2 trillion will be
missing in economic activity. This is a bill that's designed to
stimulate those local economies.
In the education area, there's $56 billion that's available to local
school districts for the rehabilitation, the repair, and the renovation
of school buildings so that children will go to school in safe, well-
lighted, modern facilities so that they will be green. They can put in
new heating, new air conditioning systems, $600 million for new
technologies so every school in this country will be connected to the
best technology in the world. They will be able to engage in
curriculums that now are impossible for them. They can have modern
labs. That's the promise of America in this.
And who will do those jobs? Local contractors, heating contractors,
electricians, plumbing contractors, building contractors from our local
communities who will hire other people in our local communities. That's
what will happen with this legislation. That's the promise of this
legislation.
It will help school districts from keeping to lay off teachers. In
the matter of a few weeks, California will start issuing its advanced
pink slips. Hundreds of thousands of teachers across this nation will
be in this same situation. Now, school districts will know that they're
going to get $13 billion in title I in IDA money that will help them
reduce the number of people who will be unemployed if we do nothing.
If we do nothing, unemployment will continue, and we know that it
will continue for the next few months. But we're trying to mitigate
against the increased unemployment through school construction, through
highway construction, making sure the students can stay in college as
their families are under pressure because of the loss of jobs, the
diminished work hours, the loss of pay. We want to make sure that they
can stay there so we provide an additional increase in the Pell Grant.
This is very important to this Nation. It's very important to our
students, and it's very important that we have an opportunity to create
in this economic crisis a 21st century education plan.
You know, it's just amazing. We always hear that history repeats, and
here we see it again. And if you go back and you look at Arthur
Schlesinger's study of the failures of the Hoover administration
leading up to the elected of 1932, this book, ``Crisis of Old Order,''
we see that today, history is repeating itself.
Today, when this country cries out to help this economy, to help
America's families who are unemployed, who are losing income, who are
losing jobs, President Obama stepped forth with the American Recovery
Act. The Republicans stepped forth with saying ``no.'' That was
reflected when Minority Leader John Boehner gave instructions to his
colleagues to oppose the bill. Even as President Obama was traveling
the Hill to meet with them and discuss this bill with them, they
decided in advance of that meeting they would say ``no.''
Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia has said that ``no'' is going
to be the Republican strategy on this economic crises. ``No'' is going
to be their strategy, he said.
The Republican national spokesman of late, radio host Rush Limbaugh,
added that ``no'' is the strategy by asserting on the air that he wants
President Obama to fail. Does he understand if President Obama fails
that the American families lose income, they lose their jobs, and the
crisis continues? And here we see the repeating of ``no.''
It was President Hoover in the midst of the Depression with his
policy that the Federal Government could do nothing to help this
Nation, and he was so wrong. He asked Will Rogers to think up a joke
that would stop hoarding by the American public. He asked Rudy Vallee,
Can you sing a song that would make people forget the Depression? I
will give you a medal. He asked Christopher Morley, Perhaps what this
country needs is a poem.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This economic crisis will not be
solved by a song, a poem, or a good joke. It will be solved by this
Congress going to work with this new President to meet this crisis head
on. It will be solved when we provide jobs in this country, when we
free up the credit markets, when we force the banks to lend as they
should be doing, and we provide this stimulus bill.
All Members of Congress should be very proud to vote ``aye'' on this
legislation and yield to the cries and the needs of American families
and workers.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we share the goal of getting our economy
back on track. One of the most compelling stories came from a town hall
meeting in the hometown of our great friend, the distinguished chair of
the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr.
Pence). I yield him 3 minutes.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind
remarks.
The American people know and House Republicans know our Nation is
facing a serious recession. American families are hurting. Many have
lost their jobs. Many million more are worried they will be next. House
Republicans know that Congress must do something. But it's important
that we do the right thing.
As this debate begins today, we just heard moments ago from a
distinguished colleague and others that somehow Republicans are about
saying ``no.'' Well, let me say with great respect to the gentleman,
this is not about saying ``no.'' This is about saying ``yes'' to
solutions that will put Americans back to work.
Republicans have brought forward such solutions built on the time
honored experience of President John F. Kennedy, of President Ronald
Reagan, and the experience of this Nation with the impending recession
that followed September 11. We didn't go on a spending spree on Capitol
Hill. We didn't offer Americans a $13-a-person tax cut. John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and this Congress and this government after
September 11, under George W. Bush, cut taxes across the board for
working families, small businesses, and family farms; and the economy
grew.
But what has the majority brought to the floor today? The truth is
this stimulus bill will do nothing to stimulate this economy in the
long term. The only thing the Democrats' stimulus bill will do is
stimulate more government and more debt.
The American people are asking, what's 13 bucks a week going to do to
get this economy moving again for the average American? What's $2
billion for community organizing to organizations like ACORN going to
do to get Americans from the unemployment line to the factory line or
millions to begin rationing health care or to purchase green golf carts
going to do to put families back to work in Indiana?
As the gentleman said, I had a town hall meeting Monday, myself, in
Indiana. A 13-year-old girl stood up, told me that her dad, raising her
and her sister, alone as a single parent had lost half of his hours at
work. He'd gone from 40 hours to 24 hours. And she stood up bravely in
front of 300 Hoosiers, and she said, Anything in that bill,
Congressman, that can help my dad get back to full-time? And I looked
at little Hillary, congratulated her for her courage, and I said,
Hillary, because I can't answer ``yes'' to your question that there is
anything in this bill that's going to help get your dad back to full
time, I can't vote ``yes'' on this bill. And the 300 Hoosiers in that
room exploded in agreeing applause.
The American people know what's going on here. The American people
know that this administration and this Congress are about to pass a
bill that will not grow our economy. It will merely grow our
government. We can do better. We must do better. This Congress owes the
American people no less.

