[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1536-H1588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 168, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental 
appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure 
investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the

[[Page H1537]]

unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The conference report to accompany the bill 
(H.R. 1) contains an emergency designation for purposes of pay-as-you-
go principles. Accordingly, the Chair must put the question of 
consideration under clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the conference report?
  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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 195, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               YEAS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     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)
     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)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     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
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Space
     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--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     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
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     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
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     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)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Campbell
     Davis (TN)
     Gordon (TN)
     Lee (NY)
     Stark

                              {time}  1137

  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The gentleman may state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the 
rule has allowed for 90 minutes of debate on this $800 billion package; 
is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Ninety minutes is correct.
  Does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is my understanding that many Members who 
wish to debate this matter, thereby, will not be allowed time because 
of the limited time. I further understand that I am not allowed to ask 
for an extension of time under the rule; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot anticipate what request 
will be made.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Then let me further say it is my 
understanding that an extension of time, which would be the request, 
can only be made by the gentleman from Wisconsin; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will deal with the unanimous 
consent requests as they may occur.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. You are forcing me to do that which we 
really should not have to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Well, the Chair thinks the gentleman can 
read the rule and can understand it, but if he wishes to proceed, he 
may go ahead.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin will 
respond, but I would ask unanimous consent that we extend debate time 
by 1 hour.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would look to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin to propound such a request.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Then let me ask the gentleman from 
Wisconsin: Would you consider such a request?
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, I would simply note the House 
has already voted on how it intends to proceed, and I see no reason to 
depart from that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I believe the gentleman could initiate it by 
unanimous consent, and he has the authority for that. I urge the 
gentleman to do so. All of our people want more time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman stating a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate the Speaker for his 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman is asking, would the gentleman yield for a 
response?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California no longer 
seeks recognition.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state the inquiry.

[[Page H1538]]

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House 
passed a unanimous motion to instruct which directed the conferees to 
make the text of this report available for 48 hours before being 
considered.
  Under House rules, what is the effect of a motion to instruct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Instructions by the House to its conferees 
are advisory in nature and are not binding as a limitation on their 
authority.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Then a unanimous motion to instruct adopted by 
this House is not binding at all and, therefore, is of no consequence; 
is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will repeat: Instructions by the 
House to its conferees are advisory in nature and are not binding as a 
limitation on their authority.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Under House rules, isn't it true that a 
conference report cannot be made in order and considered on the floor 
unless it has been available for 3 calendar days?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This question is hypothetical as any such 
point of order has been waived.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order under 
rule XXII, clause 8 whereby the conference report shall not be in order 
and will be considered as read unless it has been available for 3 
calendar days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order has been waived.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a further inquiry then.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is there an opportunity under the rules to 
allow for a reading of the over 1,000-page bill that is being 
considered currently?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The order of the House provides that the 
conference report is considered as read.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As the ruling of the Chair, as the ruling of 
the Speaker, it is my understanding then, in having this bill of over 
1,000 pages made available to the Members of the House after 11 or 12 
o'clock last night, that this is to have been considered read even 
though it is physically impossible for any Member to have read this 
bill; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 168 provides that the 
conference report is considered as read.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 168, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
February 12, 2009, at page H1307.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the conference report accompanying H.R. 
1, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  As Senator Cochran said, the time for talk is over. It is time to 
vote. The country needs this package. I urge support. I think we ought 
to get on with it.

  Economic Analysis of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the American 
                     Recovery and Reinvestment Act

       Economists generally agree that the Nation is facing one of 
     the most dire economic crises in our history. Over the past 
     three months 1.8 million jobs have been lost after falling 
     the same amount in the prior ten months. Other economic data 
     also point to an ever-faster sinking U.S. economy:
       Unemployment has soared by 4.1 million, an increase of more 
     than 50 percent from 7.5 million to 11.6 million since 
     December 2007 when the recession began.
       Full time employment dropped 3.5 million over the last 
     three months, much faster than at any time since the data 
     began in 1967.
       Consumer demand for goods fell at an 11 percent rate in the 
     second half of 2008, faster than at any time in the 62 years 
     of data.
       Only five months in six decades of data saw lower use of 
     our manufacturing capacity than the 70.2 percent recorded in 
     December.
       Exports fell at a 19.7 percent annual rate in the most 
     recent quarter.
       Nothing indicates that these trends will not continue 
     unless the federal government acts. While forecasters differ 
     on specifics, many believe that without quick and decisive 
     action the Nation could suffer another 5 million job losses 
     over the coming year.
       The U.S. economy is caught in a vicious downward spiral 
     with self-reinforcing declines in spending, sales, jobs, 
     income, profits, government revenues, state and local 
     services, investment, and global trade. The federal 
     government is the only major actor in the U.S. economy with 
     the capacity to stop the downward spiral.
       The current downturn looks a lot more like the early stages 
     of the Great Depression than any episode since the 1930s:
       Rapid shrinkage in private credit, with crisis in every 
     major financial sector;
       The favorite tool of the Federal Reserve (the short term 
     rate to banks) already lowered to virtually zero;
       Evaporating household wealth with plunging values of homes 
     and financial assets;
       Record high supplies of vacant homes and declines in home 
     values with no end in sight;
       The fewest cars sold relative to the population since the 
     1940s; and
       Inflation is verging on negative territory or deflation, a 
     condition that discourages consumption, as people wait to buy 
     at lower prices, and investment, as sales become more 
     problematic and effective borrowing costs rise. Deflation 
     also undermines monetary policy because interest rates cannot 
     go negative.
       Opponents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     often argue that ``spending is not stimulus'' because 
     spending by government just reduces spending by others. That 
     argument effectively assumes that total spending in the 
     economy cannot be raised. That would make sense if either (1) 
     we were at full employment or (2) increased government 
     borrowing came from lenders who would otherwise spend the 
     money on U.S. goods and services. Neither condition 
     applies today. We have high rates of unemployed labor and 
     capital equipment. We also find lenders eager to fund 
     federal borrowing rather than to spend, as evidenced by 
     exceptionally low interest rates on U.S. Treasury Bills. 
     These are textbook conditions justifying federal 
     government borrowing to boost the economy.
       Some critics of this legislation have misinterpreted 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the effects of 
     this legislation on jobs and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 
     over the next ten years. CBO found that bills like those 
     passed in the House and Senate would increase job-years by 
     3.1 million to 9.0 million over the next six years and would 
     not lower jobs thereafter. CBO also found that GDP would be 
     raised over the next ten years. GDP would be boosted 3 to 10 
     percent over the next several years. If only this bill is 
     enacted and nothing is done to raise saving, the bill would 
     have a zero to 0.2 percent annual reduction of GDP in the 
     long run.
       Other opponents of this legislation have proposed as an 
     alternative measures intended to boost housing production or 
     prices. With 2.9 percent of homes still vacant, half again as 
     much as at any time prior to 2005, we could fritter away 
     hundreds of billions of dollars of additional deficit with a 
     negligible boost to the economy or jobs.
       The Congressional Budget Office and private economic 
     forecasters have evaluated various options for boosting 
     national spending from an additional dollar of federal 
     deficit. They have consistently found that the highest ``bang 
     for the buck'' occurs with either direct federal spending or 
     transferring funds to those with tight budget constraints 
     such as cash-strapped households and state and local 
     governments with falling revenues and balanced budget 
     requirements. In contrast, they find that much less 
     additional spending would result from making more money 
     available to those with high incomes or to companies with 
     excess capacity. In recent testimony, CBO Director Elmendorf 
     stated, ``In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a 
     substantial boost to economic activity over the next several 
     years relative to what would occur without any legislation.''
       The bill's $789 billion price tag sounds large, but it is 
     more likely to be too little than too much. The CBO director 
     has testified that, if nothing is done, our economic output 
     will fall below its potential by close to a trillion dollars 
     this year and next and by another $600 billion in 2011. He 
     noted that this would be the largest gap relative to the size 
     of potential output since the Great Depression. It would 
     represent a loss in Americans' income and output of $2.5 
     trillion, or about $8,000 per person, that will be lost 
     forever.
       The forecasters at the Congressional Budget Office, Moody's 
     Economy.com, Macroeconomic Advisors, and the Obama 
     Administration have all estimated that enactment of this 
     legislation could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. If we 
     can gainfully employ

[[Page H1539]]

     those millions of people, as opposed to having them be 
     unemployed, they can create a stronger economy for the future 
     by building infrastructure, creating technologies, and 
     improving their education and skills.
       The following table summarizes the funding levels in 
     division A of the conference report: 

[[Page H1540]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.001
     


[[Page H1541]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.002
     


[[Page H1542]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.003
     


[[Page H1543]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.004
     


[[Page H1544]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.005
     


[[Page H1545]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.006
     


[[Page H1546]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.007
     


[[Page H1547]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.008
     


[[Page H1548]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.009
     


[[Page H1549]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.010
     


[[Page H1550]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.011
     


[[Page H1551]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.012
     


[[Page H1552]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.013
     


[[Page H1553]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.014
     


[[Page H1554]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, in just a short while, the 
House will be voting on the President's $790 billion economic stimulus 
package. It is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever 
considered by this legislative body in its more than 200 years. I will 
be voting ``no'' on this legislation. Over the next few minutes, I 
would like to share my concerns about this bill as it is currently 
written.
  The President, whom I respect a great deal, is a fine salesman. But 
as I have said on more than one occasion, facts are stubborn things. 
The fact is that this stimulus package does more to promote the growth 
of the Federal Government than it does to create jobs or to stimulate 
our economy. The fact is there are 104 government programs in this 
legislation that are being permanently expanded.

                              {time}  1145

  This includes 31 new government programs and permanent expansions to 
73 existing programs. Taxpayers will pay for these programs well into 
the future. Of the total funding in this package, $190 billion--or 61 
percent--is devoted to increasing the size of government. Only $122 
billion--or 39 percent--is for a temporary one-time infusion of money 
into 98 Federal programs to stimulate the economy.
  Again, these are the facts.
  The interest on this new spending alone will cost no less than $350 
billion. And, if all of the new spending in this bill is carried 
forward in the future years, Federal nondefense budgets will have to 
increase by at least 42 percent each year. One more time, these are the 
facts.
  My colleagues, is there anyone in Congress who really believes that 
this spending can be sustained?
  Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to Washington spending 
taxpayers' money, a trillion has become the new million.
  So how did we get to this point today?
  Two nights ago, the President's chief of staff came to Capitol Hill 
under the cover of darkness and presented the framework of a final deal 
to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The only negotiation that took 
place occurred in the middle of the night in several back rooms of the 
U.S. Capitol between the White House and these two leaders.
  There are hundreds of billions of dollars of spending in this 
legislation, and yet not one member of the House Appropriations 
Committee--not even Chairman Obey--was in sight when the final deal was 
cut.
  There are hundreds of billions of dollars of tax provisions in this 
legislation, and yet not one member of the House Ways and Means 
committee--not even Chairman Rangel--was in sight when the final deal 
was cut.
  The purpose of a conference committee is to negotiate differences 
between competing versions of the House and Senate bills. Amendments 
are usually offered, debated, and considered. But there were no 
negotiations between Republicans and Democrats at Wednesday's 
conference. The negotiations had taken place the night before.
  Outside of the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader Reid, no one in the 
Congress has any idea what is really in this legislation. It was filed 
in the House as it was negotiated--in the darkness of night. And it 
became available to Members and the public on a Web site at 12:30 a.m. 
this morning, less than 12 hours ago.
  This is precisely why every single Member present on Tuesday, more 
than 400 Members of the House, voted to have the conference report 
available 48 hours before House consideration. But the Speaker and the 
Senate Majority Leader are clearly afraid that the more Members and 
taxpayers learn about this bill, the more Members will walk away from 
it.
  The House should not vote on the largest spending bill in the history 
of the United States when no one on either side of the aisle has any 
real idea of what's in it. There is no doubt that urgent action is 
needed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Had the President and 
congressional leaders focused and put their attention on the real need 
for job creation, with an emphasis on infrastructure jobs, this package 
would be sailing through the House and Senate with broad bipartisan 
support. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who would support 
reasonable transportation and infrastructure projects as well as 
reasonable tax reform, but that is not what is before us today.
  In the end, funding for roads, highways, flood control measures, and 
other job creating infrastructure projects were downsized in order to 
increase the size and scope of government programs.
  Mr. Speaker, that's not stimulus. That's not job creation, and it 
certainly isn't what the country needs or deserves.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank you for the tremendous job that you and the 
leadership have done during this historic period in our Nation's 
history.
  There is a common expression that we have in our committees, and that 
is, ``How is the gentlelady and gentleman recorded?'' You don't have an 
opportunity to say you were confused, you didn't know what you were 
doing, or you wish there was another way.
  And I gather when you get back home, people will be asking, ``And how 
were you recorded?''
  How were you recorded when you had an opportunity to give some 
assistance to the working people in this country, where 95 percent of 
them will be receiving a tax cut so that they will be able to assist 
them in keeping their kids in school, paying their rents, their 
mortgages, keeping up their health insurance?
  How were you recorded when we said that this Nation should take care 
of those people who unfortunately lost their job, lost their dignity, 
lost their health insurance?
  Are we going to explain that we thought there was a better idea?
  How were we recorded when there comes a time that we're saying that 
we have to find alternative ways in order to fuel the country's energy 
needs?
  How were we recorded when the bridges and the tunnels and the 
hospitals and the schools are in trouble, when the mayors and the 
governors are asking and screaming for help?
  How is history going to record what you have done at a time when 
everyone is screaming out, every economist is asking us to come to our 
Nation's economic savior?
  And how are we recorded when it comes time to make certain that there 
is hope for those people who are not only jobless but hopeless?
  I do hope that people recognize that we're not talking about a 
Presidential plan, a Republican plan, or a Democratic plan. We're 
talking about the heart of America, just as patriotic as the flag is, 
is the energy of people who want to be middle class. Are we going to 
give them an opportunity or are we going to ask the question how were 
we recorded because we didn't know what the right thing to do was.
  Well, I suggest to you, just as people talk about how they voted in 
support of Roosevelt, how they went and tried to give assistance not 
just to the big-time CEOs who were hardly embarrassed and never even 
inconvenienced--these are people that are our constituents. To put them 
back to work means that we're helping small businesses out. To put them 
back to work means that we're talking about their dreams and the 
aspirations that we have. To restore our schools mean that we're going 
to, once again, become imaginative, be able to go to the international 
market with the genius that this great Nation always had.
  These are hard times, and we have an opportunity to say how were we 
recorded and to be proud of our vote, or to try to do the worst thing 
that any legislator can do, whether it's local, whether it's State, or 
whether it is a Member of this august body, and that is trying to 
explain your vote if you don't support this effort.
  I think that it's a rough time for the Nation, but we've always 
responded with ways that we can show that we will persevere and come 
out of this stronger than ever. And your kids and your grandkids who 
know that you've been privileged to serve here, historians are going to 
look to see one thing that's going to be so important to all

[[Page H1555]]

of us, and that is, how were you recorded.
  So we can't talk about the process, we can't talk about what we wish 
will happen; but we can talk about how are you recorded in this vote 
that would long-time be remembered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
  Mr. RANGEL. At this time at the request of the chair, I'd like to 
yield to the chairlady of the Small Business Committee and thank her 
for the great work that she has been doing.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, small businesses are finally getting their 
stimulus. It is about time. This act marks the first step towards 
economic recovery for our country's entrepreneurs. In fact, this bill 
will result in nearly $21 billion in new investments and lending for 
small firms and the creation of more than 630,000 new jobs.
  In terms of accessing loans from the Small Business Administration, 
the legislation clearly puts borrower first. It does this by mandating 
that no funds provided for fee relief can go to lenders unless the SBA 
has reduced fees charged to borrowers to the maximum extent possible.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House believes we should 
and must act to get this economy moving again to help struggling 
families and employers through this global economic crisis. But action 
for the sake of acting will mean little to families if it is not 
accompanied with positive results.
  This morning we awake to a spate of headlines that the deal made 
behind closed doors, and what we've still not been able to fully 
review, given its $1.1 million price tag will do more harm than good.
  From the McClatchy News Service: ``Will the stimulus actually 
stimulate? Economists say no.''
  From the Associated Press: ``Analysis: Stimulus won't jump-start the 
economy.''
  From the Congressional Budget Office--and there's a chart behind me 
that shows it--``This partisan stimulus package ends up harming our 
economy.''
  And, again, while it's clear we must act, we must ensure the action 
we take actually stimulates the economy and lays the foundation for 
real sustained job creation in the private sector.
  There's a smarter, simpler way to stimulate the economy. It's not by 
running up the deficit by funding pet projects that are often wasteful. 
As you well know, we produced an alternative to both the Senate and 
House versions that would create twice the jobs at half the cost. Let 
me repeat that. Republicans developed a plan that would create twice 
the jobs at half the cost. And that isn't my analysis or some 
conservative think tank. That fact is based on the data and methodology 
of Dr. Christina Romer, the Chair of the President's Council on 
Economic Advisers.
  Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out to my Republican and 
Democrat colleagues exactly how they were treated in this process. As 
one of five Members of this House who was appointed to the conference 
committee, I think it's my obligation to tell you this story.
  As I walked from the House to the Senate for our first meeting of the 
conferees, I passed a press conference being held by the Senate 
majority leader announcing a final deal that had been struck by 
Senators and only by Senators. This is the first conference I've ever 
been on where the press conference announcing the results happened 
before the actual meeting. So I can understand why Speaker Pelosi was 
reportedly incensed.
  The people's House should not be trampled on. We were frozen out. And 
as Chairman Rangel noted, many Democrats were frozen out. But most 
importantly, the American people were frozen out.
  This is what happens when a few select people negotiate behind closed 
doors. You end up with flawed legislation that better reflects the 
priorities of a few, rather than those of the entire country.
  And under this deal we're bring presented with this morning, the so-
called middle class tax cut, the signature tax cut has been reduced to 
20 cents an hour for a full-time worker. One of the few provisions to 
help struggling businesses was more than cut in half by shortening the 
length of the relief and making thousands of employers ineligible for 
help.
  The work requirements within the historic 1996 Welfare Reform Law--
the hallmark legislation of President Clinton and the Republican 
Congress--has been eroded. And the stealth health provisions will drive 
up costs and have the government making more health care decisions 
instead of doctors and patients.

                              {time}  1200

  Given the severity of the crisis American families are facing, to 
conduct the people's business in this fashion may be the grossest 
violation of our constitutional duties and the oath of office we swore 
to uphold that I have seen in my 18 years in the House.
  Record me as a ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. This is what is in the recovery package for Michigan 
families: Creating jobs for 519,000 unemployed in Michigan. I spoke to 
the electrical workers this morning, 40 percent of whom are unemployed, 
2,000 individuals; 50 percent of iron workers, 1,200, are unemployed. 
This package has $1 billion for Michigan transportation and water 
infrastructure. This is just one example of the recovery package 
putting people to work.
  For the unemployed, an extension of unemployment benefits to an 
additional 161,000 unemployed workers and the historic expansion of 
TAA.
  For individuals in Michigan losing health care for the first time, 
some help to purchase health insurance.
  For Michigan schools, $2 billion to help make up for reduced State 
assistance.
  And for the State of Michigan, under immense budget strain, over $2 
billion to shore up our Medicaid program.
  For the restructuring auto industry, $2 billion in grants to help 
develop and manufacture advanced batteries here in the U.S., incentives 
to buy new cars and a tax credit for the purchase of plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles.
  Families in Michigan and everywhere are fearful for their jobs, for 
their health care, education, and the stability of their local 
communities.
  For the minority, they say they acknowledge the pain but they have no 
prescription, only wornout ideology.
  I will head home and look families straight in the eye and say the 
Federal Government is on your side, providing support during this 
downturn and making key investments for the future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Hal 
Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, and the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security Subcommittee.
  (Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to thank the ranking member for this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout our country's storied history, we've 
witnessed some truly extraordinary efforts from the floor of this 
hallowed Chamber to address our country's most dire needs. We've stood 
united, setting geographic and party labels aside, to pass legislation 
that pushed our country forward.
  In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, in the shadow of 9/11, in the wake 
of numerous natural disasters, this body has traditionally responded by 
pulling together to produce results for the American people.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, sadly, is not one of those extraordinary 
moments.
  Thousands of pages of text, given to us at midnight last night, the 
Speaker even preventing it from being read to us by the House Clerk, 90 
minutes of debate only--some Members will not even be allowed to speak 
a word for or against this monstrosity--and $790 billion of spending, 
the largest bill ever to pass through this body.

[[Page H1556]]

  Hardly any Member, Republican or Democrat, was allowed to help work 
and write up this bill. This bill was written by the Speaker of the 
House, with absolutely no collaboration with the Republican side of the 
aisle and, frankly, little with even Democrats. The principles of 
democracy are being compromised here today, now.
  The American people deserve better. The Members of this Chamber 
deserve better. And our Founding Fathers expected better.
  At best, all you're going to do here today, Mr. Speaker, is ram 
through this Congress an ill-conceived, wrong-headed, misdirected 
spending spree. This bill is not targeted toward creating jobs like we 
wanted. It's just spending a borrowed trillion dollars that our 
children, grandkids, even great-grandkids are going to have to pay.
  When all is said and done with today, and the balloons are put away 
and the champagne toasts are over, we will leave a whopping and record-
breaking $12.1 trillion debt for our children to try to mop up. Even 
worse, leading experts tell us more every day, the results of this bill 
will not jump-start our economy or create real high-wage jobs.
  Reject the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, they say just the exact opposite. That the inflation 
this spree will cause will only further our fragile economy. The world 
markets are bracing for the worst as our nation tries to sell a record 
level of Treasury notes. At the same time, foreign nations are posting 
huge deficits of their own and selling their own bonds. This 
competition only impedes the very businesses you and I want to see 
grow, prosper and expand.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result, I fear that interest rates will soar, 
inflation will rise, and the value of the dollar will plummet.
  The President has spoken correctly of our need for immediate action. 
However, the American people would be better off with a thoughtful, 
comprehensive bill that creates jobs by keeping taxes low, incentives 
for our small businesses to expand, and reigns in wasteful spending. We 
offered such a bill. It was refused. Instead, we have a hasty product 
that will actually do our country harm.
  Let us rise to the occasion and pass a bill that brings this Chamber 
together with a plan for genuine stimulus, rather than political gain. 
I urge rejection of this Conference Report.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs--that is job number one for this 
Congress. That is the job that President Obama said is the first order 
of business this year for this body.
  Let me amend that. Not just jobs, jobs, jobs. Good paying jobs, 21st 
century jobs, jobs that invest in and build America tomorrow for our 
kids. When you are hemorrhaging 5- to 600,000 jobs a month, that means 
by the time I finish my remarks, 28 Americans will have lost their job 
in 2 minutes. Jobs, jobs, jobs. We need to do something now.
  President Obama has said we need bold, swift action to move us into 
21st century jobs and using the technology of this century. We can't 
continue to live with 20th century technology.
  This bill invests close to $20 billion to help our doctors who today 
communicate with a more obsolete technology than our kids do every day 
as they communicate with each other. Today, our children are talking to 
each other during their breaks in school; yet, most doctors can't 
communicate with each other about what their patients need.
  This bill lets us have our doctors invest in that technology so that 
while today only one of every 20 doctors' offices uses high technology 
to communicate with other health providers, within the decade we will 
have 90 percent of our health care providers, doctors, and hospitals 
being able to communicate instantaneously. Jobs, jobs, jobs, but for 
the 21st century and do it now.
  We can quibble. We all have proposals. We've all made compromises, 
but we all know the task is before us today. You want to complain, you 
want to debate--let's do that. But every day that we don't do 
something, 20,000 American jobs are lost. Let's move today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to say, the 
Republican Party is in absolute agreement. This is about jobs. This is 
about immediate action. That's why we have offered a plan that gives 
twice the jobs at half the cost. We believe it should be also debated 
today, but instead, the Democrats have chosen to pass the largest 
appropriation bill in the history of the United States.
  Now, I don't think they've read it. We all know this bill hasn't been 
read but by a mere handful of people, but part of this bill actually 
increases the debt ceiling to $12 trillion. And you know what, if 
deficit spending worked, we would be in great shape.
  Last March, $29 billion to Bear Stearns; in May, $168 million for 
another stimulus package; in July, $200 billion for Fannie Mae; in 
September, $85 billion for AIG; in October, $700 billion for Wall 
Street. My goodness, we would be in great shape if deficit spending 
stimulus bills like this and bailouts worked.
  But instead, what we're doing here today is just one more of the 
same. This is a bill that has 17 percent tax cuts, a big 20 cents an 
hour for the workers out there. It has a mere 7 percent in shovel-ready 
projects, dams, roads, bridges that need to be rebuilt.
  But the Democrats have instead decided to increase the Federal 
Government spending: 31 new Federal programs; $200 billion in phantom 
earmarks that will be decided where the money is spent by State and 
local governments, even though the Federal legislative branch should be 
deciding where Federal money goes; $2 billion for groups like ACORN; 
$500 billion in a non-earmark bill for the NIH headquarters in 
Maryland. Isn't that interesting? $600 billion for DTV; $30 million for 
a rat in San Francisco. Mickey Mouse is going to be envious. He's no 
longer the mouse with the greatest net worth in California. Now, 
there's a San Francisco rat that has edged him out.
  While people are being foreclosed and unemployed, the Democrats are 
spending $30 million for a rat.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I wish the other side would make up their mind whether it's mice or 
rats, neither of which are in this bill if they will read it. Got it 
right here. Find it and show it to me. Show it to me. Show it to me.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time America has 
faced an economic crisis, but it may be the first time that one entire 
political party will sit on the sidelines with their arms crossed, 
their fists clenched, and their rhetoric numb to the suffering being 
experienced by millions of Americans who have lost their jobs through 
no fault of their own.
  The American people are waiting and watching, and we will be judged 
not by the volume of the rhetoric but by the boldness of our actions. 
And we have plan, and it's rooted in one fundamental tenet: America 
once again belongs to Americans.
  And this Congress and this President will respond to the needs of the 
people with programs and promises that can and will get America moving 
again.
  Another 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January. Overall, 4 
million Americans have lost their jobs in the last year, the last year 
of the Bush administration.
  This legislation extends unemployment benefits to keep people with 
their heads above water while they look for a job, and this legislation 
provides incentives for States to modernize their unemployment system 
to meet the demands of the American people in the 21st century.
  FDR included unemployment insurance in the New Deal 70 years ago, at 
a time when women typically stayed at home to raise a family and part-
time jobs didn't exist. We are offering a new deal for a new century. 
This legislation will help working moms and dads. It will help States 
make the adjustments that one would like them to make to better respond 
to their people.
  This legislation adds $100 a month to the UI benefit, but before some 
on the other side jump up and shout ``moral hazard,'' know this. The 
average UI benefit check does not even reach the

[[Page H1557]]

poverty level. We offer a helping hand while you offer rhetoric. For 
instance, every dollar we provide in UI provides $1.64 in economic 
impact.
  I urge you to vote for H.R. 1.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this agreement. People 
back home want us to work together to do something to save their jobs, 
make up their lost savings, and restore the value of their homes.
  Quite correctly, Americans are asking for help, and we had--I repeat, 
Mr. Speaker, had--the opportunity to respond by passing a bill that 
actually created jobs. Unfortunately, the House-Senate agreement, to 
the extent that we've been allowed to see its contents, does little to 
help their cause.
  Most of this massive domestic spending will be sucked up by an 
enlarged government bureaucracy, hiring more Federal and State public 
workers, not helping small businesses and families survive.

                              {time}  1215

  The majority ``markets'' this measure as a transportation 
infrastructure package. But a mere 17 percent of the funding is 
directed towards the road, highway, and Army Corps of Engineers 
programs that would immediately create real jobs.
  In fact, H.R. 1 creates over 33 entirely new government programs, at 
a cost to the taxpayers of over $97 billion, and adds 600,000 new 
government jobs. And when will Americans see the effects of this 
spending? Probably not any time soon.
  According to the CBO, less than half of the spending in this 
nonstimulus package will be paid out in the next 2 years. At that rate, 
an economic recovery will probably outrun most of the spending in this 
expensive legislation.
  And while the agreement does contain some tax relief, it's not 
targeted to small businesses, which employ half of all of us. And if 
that weren't enough, the package before us weakens the work 
requirements of successful welfare programs we enacted years ago. And 
it may lay the groundwork for a government takeover of American's 
health care system by creating a Federal bureaucracy that will decide 
how to ration health care.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress had the opportunity to ``jump-start'' our 
economy, and failed in that responsibility.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Let me first commend the conferees for 
putting this legislation together and then to remind our friends on the 
other side that the operative word here today is ``necessary.'' That is 
the most important word as we move this legislation forward today, 
``necessary.''
  Mr. Rangel did a good job negotiating the tax title to provide 
hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate fiscal stimulus, starting 
with The Making Work Pay credit, which will cut taxes for 95 percent of 
all taxpayers, including 2 million families in Massachusetts.
  Working families will also benefit from improvements in the child tax 
credit, the earned income tax credit, and a new higher education tax 
credit.
  Businesses across the country will benefit from bonus depreciation 
allowance and small business expensing provisions, as well as relief 
for small and medium-sized businesses with net operating losses. 
Incidentally, I pushed for a larger number there, as the other side 
knows. And State and local government will see substantial relief for 
infrastructure and other critical needs through the Recovery Zone bonds 
and Build America bonds.
  As a former mayor, I was happy to lead and take the lead on changes 
to the bond rules that will allow cities and towns to borrow at lower 
costs at a time when credit is tight.
  The compromise also includes AMT protection for 26 million American 
families--70,000 families in my district alone.
  Now, we're going to hear criticism from some that this legislation is 
too much, it's too little; it's too fast or it's too slow. By 
definition, by definition, fiscal stimulus means spending. And with an 
economy as great as ours, it needs to be significant.
  We did move at a very quick pace, and we needed to. There are 10,000 
families a day in America slipping into foreclosure. That's 10,000 
families a day. Clearly, the policies of the last 8 years did not work, 
and we need a change.
  I hope support for this legislation will move today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Appropriations that gets the vast percentage of 
increase in spending in this bill, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California. Today, another 
Kansan is going to get laid off, and they will struggle to pay their 
bills. Our economy needs help and our people need help. But this bill 
isn't help. This bill will only place a drag on our economy because it 
does nothing to solve the underlying problems that hamper our economy.
  The Federal Government has a role to help ensure American workers are 
free to prosper. But borrowing money for massive government spending is 
not the answer.
  The reality is, this bill, some nearly $800 billion in spending and 
tax cuts, consists entirely of money we do not have. So how are we 
going to get this money?
  There's only three ways to get it. We can ask the Treasury Department 
to print more money. But we know from the 1970s that causes inflation. 
The second is we can raise taxes. We'd have to raise taxes $2,600 per 
American. And we know that higher taxes create higher unemployment. I'm 
not interested in raising taxes.
  The third way is to borrow money from investors. But our investors 
here in America don't have the money. We'd have to go to other 
countries, like the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, because China 
and the United Kingdom have their own economic problems. They can't 
raise the money themselves.
  So, to attract this money, we're going to have to raise interest 
rates, and higher interest rates--some 4 percent, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office--causes higher credit card rates, higher 
car loan rates, and higher home mortgage rates.
  We are following the legacy of Paul Volcker from the 1970s. Back 
then, they called it the misery index. During the 1970s, the media 
added inflation, unemployment, and interest rates together to get the 
misery index. And it's coming back. Back then, it was 21.98. Today's, 
it's 7.92.
  There's a better plan than the misery index. We could give every 
American money by giving them a payroll tax holiday for several years. 
That would be a 10 to 20 percent pay increase for working Americans, 
and they would know best how to spend the money for their families. 
With the money they will buy goods or they will save their money or 
they will invest their money. All of that creates jobs. Because making 
more money available for new ideas in the marketplace does create jobs.
  Vote ``no'' on this legislation. Vote ``no'' to the misery index. 
This package will get more money to hardworking Americans by giving it 
directly to them with a payroll tax holiday, because that is the best 
plan.
  We can stop the return to the misery index by getting people back to 
work, by getting more money in their pocket. Let's go for a payroll tax 
holiday. Vote ``no.'' Let's go back to conference. Cut the government 
spending, add back a payroll tax holiday for working Americans, and 
return the economy to the strength it once had.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for the time to speak in support 
of this bill. I thank you for your leadership and for this economic 
recovery bill, on the issues that are in it, but also on school 
construction.
  I thank Mr. Rangel, who's been a tireless advocate for investment in 
our future economy. He and I have been proud to be able to be partners 
in authorizing the America's Better Classroom Act, which we are finally 
going to enact into law in this piece of legislation.

[[Page H1558]]

  For more than 12 years we have been working to improve our Nation's 
schools and opportunities for the future. The idea that we created, to 
put the Federal Government into partnership with our local school 
districts to create private sector jobs and improve schools, was a 
perfect fit for the needs of our troubled economy. And I am proud that 
it is included in this final piece of legislation.
  I strongly support the conference report for H.R. 1, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which takes needed steps to 
restore our economy. This bill provides urgently needed relief to 
struggling individuals and businesses, and will create or save 3.5 
million jobs in this country.
  Hundreds of thousands of these jobs will be created by the $25 
billion in school construction bond tax credits in this piece of 
legislation. And they will be created quickly. Hundreds of school 
building projects have been stalled or delayed in this economic 
downturn. Chairman Rangel and I have introduced the ABC Act to help 
school districts get the funding that they need.
  Everything I have achieved in life is due to my educational 
opportunities, the ones that I was given by my friends and neighbors. I 
want today's generation to have similar opportunities. High-quality 
schools, with strong teachers and modern facilities, are the key to the 
future.
  Students can't prepare for the 21st century economy in schools from 
the 20th century that are crumbling, deteriorated, and overcrowded. In 
today's economic downturn, we have a chance to change this. I urge your 
vote on this.
  In today's economic downturn, we must give our students every tool we 
can to compete in the global economy. The new school construction 
enabled by this bill is a good step in that direction. School 
construction creates jobs today, and provides the foundation for jobs 
for the future. I am proud that the tax credits in this bill will give 
local school districts support to improve their schools and the 
education they provide.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference 
agreement.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield $8.8 billion to the 
gentleman from Tennessee for 1 minute. That's the cost of the minute 
I'm yielding him on this bill, to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, we know there's a problem. Republicans have 
great empathy with the people that are hurting. Our constituents are 
your constituents. But there's little faith that the Federal Government 
is going to make things better.
  The financial rescue didn't work, the TARP was mismanaged grossly, 
the auto bailout didn't work. They're looking and seeing home budgets 
being cut to get through hard times. Local government is being cut, 
State governments' budgets being cut. But only in Washington can we 
spend our way into prosperity.
  It's an ill-conceived thought. Confidence is lost. It's a wrong 
approach. If ever there was a massive bill where the devil is in the 
details, it is this bill. And there are many devils in the details of 
this bill.
  The government is ill-equipped to ramp up and do these things. We're 
going to be disappointed over time. There's going to be waste, fraud, 
and abuse everywhere you look.
  Just because Republicans spent too much money after September 11th 
and lost our way on financial matters doesn't mean the Democratic Party 
should be allowed to wreck our ship of State. This has taken us very 
quickly down the wrong road. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
speak in favor of this conference report. Our Nation's economy is 
foundering. We need to respond. We're in a deep and long recession. Our 
unemployment rate is over 7 percent, and growing. And we urgently need 
an economic recovery package to set the Nation on the proper course to 
rebound.
  I am pleased the House and the Senate moved rapidly to resolve the 
differences between the two bills and to get this bill to the President 
so it can finally take action.
  The final conference agreement retains provisions that were passed 
out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in January in three 
critical areas that will accelerate economic recovery and protect 
American families: Broadband, energy, and health.
  The first piece is an investment in expanding broadband Internet 
access so businesses and households in rural and other underserved 
areas can link to the global balance economy.
  Broadband networks are as important to the Nation's economic success 
as the postal roads, canals, rail lines, and interstate highways of the 
past. Unfortunately, the United States has fallen behind other nations 
in terms of broadband deployment and adoption.
  This legislation would authorize approximately $4.7 billion for 
grants to be administered by the Commerce Department and another $2.5 
billion in grants to be administered by the Agriculture Department to 
put people to work building new broadband infrastructure.
  The second piece we're considering is a major investment in the 
Nation's energy future. The conference agreement will accelerate 
deployment of smart grid technology throughout the country, offer loan 
guarantees for renewable energy and transmission projects, and promote 
energy efficiency throughout the country.
  I am pleased that we were able to adopt these provisions. We also 
will support economic recovery through the creation of thousands of 
jobs, especially for low- and middle-income Americans, as the Nation 
dramatically increases the efficiency in which it uses energy and 
relies upon renewable sources of energy.
  And the final and biggest piece involves investments in health. And 
there are three sections. First, the bill would help people who lose 
their jobs and have no health insurance. It provides temporary 
subsidies for COBRA premiums to enable workers who had insurance, to 
hold on to that insurance.
  The bill would protect health insurance for an additional 7 million 
Americans. It will also provide an 18-month extension of the health 
insurance program that helps families transitioning from welfare to 
work to keep their Medicaid coverage.
  Second, the bill would provide $19 billion in funding to accelerate 
the nationwide adoption of health information technology.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This will expedite the development of nationwide health 
information infrastructure that will enhance real-time communication 
between providers and improve the coordination of care.
  Finally, the bill would provide $87 billion in temporary funding to 
assist State Medicaid programs facing surges in caseloads and State 
revenue shortfalls. The bill would provide a temporary increase in the 
Federal Medicaid matching rate, FMAP. It balances an across-the-board 
increase of 6.2 percentage points, with an additional increase targeted 
at those States with high unemployment.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is necessary to set the course to turn 
the economy around and deliver on our promise and duty to assist our 
constituents in this difficult time. I urge my colleagues to approve 
the conference report.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the ranking member.
  I just want folks to step back for just a second here. You know, last 
year at the end of the year we spent $700 billion on the TARP. Who 
knows if it has had any effect. No one knows for sure. This Tuesday, 
the Secretary of the Treasury said we are going to spend another $2 
trillion. Today, we are going to spend $890 billion; with interest, 
well over another $1 trillion. In another couple weeks, we are going to 
spend another $400 billion on the omnibus bill. Then there is going to 
be a war supplement. We are talking about over $4 trillion here in less 
than 3 months.
  This is the most selfish bill I have ever seen generationally. We are 
saying to our children and grandchildren: We don't care about you, 
because we just want self-gratification now. We want