[[Page H1532]]

{time} 1015

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, how much time does each side have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter)
has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) has 11\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I reserve my time so we can kind of even up.
Mr. DREIER. At this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes
to our very dynamic new member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman
from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding me time, Madam Speaker.
I'm highly insulted by the comments of the Deputy Attorney General
from California that were shared with us a few minutes ago. As a
lifetime farmer and a representative of many farmers, this is another
indication of the atmosphere of arrogance within the majority party.
It's an arrogance also expressed here this morning that only the
President of this country can save us. Well, thank you very much, the
American people have done very well by themselves over the last 200-
plus years, and we haven't needed any President to save us.
The majority says saying ``no'' is easy. Republicans aren't saying
``no'' to the needs of the American people. We have a better
alternative that's not being considered. For the majority, spending
other people's money is easy. That's what this bill does. It's
generational abuse.
Last night, Mr. Obey said that the bill had been worked out with the
White House. So I asked him to show us the accountability the
President's been promising, show me how the spending leads to job
creation section by section. He could not. I ask you, where's the beef?
Then he said, it's irrelevant what we think about this bill. The
first article in the Constitution is about the Congress. It's not
irrelevant what we think about this bill. My constituents don't like
this bill. I don't like the bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the
bill and say to the majority, we're not going to take your arrogance
and we are not going to take your stealing the money from us, our
children and our grandchildren.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I was just congratulating Ms. Foxx on her
thoughtful statement. At this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to our
good friend from Westminster, South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the rule to this conference report between Democrats to H.R. 1. This
backroom-written Democrat spending bill costs too much money, doesn't
fix the problem fast enough, and fails to make enough good jobs.
In the long run, Madam Speaker, this bill will cost working families
over $1 trillion. After today, each American household will owe
$100,000 to pay for government debt. What's even scarier, in this
conference report Democrats took what little bit of tax relief was in
there away from families and small businesses so they could increase
spending on pet projects like $50 million to the National Endowment of
the Arts and $300 million for green golf carts.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than half the
money in the Democrat stimulus plan will be spent in the next 2 years.
Madam Speaker, folks in South Carolina and across this country are
losing their jobs today. American families are struggling to make ends
meet and cannot afford to wait 2 years to see a potential improvement
in their economy.
The real problem, Madam Speaker, is Democrats have lost their faith
in the American people. They don't see what I see. I look at the people
back home in South Carolina, and I know that they are the key to moving
America forward. The barbershop on the corner, the hardware store down
the street, they're the driving force of the economy, not the
bureaucrats in Washington.
And it's because of my faith in the American people that I support
the House Republican economy recovery plan. This plan allows small
businesses, the heart and soul of our economy, to take a tax deduction
equal to 20 percent of their income, a deduction that will allow small
businesses to hire new employees, to grow. In South Carolina, this plan
will create 34,000 jobs more than the Democrat plan and will cost half.
It's my sincere hope that the spending bill fails, and we in Congress
can debate a bill that won't put a crushing burden on our children,
won't take 2 years to work, and will rely on our small businesses. Vote
``no'' on this plan.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I'd like, Madam Speaker, to yield 1 minute to my
friend from New York, Mr. Bishop.
(Mr. BISHOP of New York asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, let me start by taking this
opportunity to commend both the House and Senate conferees on crafting
this compromise legislation that will create and preserve nearly 3.5
million jobs here in America and will set our Nation on a course toward
economic recovery.
It is imperative that we plug the holes in our job market that lost
600,000 jobs last month alone, and these holes will not be plugged by a
strategy of saying ``no'' nor will they be plugged by a strategy of
returning to the failed policies of the past, which is all our friends
on the other side of the aisle are offering.
Through investing in our infrastructure and investment in our
children's education and preserving the ability of our States to
provide essential services, this bill will create jobs for millions of
Americans, even as we better prepare the next generation for the
challenges they will face.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to ensure that this historic effort will return our
Nation to economic prosperity and provide hope to the millions who have
suffered as a result of the failed policies of the past.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute
to a former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta,
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I had some prepared remarks,
but I'm going to set those aside because I saw an article this morning
in The Hill newspaper by Cheri Jacobus, and I think it says it all and
I want to quote an excerpt.
``Congress should throw this greasy pile of pork into the grinder.
Instead, give every American household a $10,000 stimulus check to
spend as we please. With approximately 100 million households
nationwide, we hit that magic number of $1 trillion. This, along with a
2-year moratorium on capital gains taxes, will get the economy off life
support.
``Instead of condoms, green golf carts, mouse habitats and
government-run health care, Americans would spend based on individual
priorities, thus spurring competition, resulting in higher-quality
goods and services. Good banks succeed; bad banks fail. Well-priced,
quality automobiles hit the streets; lemons fade away. Capitalism lives
to fight another day and the greatest country on Earth narrowly
survives its near-death experience with socialism.''
Mr. PERLMUTTER. At this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for
yielding and applaud our Speaker and President Obama and our leadership
for a fair and balanced bill.
The disastrous economic policies of the previous administration,
including the irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, the war in Iraq
and a regulated financial services industry, have left our Nation in
shambles. Many more people, millions more, are living in poverty,
without health insurance, and unemployment is through the roof.
Recognizing this urgency, I established the Congressional Black
Caucus Economic Recovery Task Force, chaired by Congressman Cleaver, to
help guide our response to the economic crisis.
Historically, the role of the Congressional Black Caucus has been to
act as the conscience of the Congress and ensure that no American is
left behind.