[[Page H1559]]

to feel better today. We can't take any pain ourselves.
  Our kids and grandchildren are paying for this, and it is going to 
limit their opportunities for the future for the next generations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished dean of 
the House, the longest-serving Member in the House of Representatives 
of any Member in history, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding time.
  As a boy, I was a page in this body during the Depression. My father 
was a Member of Congress. A third of the Americans were out of work. 
People were losing their homes and their farms, businesses were 
closing. Hardship was terrifying. It was the worst economic experience 
in the history of this country. Let's learn from history, my dear 
friends and colleagues, and let's do something about this so that it 
doesn't happen.
  Herbert Hoover became the most reviled President in the history of 
the United States because he didn't do anything about the recession 
which was coming. Those who have studied that Depression tell us that 
had Congress acted and had the administration acted with vigor, that 
the Depression would have been much shorter and much less severe.
  We have a chance to learn from that experience and to do something 
about it, and to see to it that this generation doesn't leave a 
depression to the next generation. It is not just about spending money; 
it is about doing something right about a terrifying problem that faces 
this country. I urge us to learn from history so that we don't repeat 
it. Support this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel like I went to bed a couple weeks ago and woke up 
in bizarro-world. We are about to spend over $1 trillion for a stimulus 
bill which will do little, if anything, to stimulate the economy. What 
it will stimulate is the growth of government.
  I have no doubt that those on the other side of the aisle feel that 
this is the right thing to do to help the economy, but sincerity does 
not make something right which is fundamentally wrong, and this bill is 
fundamentally wrong.
  We were just told a few minutes ago that the key word here is 
``necessary.''
  Millions of dollars for mouse habitat? Yes, it is not specifically 
put in the bill. What they have done is put in a fund for habitat 
restoration, which the agency says they will spend up to $30 million on 
mouse habitat restoration. That is beautiful. Necessary? I don't know.
  Fifty million dollars for the NEA. I love the NEA. Necessary in a 
stimulus bill?
  Billions of dollars for a sin express train from Los Angeles to Las 
Vegas. Necessary? I don't think so.
  And, of course, we have got the infamous Frisbee golf course. And if 
you are going to have a Frisbee golf course, you had better have green 
golf carts, So we put money in for green golf carts. That is good, too. 
Necessary? I don't think so.
  The list is too long to complete when you look at this bill; but, 
fundamentally, the problem is the process that created this bill. None 
of this stuff would have been in here had we gone through a process 
which allowed Members to have input and debate and so forth on this 
bill. Instead, this has been created in the Speaker's office, in the 
President's office, and handed to us and said, ``We have got to pass 
this bill.''
  This process stinks. There is no other word for it. And for the first 
time in my public life, 4 years on a local city council, 14 years in 
the Idaho legislature, and 10 years in this body, for the first time in 
my life I am embarrassed to be a Member of this body.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed, frankly, from the 
comments I hear from the other side of the aisle about mouse traps, 
Frisbees, golf carts. The economy is in terrible shape, it is getting 
worse every day, and we are trying to address it in a bold way. That is 
what is necessary here, not talking about these trivial things that the 
other side is bringing up.
  At a time when States are facing fiscal problems and more people are 
in need of health care services, we provide in this bill critical 
financial assistance so that States can maintain their Medicaid 
programs, health care. It would provide access to health coverage for 
those who recently lost their jobs by making COBRA coverage more 
affordable. And, finally, the package would modernize our Nation's 
health care system by investing nearly $20 billion in health 
information technology.
  These are the important things that we face right now. People are 
losing their health care. We are addressing this. We are giving money 
back to the States. We are helping people with their health care so 
that they can stay insured.
  Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
now is the time for bold action. This package is a good package. Vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 20\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin has 24 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, I created the E-Verify program, 
and I will not idly stand by while a coalition of pro-amnesty groups 
and their allies in big business kill this program in the dead of 
night. The American people have repeatedly voiced their support for 
employment verification; yet, we find that, once again, special 
interests win out.
  While nearly 1 trillion taxpayer dollars are going to be spent in 
this Reid/Pelosi stimulus plan, there is no assurance that the job it 
created will go to American workers. Amendments to reauthorize the E-
Verify program, which expires on March 6 and requires any entity 
receiving stimulus funds to participate in E-Verify, both of which had 
been accepted in the House Appropriations Committee, were stripped out 
of the bill without discussion or debate.
  The one candle in the darkness of this disastrous bill was the 
reauthorization requirements to use E-Verify. Now, we are left with 
legislation that places the interests of illegal immigrants above those 
of hard-working American families and leaves this bill at the foot of 
future generations.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman 
Obey, and Chairman Rangel for their hard work on the compromise 
legislation that we have before us today. In a time when so many 
Americans are in the grips of economic hardship and despair, now is the 
time for all of us to come together and act on the part of those who 
are in need.
  Mr. Speaker, our people need jobs. Our people need jobs and our 
Nation needs jobs. And we need to invest in our infrastructure, invest 
in our communities, and invest in the next generation of Americans. 
This package includes all the tools and all the money to make our dream 
of a better tomorrow for all Americans a reality.
  With the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we 
will act by deeds, not just words. The Bible tells us that a tree will 
be known by the fruit it bears. This bill has good fruit in it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
conference report.
  I want to start out by talking a little bit about the process. I know 
that is not very sexy. But when the President and people complain that 
Republicans are not being bipartisan, they need to know that we haven't 
been given much of a chance, if any of a chance, to be bipartisan.
  As this bill started in the House, there were no hearings in the 
House of

[[Page H1560]]

Representatives. There was a markup in Ways and Means and a markup in 
the Approps Committee and a markup in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee that I am on, Mr. Waxman, 
to his credit, had a 12-hour markup, and five Republican amendments 
were accepted. Three of those were stripped out before the bill came to 
the floor; one was kept in as is, and one was materially changed.
  When we went to conference with the other body, our chairman Mr. 
Waxman was appointed a conferee, as he should have been, because it is 
about $200 billion of the bill is in the Energy and Commerce 
jurisdiction; but no Republican, no minority member was appointed. So 
we had no Republican input into the conference. Of course, that is 
probably okay, because it really wasn't a conference. There were five 
House conferees and five Senate conferees. The majority party Members, 
three on the House and three on the Senate, signed the conference 
report without anybody actually on the Republican side being given a 
copy to look at. So it was kind of a done deal.
  So on process alone, when the President asks why Republicans tend to 
be appositive of the bill, it is because we really were not given any 
input into the finished project.
  On the policy, the Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction 
over energy, over telecommunication, and over health care. The energy 
section, they took out all the energy grants for things like clean coal 
technology. They left in a little thing called electricity decoupling; 
which means, in order to get some of these green energy grants, the 
Governor of a State has to certify to the Department of Energy's 
Secretary that they are going to do this decoupling. That means that 
you can allow the PUC to decouple the price you pay from the amount of 
electricity that you use. So it is a revenue guarantee for the utility; 
so as the utility gets the green grant and goes out and educates you on 
how to use less electricity, you use less electricity, your bill stays 
the same or goes up. It is the most anticompetitive, anticonsumer, 
antifree-market piece of legislation I have ever seen on the House 
floor and it is in this bill.
  On health care, my friends on the other side have made a big point of 
talking about all the things they are doing on health care. Well, you 
have the health IT grants, which some of that may be good, but do you 
really need to give every doctor in America $44,000 to switch to 
electronic records? And, oh, by the way, a lot of that money is not 
available in 2011, until 2012? I am not sure that is very stimulative 
of the economy.
  We give the States more FMAP money for Medicaid. It doesn't have to 
be spent on Medicaid. Fifty percent or 65 percent is allocated on the 
standard formula package, and the rest is allocated on high 
unemployment. But the once the State gets that Medicaid money, they can 
use it for other purposes. And, oh, by the way, that is theoretically 
temporary. But do you really believe that adding $90 billion to the 
baseline for Medicaid is going to be temporary? It is going to go into 
the permanent baseline, and it is going to raise the cost over time to 
the U.S. taxpayer.
  I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. But the point of the subject is 
those of us on our side, we understand that people are hurting, we 
understand that we need to do things to help the economy. Shouldn't we 
start by keeping the people that have a job, let them keep a little bit 
more of their money by doing some tax cuts? A lot of those got diluted 
in this bill. Shouldn't we require that, if you are going to spend 
money, it has a long-term effect, it helps basic infrastructure? This 
bill doesn't do that. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago a Presidential candidate, John Kennedy, 
said the following: The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 
``crisis.'' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other stands for 
opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger, but recognize the 
opportunity.
  That is what we are doing today. We recognize the full danger that 
faces America, the greatest danger since the great depression. But we 
also recognize the opportunity for the people of our great Nation that 
we love so much, and what we are doing is building for the future: 
Health care for the unemployed, extension of unemployment benefits for 
those that find themselves unemployed. The building blocks not only for 
today, but the opportunities for tomorrow by making investments in 
technology, broadband, the sciences.
  I urge all of my colleagues to consider this opportunity for America.
  Mr. Speaker, America has been shaken to its core by an economic 
disruption unlike anything we've seen since the Great Depression. For 
too many Americans it seems that nothing is certain or secure--not our 
jobs, not our homes, not the very businesses our economy stands upon.
  Today the American people and people around the world can take heart 
that our Nation is acting to reverse course and begin the difficult 
work of rebuilding our economy, our infrastructure, and our confidence 
in our country's future.
  This legislation responds to the pressing needs of today, creating 
and saving 3.5 million jobs by rebuilding America through new 
investments in roads, bridges, mass transit, energy efficient 
buildings, flood control, clean water projects, school construction, 
and other infrastructure projects. 95 percent of American workers will 
receive an immediate tax cut to ease the impact of the harsh economic 
conditions and jumpstart consumer spending on goods and services.
  Just as importantly, this final bill makes critical investments in 
science, technology and innovation which will ensure that our recovery 
is strong and that the United States continues its leadership in the 
competitive global economy.
  To secure America's technology leadership in the 21st Century we are 
renewing America's investments in basic science and research, providing 
$15 billion for scientific research, including $3 billion for the 
National Science Foundation, $1.6 billion for the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science, and $10 billion for the National Institutes 
of Health.
  To achieve energy independence, we have invested $30 billion in 
energy programs such as a new, smart power grid, advanced battery 
technology, and energy efficiency measures, plus another $20 billion in 
tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
  To provide all Americans an `on-ramp' to the Information 
Superhighway, we are investing $7 billion for extending broadband 
services to underserved communities across the country.
  Fifty years ago John Kennedy said ``the Chinese use two brush strokes 
to write the word `crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the 
other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but 
recognize the opportunity.''
  This economic recovery package is a bill filled with hope and 
belief--hope that the danger of the current crisis will be averted, new 
jobs will be created, and old jobs will be restored so that people will 
once again enjoy the dignity of a day's work, and a belief that we 
recognize this opportunity to reinvigorate the great innovative spirit 
of our country that we love so much.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes 
to the partner of our chairman, Mr. Obey, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the President said, ``We don't want any tired old 
ideas.'' I agree. One-time rebate checks, special interest pork and 
runaway spending, those tired old ideas didn't work in the past 
administration. They won't work now. This is just more of the same. 
Both parties have messed this thing up. So the question is, are we 
going to come together and fix this?
  The crown jewel of the American economy is the risk-taker, the 
entrepreneur, the small businessmen and women, the person who put it 
all on the line and created jobs. That is the way out. That is not what 
this bill does. This bill says, let's take money out of the economy and 
away from the private sector through higher borrowing and higher taxes, 
ultimately so that government bureaucrats can spend money and try and 
re-micromanage the economy back to prosperity.
  This bill, which will lead to higher costs and higher taxes, will be 
not a road to prosperity, but a road to stagnation. The priorities are 
just all wrong. There is more money in this legislation for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, for the National Endowment for the 
Arts, than there is to helping small businesses keep and create jobs. 
We can do better than this.
  Mr. Speaker, please, if you want bipartisanship, that means 
collaboration,

[[Page H1561]]

working with us. You have all the rights. The majority can do whatever 
they want. But when you look at the minority's alternative, a plan to 
create jobs, to help families and small businesses keep and create jobs 
using the administration's own methodology, you will see that our plan 
creates twice the jobs for half the cost. This bill sends us on a 
worldwide borrowing binge. We're going to go out and borrow four times 
as much money this year than we ever have in the history of this 
country in a single year. This is not just a road to stagnation, it is 
a road to stagflation.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which will 
reinvest in America's future and which will create jobs. Do you know 
that there are still sectors of our economy that are hiring? And one of 
those is health care. I'm so proud to see that this legislation 
recognizes the need to educate new nurses, physicians and dentists and 
responds by investing $500 million for professional education. In 2008, 
over 27,000 qualified applicants were turned away from nursing schools 
because we don't have enough faculty to train them. The programs that 
will be funded through this bill will help train more faculty and also 
entry-level nursing students so that we can shore up our health care 
workforce.
  If we continue simply at the pace we are today, we will have a 
shortage of 1 million nurses by the year 2020. This bill makes an 
excellent investment to alleviate that shortage, to create jobs for 
nurses, for doctors and for health care professionals.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Nobody knows the pain of a bad economy like 
us fellow Michiganders, and we're suffering worse than any other State 
in the Nation. And if this bill even came close to providing hope or a 
job, I would be for it, but this bill is dangerous. And this is the 
kind of thing that happens when you rush it and you don't let people in 
to see it.
  Think about it. They do say, listen, it gives credits for hybrid 
plug-ins. But what they don't tell you is that in this bill, for every 
dollar the average family saves by going green, the electric companies 
charge you $1. Your electric bill is going up with this piece of 
legislation. They say, do you know what? There is business relief in 
this bill for small businesses. They don't tell you that less than 1 
percent of this bill goes to small businesses.
  As was said before, we spend more on arts than we do on small 
business, which is 80 percent of our job providers. They say this bill 
spends money on roads and bridges. But they don't tell you it is less 
than 7 percent, and only about $10 billion in the first year over 50 
States. That is hardly an investment in our roads and our bridges.
  They say there is no mouse in this bill. But there is, sir. What they 
don't tell you is that in the EPA projects, it cites for sure and for 
certain they will spend money on the salt marsh habitat for the mouse 
in San Francisco. Certainly, the Speaker is getting her cheese. The 
people in Michigan are waiting for theirs. I will tell you this. Do you 
know what? We spend money in this bill. True enough. And what they 
don't tell you is that this is one of the most massive, massive 
transfers of debt to our children in the history of this country. There 
are lots of IOUs, but not much for jobs in this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I stand in strong support of the economic recovery 
legislation before us today. We cannot stand idly by like our 
Republican friends are doing and let our economy sink any further. The 
cost of inaction is far too great. The American people are hurting, and 
we're trying to do something about it.
  Our Republican friends, unfortunately, are becoming the party of 
``no.'' Well, while they are saying ``no,'' we are saying ``yes,'' yes 
to creating 3\1/2\ million jobs, yes to providing tax breaks to the 
middle class, yes to providing AMT relief, yes to improving our 
infrastructure to be more energy efficient, yes in providing health 
care coverage for millions of Americans during this recession, 
providing an estimated $87 billion in additional Federal matching 
funds.
  This will help States like mine, like New York, maintain their 
Medicaid programs in the face of massive State budget shortfalls over 
the next 2 years. We say ``yes'' to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil. FMAP funds are important. I have long fought hard for more FMAP 
funds. The stimulus will provide much-needed relief to our States. We 
say ``yes'' for energy-efficient programs. Say ``yes'' for this bill. 
This is a good bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Chairman.
  It is sad that this House has imposed a gag rule so that the American 
public can't hear today what's in this bill. The special interests know 
what's in this bill. They certainly do. Congress is going to rain 
billions of dollars of cash across this land, and special interests and 
lobbyists have big buckets out to catch it.
  We all want this President to succeed. We want this economy to get 
going because people are hurting. But when the economy is drowning, you 
throw it a life preserver. You don't build a 40-foot yacht for it. This 
bill is too big. It is too expensive. It is way too slow. And at the 
end of the day, it is not going to rescue this economy. And at the end 
of a couple of years, it's middle-class families and small businesses 
that are going to have to pay for all this cash.
  Taxpayers just aren't willing to spend one-quarter of $1 million to 
trade a new job. They're not willing to spend more money on art than on 
small businesses. They're not willing to buy Frisbee golf courses and 
gambling trains. That is a bad use of our dollars. We can do better.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me highlight two issues. First, temporary increases in COBRA, 
FMAP and DSH coverage, a lifeline for hard-hit families and 
communities. Mr. Waxman played the critical role in the conference on 
these issues, and constituents in our adjoining congressional districts 
are very grateful. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center is the only level 1 
trauma center near top terror targets, like LAX and the Ports of LA and 
Long Beach. Without DSH, Harbor will have no surge capacity to treat 
victims of terror and natural disasters.
  Second, energy innovation and efficiency. This is a stimulus bill, 
and the smart grid and transportation projects it funds are a jobs 
engine. It sets the framework for future climate change legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, enhanced safety net and clean energy jobs are good 
reasons to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  So I was at a birthday party for some young kids not too long ago, 
and everybody is playing the normal games that all little kids play. 
But there is one kid--and this is typical at every kid's birthday 
party--that sees the cake and starts scraping the icing off the cake, 
and he leaves the grubby mess for everybody else. That's exactly what 
this bill does.
  According to the CBO, an entity that everybody pauses and recognizes 
as authoritative, the CBO says, yeah, you may get a short-term sugar 
buzz off this. But in 2013, because of the passage of this bill, you're 
going to have negative growth. From 2013 to 2019, what we're basically 
going to be foisting on this economy is that grubby, nasty birthday 
cake without any of the icing. We can do much better than this. I think 
the President expects us to do much better than this. And I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. For millions of Americans, after 8 years 
of laissez-faire economics, they know it is

[[Page H1562]]

just a fancy word for ``left behind.'' Fixing the economy is not a 
spectator sport. That's what has been going on for 8 years. And that's 
what's going on with the Republicans here today.
  This bill creates or saves 3.5 million jobs. It provides tax cuts for 
95 percent of Americans. It spurs a green jobs revolution. It has 
health IT that will revolutionize medicine with privacy and security 
built in that I requested and the majority has placed in this bill. 
There's more money in this bill after 5 years of cutting the NIH 
budget, there's a dramatic increase in the NIH budget to find a cure 
for cancer, for heart disease, for Parkinson's and for Alzheimer's. 
This is a revolution in health care, in energy and in job creation.
  This bill must be passed today and break with the 8 years of laissez-
faire, which has hurt every single American family. Vote ``yes'' on 
this bill.
  Today we're responding with determination and bold action to combat 
the most severe economic crisis our country has faced since the Great 
Depression.
  For years, as hardworking American families struggled to make ends 
meet and the economy shed millions of jobs, Republicans told us not to 
worry--we are in the midst of a ``jobless recovery'', they said. But 
``jobless recovery'' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, like 
jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--it just doesn't exist.
  The failed ``laissez-faire'' approach of the past 8 years has now 
been discredited by rising unemployment, loss of confidence in our 
financial markets, and the economic hardships suffered by families 
across the country.
  For millions of Americans, ``laissez-faire'' is just a fancy name for 
``left behind.''
  With this economic recovery package, we are taking the bold action 
that is needed by creating or saving 3-and-a-half million jobs, 
rebuilding America, making us more globally competitive and energy 
independent, and transforming our economy.
  I say to my Republican friends: ``fixing the economy is not a 
spectator sport.''
  While our country is facing enormous challenges, we also have a once-
in-a-generation opportunity to create millions of new jobs, invest in 
vital priorities, and position our economy for future growth. Today we 
are seizing this historic opportunity and setting our country on a new 
direction.
  This is about greenbacks and green energy.
  This urgently-needed economic recovery package funds infrastructure 
projects that are ``shovel-ready'', while also supporting future-
oriented projects that are ``circuit-ready'': broadband, electronic 
medical records, smart grid, advanced battery technologies, and other 
vital priorities.
  The massive investments in weatherization, state energy efficiency 
grants, and federal building efficiency are some of the safest and 
smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money 
into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form 
of energy savings and lower energy prices. This energy efficiency 
``double dividend'' is a proven, reliable phenomenon that our current 
weak economy must capitalize.
  The bill provides $19 billion for a new health IT infrastructure to 
improve care, lower costs and reduce medical errors. I am pleased that 
the conference report includes patient privacy safeguards that I have 
long advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and 
Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are 
made unreadable to unauthorized individuals.
  This balanced, well-thought out package provides tax relief for 95 
percent of Americans and targets investments in key areas to turn 
around the American economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  3.5 million jobs created or saved.
  Tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans.
  Green job revolution.
  Health IT, with privacy.
  NIH increase--cure Alzheimer's.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady 
fighting for jobs in Michigan, Candice Miller, for 1 minute.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I come from Macomb County, 
Michigan, which is the proud home of the Reagan Democrats. And it is a 
community that has been impacted as much as anybody in this Nation by 
the economic downturn. And I do not need to be lectured by anyone about 
the challenges we are facing, because we live with it every single day. 
I understand. Believe me, I understand.
  So when President Obama talked about an economic stimulus plan that 
was focused on tax cuts or massive infrastructure investment, I was 
there. But what we are about to vote on today is unrecognizable from 
what he talked about. Michigan is a State of about 10 million people, 
and we are the hardest hit, as I said, by this economy. And yet we are 
expected to get approximately $7 billion from this bill. And apparently 
the Senate majority leader has earmarked $8 billion for a rail system 
from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? You have got to be kidding. You have got 
to be kidding.
  As everyone knows, Michigan is dependent on the auto industry, which 
is on its knees right now. So I was incredibly disappointed to see an 
$11 billion auto incentive to spur auto sales reduced to $2 billion in 
the conference report.
  Please vote ``no'' against this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank personally Congressman 
Waxman, Congressman Rangel, Congressman Obey and particularly their 
staffs for their hard work on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, no one disputes that we're in an economic crisis. It 
continues to deepen. Families are hurting. In my home State of North 
Carolina, more than one-third of our 100 counties are now suffering 
from double-digit unemployment, including 10 of those counties in the 
First Congressional District.
  Without question, we need to quickly pass this stimulus bill this 
afternoon which will put people back to work, provide relief for the 
people who need it the most and make investments in our future. 
Americans demanded change last November. And we must answer that call 
today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama understands something that every 
Vermonter knows, and that is that this economy faces the biggest 
challenge since the Great Depression. We have a very simple choice in 
Congress. It is to do nothing, as Herbert Hoover did, or it is to act 
boldly, as Franklin Roosevelt did.