[[Page H1533]]

This is our moral responsibility. That was our overriding goal with
this bill, as we sought to create more jobs for more people.
This package will help working families by expanding food stamps,
unemployment insurance, and health coverage for the uninsured, and
investing in education and job training, infrastructure, foreclosure
relief, and assistance.
It's not perfect. It should have been much, much bigger, but it's a
critical first step. It reflects our values as a Nation.
Although the American dream has turned into a nightmare for many
during this economic crisis, many people, many people have been living
this nightmare for years. So we've got to continue to fight on their
behalf, and we will.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute
to our good friend from Roswell, Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, you really can't be serious. You can't be serious.
This would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. Got this at 11 o'clock last
night, over 1,000 pages. What's in it? Have you read it? We found $30
million for mice. Got $30 million for mice. You can't be serious. What
a joke. $30 million for mice. Does that create jobs?
Imagine what we could do with $30 million, Madam Speaker. Imagine
what we could do with $1 trillion, Madam Speaker, if we worked together
for real solutions.
We understand that people are hurting, but this majority is only
interested in paying off and buying political friends like $2 billion
for ACORN and $300 million for golf carts for bureaucrats. What a joke.
But the American people aren't laughing. This bill is selfish because
it robs from future generations. It's irresponsible because it won't
work. What a joke. The American people aren't laughing.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, and as she's getting ready, I would
say to my friend, Dr. Price from Georgia, there's not anything in that
bill about mice, $30 million for mice. We talked about it yesterday.
It's not in there, and I challenge him.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair will ask Members to refrain from interrupting another in
debate after that Member has expressed a refusal to yield.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman
from Colorado and the Rules Committee for the heavy lifting, along with
the Appropriations Committee and Financial Services Committee, and all
of those who have joined the leadership in this heavy responsibility of
governance.
I'm proud to be part of the governing party, if you will, the
Democratic caucus that has the responsibility of leading this Nation,
and we accept the burden and responsibility of making sure that there
is a credible answer to America's problems.
Someone needs to talk to the unemployed construction worker or the
young woman laid off in the retail industry or retiree who wants to
come back to work. This bill is a responsible bill, $64 billion in
transportation and infrastructure, 1.8 million jobs; the construction
worker back to work; $800 payment for a couple, $400 payment for a
single person. It's not $13 a week, as they'd like to say. It's a lump
sum that people are desperately in need of.
This is an important and responsible act. We're putting together in
my office task forces to ensure that Houston communities get this
relief. It's important to vote for this bill. America needs this bill.
It's time to answer the call of America. I support the Rules Committee
and economic recovery bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute
to our friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
A lot has been said about the process here, and it needs to be said.
To receive a bill that's over 1,000 pages at 11 o'clock last night and
expect to vote on it with any knowledge of really what's in it today is
simply absurd. So the process is wrong, but we need not lose sight of
the broader picture here. We know enough about this legislation to know
that it is bad legislation. First and foremost, the process is bad, but
it's bad legislation.
Now, some will say, well, you're just not a Keynesian, you don't
believe in Keynesian economics. Keynes would be embarrassed by this
legislation. If you believe in Keynesian economics, then certainly you
would spend money in a way that stimulates the economy. I doubt that
John Maynard Keynes would believe that $50 million for the National
Endowment for the Arts would be stimulative. All that it stimulates is
more spending later.
And the problem here is we're creating hundreds of new Federal
programs that will continue in perpetuity, that will become a drag on
the economy, not bolster it.
Vote against this legislation.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I'd like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Georgia
(Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, this is no joke. To my friends on the other side of
this aisle, this is a very serious matter. We've lost 3,673,000 jobs in
the last year alone. Madam Speaker, that is 10,000 jobs every day.
Now, what we have here is plain and simple. Our economy has leaks and
holes in it all throughout. That's why you've got 1,000 pages there
because it's big. Our economy is big.
You say you haven't read it. I would say you have read it. You've
come down here and poked holes about it, said this is what's wrong with
it and that's what's wrong with it. How do you know that if you haven't
read it?