                              {time}  1300

  This bill embraces the philosophy of Franklin Roosevelt that when the 
economy is deteriorating, people are losing their jobs, Congress must 
act to save jobs and rebuild our economy.
  This bill is well-balanced and can provide 8,000 jobs in Vermont. It 
helps our taxpayers, property taxpayers and State taxpayers. It 
provides a safety net to the people who, through absolutely no fault of 
their own, lost their jobs. We owe it to them. And it provides 
investments in the future. Green jobs, health care information 
technology.
  This is essential as a step to start revitalizing our economy and 
putting it in a growth path for the future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, people want to know how did we get into 
this painful economy. Too many of our fellow citizens borrowed too 
much. They spent too much, and they couldn't pay it back. And now the 
mistakes of individuals, the Democrats want to force upon us 
collectively.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot borrow and spend your way into prosperity. 
Even the Democrats' own Congressional Budget Office says H.R. 1 is the 
single greatest spending bill in the history of America, will leave us 
the greatest debt in the history of America, and ultimately, will hurt 
our economy, leaving a legacy of debt, crushing debt for future 
generations.
  The Republicans want to stimulate the economy by helping small 
business. The Democrats want to stimulate big government. The Democrats 
want to spend millions on urban canals. The Republicans want to spend 
millions on small businesses like Williams Paint and Body, to preserve 
and grow 21 jobs. Democrats want to spend $300 million to buy 
government bureaucrats new cars. Republicans want to spend money on 
Terry Manufacturing, to preserve and secure 20 new jobs. Big government 
or small business? Choose small business.

[[Page H1563]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority 
leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. We are coming close to the end of this debate. America and 
Americans are in trouble. They're hurting. Millions of our constituents 
are in great pain. They've lost their homes, they've lost their jobs. 
Their salaries are not keeping up with the costs that confront them.
  And so we come here, 435 of us, and five representing the territories 
and the District of Columbia. We come here to act, to act on their 
behalf, to try to make a difference, to try to ease the pain that this 
economy has visited upon them.
  Those of us who have been here for many years have heard this debate 
very often. And I tell my friends, I'm sure that had I been here in 
1929 and 1930, I would have heard much the same representation.
  And we were told, frankly, in the last of the 1980s, stick with us on 
this economic program. And it didn't work. And we were told in 2001 and 
2003, stick with us on this economic program, and it didn't work.
  And like the failed program of the 1920s that brought our economy so 
low, the failed policies of the early part of this century have brought 
this economy to the lowest point it has been since the policies of the 
late 1920s.
  And so we hear the debate. We hear the debate about investing in our 
people. We hear the debate about trying to build up our economy, create 
jobs. And we hear one argument, do it our way, do it our way and you'll 
create those jobs. Well, my friends, we did it your way. In 2001, in 
2002, in 2003, in 2004, in 2005, 2006, 2007 and in 2008. And we had the 
worst job performance of any administration since the late 1920s and 
early 1930s.
  I would hope that every Member on this floor, of whatever party, of 
whatever ideological persuasion, would pray that this bill works; not 
for political purposes, because if this bill works, we will create 
those 3\1/2\ million jobs. Am I absolutely assured that it will? I am 
not. I regret that I'm not.
  But the best advice and counsel that I have received over the last 5 
months that we've been working on this bill, September, October, 
November, December, January, as we hemorrhaged jobs in this greatest 
economy on the face of the earth, as a million people lost their jobs 
over the last 60 days, as 65,000 Americans lost their jobs in 1 day 2 
weeks ago. And so America expects us to act.
  And none of us can guarantee that we have all the answers. But 
economist after economist after economist, including one of John 
McCain's economic advisers, says that we have to act, we have to act 
with speed, and we have to act substantively, and we have to act with 
large investment.
  On the tax side, in cutting taxes, millions and millions and millions 
of Americans will receive a tax cut when we pass this bill and 
President Obama signs it. Millions and millions and millions of people 
will be helped as they've lost their jobs and can't put food on the 
table of their families, will be helped by this bill. Millions of 
families who know that their children are going to have to compete in a 
global marketplace will be able to send their children to college 
because of this bill. And in addition to that, we will invest billions 
of dollars in making sure that we are no longer subject to being held 
hostage by the oil barons who wish us no good will.
  And so, my friends, we come pretty close to the end of this debate. 
And we ought to vote, not as Republicans, not as Democrats. We ought to 
vote recognizing the policies that we've been pursuing have not worked, 
demonstrably, statistically, obviously. There's no argument on that. 
Millions of people unemployed. Millions lost their jobs under the 
economic policies we've been pursuing.
  And so, yes, President Obama said to the American public, we need to 
change. This is our moment. We need to move in a new direction. And 
that's what this bill does.
  Some would like to stay on the same path, pursuing the same failed 
policies. The sign of a good person and a good legislator is to say, I 
moved in this direction and it didn't work, and so I'll change 
directions. That's what this bill does.
  Every American prays that this bill will work. I think all of us pray 
that this bill will work. I hope that we come together, not because 
this bill is perfect, but because it is a substantial investment of 
America's money in resuscitating its economy that is causing it such 
great pain.
  My friends, it is time for us to act. Vote for this bill to restore, 
to recover, to invest in a better future for all those who sent us 
here, hoping that we would act in their best interests and the best 
interest of their children, their family and their country. I believe 
voting ``yes'' is doing just that. And I urge my colleagues to do just 
that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the newest 
Member of the House, Aaron Schock of Illinois.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege yesterday of traveling 
with the President to my hometown of Peoria, Illinois, to visit a 
company that has made the news recently, Caterpillar Corporation. And 
during that speech, the President had me stand up in front of the 
hundreds of my constituents and Caterpillar workers and urged them to 
call on me to support this bill, and asked them to approach me after 
his speech to put pressure on me to vote for this bill.
  I found it very interesting that after the President finished his 
speech and I stayed around, not one employee at that facility 
approached me and asked me to vote for this bill. In fact, I have 
received over 1,400 phone calls, e-mails and letters from Caterpillar 
employees alone asking me to oppose this legislation. Why? Because they 
get it. They know that this bill is not stimulus. They know that this 
bill will not do anything to create long-term sustained economic 
growth. This bill is too big to get it wrong.
  I hail from a district that once had Everett Dirksen, who is famous 
for a billion here, a billion there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Everett Dirksen once said, a billion here, a billion 
there. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we're now a trillion here, 
a trillion there. We cannot afford to get this wrong. It is too 
important to get it wrong.
  My district also had a man by the name of Abraham Lincoln who served 
in this seat for 2 years. We celebrated his 200th birthday yesterday. 
I'm reminded of his quote: ``What kills a skunk is the publicity it 
brings itself.'' Perhaps that is the haste by which this bill is being 
brought forward.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today we stand shoulder to shoulder with 
President Obama to say to the American people, help is on the way. This 
package packs a punch where it's needed most: ready-to-go 
infrastructure projects, tax relief for middle America and small 
businesses, essential forward-looking investments in areas like clean 
energy, health IT, scientific research and education, priorities that 
will create or save millions of jobs in this country.
  Now, throughout this debate we've heard from those who, for a variety 
of reasons, think we should do nothing. While those voices may be 
sincere, inaction is not an option. Just say no is not an answer to the 
American people at this time.
  And if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to define 
themselves as the party of ``Nobama'' I think that the American people 
will call them and say it's time for us to work together.
  There are also those that say we should do this through tax cuts 
alone. And they propose substituting a middle class tax cut package 
with a tax package that once again benefited those who are relatively 
well off.
  We don't need more of the same. We need to put this country to work. 
I urge adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we just received official scoring of the $792 billion 
bill at 12:04 p.m. Unfortunately, we didn't receive

[[Page H1564]]

this critical information until one-third of our very limited debate 
time was over.
  While portions of the bill were scored by CBO earlier, in the case of 
the appropriations section, 40 percent of this entire package, the 
Members have not had the benefit of knowing what effects this bill 
would have. Now that we have this information, let me tell you what the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concedes.
  In the case of the more than $311 billion in spending, CBO estimates 
that less than half of this spending will occur over the next 2 years, 
the time frame that many economists say such spending must occur to 
have the stimulative effect.
  CBO estimates that only 11 percent of the money will spend out this 
year. It begs the question why has the majority decided to include this 
in this bill rather than through the regular appropriations process? 
Why have they decided to create 33 new programs and permanently expand 
73 programs?

                              {time}  1315

  By growing the Federal Government now in this bill, the majority 
knows that they have a much better chance of permanently increasing 
government.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of this economic recovery package--a 
bold, urgent plan to create American jobs and to move to long-term 
economic growth. Every day reminds us of why this recovery package is 
so critical and urgent, and it reminds me of why we serve in this 
institution.
  Last month, the economy lost 600,000 jobs. States are facing major 
midyear budget shortfalls. They have already begun to furlough 
employees. This week, we worked with President Obama and with the 
Senate to create 3.5 million jobs to get our economy moving--putting 
resources in the hands of people who need relief and who will spend it 
quickly, giving 95 percent of working Americans an immediate tax cut, 
expanding the eligibility of the child tax credit, benefiting over 16 
million children, $20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit, which 
will reach 14 million families immediately, putting Americans back to 
work with $100 billion for building roads, bridges, mass transit, 
energy-efficient buildings, and clean water projects.
  No investments are more critical than those that we make on our human 
capital. We got this right. Let's get it right today and support this 
bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he has 
remaining?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I believe I have two.
  Mr. OBEY. Then I would ask the gentleman to proceed. We have only two 
left--the Speaker, and I will be closing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have been told, since the Speaker wants to 
close, then our leader ought to precede her, we will have three.
  Mr. OBEY. Then I would suggest the gentleman proceed.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Could I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, outside the walls of Congress, America is 
paralyzed by a suffocating crisis of confidence. A virus that began in 
the credit and housing markets has spread to infect the broader 
economy. Small businesses are hunkered down. The promise of retaining 
or of finding a solid job slips further out of reach for America's 
workers.
  With this stimulus package, Congress has a responsibility to re-
instill lost confidence, and it has an obligation to focus our efforts 
like a laser on the creation, preservation and protection of 
sustainable jobs. That is why the bill we are voting on today 
represents a fundamental dereliction of duty on the part of this 
majority. This legislation will not put people to work right away, nor 
does it contain the time-honored incentives for work, investment, 
innovation, and job creation that are proven to stimulate growth.
  This week, I spoke with a struggling business owner in my district. 
How could I tell him I am voting for a bill that gives more money to 
projects like Federal Government cars than it gives to businesses like 
his. This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the 
majority's favorite government programs. We need jobs, not mountains of 
debt to be paid by our children. We can do better. We proposed a plan 
on our side that did do better. It created twice as many jobs at half 
the cost.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be offering the 
motion to recommit momentarily, which will be offering to restore the 
tax credit for car purchases to the full $11.5 billion, which was 
reported by the Senate to the conference committee. Unfortunately, it 
was stripped out of there. The Democrats watered down this proposal to 
$1.6 billion, which will have almost no impact on the auto industry. Of 
course, my being from Michigan and as we all know, the auto industry is 
on its knees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he has 
remaining?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have one speaker remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Then I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of 
the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him, Mr. Obey, the 
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee; Mr. Rangel, the 
chair of Ways and Means; Mr. Waxman, Mr. Miller, Mr. Gordon, Mr. 
Oberstar, and Ms. Velazquez--the chairs of the committees which had the 
most to do with putting this legislation together. I thank them for 
their great work on behalf of the American people.
  My colleagues, as we gather here today, the American people are 
watching and are waiting. They want to see if we can act on their 
behalf. They want to know if we have heard their pleas. They are 
concerned about their jobs--whether they can hold them--and those who 
have lost their jobs are concerned about how they are going to be able 
to have any economic stability for their families. They are concerned 
about their health care. They are concerned about putting food on the 
table.
  There is a great deal of apprehension in our country about our 
economy. What we need now, though, is not fear. We need confidence. We 
need confidence in our economy, in our markets. We need consumer 
confidence. We need to do the job for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, a little more than 3 weeks ago, in his very 
inspirational inaugural address, President Obama pledged ``action--bold 
and swift--not only to create new jobs but to lay a foundation for 
growth.'' Today, only a little more than 3 weeks later, Congress is 
boldly and swiftly delivering on the President's promise of new jobs, 
new hope and a new direction for the American people.
  I said on this floor that the ship of state is difficult to turn. Yet 
the American people know and historians will judge that this is a 
remarkable achievement for President Barack Obama. Never before has a 
President passed his first major economic proposal so boldly and so 
swiftly.
  It is also a remarkable achievement for this Congress that we dubbed 
2 years ago the ``New Direction Congress.'' With the extraordinary 
articulation of the President's vision and our own represented in this 
legislation, the name ``New Direction Congress'' rings more true now 
than ever. It is in sharp contrast to the ``do nothing'' approach that 
some want us to take here, and certainly, it is in very sharp contrast 
to the approach taken when our country was in big economic trouble 
leading into the Depression.
  My colleague, Mr. Miller, has already told you some of this, but I 
want to revisit it.
  When President Hoover was faced with the Depression, he said, ``What 
the country needs is a big laugh,'' he said in 1931. ``If someone could 
get off a good joke every day, I think our troubles would be over.''

[[Page H1565]]

  In 1932, Hoover asked Will Rogers to think of a joke that would stop 
hoarding. He told Rudy Vallee, ``If you could sing a song that will 
make people forget the Depression, I will give you a medal.'' President 
Hoover told Christopher Morley, ``Perhaps what this country needs is a 
good poem . . . Sometimes a good poem can do more than legislation.''
  Sometimes it can. But not this legislation.
  What President Hoover was saying then was not funny then, and it is 
not funny now. The American people need action, and they need action 
now. They have a right, as they listen to this debate, to ask about 
this legislation: What is in it for me?
  After all of the debate, this legislation can be summed up in one 
word, ``jobs''--new jobs for the 3.6 million Americans who were put out 
of work since the recession began in December 2007, new jobs and an 
economy transformed by this legislation's new investments in health, 
education, science, innovation, and in clean, efficient American 
energy, new jobs created through modernizing America's roads, bridges, 
transit systems, and waterways. It is the first such large-scale effort 
in half a century since the creation of the Interstate Highway System 
under President Eisenhower. The jobs that the American people care 
about most--their own--will be dramatically safer the day that 
President Obama signs this into law.
  While we jump-start and then transform our economy for years to come, 
we must also lift those harmed by the economy we inherit--the workers 
and families who have been hurt in the recession. What is in it for 
them?
  More than 35 percent of this package will provide direct tax relief 
to 95 percent of American workers through the Making Work Pay Tax 
Credit. We provide the most significant expansion of tax cuts for low- 
and moderate-income Americans ever, which will lift more than 2 million 
Americans out of poverty.
  College will be made more affordable for 7 million American college 
students who will see an increase in their Pell grants. Four million 
students will benefit from a new $2,500 American Opportunity Tax Credit 
that is partially refundable.
  We will also help workers and families make ends meet by extending 
unemployment benefits, COBRA for unemployed workers, by investing in 
job training and by increasing nutrition assistance. Economists tell us 
that every dollar invested in food stamps and in unemployment insurance 
creates $1.73 or $1.63 respectively, making the right thing to do for 
the American people the right thing to do for the economy. We get the 
biggest bang for the buck on those initiatives that address the needs 
of our working families.
  The historic scope of this bill is matched by an unprecedented 
accountability in our tax dollars and transparency so that the American 
people can see where each dollar is invested and can contact by name 
those responsible for how those dollars are spent, ensuring a strong 
result for our economy.
  Just yesterday, the President and leaders of Congress came together 
in the Rotunda of the Capitol to honor the legacy and courage of our 
Nation's greatest President, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's stirring words 
captured the very heart of our democracy and representative government. 
A few years after his sole term in the House of Representatives--and 
aren't we proud to call him ``colleague,'' one who has served in our 
House--Lincoln offered his thoughts on the aims of government:
  ``The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of 
people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot 
do so well for themselves in their separate and individual 
capacities.'' Abraham Lincoln.
  More simply put, we are all in this together.
  As you cast your vote today, I think I feel this more than on any 
occasion when we have had a very important vote, and this vote today 
is, indeed, historic. When we put our cards in to register our support 
for this important legislation or not, let us think that our hands are 
being held and that our hands are being pushed by all of the American 
people who want us to vote for them--for their health, for the 
education of their children, for their jobs, for the economic security 
of their families, for a better future built on innovation, science and 
technology, and on a future that will give them hope.
  Their expectations are high. Our opportunity is great. This 
legislation helps fulfill the promises that President Obama not only 
made in his inaugural address but that many of us have been working 
over the years in a bipartisan way to achieve. I never thought I would 
see the day when we would have an opportunity so great to do so much 
for so many people in our country.
  I urge a strong and resounding ``yes'' for the American people.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to call upon my 
last speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, only 11 percent of the appropriations in 
this bill will be spent by the end of 2009; 47 percent would be spent 
by fiscal year 2010; 53 percent would not be spent until after October 
of 2011.
  It is my pleasure to call upon, for 1 minute, the Republican leader 
of the House, John Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American economy 
needs help. Our neighbors, our friends, our constituents, they're 
hurting. And there's not a Member in this body on either side of the 
aisle that doesn't understand that. And I think everyone in this 
Chamber on both sides of the aisle understands that Congress needs to 
act and we need to act now to help American families and help small 
businesses and to help bring more confidence back to our economy.
  The question is, how do you do that?
  The President, when he outlined his desires for this bill, summed it 
up pretty simply when he said, ``This bill needs to be about jobs.'' I 
don't think there is anybody in this Chamber that disagrees that this 
bill needs to be about jobs, preserving jobs in America, and helping to 
create new jobs and helping to get our economy rolling again.
  But the bill that was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs has 
turned into a bill that's all about spending, spending, and spending.
  This is disappointing. The American people expect more of us. They 
expect to have something that's going to work for them. And my 
opposition to this bill isn't the fact that we're doing a bill--we need 
to act. But how?
  When you look at some of the spending of this bill, it will do 
nothing about creating jobs in America. Tell me how spending $50 
million for some salt marsh mouse in San Francisco is going to help a 
struggling auto worker in Ohio. Tell me how spending $8 billion in this 
bill to have a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas 
is going to help the construction worker in my district. Or how about 
the family who called me about the fact that the bread winner in the 
family's hours are going to be cut from 40 hours to 20 hours. Can't 
hardly make his payment. What's it do for him? Absolutely nothing.
  And so, my concern about this is that we have to have a plan that 
will work for the American people, work for families, work for small 
businesses, and help get our economy going again. I don't think this 
bill does it.
  I hope this bill works, I really do, for the good of our country. But 
my concern is that the plan that's outlined will not do what we want it 
to do.
  That's why Republicans came to the table with what we thought was a 
better idea, a plan that would create twice as many jobs as the bill 
that we're debating at exactly half the cost. But our ideas weren't 
considered. We weren't allowed in the room, we weren't allowed to 
participate at all. And all of the talk about bipartisanship that we've 
heard over the last several months went down the drain.
  Now, my Democrat colleagues know I know how to be bipartisan, even 
when we were in the majority. I've worked with many Members on the 
other side of the aisle to bring bills to this floor that truly were 
done together. But we would usually start at the beginning of the 
process.
  Not only were we not included at the beginning of the process, we 
weren't even included at the end of the process.

[[Page H1566]]

  And it's not about us being excluded. It's about our ideas to help 
make this economy better, our ideas about how to give American families 
and small businesses the ability to keep more of what they earn to help 
their families, to help their businesses, to create more jobs. That's 
what the American people want. They don't want more spending on a 
couple hundred million dollars to get the country ready for some 
national health plan, money that's going to go to the bureaucracy. They 
want to know how their budgets are going to be helped. And 
unfortunately, they're not.
  If all of that wasn't enough, here we are with 1,100 pages--1,100 
pages--not one Member of this body has read. Not one. There may be some 
staffer over in the Appropriations Committee that read all of this last 
night--I don't know how you could read 1,100 pages between midnight and 
now. Not one Member has read this.
  What happened to the promise that we're going to let the American 
people see what's in this bill for 48 hours? But no, we don't have time 
to do that.
  We owe it to the American people to get this bill right. We owe it to 
American families, we owe it to small businesses, and we owe it to 
ourselves to get this right so that we can, in fact, help our economy. 
I don't believe this is the way to do it.
  It's disappointing the way this process has worked and the outcome 
that we've got. And I'm a big believer that we shouldn't come to the 
floor and talk about process, but bad process leads to bad policy. And 
that's what we have here, in my view. Bad policy that will drive up, 
drive up the debt and put all of this cost on the back of our kids and 
our grandkids and their kids.
  I hope it works, but I surely have my doubts.
  So I'm going to vote ``no.'' I'm going to vote ``no,'' and I'm going 
to hope, I'm going to hope that the next time that we get into a major 
piece of legislation on this floor, that you will include us. You will 
include our ideas.
  I said on the opening day that Republicans would not be the party of 
``no,'' that we would be the party of better ideas. And I'm committed 
to bringing better ideas to the floor, and let's debate those better 
ideas.
  Our tax policy, fast-acting tax policy that helps American families 
and small businesses does, in fact, create twice as many jobs. Twice as 
many jobs. Because we want the American people to keep their money to 
invest in their family and their small business. We're not interested 
in growing the size of government.
  I asked my colleagues yesterday in our conference, ``Think about the 
first time you ran for Congress.'' The freshman Members, they can 
remember this because they just did it. For me, it was 18 years ago. 
But I can tell you what I said 18 years ago: that I would come here to 
fight for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable Federal 
Government. This is the epitome--the epitome--of what I came here to 
stop.
  And I don't think there is one Member of Congress who came here to 
pass an $890 billion bill--if you add interest on it, about $1.1 
trillion--of spending to help grow the size of the Federal Government 
and to do very little to help American families and small businesses.
  I'd suggest that you vote ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how many more speakers the 
gentleman has.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Assuming that you're the last speaker, I'm 
ready to yield back the balance of my time, and I do yield back.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this country faces the greatest crisis that we've seen 
in terms of our economy since the 1930s. Unemployment is expected by 
many people to hit 12 percent. We're told if we do nothing, we're 
likely to see unemployment at least around 12 percent; and we hope that 
with the passage of this proposal, we can mitigate that disaster to a 
significant degree.
  Why are we in this trouble? Because we have had a virtual collapse 
and a freeze-up of the financial system and the credit markets; we've 
had a collapse of the housing sector of the economy and the auto sector 
of the economy.
  In normal circumstances in a normal recession, we are usually led out 
of that recession by housing and by automobiles. This time, those two 
sectors are in shambles. They're not going to lead us out of anything 
for the moment.
  The other tool normally available to us is monetary policy in the 
form of low interest rates through action of the Federal Reserve. We've 
already fired that bullet.
  The only bullet left is fiscal policy. And so what we are trying to 
do with this bill is to save and create several million jobs, we're 
trying to help the victims of the recession who are losing their jobs, 
losing their health, losing their pensions, losing their ability to 
send their kids to college; and at the same time, we're trying to 
invest in new portions of the economy through science, technology, new 
energy initiatives to try to modernize the economy and make it stronger 
as we come out of this recession, as we most certainly eventually will.
  And we are also, despite the objections of some on the minority, 
trying to put a quite significant amount of money into the health care 
system. What on earth is wrong with trying to save money in the health 
care system and at the same time making it more efficient by 
transferring our medical records to computerized records to reduce 
errors, and to save money at the same time?
  Guess what? This bill isn't perfect. Guess what? I've never seen a 
perfect bill produced by this or any other legislative body.
  You know, the worst thing that people can do in this town is to 
believe their own baloney. And I think what the likelihood is on this 
bill, frankly, is that supporters of the bill are inclined to overstate 
its possibilities and opponents, as we've seen here today, are 
certainly inclined to trash it.
  I was criticized in the Rules Committee last night and again on the 
floor today because I frankly said, ``I do not know how many jobs this 
bill is likely to produce.''
  What I do know is that the consensus of reputable economists around 
the country is that this bill will save or create several million jobs. 
Exactly how many will be determined by history.
  Now, the critics say a number of things. They say the bill is too 
big, and then they announce they're going to produce a recommit motion 
which adds $9 billion to the cost. That's what I call falling off both 
sides of the same horse at the same time.
  I would suggest that this bill is big, all right, but I'll make you a 
deal: You show me a smaller problem that we have to confront, and I 
will be happy to produce a smaller bill.
  The fact is, we face, over the next 2\1/2\ years, a hole in the 
economy of approaching $2.5 to $3 trillion.
  This is an $800 billion package over 2\1/2\ years. That means the 
annual fiscal thrust without the economic multipliers is about $300 
billion. I personally think that it is smaller than it needs to be, but 
it has been downsized since it left the House to some degree in order 
to try to pick up Republican support in the Senate, and I understand 
that.
  The critics have another technique: They trash by trivializing. They 
follow the guidelines laid out by one of the Members of their 
leadership a few months ago when he said in The Post that the way they 
ought to deal with the Democratic majority is to behave like a thousand 
mosquitos inflicting mosquito bites and tormenting the majority.
  And so what do they say? They tell us, for instance, that there's an 
earmark in here for rail under ``high-speed rail.'' The fact is, there 
is not. All of the funding in that account is discretionary. It will be 
awarded competitively, and the decisions will be made entirely by the 
Department of Transportation. And the last time I looked, the new 
Cabinet Secretary was a Republican.

                              {time}  1345

  Secondly, they tell us that we're spending more money on the arts 
than we are on small business. We're putting $750 million in this bill 
for small business. There's $50 million in here for the arts. And you 
know what, there are 5 million people who work in the arts industry, 
and right now, they've got 12\1/2\ percent unemployment. Or are you 
suggesting that somehow if you work in that field, it isn't real when 
you lose your job, it isn't real when you lose your mortgage, it isn't 
real when you

[[Page H1567]]

lose your health insurance? We're trying to treat people who work in 
the arts the same way as anybody else.
  And then they tell us there are mice, except when they say they're 
rats. Well, I would simply urge you to read The Mercury News because 
The Mercury News points out that that is a fallacious attack.
  They say that we're spending $30 million on mice. Where did the $30 
million figure come from? According to The Mercury News, and I will 
read this, ``It turns out that $30 million is the total amount that the 
California Coastal Conservancy, a State agency, recommended more than a 
month ago to numerous Federal agencies looking for lists of `shovel 
ready' projects as part of the stimulus bill planning.'' And the staff 
director for the minority leader himself told the press yesterday that 
he had to admit there was no specific reference to any mice or rats in 
this bill.
  There is one place in this budget, however, where you do have mice. 
It's at NIH. One of the Members of this House told me today, ``I'd be 
happy to talk about mice because research projects at NIH saved my 
life''. Cancer research, the research is done on mice. Would you rather 
have the experimentation done on human beings? I don't think so.
  If you look at what this bill does, it provides an $800 tax break for 
middle American couples. It provides $120 billion in infrastructure to 
create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It shows some mercy to people who 
are unemployed by extending and expanding unemployment benefits. It 
tries to modernize the economy to create new jobs through science and 
technology. It provides $170 billion to help States avoid catastrophic 
tax increases that would be counterproductive during this kind of a 
recession. And it also helps them to avoid drastic cutbacks in 
education, in law enforcement, so that they don't have to fire cops, 
they don't have to fire teachers, they don't have to fire prison guards 
and all of the other people who are paid for out of State budgets. 
Those are some of the ``terrible'' things the bill does.
  Now, this bill does have one problem. It is estimated that it creates 
about 1 million fewer jobs than it did when it left the House earlier. 
It does that in an effort to be bipartisan because the President 
reached out to try to get Republican support in the Senate, and he 
makes no apology for that and neither do I. But the fact remains, we 
still have 86 percent of the House bill that we had when the bill left 
the House. That is a pretty doggone good ratio.
  I think we need to appreciate that this bill is the largest change in 
domestic policy since the 1930s. Think of what has happened.
  One month ago, we had a President who insisted on holding up the 
entire domestic appropriation part of the budget because he wanted to 
impose $30 billion in cuts in education, in health care, science and 
the rest. In contrast today, we have a President who is willing to 
invest $800 billion to attack this recession and to turn this economy 
into a stronger and better economy for every American, not just the top 
10 percent who have benefited by Republican policies.
  One month ago, we had a President who resisted raising the minimum 
wage and resisted providing expanded unemployment insurance. Today, 
we've got a President who's reversing that policy and says ``Go to it, 
help those people, they need it.''
  And we've also got a President who is willing to put $90 billion into 
States to preserve our society's ability to see to it that poor 
families and kids don't get knocked off the Medicaid rolls.
  One month ago, we had a President who asked us to pass No Child Left 
Behind and then for the next 8 years reneged on the promise to provide 
additional funding to pay for the cost of those mandates. We had a vote 
today on the issue of mandates. The mother of all mandates has been No 
Child Left Behind, which I voted for, but I expected the President not 
to welch on the deal, and financially, he did. This changes that. This 
reverses that policy.
  I would ask Members to vote for this bill. It will change this 
country for the better.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
reestablish 30 seconds of my time to speak out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that all 
of us appreciate Members and staff who are willing to work around here. 
There's no Member in the House who puts in more energy and time and 
hours than my friend, Chairman Obey. I do not necessarily have to agree 
with everything that he might suggest, but in the meantime, you 
certainly cannot discount his commitment to this effort.
  And to the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent endless nights, 
weekends and otherwise trying to evaluate and work through this package 
and help each other where we can, I want them all to know that they 
have our thanks, the entire House's thanks, for that effort.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply thank the gentleman for his comments and say 
that I appreciate the fact that we can debate these issues and still 
remain personal friends.
  And I also want to thank, as the gentleman has, I want to thank 
profoundly the staff of this committee and all the committees who 
worked so hard. So often these people go 1 and 2 and 3 days in a row 
with little or no sleep. That certainly has been the case this week, 
and I'm profoundly grateful to the staff, certainly on our side of the 
aisle, especially Beverly Pheto who has become staff director because 
the White House stole our previous staff director.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  I want to commend House Leadership and President Barack Obama for 
ushering this legislation through a tricky process. Though this may not 
be the perfect bill, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good. Frankly, our economy is in uncharted territory. At a time when 
unemployment is pushing 7.6 percent and key economic indicators show a 
downward spiral, Congress has a duty to come together and act on behalf 
of the people. I worked in conjunction with my Blue Dog colleagues to 
ensure that the final version of this bill was better than the original 
House version and was streamlined towards effective spending and tax 
provisions that are temporary, targeted, and timely.
  Stimulative spending including the funding for transportation and 
education infrastructure projects, job training and workforce 
development, and critical investments in rural communities like 
broadband services and wastewater projects will be extremely beneficial 
to communities in Northwest Florida. The temporary tax provisions, such 
as the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the increase of 
the refundable portion of the child credit, are also critical to 
bolstering the economy by ensuring that money will quickly get into the 
hands of Americans who are going to spend it. Additionally, H.R. 1 
increases unemployment benefits, provides more funding for food stamps 
and a one-time payment to recipients of Social Security and veterans 
receiving disability compensation and pension benefits. Finally, this 
bill helps small businesses quickly recover costs of new capital 
investments by extending the bonus depreciation for making investments 
in plants and equipment. In the end, these combined provisions are our 
best bet for a shot in the arm of this economy. H.R. 1 will create or 
save over 8,300 jobs alone in the 2nd district of Florida which I 
represent and over 200,000 jobs statewide.
  Despite the positive aspects of the bill, I do have concerns with the 
bill and even more serious concerns with our long-term economic 
problems.
  For one, billions of dollars to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax are 
included in this bill. Though this prevents many middle-class families 
from tax increases, it does so in the most fiscally irresponsible way 
possible. It is not justifiable emergency spending. We need a long 
term, sustainable solution to this problem and I have consistently 
voted to support a paid-for, offset Alternative Minimum Tax over the 
years.
  Furthermore, I would have chosen a better, more inclusive process in 
considering this bill. I would have preferred more time to study the 
major incentives for health information technology, increased federal 
assistance for higher education programs, and alternative energy 
investments, even if they are provisions that will make our economy 
stronger and more innovative. My Blue Dog colleagues and I appreciate 
the recent commitment of the Leadership of the House to have a return 
to regular order and process in this body.
  I was also concerned that the House voted on this bill before having 
two days to review

[[Page H1568]]

the final text. I voted against the Previous Question and the Rule for 
the bill to make this point.
  Finally, I am very concerned about the unprecedented federal deficits 
and burden to future generations that the levels of spending in this 
bill will create. We are living in unparalleled economic times with 
regards to loss of jobs, houses, and credit throughout the country and 
I firmly believe that only by tackling long-term fiscal issues can we 
ensure a prosperous nation today, tomorrow, and well into the future. I 
will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to balance our 
annual budgets and address the entitlement spending issue that 
threatens our future.
  I am heartened that President Obama committed to a ``Fiscal Summit'' 
later this year to tackle the issues of long-term fiscal 
responsibility. These actions, coupled with a commitment to address the 
underlying causes in the housing and financial markets at the root of 
our economies woes, are encouraging.
  Despite the concerns I have outlined, I stand in support of H.R. 1 
and I will continue to work with fellow elected officials at all levels 
of government to oversee accountability and transparency during the 
spending of the stimulus funding provided by this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the speed at which both chambers and both 
parties have come together on this recovery package shows how committed 
Congress and the Administration are to shoring up our troubled economy.
  The landmark legislation that we will pass today will create millions 
of jobs, provide cut taxes for hard working families, provide basic 
necessities to families in need and make investments necessary to 
transform our economy for the 21st Century.
  Economists, business leaders, and labor unions across the political 
spectrum know that decisive action is the only way to jolt our economy 
out of its intensifying tailspin.
  Everyone in the process has compromised, except for House 
Republicans. It's time for the House Republicans to stop saying ``no'' 
to everything and start saying ``yes'' to bipartisanship and ``yes'' to 
recovery.
  The current economic crisis requires bold solutions that address the 
magnitude of our economic woes, and the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment plan will do just that.
  We will blunt the effects of the recession for families by increasing 
food stamps benefits, expanding unemployment benefits, and preserving 
health care benefits.
  The recovery plan also invests in America's school, roads, bridges, 
water systems that are in disrepair and creating a drag on our economy.
  We have an historic opportunity to make the investments necessary to 
modernize our public infrastructure, transition to a clean energy 
economy, and make us more competitive in the future.
  Our plan also supports working families by providing a tax cut for 95 
percent of workers and their families.
  By spreading job creation out over the next couple of years and 
across a variety of sectors, we will soften the downturn and foster a 
solid economic recovery.
  It's time to get our economy back on track.
  Furthermore Mr. Speaker, in writing about the American Reinvestment 
and Recovery Act, the front page of the Wall Street Journal said it 
well.
  This historic bill will spur road building, give businesses tax 
breaks, and expand broadband access.
  Yes, it will do all that, and so much more. It will help our country 
avoid a recession so dark and deep that the pain and economic 
dislocation it would produce for the vast majority of people would be 
terrible to contemplate.
  According to a broad consensus of the brightest minds in the field, 
this economic stimulus bill will help put Americans back to work now, 
and get us back to doing what we do best--lighting the way to the 
future.
  It will provide more than $150 billion in public works projects for 
transportation, energy and technology.
  We will begin to develop the clean energy sources and smart 
transmission lines that the whole world will demand tomorrow.
  There is $10 billion for medical research to help America retain its 
vaunted leadership.
  The bill also provides for the urgent needs of today, with $87 
billion to help states meet rising Medicaid costs.
  There is money to help state unemployment offices that are 
overwhelmed by the numbers and funds to help those who have been thrown 
out of a job through no fault of their own, and are struggling 
desperately to keep health insurance coverage for their families.
  And it addresses the three most important issues facing us today. 
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. This bill is expected to create about 3.5 
million jobs.
  The total impact on my state is expected to be the creation of 
215,000 jobs with almost 8,000 jobs in my district alone.
  Across the country the bill is expected to produce over a million 
jobs in construction and manufacturing, and 345,000 jobs in 
professional and business services. And 90 percent of these jobs will 
be in the private sector.
  There is a tax cut for 95 percent of working American and the bill 
protects millions of middle income taxpayers from having to pay the 
Alternative Minimum tax in 2009.
  The aid that will flow directly to states should also help to ease 
some of the most painful service cuts that were looming, and may even 
provide more tax relief.
  According to Governor David Paterson, New York state might be able to 
use some of the federal stimulus funds to avoid some of the 137 
business and consumer tax increases now planned for next year.
  In the coming days, you will hear 1,001 different opinions about this 
bill. And I hope you will keep in mind that Congress listened to a wide 
range of opinions on just what to do to get America working again.
  There were many, including Nobel Laureates in the field of Economics 
who felt we should be spending considerably more. There were some who 
said we should spend less. And even a few who said we should do 
nothing. But sitting still and doing nothing was never an option. 
Inaction is simply not in the American DNA.
  Some made a case for spending more on infrastructure while others 
pushed for bigger tax cuts. But politics is the art of the possible--
and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are what helped to pave the 
way to the hole we find ourselves in now.
  And our critics must admit that tax cuts alone never built a school, 
fixed a bridge or paved a road.
  With the passage of this bill, our crumbling infrastructure will be 
repaired, our dependence of foreign oil will begin to be addressed, our 
healthcare system improved, and our economic well-being restored. This 
is the plan. This is the time. And ``yes'' is the answer.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which addresses 
the unprecedented economic crisis we are currently facing. This measure 
will put our economy back on track and will also transform our economy 
for the 21st Century through much needed investments in our health care 
system, infrastructure, education, and energy independence, while 
saving and creating millions of jobs during the next two years.
  We are facing dire economic times. Every week, we are faced with new 
reports on job losses across our country. In my home state of Rhode 
Island, we have the country's second highest unemployment rate at ten 
percent and last December, we were ranked sixth nationally in 
foreclosure rates. These harsh realities have made it increasingly 
clear that our economy will face an even sharper downturn if we do not 
act soon.
  The compromise between the House, Senate and White House is not 
perfect, but it contains the right formula of spending and tax relief 
to stimulate our economy and increase new job opportunities. With that 
in mind, I support taking action to rebuild our nation's economy and 
put Rhode Island families first. H.R. 1 will appropriate spending for 
transportation and infrastructure upgrades and construction, health 
care programs, education assistance, housing assistance and energy 
efficiency upgrades, and includes personal and business tax breaks, tax 
provisions intended to assist state and local governments, and energy-
related tax incentives for a total of $787 billion to be expended over 
Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010. This measure helps those hit hardest by the 
economic downturn by extending unemployment benefits, providing job 
training to get people back to work quickly, increasing food stamp 
benefits, and extending health benefits.
  The recovery plan provides funding to modernize our crumbling roads 
and bridges, increase transit and rail funding to reduce traffic 
congestion and gas consumption, and invest in clean water and other 
environmental restoration projects. These investments will immediately 
create jobs in my state, as projects will only receive funding if they 
are ``ready to go'' within 90 days of the enactment of this bill. This 
legislation also includes additional infrastructure funding that will 
improve our national security by modernizing our electric grid, 
upgrading our airport, port, transit and rail security, and updating 
Department of Defense facilities.
  One of the best ways to grow our economy is by investing in our 
future workforce. The inclusion of robust education initiatives that 
will build 21st Century classrooms, labs and libraries is also very 
important to me as we prepare the next generation of workers to support 
and strengthen our economy. I am pleased that funding to modernize, 
renovate and repair school buildings is included in the final language. 
It also contains funding for Title I programs, which serve 
disadvantaged children, and IDEA, which serves disabled children, 
ensuring that all children, regardless of where they live or their 
disability, receive a quality and equal education. Moreover, this level 
of funding for IDEA increases the Federal share