{time} 1030

The other point is this, Madam Speaker: last November the people of
the United States made a decision and that decision was to put Barack
Obama as President, because they wanted a new direction. He has
pleaded, he has cajoled, he's gone all across this country asking for
help. I say, Madam Speaker, let us give him the help, let us come
together, and let us go ahead and pass this bill without delay. The
American people are counting on us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
expired.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
I would yield my friend 30 seconds. Has his time expired, Madam
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say to
my friend, who unfortunately wouldn't yield, we do have a thousand
pages here. This was put online after midnight. We all voted in favor
of 48 hours--you voted in favor of 48 hours--to allow the American
people and our colleagues to see this. We all understand the urgency of
this matter. Has my colleague read this? Many of us have been trying to
go through it since after midnight in the Rules Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I was up until 3 o'clock this morning reading
it. If you had done this, Mr. Dreier, you were here debating it last
week----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DREIER. Two-and-a-half hours, and you went through a thousand
pages.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to inquire how much time remains, Madam
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute
to a former Rules Committee member, one of our new appropriators, the
gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

[[Page H1534]]

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying
legislation, H.R. 1. This underlying bill is unfocused, it's bloated,
and it's self-defeating. It won't stimulate our economy. It will
certainly stimulate growth in the size of government.
The bill fails in four basic areas:
First, its tax cuts are too small, too temporary and simply don't
encourage people to purchase products or employers to hire people.
Second, much of the spending in the bill is recurring and will add to
the size of government and ultimately slow future growth.
Third, our country is at war and yet nothing in this bill helps those
protecting our freedom. And by ignoring legitimate procurement issues,
we fail to take a measure that would actually stimulate the economy.
Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill is sold as an infrastructure bill,
yet only 7 percent of the spending is actually on infrastructure. We
can do better than this. We can have a bipartisan, open process and
pass legislation we can all be proud of.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Ohio
(Mr. Boccieri).
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, the United States of America is in a
great recession and we will be judged as a United States Government by
two measures--by action or inaction.
And I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle who are not
going to vote for this measure today, you are walking away from America
and Americans in her greatest time of need. I remember as a C-130 pilot
flying missions in and out of Iraq how much money we were spending over
there to rebuild roads and bridges in Iraq and to make sure every man,
woman and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage. You didn't
bat an eye to vote for them. You didn't bat an eye to bail out $700
billion for Wall Street. This is about investing in America and
Americans in their greatest time of need. We have to be measured by
what we're going to do. Are we going to be leaders or are we going to
be blockers? Are we going to act or are we not? Are we going to vote
for Iraqis or Americans?