[[Page H1569]]

of special education services to its highest level ever and brings much 
needed relief to school systems. H.R. 1 also provides $15.6 billion for 
Pell grants, and it is estimated that Rhode Island will receive $97.5 
million in aid for 28,217 recipients for an average award for the 
academic year 2009-10 of $3,456. Investing in our children's education 
not only has long-term benefits to our economy, but it also delivers on 
our nation's promise to ensure that all individuals have an equal 
opportunity to succeed.
  Investments in American health care also represent a vital component 
of our nation's economic recovery and long term fiscal sustainability. 
This package contains several provisions that will stimulate job growth 
and improve health care quality and efficiency through $10 billion 
investments in biomedical research and $19 billion for the further 
development and implementation of health information technology.
  This bill bolsters crucial safety net programs that provide 
invaluable health and social services to our nation's low-income and 
disabled citizens with the inclusion of $87 billion in enhanced funding 
for state Medicaid programs that have been stretched to the breaking 
point under increased unemployment and skyrocketing health costs. This 
package also includes a provision to assist recently unemployed 
individuals and their families by helping them maintain their health 
coverage through a 65% subsidy for health insurance premiums under 
COBRA for up to nine months.
  One of the greatest challenges we face with this effort is ensuring 
that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. This bill makes great 
strides by investing in the transformation of our national energy 
policy, which will lead to greater technological advancements in 
renewable technologies, job creation, and energy independence. Now is 
the time to make the commitment to our children and our grandchildren 
that we will leave a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment than we 
have now. As a co-founder of the Sustainable Energy and Environment 
Coalition, I fought for several provisions in H.R. 1 that promote 
energy efficiency and renewable energy production and development, 
including tax provisions for families and businesses, in addition to 
funding that will drive the creation of new, ``green-collar'' jobs. 
More importantly than tax incentives alone, this measure sets forth a 
long-term energy policy that puts our nation on the path towards energy 
independence.
  Individuals and families will also receive relief through the 
``Making work pay'' tax credit, which will provide up to $400 for an 
individual or $800 for married couples filing jointly. Parents will 
also benefit from an increase in the earned income tax credit for 
families with three or more children and the bill allows additional 
low-income families to receive the child tax credit. The measure will 
also provide a tax credit up to $8,000 for first time home buyers if 
they purchase a home between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2009, 
injecting a much needed financial incentive into the housing market.
  I also urge my colleagues to join me in my support for H.R. 1 because 
it includes unprecedented accountability and strong oversight by 
creating the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, which 
will coordinate and conduct oversight of federal spending under the 
bill. A public website will also contain the board's reports, show 
exactly how funds are spent and will list announcements of contract and 
grant competitions and awards.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this funding is not a 
silver bullet, but that our economy will continue to decline without 
this immediate action. The Recovery package will slow our downward 
economic trend and allow us to regain our footing as we begin to make 
much-needed long term investments to transform our economy for the 21st 
Century. American prosperity depends on individual economic security. 
It is only when Americans do not have to worry about losing their job, 
keeping their home or paying their bills that our economy will truly 
flourish. I am committed to improving the economic outlook for the 
millions who are struggling, and I will continue working with my 
colleagues in Congress on this vital and urgent goal.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today we're responding with 
determination and bold action to combat the most severe economic crisis 
our country has faced since the Great Depression.
  For years, as hardworking American families struggled to make ends 
meet and the economy shed millions of jobs, Republicans told us not to 
worry--we are in the midst of a ``jobless recovery'', they said. But 
``jobless recovery'' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, like 
jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--it just doesn't exist!
  The failed ``laissez-faire'' approach of the past 8 years has now 
been discredited by rising unemployment, loss of confidence in our 
financial markets and the economic hardships suffered by families 
across the country.
  For millions of Americans, ``laissez-faire'' is just a fancy name for 
``left behind.''
  With this economic recovery package, we are taking the bold action 
that is needed by creating or saving 3-and-a-half million jobs, 
rebuilding America, making us more globally competitive and energy 
independent, and transforming our economy.
  While our country is facing enormous challenges, we also have a once-
in-a-generation opportunity to create millions of new jobs, invest in 
vital priorities and position our economy for future growth. Today we 
are seizing this historic opportunity and setting our country on a new 
direction.
  This urgently-needed economic recovery package funds infrastructure 
projects that are ``shovel-ready'', while also supporting future-
oriented projects that are ``circuit-ready'': broadband, electronic 
medical records, smart grid, advanced battery technologies and other 
vital priorities.
  The massive investments in weatherization, state energy efficiency 
grants, and federal building efficiency are some of the safest and 
smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money 
into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form 
of energy savings and lower energy prices. This energy efficiency 
``double dividend'' is a proven, reliable phenomenon that our current 
weak economy must capitalize.
  In addition, I am pleased that the conference report will provide $6 
billion in new loan guarantees for renewable projects such as solar and 
wind and for upgrading our nation's transmission system to a smarter 
electricity grid. Section 1705 of the bill supports a program 
authorized in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act that 
permits the Department of Energy to issue grants for developing 
electric power transmission systems, including upgrading and 
reconductoring projects. This provision would allow for the development 
of a smart transmission and distribution grid, which would include 
support for technologies such as underground superconductor 
transmission cables that can increase the efficiency of our grid and 
facilitate the delivery of renewable power from the heartland of our 
country to the hearts of our cities.
  The bill provides $19 billion for a new health IT infrastructure to 
improve care, lower costs and reduce medical errors. I am pleased that 
the conference report includes patient privacy safeguards that I have 
long advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and 
Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are 
made unreadable to unauthorized individuals.
  This balanced, well-thought out package provides tax relief for 95% 
of Americans and targets investments in key areas to turn around the 
American economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, all across the country, Americans are 
hurting. I held three telephone town halls this week and I heard 
firsthand how difficult things are for people. These are people willing 
to work; people looking to keep their small business afloat; people 
looking to feed their families. But they are not looking for a handout 
and they know that we can not spend and borrow our way back to 
prosperity.
  Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats have chosen to use this bill 
to achieve an eight year long wish list. How does billions of dollars 
for ACORN help a small business owner keep people employed? How will 
funding for the NEA grow our economy?
  Instead of making health care more affordable, they are pushing 
policies that will quietly set the stage for government takeover of 
health care, resulting in bureaucrats making decisions for patients and 
doctors.
  Congressional Democrats wrote much of this bill secretly, negotiated 
it behind closed doors, and released late last night, giving only a few 
hours to review it. And the reason that they are trying to ram this 
bill through is simple--it won't stimulate our economy.
  That's why we should scrap this bill and pass the alternative measure 
proposed by House Republicans, one based on fast-acting tax relief for 
working families and small businesses. We need a bill that will get to 
the heart of the matter and put our economy back on its feet.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thoughts about 
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  While the final recovery bill is not perfect, nor does it address all 
my concerns, I strongly believe that we must take quick action to help 
Americans who are struggling and help spur job creation. We are in a 
time of crisis, and doing nothing is not an option. I agree with 
President Obama--time is of the essence, and we must act quickly to 
pass a recovery package. Though no bill is perfect, I have reconciled 
my problems with the initial bill for the sake of helping Americans and 
the economy.
  Just last week, the U.S. Department of Labor announced recent 
increases in the number of unemployed Americans. These statistics

[[Page H1570]]

were incredibly troubling. Sadly, they showed a twenty-six year high in 
unemployment filings. Additionally, part of my own Congressional 
District in Northeastern Pennsylvania, faces a 7.7 percent unemployment 
rate, higher than the state and national averages. Clearly the increase 
in the number of people unemployed in the country and in Northeastern 
Pennsylvania reflects the need for the federal government to 
immediately provide greater assistance to those out of work and 
struggling.
  While I wanted the recovery bill to focus more on job creation 
through infrastructure in the short term, which was the original focus 
of the bill, it does address these issues to an extent. The bill is 
estimated to create or save 3.5 million jobs throughout the country, 
including 143,000 jobs in Pennsylvania and 7,700 jobs in my 
Congressional District. The bill includes $64 billion for 
infrastructure development that is estimated to create or sustain 1.8 
million jobs nationally and generate $322 billion of economic activity. 
Additionally, to help individuals get back to work in good jobs, almost 
$4 billion is allocated for job training programs.
  I also previously expressed the need for the recovery package to 
focus on helping those who are out of work or retired. While many 
people are struggling, we must help those without jobs feed their 
families immediately. Though I encourage a larger focus on this for 
future legislation, this bill extends unemployment insurance through 
December 2009 and it increases benefit payments by $25 per week, so 
that jobless workers will now receive $325 per week in tax-free 
benefits. It also includes a one time $250 payment to retirees, 
disabled individuals, and for Supplemental Security Income to help more 
people without jobs.
  Finally, I had strongly advocated for the inclusion of a General 
Revenue Sharing program through an amendment to the recovery package 
that would provide localities with a needed source of revenue for 
undertaking job-creating infrastructure projects and maintaining public 
safety networks. This would be critical to helping localities across 
the country that are facing significant funding shortfalls as a result 
of the ongoing economic downturn. While I was disappointed that this 
amendment was not included in the legislation, I applaud provisions in 
the current bill that will improve state and local government bonds, 
allowing states and localities to afford needed infrastructure 
projects. The recovery package also creates a competitive grant program 
exclusively for state and local surface transportation projects. 
Additionally, I will introduce a stand alone General Revenue Sharing 
bill in the near future.
  My strongest objection to the initial recovery package dealt with the 
fact that many Members, both Democrats and Republicans, were not 
involved in the discussions on the bill. As I have continued to say, 
open door policies regarding Congress' legislation are essential. All 
Members of Congress must have a voice and the opportunity to debate 
bills, especially the recovery package which is the most significant 
and certainly the most expensive undertaking in our nation's history. I 
voiced my concerns to House leadership, and they were noted. I hope 
these actions will be changed in the future.
  Additionally, the public must have an informed voice as well. In 
order to let the American public truly understand the need for the 
recovery bill, and other legislation going forward, we need to allow 
them to fully understand it. I am a firm believer in that we must 
determine the problem before addressing the possible solutions. We must 
effectively communicate to the public the full extent of the problems 
we face so that they also understand why we are taking such action.
  I applaud President Obama for his determination and willingness to 
jump on such a daunting project in his first month in office. While 
this is not a final solution to our economic problems, as we will 
likely need another recovery package in the future, it is an important 
step forward. Fixing our economy will not happen overnight, but I have 
faith that we will emerge from these tough times stronger than ever.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, there is not a person in this 
country that is sheltered from the economic challenges we face. I agree 
steps should be taken to stabilize the economy and get people to work. 
However, I feel that the plan presented today is not the right one to 
boost our beleaguered financial condition.
  Spending vast amounts of borrowed money does not work in our 
households and it does not work in government. These habits are what 
brought us to this current situation. Individuals, businesses, and 
especially government have simply borrowed too much. Living beyond our 
means has consequences. We cannot borrow our way out into prosperity. 
More importantly, we cannot spend our children's future. It will not 
work economically and it is wrong morally.
  Bundling a large collection of spending projects and calling it a 
stimulus does not make it stimulative. The purpose of the stimulus 
should be to spend a dollar in a way that will create greater than a 
dollar's worth of economic benefits. Spending a dollar in certain ways 
that have stimulating effects or reducing tax burdens on workers and 
small businesses is what we need to be doing.
  I will again vote ``no.'' I do so as a taxpayer, a father and a 
public official entrusted to do the best he can for his fellow Kansans. 
Political posturing has no place in this debate. We need to get the 
country moving. Unfortunately, this is the wrong plan that will add 
billions of dollars of frivolous spending to our national debt without 
stimulating our economy.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks there has been a 
concerted media campaign to spread misinformation about the Comparative 
Effectiveness Research (CER) provisions in H.R.1.
  To set the record straight, I submit for the Record the following 
summary of the comparative effectiveness research provisions and a list 
of organizations that have written us in support.
  This investment is an important first step in efforts to develop a 
robust CER program in this Congress. In the near future, I will 
introduce a comprehensive CER proposal, based on the provisions that 
previously passed the House in the CHAMP Act, H.R. 3162, in the 110th 
Congress.

         American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)


            Provisions on comparative Effectiveness Research

       The conference agreement on H.R. 1 includes provisions to 
     promote and expand research that compares the effectiveness 
     of alternative treatments or strategies for a medical 
     condition.
       Doctors today urgently need better evidence to improve the 
     quality of health care that patients receive. Some estimates 
     indicate that less than half of all therapies patients 
     receive are actually supported by firm evidence of 
     effectiveness.
       There is widespread agreement on the need for better 
     information on the comparative effectiveness of different 
     interventions for health conditions. In an October 2008 joint 
     editorial, Newt Gingrich, John Kerry and Billy Beane said 
     that ``a health care system that is driven by robust 
     comparative clinical evidence will save lives and money.''
       Some of the oldest and most important studies in medicine 
     have been comparative effectiveness studies. For example, the 
     Diabetes Control and Complications Trial revolutionized the 
     treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. This landmark 
     trial found that aggressive use of insulin to control blood 
     sugar was clearly better than standard care in preventing 
     damage to the eyes, kidneys, and nerves of patients with 
     diabetes.
       But more must be done. In December 2008, the Institute of 
     Medicine called for further comparative effectiveness 
     efforts, stating that ``this type of research would provide 
     information that patients and physicians need to make choices 
     that offer them the greatest value, as they define it.'' The 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) both have planned to 
     expand their research efforts, but these expansions have 
     proceeded slowly due to a lack of funding.
       An investment in this research infrastructure will provide 
     doctors and patients with critically important information. 
     Arming physicians with the best available evidence about 
     treatment alternatives and their effects in different patient 
     populations will help doctors and patients make better 
     choices.


                         Summary of provisions

       The conference agreement provides $1.1 billion for 
     comparative effectiveness research with $300 million to be 
     administered by AHRQ, $400 million to be administered by NIH, 
     and $400 million to be allocated at the discretion of the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services. These funds are to be 
     used to accelerate the development and dissemination of 
     comparative effectiveness research. The agreement ensures 
     that the use of these research dollars will be consistent 
     with governmental policies relating to the inclusion of women 
     and minorities in research.
       The conference agreement also establishes a Federal 
     Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. 
     The purpose of the Council is to reduce duplication and 
     coordinate these research activities within the federal 
     government. Because its purpose is the coordination of 
     federal research efforts, the Council is made up of 
     representatives of a variety of experts from within the 
     federal agencies. The conference agreement clearly states 
     that the Council cannot mandate coverage, reimbursement, or 
     other policies for any public or private payer.


                    Supporters for these provisions

       Widespread Support for Provisions on Comparative 
     Effectiveness Research. Experts, physicians, legislators, and 
     advocates from across the political spectrum supported 
     provisions in the stimulus package for comparative 
     effectiveness research because this research is crucial.

       ``The current limited availability of valid data to 
     supplement the physician's clinical experience and 
     professional knowledge . . . makes it difficult to ensure 
     that an effective treatment choice is made.''--Letter to 
     Congress from the American College of Physicians, January 29, 
     2009


[[Page H1571]]


       ``Opponents--like some drug companies and medical device 
     makers--don't want this research. They fear it will cut the 
     profits they make on ineffective drugs and equipment. But 
     they won't tell you that this research could save your life 
     by giving your doctors better information so they can 
     prescribe the best treatments available to you.''--AARP CEO 
     Bill Novelli, February 10, 2009

       ``Independent, objective comparative effectiveness research 
     (CER) is urgently needed to improve health care quality and 
     patient outcomes by ensuring consumers always receive the 
     best care.''--Letter to Congress, signed by the Alliance for 
     Better Health Care, (a broad coalition of over 30 
     organizations representing consumers, employers, health care 
     providers, health plans, pharmacists, researchers, unions, 
     pharmaceutical benefit managers, and others), February 11, 
     2009

       ``We are concerned that some believe that comparative 
     effectiveness could lead to the rationing of health care. 
     This is simply not true. The bill would fund independent, 
     objective, comparative effectiveness research that would 
     greatly benefit providers and patients in making informed 
     health care decisions.''--Letter to Congress signed by AARP, 
     AFL-CIO, American College of Physicians, America's Health 
     Insurance Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Families 
     USA, National Business Group on Health, National Partnership 
     for Women and Families and joined by Consumers Union, 
     February 12, 2009

       ``Strong federal support for comparative effectiveness 
     research is vital to both public and private efforts to 
     improve health care quality for patients and to give 
     physicians and other health care providers the independent, 
     objective information they need to identify the best 
     treatments options for their patients.''--Letter to Congress 
     from the National Business Group on Health, February 11, 
     2009.
                                  ____


List of Organizations Supporting Comparative Effectiveness Research in 
                                 H.R. 1

       Aetna, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, AFL-CIO, Alliance 
     of Community Health Plans, Alliance for Better Healthcare, 
     AARP, American College of Physicians, America's Health 
     Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, American 
     Academy of Family Physicians, American Society of Health-
     System Pharmacists, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Blue 
     Shield of California, Coalition for Health Services Research, 
     Consumers Union, and CVS Caremark.
       DiamlerChrysler Corporation, Families USA, Ford Motor 
     Company, General Motors Company, Group Health Cooperative, 
     Honeywell, Kaiser Permanente, Marshfield Clinic, Medco Health 
     Solutions, National Business Group on Health, National 
     Partnership for Women and Families, Pharmaceutical Care 
     Management Association, Prime Therapeutics, Service Employees 
     International Union, The Dow Chemical Company, The Joint 
     Commission, UnitedHealth Group, and Wellpoint, Inc.

  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have before us the largest spending bill 
in the history of the Congress. The price tag on this bill is $800 
billion--over $1.1 trillion when you add in the interest needed to fund 
it. Sadly, this 1200-page bill was completed just a few hours ago in 
the darkness of night. No one knows what is in the bill. No one has 
read it. This bill is being rushed to the House floor and to the 
President before Members of Congress or the American people have an 
opportunity to even know what is in it.
  Just how much is this bill going to cost? How much is a trillion 
dollars? One way to look at it is that it amounts to deficit spending 
of over $7,000 for every family in America. Looked at another way, this 
is enough money to pay for four years of college tuition to a private 
college for every senior graduating from high school this year and next 
and still have nearly $150 billion left over.
  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a few 
weeks ago that the federal government will have a $1.2 trillion deficit 
this year. This amounts to 8.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product 
(GDP), which is far higher than the previous record of 5.9 percent set 
in 1934 at the height of the Great Depression. In 2009, one out of 
every three dollars that the federal government will spend will be 
borrowed and our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill. Now, the 
bill before us--negotiated by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Democrat Leader 
Reid and President Obama--will add another $1.1 trillion to this debt. 
No country has ever borrowed and spent its way into prosperity, which 
is what this bill proposes to do. Adding further to this deficit as 
this bill does is unthinkable.
  The non-partisan CBO released an analysis earlier this week finding 
that the bill may provide a small increase in the nation's economy in 
the first few years, but then this bill will drag the economy down for 
the better part of the decade.
  Less than 20 percent of the cost of this bill is associated with tax 
relief. There is virtually nothing in this bill to stimulate small 
businesses--the driving force in creating jobs in America. Furthermore, 
the signature item of the bill--working American tax cut--was the first 
tax cut put on the chopping block. The final bill will allow the 
average worker to keep an additional 20 cents an hour ($1.60 per day).
  This bill also classifies as a tax cut billions of dollars in 
payments to those who do not pay federal income taxes. I thought a tax 
cut was a reduction in someone's taxes not simply a check from the 
government.
  With regard to infrastructure spending, which is what we were all 
promised would be the focus at the outset of this process, only 17 
percent of the funding in the bill is for infrastructure. Less than one 
of every five dollars will go to job-creating stimulus programs.
  Rather than focus on job-creating stimulus and tax relief for small 
businesses that create new jobs, the final bill written by liberals in 
the Congress focuses on permanently expanding unaffordable entitlement 
programs and creating new federal programs under the guise of 
``stimulating the economy.'' The bill creates 33 new federal programs 
at a cost of $90 billion. It also expands 73 existing federal programs 
at a cost of $92 billion. There will be tremendous pressures in future 
years to continue funding these $182 billion in new programs at these 
new higher levels. The bill also spends $123 billion for one-time 
infusion of spending for 98 existing programs.
  This bill includes billions of dollars for the Public Housing Capital 
Fund. Yet, this fund already has an unspent balance of $7 billion. Also 
included is $1 billion for Community Development Block Grant program, 
yet this program currently has $23 billion in unspent funds. Why is the 
Congress adding spending to these cash rich accounts? If they were 
serious about stimulating the economy, Congress should simply make them 
spend the money they already have. Also, troubling is the fact that 
this bill opens up the federal Treasury coffers to groups like ACORN--a 
group charged with voter fraud.
  Do the provisions relating to the creation of Federal Coordinating 
Council in health care research move us in the direction of a national 
health board that would encourage federal policies that determine what 
medical services Americans can and cannot have? What does that have to 
do with stimulating the economy? How many tens of billions of dollars 
more will the welfare law changes end up costing the taxpayers down the 
road? What will be the long-term unforeseen costs associated with this 
bill due to the unprecedented deficit spending. Over the coming weeks 
as the American people have more time to read this bill we will learn 
more about the provisions and intentions of this bill? Sadly, the bill 
has been rushed to the floor without giving the Congress or the 
American people a chance to know what is in it.
  Let me also say that I appreciate all of the talk about the need to 
work together in a bipartisan fashion. While I was pleased that several 
Republican amendments were adopted when portions of this bill were 
considered in several Congressional Committees last month, I was deeply 
disappointed that most of these amendments disappeared from the bill 
between the time it was passed in committee and when it came to the 
House floor for a vote. Bipartisanship is supposed to be a two-way 
street, not simply a demand to show bipartisanship by accepting the 
Speaker's bill.
  The only hand of bipartisanship that has been extended to Republicans 
in the House has been two opportunities to vote for a bill that we were 
given no hand in writing. Is that the type of bipartisanship that the 
American people want and expect? I thought bipartisanship meant working 
together, having an open deliberative legislative process and combining 
ideas. That simply was not permitted by the liberal majority.
  If we really want to stimulate the economy, we should focus on what 
actually creates jobs--small businesses. Small businesses create 70 
percent of the new jobs in America. Unfortunately, this bill does 
virtually nothing to help small businesses.
  I have voted for and will continue to advocate for an alternative 
that would produce many more jobs for half the cost. The bill that I 
voted for lowers the 10 percent tax rate to 5 percent, and the 15 
percent tax rate to 10 percent. This would give all taxpaying Americans 
a tax cut. It leaves money in their pockets that they can use to meet 
their own family expenses. We provide small business tax relief, 
including a provision allowing small businesses to write off up to 
$250,000 in capital expenditures. We extend unemployment benefits 
through 2009 and we exempt these payments from income taxes. We also 
include other job-creating provisions and we do so without raising 
anyone's taxes. I have also cosponsored legislation that would reduce 
the 28 percent tax rate to 23 percent. This will cut taxes for 
individual and job-creating small businesses.
  Lower taxes, not higher borrowing, spending, and debt, will put our 
economy back on track. I urge my colleagues to vote for lower taxes and 
against higher spending and debt.

[[Page H1572]]

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). We are told that 
America is in the midst of the worst economic storm since the Great 
Depression. Millions of people are hurting across the United States and 
in my home state of New Jersey, New Jersey's unemployment rate has 
risen to 7.1 percent from 4.2 percent just a year ago. Our nation's 
economy is in recession, and we must respond with every tool in our 
toolbox to put Americans back to work and rebuild our struggling 
economy. Economists have predicted that the unemployment rate may 
exceed 12 percent this year.
  What to do? We could let the free market continue to spiral downward 
or we could pass a bill with a smaller price tag, ignoring the lessons 
learned from Congress's previous attempt at stimulating the economy 
through rebate sent out in spring of 2008, last year's so-called check 
in the mail. The time has come for a bold, national response. 
Economists, business leaders, financial experts, almost everyone says 
that the federal government--and only the federal government--can 
inject into the economy a stimulus of sufficient size to make up for 
the frozen, collapsing economy. The package we are considering today 
has the potential to create 3.5 million much needed new jobs in the 
short term.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is designed to help the 
United States climb out of the current recession through targeted, job-
creating spending, responsible investments in the nation's social 
safety net to help Americans weather the difficult months ahead, and 
tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. Importantly, this bill includes 
critical investments in research and development, which lay the ground 
work for innovation and sustainable, long-term economic growth. The 
political process to this point has been torturous. However, the 
President, the Speaker, and the Committee chairs have produced promptly 
what the President has called for and what the country needs. Agreed, 
not all parts of the bill are going to be equally stimulative. But we 
want a broad approach; we want our stimulative eggs in various baskets, 
This Act is huge and hugely important.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would help to put our 
economy on the right track by quickly creating up to 3.5 million new 
jobs for Americans suffering during this depression. Some of these 
jobs, more than 1.2 million, would be created in the construction 
industry through a strong investment in improving our nation's 
transportation and water infrastructure. The Act will inject $29 
billion to repair our nation's crumbling roads and bridges, including 
funding for ready-to-go road and bridge modernization projects in my 
home state of New Jersey. This investment would create 835,000 jobs in 
the next two years. Additionally, this bill would invest $16.4 billion 
in public transportation, helping transit agencies such as NJ Transit 
that are struggling to meet increased demand and $18 billion for clean 
water, environmental restoration, and flood control projects creating 
another 375,000 jobs.
  H.R. 1 would invest in additional projects that my Central New Jersey 
constituents refer to as ``green stimulus.'' These investments would 
create good American jobs that cannot be outsourced, while reducing our 
reliance on fossil fuels and protecting our environment. These jobs 
will be the kind of jobs that will be in demand for many years, once 
the economy gets going again and as we make the transition to a 
sustainable energy system; as we must and as we surely will. The 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would provide $30 billion to 
transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and 
production system so they can handle decentralized renewable energy 
sources. This legislation includes more than $23.2 billion in 
incentives to promote renewable energy, help low and middle income 
Americans weatherize their homes, and decrease energy consumption by 
the federal government. It will also provide $20 billion in tax 
incentives such as the renewable energy production tax credit, the 
advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, and the consumer energy-
efficiency tax credits.
  Responding to the nation's rising unemployment rate, this bill would 
devote $4 billion to job training programs and would extend 
unemployment benefits through December 31, 2009, increasing benefits by 
$25 per week for individuals looking for work.
  The current economic downturn has forced painful cuts in services. 
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would make sound 
investments in public education. This legislation would provide $13 
billion to help disadvantaged students reach high academic standards 
and $12 billion for special education. While the bill includes a $54 
billion state stabilization fund to prevent teacher layoffs and 
cutbacks in education, I regret that it no longer contains the $20 
billion provided in the House version to help states rebuild our 
nation's crumbling schools. Still, there is much here to cheer for our 
local school boards and the taxpayers who support the schools through 
our property taxes. These school bonds can be used for construction.
  Additionally, to ensure that families can send their children to 
college, this bill would increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500, to 
$5,350 and would help 4 million more students attend college with a new 
$2,500 college tuition tax credit for families.
  What pleases me most is the commitment in this legislation to 
science. I am deeply gratified that this bill reflects a profound 
commitment to renewing our nation's innovation infrastructure. Research 
not merely luxury to be undertaken only in times of economic 
prosperity. The truth is that scientific research is perhaps the most 
powerful economic engine, creating jobs in the short-term and building 
our economy for the long-term.
  All together, the recovery package includes nearly $23 billion to 
support scientific research and facilities, including $3 billion for 
the National Science Foundation, $2 billion for the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science, and $10 billion for the National Institutes 
of Health. There is no doubt that these funds will create jobs. Lab 
technicians will be hired to carry out projects that previously went 
unfunded. Electricians will be put to work wiring new laboratory work. 
And construction workers will begin refurbishing our neglected 
laboratories and building the facilities that will transform science 
for the twenty-first century.
  Of course, the ideal project is one that keeps on giving, and that is 
exactly what scientific research does. The innovation and discoveries 
that come from research form the roots from which our economy grows and 
prospers. For too long, we have underinvested in science, and we will 
never know the resulting costs to our prosperity. But we know that 
science will be the foundation of our nation's future economic 
vitality. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``We will 
restore science to its rightful place.'' That place is at the very 
heart of our nation's progress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act acknowledges this fact and provides an important first step toward 
the sustained investment that will prevent the need for future recovery 
packages.
  As American workers lose their jobs, more and more face losing their 
health insurance coverage as well. Job losses have caused Medicaid and 
SCHIP rolls rise by 1.0 million, further straining state budgets 
already stretched thin due to lower tax revenues. This bill would 
increase temporarily the federal government's contribution to Medicaid, 
giving New Jersey an additional $2 billion. For workers able to 
continue their health coverage through COBRA, the bill would subsidize 
COBRA premiums by 65 percent for nine months. This two-prong approach 
will provide health care for millions of newly unemployed workers and 
their families.
  In addition to helping families maintain their health insurance 
coverage, this bill seeks to improve health care quality and its value. 
This bill would promote Health Information Technology systems, which 
could help reduce medical errors while lowering administrative costs by 
accelerating their adoption and usage among doctors and hospitals. This 
bill provides additional funding for prevention, which improves health 
at a good value by treating problems at the earliest stage before they 
become costly health care crises. Finally, this bill includes $1.1 
billion for medical research to improve the value of health care 
spending by identifying the most effective treatments for given health 
conditions,
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would address the 
struggling economy by putting money back in the pockets of American 
families, workers, students and businesses through $276.5 billion worth 
of tax cuts. Ninety-five percent of working Americans would receive a 
tax cut through a refundable tax credit of up to $400 per worker that 
will be quickly distributed by reducing tax withholding from workers' 
paychecks. It would prevent 26 million Americans from getting hit by 
the Alternative Minimum Tax and lower the taxes of more than 16 million 
families by increasing the child tax credit and expanding the earned 
income tax credit.
  This bill includes a number of provisions that would help businesses 
create new jobs in this difficult economy. It would allow businesses to 
improve cash flow by allowing businesses to write off 90 percent of 
losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against taxes assessed over the 
previous five years. In addition, it would help businesses expand by 
extending the increased bonus depreciation for businesses making 
investments in new plants and equipment in 2009. Finally, this 
legislation would double the amount of money businesses can deduct on 
their taxes for capital investments and new equipment.
  Through this comprehensive approach, we can begin to put the American 
economy back on the right track. We must approve the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need to get the people 
of our country back

[[Page H1573]]

to work. Americans are hurting and they are looking to Washington for 
leadership.
  Borrowing and spending got us into this problem, and more borrowing 
and spending will not solve it. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes 
across-the-board, allowing families and small businesses to decide how 
to spend their money, instead of government. President Carter used this 
spending approach, and it didn't work.
  This bill will cost every American household at least $7,000. Some 
constituents have told me, ``I might get a thousand dollars back.'' 
However, creating $7,000 in debt for $1,000 now is a bad deal at best.
  This is twice as big as the New Deal, and that was over ten years. 
This is one bill. Every dollar in this bill is borrowed, adding more 
than a trillion dollars to our national debt at a time when we are 
already overloaded with the financial bailout and our long-term Social 
Security and Medicare obligations. This spending will ultimately be 
paid by our children and grandchildren, and that is generational theft.
  I desperately wanted to support a bipartisan bill that will help put 
Americans back to work. But this bill has turned into a grab-bag that 
will not stimulate anything but government. There's $2 billion in this 
bill for a wasteful pro-foreclosure program, rewarding partisan action 
groups like ACORN. In the meantime, my governor, Bob Riley, told me 
yesterday that health and education programs in small states like 
Alabama are being shortchanged by billions. The American people deserve 
better.
  The federal government has never been able to borrow and spend our 
way to prosperity. The strength of our country is the innovation and 
ingenuity of our people--not our government. When we put capital in 
their hands, they put it to use, supporting their families, building 
their businesses, and creating jobs. That is what has always kept our 
economy going through good times and bad. And I am confident we will be 
seeing good times again--most likely before much of this trillion 
dollar bill is actually spent.
  The decisions we make today have long-term consequences. Today we are 
being rushed to make a trillion-dollar decision that will affect every 
American taxpayer for decades.
  As a member of the Republican Economic Working Group, led by Whip 
Cantor, we have offered a better plan to help struggling Americans 
immediately. Our alternative would create twice as many jobs at half 
the cost through across-the-board tax relief for working American 
families and small businesses.
  We must remember that government has no money of its o to give away. 
It all comes from the taxpayer.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise with today with great 
expectations and hope for a brighter economic future.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act also known as the ``Economic Stimulus.'' I want to especially thank 
our House and Senate conferees for coming together on one of the most 
important pieces of economic legislation of our time; Congressman Obey, 
Congressman Rangel, Congressman Waxman, Congressman Lewis, Congressman 
Camp, Senator Reid, Senator Inouye, Senator Baucus, Senator Cochran, 
and Senator Grassley.


                              INTRODUCTION

  Critical times call for critical measures. Over the last 13 months, 
our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs--and continuing job 
losses in the next few months are predicted. The national unemployment 
rate is at 7.6 percent, with the great state of Texas seeing an 
unemployment rate of 6.0 percent and my district of Houston fairing 
only slightly better at approximately 6 percent. Right now, those 
unemployed, which represent over 1 million Texans, await with bated 
breath to see our pledge to enact change. That change is in the form of 
this stimulus measure.
  ``The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved'' as 
is stated in Jeremiah in the Bible. The summer has indeed ended. This 
stimulus provides a piece of America's salvation. Spring is on the 
horizon and today we will have a stimulus!
  Our schoolhouses are badly in need of repair and modernization in 
order for our students to participate in, and be competitive in the 
global marketplace. Indeed in Texas the number of persons who have 
obtained graduate education trails the national average by one whole 
percentage point. It is critical that we encourage our students to 
attend graduate programs in important subjects such as mathematics, 
engineering, law, medicine, the building trades, and foreign languages.
  The education provisions in this legislation are all about preparing 
our nation's children for the future. Our students in Houston are not 
competing with just students in Abilene, San Antonio, Houston and Grand 
Prairie; the competition is global which is why H.R. 1 must not be 
delayed!
  Our healthcare system needs to be upgraded to allow for more 
Americans to receive coverage without going bankrupt. Our workforce 
needs to be retooled to keep up with innovative and new technologies; 
and our transportation systems need to be expanded. These are only a 
fraction of the many needs our nation is facing today.
  I am proud to say that Congress heard the call of not only Main 
Street, but of mothers, and children, the working poor, the aged, and 
the sick. We heard your cry for help and we have done our best to 
answer that call.
  This comprehensive legislation is designed to save and create jobs, 
get our economy moving again, and transform it for long-term growth and 
stability. The landmark legislation is the first dramatic new 
investment in the future since the creation of the interstate highway 
system a half century ago. It will spend nearly $800 billion and would 
provide billions in job creation and stimulus in city of Houston, the 
State of Texas, and the entire country.


                               HEALTHCARE

  This legislation includes a number of provisions that will help aid 
in the nation's economic recovery, provide badly needed protections for 
people losing health coverage when they lose employment, and provide 
temporary assistance to states to preserve critical Medicaid coverage 
for low income families.
  Specifically, in Texas Medicaid recipients will receive $5 million in 
assistance. Food Stamp Assistance in Texas will increase by $1,812 for 
each participant under the stimulus.
  Other benefits include:
  Premium Subsidies for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed 
Workers. To help people maintain coverage, the bill provides a 65 
percent subsidy for COBRA continuation premiums for up to 9 months for 
workers and their families who have been involuntarily terminated. The 
Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision would help 7 
million people maintain their health insurance by providing a vital 
bridge for workers who have been forced out of their jobs in this 
recession. (Estimated cost $24.7 billion.)
  Medicare Payments for Teaching Hospitals. The bill blocks a FY09 
Medicare payment reduction to teaching hospitals related to capital 
payments for indirect medical education (IME). (Estimated cost $191 
million.)
  Medicare Payments to Hospice. The bill blocks FY09 Medicare payment 
cut to Hospice providers related to a wage index payment add-on. 
(Estimated cost $134 million.)
  Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Payments to Long Term Care Hospitals. 
The bill makes technical corrections related to Medicare payments for 
long-term care hospitals. (Estimated cost $13 million.)
  Temporary Federal Medical Assistance Percentage Increase. The bill 
increases FMAP funding for a 27-month period with an across-the-board 
increase to all states of 6.2 percent. (Estimated cost $86.6 billion.)
  Temporary Increase in Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments. 
(Estimated cost $460 million.)
  Extension of Moratoria on Medicaid Regulations. The bill extends 
moratoria on Medicaid regulations for targeted case management, 
provider taxes, and school-based administration and transportation 
services through June 30, 2009. (Estimated cost $105 million.)
  Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA). The bill extends 
TMA to December 31, 2010. (Estimated cost $1.3 billion.)
  Extension of the Qualified Individual Program. The bill extends the 
QIP, which assists certain low-income individuals with Medicare Part B 
premiums, through December 31, 2010. (Estimated cost $550 million.)
  Protections for American Indian Health Care. (Estimated cost $134 
million.)
  Prompt Payment Requirements for Nursing Facilities and Hospitals. The 
temporarily provides Medicaid prompt pay requirements to nursing 
facilities and hospitals. (Estimated cost $680 million.)
  Promoting the adoption and use of health information technology. This 
bill promotes the use of health information technology (health IT), 
such as electronic health records, to protect identifiable health 
information from misuse and abuse as the health care sector increases 
use of health IT. (Estimated savings to the government more than $12 
billion.)
  $1 billion for prevention and wellness programs to fight preventable 
diseases and conditions with evidence-based strategies.
  $10 billion to conduct biomedical research in areas such as cancer, 
Alzheimer's, heart disease and stem cells, and to improve NIH 
facilities.
  $1.1 billion to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH 
and the HHS Office of the Secretary to evaluate the relative 
effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.


                               EDUCATION

  There are several key investments to education at the early 
childhood/Head Start, K-12, and higher education levels. On February 2, 
2009, I met with eleven school superintendents and university 
presidents in my district of Houston, Texas. I convened this meeting to 
better understand the needs of the students, their families, and the 
schools administrators. Collectively, they arrived at five distinct 
priorities: maintaining and increasing Pell Grant

[[Page H1574]]

monies in order to keep access to higher education affordable; 
retention of funding for school construction, modernization, and 
repair; retention of formula funding on school construction; retention 
of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund; and no decrease in the amount 
of funding for Head Start and Early Childhood.
  My school superintendents and administrators were concerned about 
Section 1413 in the Senate amendment which granted the Secretary of 
Education the authority to waive the maintenance of effort and 
``supplement, not supplant'' requirements placed on Title I money. 
Since the purpose of Title I is to provide additional financial 
assistance to states and school districts to meet the needs of 
educating economically disadvantaged children, allowing the waiver of 
these requirements would have undermined the fundamental purpose of 
this funding.
  In promoting this economic stimulus, President Obama indicated that 
the government's investments must not only create jobs in the short-
term but must spur economic growth and competitiveness in the long-
term. Investments in education can accomplish both ends. In fiscal year 
2008, states spent over $424 billion on elementary, secondary, and 
higher education. Elementary, secondary, and higher education represent 
nearly 40 percent of total state spending and comprise the first, 
second, or third largest spending categories for almost all states. 
Federal investment in education is essential to creating a new and 
retooled workforce.
  That is why I am pleased to see a heavy investment in education and 
workforce training including:
  $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including 
$39.5 billion to local school districts using existing funding 
formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing 
layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states 
as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and 
$8.8 billion to states for high priority needs such as public safety 
and other critical services, which may include education and for 
modernization, renovation and repairs of public school facilities and 
institutions of higher education facilities.
  $13 billion for Title 1 to help close the achievement gap and enable 
disadvantaged students to reach their potential.
  $12.2 billion for Special Education/IDEA to improve educational 
outcomes for disabled children. This level of funding will increase the 
Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.
  $15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500. This aid 
will help 7 million students pursue postsecondary education.
  $3.95 billion for job training including State formula grants for 
adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to 
create up to 1 million summer jobs for youth).


                             jobs/workforce

  As we dive more deeply into a hard hit recession, it is important 
that this body take aggressive action, along with President Obama, to 
help right the ship. Our gross domestic product, (GDP) increased the 
United States budget deficit by 1 percent upon passage of the first 
stimulus measure in October. That is an astounding number when put into 
context. In a healthy year , the U.S. economy grows by 3 percent. 
Nothing resonates as loudly with the American people as being gainfully 
employed.
  The unemployment rate in Texas is 6.0 percent. The National average 
is at 7.6 percent. The agreement does much in the way of helping 
Americans put food on their tables while reeling from the depressed 
economy and struggling to look for jobs.
  Importantly, the agreement would continue to provide up to 33 weeks 
of extended unemployment benefits through the end of the year, as well 
as temporarily increase the amount of both regular and extended 
unemployment benefits by $25 a week. In addition, the legislation would 
provide up to a total of $7 billion to States modernizing their 
unemployment programs to provide improved coverage for low-wage, part-
time and other workers. The measure would provide temporary emergency 
funds for States with rising caseloads in their Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families program, and temporarily restore child support 
funding reduced in 2006. Finally, this section of the bill would 
provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of Social Security, 
Supplemental Security Income, Railroad Retirement benefits, VA 
disability and pension benefits, as well as to certain local, State and 
Federal government retirees.


             transportation and infrastructure improvements

  The United States is facing its deepest recession and economic crisis 
since the Great Depression. Consequently, the goal of this legislation 
is to strengthen the economy and invest in America's future.
  The legislation is intended to create and save jobs. Transportation 
and infrastructure development play a pivotal role in job creation.
  The bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grant 
programs for community and economic development projects including 
housing and services for those hit hard by tough economic times.
  I am pleased that the Compromise Agreement that we are debating today 
retains significant amounts of funding for transportation. 
Specifically, it contains $27.5 billion for highway investments; $8.4 
billion for investments in public transportation and $9.3 billion for 
investments in rail transportation, including Intercity Rail.
  Indeed, this is good news for Houston. In the previous version of the 
bill, there was language that the Federal Transit Authority would give 
priority to transportation projects that were ready to go, meaning that 
they would be able to begin construction within 90 days of enactment or 
those projects would lose the money allowed under the stimulus.
  I have been meeting with METRO since December 2008, and it has 
indicated that it can complete construction of the Northeast and South 
RAIL lines. METRO has indicated that it only requires $183 million to 
complete this rail line. I have worked to help METRO complete its rail 
line for over 20 years.
  Houstonians need this infrastructure to relieve congestion and 
provide adequate public transportation, and an investment means jobs 
for our constituents through the transportation sector in our 
communities. Creating this critical infrastructure in Houston will 
allow Houstonians to work and will provide a tremendous boost to 
community development and mobility.
  I have engaged Chairman Oberstar and his staff on the funds that 
might be made available to METRO. I was pleased that the Chairman 
indicated that METRO would be able to receive the funds it needs under 
this stimulus to complete its New Start transit project in Houston, 
Texas. Such funding is critical for the regional mobility of the 
citizens of the vast communities in and around the 18th Congressional 
District of Texas.
  Cities around the country are struggling with a backlog of 
transportation projects and have difficulty in securing federal, state, 
and local resources in light of the struggling economy. At the same 
time, we are facing growing unemployment, particularly in our cities.
  Houston has $1.5 billion in transit projects that could be under 
contract within 90 days of enactment of the legislation. Not only do we 
need this infrastructure to relieve congestion and provide adequate 
public transportation, but an investment in Houston's New Start Transit 
Project means jobs for our constituents through the transportation 
sector in our communities and around the nation.
  Other salient provisions of the bill include the following:
  Modernize Roads, Bridges, Transit and Waterways: To build a 21st 
century economy, we must create jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and 
bridges, modernizing public buildings, and putting people to work 
cleaning up our air, water and land.