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members seated in the Chamber will refrain
from shouting interjections out during debate, and Members should
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield a minute
to my good friend from Tyler, Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this rule is so cynical. The biggest
spending bill in the history of the world and the rule says we can't
even have the bill read out loud here on the floor so the American
people really know what we're doing to future generations.
And to hear my colleagues across the aisle, Madam Speaker, talk about
the jobs, 600,000 jobs being lost in the last month, it breaks my heart
for every job. We lost 1200 in east Texas yesterday. Why? Because the
hope and the change that people voted for in the President has come to
doom and gloom. They have held on to avoid letting their workers go,
but now for the last month they've heard the Democratic proposals and
what they see is no hope. There's no hope left in this bill. It's not
going to help the economy, so they're having to let their workers go.
We say yes to the American people. We say no to the atmosphere of
arrogance that says the American people are not the solution. They are
the solution. Give them a tax holiday. Let them keep their own money
and spend it to get the economy going. That's yes to America. That's
yes to the American solution.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. This is going to be a clear point of demarcation. Eight
years of the Bush administration and we lost millions of jobs. Millions
of Americans lost their homes, lost their investments. Our schools
crumbled. And now as we launch into these 4 and 8 years, we're going to
see schools rebuilt, millions put to work, we're going to see the
economy turn around, and it starts today.
Now in '93 when we had the Clinton economic plan, not one Republican
voted for it in the House or Senate. But we did get 27 million new
jobs, we did balance the budget, and pay down the national debt.
History has a way of repeating itself.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this point 30
seconds to our good friend from Texas, distinguished secretary of the
Republican Conference, Mr. Carter.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman.
The President told us that this bill was not going to have any
earmarks in it and if it was, he was going to do something about it and
I'm proud of him.
I'm concerned about an earmark. An earmark is a Member-directed
initiative. We have an earmark for a train from Las Vegas to
California. That seems to be one of the earmarks we had. I'm not sure
in this 25 feet high bill we've got here that we've still got the
mouse, but we had a $30 million earmark for a mouse in California.
I hope you'll veto this bill.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, how much time do we each have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of
my time for closing.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I began by reporting to the House of the
sad news that I received yesterday when a man telephoned me to say that
his young son's best friend's father had just committed suicide because
of the economic difficulty their family was facing. We all know how
serious this situation is. We have friends who have lost homes, people
who have lost jobs, and we all know that it is imperative that we take
action and that we take action now, and most important, Madam Speaker,
that we do the right thing.
Now I'm going to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question
on this measure. Why? So that we can do what every single Member of
this institution on a unanimous recorded vote said they wanted to do on
Tuesday, and, that is, say that 48 hours should be provided for Members
to look at this bill. The Rules Committee got this package very late
last night, around midnight. We were told at that time just before
midnight that it was online, available for the American people to see,
and, Madam Speaker, it was not. Three sections were missing. Not until
well after midnight was this made available. And so any Member who cast
a vote in favor of allowing 48 hours for this measure to be considered
should vote no on the previous question so that we will provide an
amendment to allow for what everyone said they wanted to in fact take
place.
This measure is, as has been reported, a thousand pages, and no one
knows what it's going to do, including our friend the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee who in his testimony last night before the
Rules Committee said he had no idea how many jobs would be created. He
had no idea how many jobs would be created, but we have to take action.
And, Madam Speaker, we can take action by putting into place a growth-
oriented tax package which will in fact get our economy back on track.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, my friend from California's story
about the gentleman who committed suicide underscores the urgency of
this matter. This is not a time for delay. This is not a time for
inaction. It is a time for action. The President has requested this
bill get passed to put America back to work. This bill will maintain or
create 3.6 million jobs. We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs over
the course of the last few months. We need to stop that downward spiral
and this will do that. It has five major components. First there's
construction and reconstruction of our infrastructure. Current jobs,
long-term investment. A look to the new energy future, new jobs in
science and technology, in health care and in energy. It gives our
States a chance to stay on their feet by backfilling some of their
losses for teachers and firefighters and policemen and maintenance
workers. There is a tax

[[Page H1535]]

cut for 95 percent of America in this bill. Finally, there is a piece
that helps those folks who have been hurt by this downturn with
Medicaid and food stamps and unemployment insurance.
This bill is a fantastic step forward. There will be a series of
steps that have to be taken and it will take time. But we have faith in
the American people. We have faith in this country. We are going to
change the direction of this Nation and put 3.5 million people back to
work.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 168 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

Strike ``upon adoption of this resolution'' and insert
``not sooner than 10:45 p.m. on the calendar day of February
14, 2009''.
____

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

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 194, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 66]

YEAS--234

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

NAYS--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kilroy
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland

[[Page H1536]]

Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Campbell
Lee (NY)
Solis (CA)
Stark

{time} 1107

Messrs. SHADEGG, BLUNT, MARSHALL and McINTYRE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 194, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 67]

YEAS--231

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

NAYS--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Campbell
Cao
Israel
Lamborn
Lee (NY)
Radanovich
Stark

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.

{time} 1114

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. CAO. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 67, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

____________________