     Prioritizing Clean Water/Flood Control/Environmental 
       Restoration

  Provides $18 billion for clean water, flood control, and 
environmental restoration investments, which will create more than 
375,000 jobs.
  Experts note that $16 billion in water projects could be quickly 
obligated.

     Modernizing Public Infrastructure, Including To Achieve Major 
       Energy Cost Savings

  Provides billions to modernize federal and other public 
infrastructure with investments that lead to long-term energy cost 
savings, including about $5 billion to make improvements in DOD 
facilities, including housing for our troops and about $4.5 billion to 
make federal office buildings more energy-efficient in order to achieve 
long-term savings for taxpayers.


                      infrastructural improvements

     Modernizing Roads and Bridges

  Provides $29 billion for modernizing roads and bridges, which will 
create 835,000 jobs. This investment creates jobs in the short term 
while saving commuters time and money in the long term.
  Requires states to obligate at least half of the highway/bridge 
funding within 120 days.
  States have over 6,100 projects totaling over $64 billion that could 
be under contract within 180 days.

     Improving Public Transit and Rail

  Provides $8.4 billion for investments in transit and $8 billion for 
investment in high-speed rail. These investments will reduce traffic 
congestion and our dependence on foreign oil.
  Includes funds for new construction of commuter and light rail, 
modernizing existing transit systems, and purchasing buses and 
equipment to needed to increase public transportation and improve 
intermodal and transit facilities.
  States have 787 ready-to-go transit projects totaling about $16 
billion.

[[Page H1575]]

                             public housing

  Provides a total of $6.3 billion for increasing energy efficiency in 
federally-supported housing programs.
  Specifically, establishes a new program to upgrade HUD-sponsored low-
income housing (elderly, disabled, and Section 8) to increase energy 
efficiency, including new insulation, windows, and frames.
  Also invests in energy efficiency upgrades in public housing, 
including new windows, furnaces, and insulation to improve living 
conditions for residents and lower the cost of operating these 
facilities.


                         energy and environment

     Tax Incentives to Spur Energy Savings and Green Jobs

  Provides $20 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy and 
energy efficiency over the next 10 years.
  Includes a three-year extension of the production tax credit (PTC) 
for electricity derived from wind (through 2012) and for electricity 
derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, waste-to-
energy, and marine facilities (through 2013).
  Provides grants of up to 30 percent of the cost of building a new 
renewable energy facility to address current renewable energy credit 
market concerns.
  Promotes energy-efficient investments in homes by extending and 
expanding tax credits through 2010 for purchases such as new furnaces, 
energy-efficient windows and doors, or insulation.
  Provides a tax credit for families that purchase plug-in hybrid 
vehicles of up to $7,500 to spur the next generation of American cars.
  Includes clean renewable energy bonds for State and local 
governments.
  Establishes a new manufacturing investment tax credit for investment 
in advanced energy facilities, such as facilities that manufacture 
components for the production of renewable energy, advanced battery 
technology, and other innovative next-generation green technologies.


                         science and technology

  Restore science and innovation as the keys to new American-made 
technology, preventing and treating disease, and tackling urgent 
national challenges like climate change and dependence on foreign oil. 
The bill provides $600 million to NASA, including 4400 million to put 
more scientists to work doing climate change research including Earth 
science research recommended by the National Academies, satellite 
sensors that measure solar radiation critical to understanding climate 
change, and thermal infrared sensors necessary for water management. 
The bill also includes $150 million for research and development to 
improve air traffic control and $50 million to repair NASA centers 
damaged by hurricanes and floods in the last year.


                               tax relief

  The economic stimulus legislation will help give $13 million more 
children access to the child tax credit. The use of this credit will 
likely provide the most immediate stimulus which is the ultimate goal 
of this package. Trends show that low-to-moderate income families are 
more likely to spend the stimulus monies and accelerate the much-needed 
rebound in our economy.
  The city of Houston has over 73,000 families below the federal 
poverty level and a per capita income that is $1,500 dollars below the 
federal level. The extra boost that the child tax credit provides is in 
many cases critical to lower income families in my district. Any 
legislation that would help over 100,000 children in Texas has got to 
be labeled a winner. Based on estimates from the center on budget and 
policy priorities, there is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in poverty 
levels.


               other provisions for workers and families

  The earned income tax credit provides a tax incentive for families to 
continue working hard. Because it is refundable, it helps the lower 
bracket taxpayer, often the ones most in need. The credit has also been 
modified to be more ``family-friendly.''
  The dreaded marriage-penalty has been modified substantially, thereby 
acknowledging the institution of marriage as opposed to making it a 
fiscal encumbrance.


                  transparency and oversight of funds

  The compromise bill beforeus today provides unprecedented oversight, 
accountability, and transparency to ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
invested effectively, efficiently, and as quickly as possible to infuse 
the economy with the strongest stimulus.
  Funds are distributed through existing formulas and numerous 
provisions provide for expedited relief so that much needed funds are 
invested as quickly as possible into the economy.
  The Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General are 
provided with additional funding for auditing and investigating 
recovery spending. Moreover, a new Recovery Act Accountability and 
Transparency Board will coordinate and conduct oversight of recovery 
spending and provide early warning signs of problems.


                       whistleblower protections

  The act retains significant whistleblower protections. This is 
something that I care a tremendous amount about and is something that I 
actively fought to ensure that the language protecting whistleblowers 
was retained.
  As chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and 
Infrastructure Protection, I urged the conferees to retain the 
whistleblower language in the bill. This language was included in the 
bill to encourage government and contract workers to come forward in 
the face of wrongdoing, fraud and corruption.
  Specifically, the language in H.R. 1 provides: ``. . . an employee of 
any non-federal employee receiving funds made available in this Act may 
not be discharged, demoted or otherwise discriminated against as a 
reprisal for disclosing to the Board, an inspector general, the 
Comptroller General, a member of Congress, or a federal agency head, or 
their representatives, information that the employee reasonably 
believes is evidence of . . . a substantial and specific danger to 
public health and safety . . .''
  This language is important because public safety is at stake and the 
American people need to be reassured that they will be safe and secure 
while traveling. The function of the whistleblower is in many respects 
similar to that of a canary in a coal mine. They are there to warn of 
us of impending dangers.
  An historic level of transparency, oversight and accountability will 
help guarantee taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and ensure that 
Americans can see the results of their investment. No wasteful spending 
will be tolerated in this.
  In many cases, funds are distributed to existing initiatives with 
proven track records and with tough accountability measures already in 
place.
  How funds are spent, all announcements of contract and grant 
competitions and awards, and formula grant allocations must be posted 
on a special website created by the President. It must also include the 
names of agency personnel to contact with concerns about infrastructure 
projects.
  Public notice of funding must include a description of the investment 
funded, the purpose, the total cost, and why recovery dollars should be 
used. Governors, mayors, or others making funding decisions must 
personally certify that the investment has been fully vetted and is an 
appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. This information will also be 
placed on the internet.
  The Council of Economic Advisors must report quarterly on the results 
for the American economy.
  A Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board will be created 
to review management of recovery dollars and provide early warning of 
problems. The board is made up largely of Inspectors General.
  The Government Accountability Office and the Inspectors General are 
provided additional funding and access for special review of recovery 
funding.


                             IN CONCLUSION

  As Thomas Wolfe once wrote in his book You Can't Go Home Again, ``We 
have been lost during the past here in America, but I believe that we 
shall be found.'' I believe this bill allows America to return to its 
rightful place and put our economy back on track.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1, ``The American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' and get this country moving 
again. I firmly believe that this bill creates jobs, stimulates the 
economy, and provides the oil, grease, and machinery to get the 
economic engine in this great country, operating and churning again. I 
have faith in our economic system and our country. I know that a 
brighter day is upon the horizon. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill and look forward to real change and direction in this country.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the stimulus bill we're voting on 
today is supposed to stimulate business and create jobs. However, one 
provision of the bill will do just the opposite. Title II of the 
Conference Report on H.R. 1, under the Office of Justice Programs, 
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, provides $2 billion in 
Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG). This funding is frequently used 
by local government agencies to fund pretrial release for criminal 
defendants. The problem is that it's at taxpayer expense.
  When a defendant is given a pre-trial release bond or personal 
recognizance bond, he is released on his own recognizance. For example, 
a bond may be set at $10,000, and the defendant is released on his 
promise to return based on his ``word'' alone. If the defendant does 
not return, the sheriff has to go find him. The taxpayers are usually 
out $10,000 because judgments are seldom obtained from defendants for 
failure to appear.
  On the other hand, when a surety bond is used, the court enters into 
a contractual agreement with a bonding company. The defendant also 
makes an agreement with the bonding company, and pays the company 10

[[Page H1576]]

percent. Then the defendant is released with the understanding that the 
bonding company will pay the court $10,000 if the defendant does not 
show up. Plus the bonding company is obligated to go and look for the 
defendant if the defendant does not appear in court. This form of free 
enterprise takes taxpayers off the financial hook.
  Mr. Speaker, by allowing taxpayer money to go to pretrial release, 
the free enterprise system is greatly hindered. Instead of providing 
jobs, jobs are taken away from the private sector--namely the bonding 
and insurance community.
  As a former judge, I found that defendants released on pretrial bonds 
seldom reappeared in court. With surety bonds, however, they were much 
more likely to show up because they had a vested financial interest in 
appearing. Plus, the bondsman looks for defendants who fail to appear.
  During my 22 years as a criminal court judge, I saw how if left 
alone, the free enterprise system guarantees the best result. By 
allowing private enterprise to take part in the process, people are 
held accountable, and taxpayers are protected.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called ``stimulus'' bill will not stimulate the 
economy with jobs. It will only further stifle the free enterprise 
system, take jobs, and will leave taxpayers with the bill. This is just 
one of many examples of flaws in this bill.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, 8 years of the Bush 
Administration's failed policies have left our economy in a deep and 
cavernous hole. The climb out will be steep. With the strength and 
courage of President Obama, this Congress and the American people it 
will be steady. Today we are voting on one bold and historic step out 
of this hole. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act offers the 
short term help and long term solutions that this country needs. It 
invests quickly in our economy to create or save at least 3.5 million 
jobs nationally--41,000 in my home state of Connecticut, and provide 
tax cuts for the middle class. And, it puts us on a path towards 
economic strength and stability for the future with bold reforms and 
new priorities.
  This legislation makes a critical investment in our country's 
greatest resource: our children. We are helping local school districts 
in the short-term with over $53 billion in aid, to keep our teachers in 
the classroom. We are also making a down-payment on our country's 
future. With this legislation, we are helping to build the workforce of 
the future with funding for Head Start programs and Pell Grants, and 
modernizing our schools to give our students the tools they need to 
succeed.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes the important 
role our infrastructure will play in our economic recovery. Our roads 
and bridges are in serious need of repair and our public transportation 
desperately needs modernization. The funding provided in this 
legislation for infrastructure will create good paying jobs--many 
within the next few months. It also invests in the transportation of 
tomorrow with over $8 billion in funding for high speed rail--taking 
cars off the road, and improving our environment.
  With this legislation we will begin to make the tough choices to 
create a new American energy industry that will create jobs now and 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil. This investment will help 
families reduce their energy bills and create ``green jobs'' while 
advancing American ingenuity and innovation.
  Our work will not end when this bill is signed into law. As President 
Obama has said, it will take time and a lot of hard work to get this 
economy moving. This President, this Congress and the American people 
have the courage and fortitude to rebuild and recover. Today we begin 
that journey.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Conference Report.
  Two weeks ago, I stood on the House floor and listed the top ten 
reasons to support this bill. Here we are today and the only thing that 
has changed is that more Americans are losing their jobs, homes and 
healthcare. We have to stop the economy from continuing to spiral out 
of control before it is too late.
  Our country is facing the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression--we lost 2.6 million jobs last year--the largest job loss 
since 1945. In Illinois, the unemployment rate increased by 40 percent 
in one year. We are seeing job losses at iconic American companies like 
Kodak and Ford, and at major Illinois companies like Caterpillar.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help get our economy 
back on track and put America back to work. The bill will create 3.5 
million jobs, cut taxes for working families, rebuild our 
infrastructure, prevent state and local cuts to crucial services and 
programs, and invest in the long-term health of our economy.
  Under this bill, Illinois will receive billions of dollars and it is 
estimated that this bill would save or create over 148,000 jobs in 
Illinois. This bill isn't a hand out to Wall Street fat cats and 
corporate CEOs; this is a hand up for the American people. The bill 
helps working families in Illinois, and across the country, by 
providing income tax credits, making college and health insurance more 
affordable, giving first-time homebuyers a tax credit and providing 
assistance to low-income families to make their homes more energy 
efficient and lower their energy costs.
  As President Obama has said, this bill is not perfect, but it 
provides immediate and targeted relief to American families and will 
help lead our country out of the greatest economic crisis we have faced 
since the Great Depression. American families are depending on us to 
act--not tomorrow, not next week--but today.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  When we return home for our district work period, we do not have to 
look far to see the impact this recession has had--workers are being 
laid off, consumer confidence is down, and people are spending less 
because they have less to spend. Despite my opposition, we voted last 
year to give $750 billion to Wall Street to try to slow this recession; 
that did not work. I supported the House version of the American 
Recovery and Investment Act, and I am supporting the Conference Report 
because it is time we invest in Main Street, not just Wall Street.
  The White House Council of Economic Advisers, along with the 
Departments of Labor and Commerce have estimated this bill will create 
nearly 270,000 jobs in my home state of Texas--more than in any other 
state besides California--and 7,400 of those jobs will be in our 29th 
Congressional District.
  Unlike the $750 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, this isn't 
just a bill for white collar workers--the H.R. 1 is a bill for 
teachers, construction workers, medical professionals, electrical 
workers and engineers, police and firefighters, as well as those who 
may not be working because of the dire state of our economy. This bill 
will create and save jobs by reinvesting in roads, highways, public 
transportation, schools, education, the electrical grid, health 
technology and services, communications infrastructure, and numerous 
other areas of our economy. For the last eight years, too many of these 
areas have been neglected. Today, we have the opportunity to invest in 
these areas to stimulate the economy and create jobs to get our economy 
started back in the right direction.
  The bedrock of America's competitiveness is a well-educated and 
skilled workforce and we must prepare our students for our globalized 
economy. This bill takes key steps towards ensuring that we do just 
that. Starting with our youngest generation, H.R. 1 provides $2.1 
billion for Head Start and Early Head Start to allow an additional 
124,000 children to participate in these programs.
  Harris County, where our district lies, serves a combined total of 
6,649 Head Start children per year through four direct Head Start 
grantees. In fact, Houston in 2003 served the lowest percentage of 
eligible children compared to other cities in Texas.
  Harris County is the third most populous county in the nation and in 
review of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Biennial 
Reports to Congress on Head Start, Los Angeles County served 29,703 
eligible children, Cook County served 20,406 children, and the New York 
boroughs served 24,260. Funding Head Start grantees is based on the 
number of children under the age of 5 years whose family income is 
below the federal poverty line.
  According to U.S. Census figures for 2005, not only is the poverty 
rate for Harris County's population under age 5 higher than the 
national average in 2005 of 21 percent, but Harris County represented 
the highest percentage of children below the poverty line for all above 
listed counties. The poverty rates for 2005 are: Los Angeles County 
23.8 percent, Cook County 22.5 percent, NYC boroughs 27.3 percent and 
Harris County 28.7 percent. I look forward to working with the 
Department of Health and Human Services to address this disparity in 
funding now that new monies will be available to serve more eligible 
children.
  Additionally, this bill will provide much-needed investments in our 
elementary and secondary schools including $13 billion for Title I 
grants to help disadvantaged kids reach high academic standards and 
$39.5 billion to local school districts that can be used for preventing 
teacher cutbacks and layoffs and make key investments in things like 
modernizing our schools.
  Finally, this bill will invest in preparing our younger generations 
for our globalized economy by providing $15.6 billion to increase the 
maximum Pell Grant by $500. By doing this, we will help seven million 
students pursue postsecondary education and take the steps they need to 
get the certification or degree necessary to pursue and keep a job in 
these difficult times. Additionally, H.R. 1 provides students with a 
new ``American Opportunity'' tax credit of up to $2,500 of the cost of 
tuition

[[Page H1577]]

and related expenses paid during the taxable year. Combined with the 
increase in the Pell Grant, this tax credit will give our lower and 
middle income students additional peace of mind in taking on the 
financial costs of pursuing a college degree or certificate.
  Another way to build a 21st century economy is to engage contractors 
across the nation to create jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and 
bridges and building transit and rail lines. The American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act will do this by providing funds to modernize our roads 
and bridges and invest in transit and rail projects to reduce traffic 
congestion and gas consumption. I strongly supported the inclusion of 
these funds as this investment would create or sustain more than 2.4 
million jobs and $439 billion of economic activity.
  I am pleased to see that H.R. 1 provides for $1.5 billion in 
supplemental discretionary grants that will be awarded to state or 
local governments or transit agencies on a competitive basis for 
projects that will have a significant impact on the country, 
metropolitan area, or region. This bill reads that this money includes 
in investing in projects already participating in New Starts or those 
ready for entry into revenue service. While I would like to have seen a 
lot more money dedicated to these type projects, I am glad that transit 
agencies will be able to compete for entry into revenue service.
  We have two critical transit projects in the greater Houston area, 
the North and Southeast light rail corridors. Both projects are near 
completion of the New Starts process in the Federal Transit 
Administration. While the final details on the projects are being 
addressed to prepare the projects for entry into Final Design and for 
Full Funding Grant Agreements, the projects are ready to begin 
construction in less than 90 days, have environmental clearances, and 
have received favorable cost effectiveness ratings. By investing in 
these two projects, work can begin quickly, creating thousands of jobs 
in a region that suffers not only from the current economic conditions 
but also from the lasting effects of Hurricane Ike. I look forward to 
working with the Department of Transportation to see that these two 
projects receive the attention they deserve.
  I am also pleased H.R. 1 includes valuable health related provisions 
including COBRA subsidies, health IT funding, an FMAP increase, 
temporary DSH allotments, a temporary extension of transitional Medical 
Assistance, and funding for community health centers.
  However, the final version of the bill does not include the temporary 
option for states to provide Medicaid coverage to unemployed or 
uninsured individuals. Instead, H.R. 1 relies on COBRA subsidies to 
provide health insurance coverage to the unemployed. The House passed 
version of H.R. 1 gave states the option to provide Medicaid coverage 
to the unemployed or uninsured and this provision should be in the 
final version of the bill.
  In our district, most individuals work low wage jobs that often do 
not provide health insurance and therefore they are not eligible for 
COBRA coverage. This leaves a large portion of individuals without 
health insurance or access to Medicaid. More and more lower wage 
individuals, who never had health insurance, are losing their jobs. 
They are delaying their health care because they cannot afford to go to 
the doctor and often end up in the emergency room with more costly 
medical problems because they delay medical care. It makes sense to 
give states the option to extend Medicaid coverage to these individuals 
because it saves money in the long run and provides these individuals 
with health care coverage.
  The legislation also makes critical improvements to the smart grid 
provisions established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 by eliminating the cap on the allowable number of smart grid 
demonstration projects and increasing the grant funding available for 
these efforts. Houston is a leader in moving toward smart grid 
solutions. Center Point Energy, a leading energy delivery company in 
Texas, will invest over $600 million in automatic metering systems, or 
AMS, over the next five years to support smart grid infrastructure. AMS 
technology is the first step in moving towards an automatic grid which 
will allow consumers to manage and monitor the electric use in real-
time, reduce energy consumption, and improve grid reliability.
  I am also pleased with the changes to the Weatherization Assistance 
Program which will help low-income families make their homes more 
energy efficient. This will decrease the amount of fossil fuels needed 
to heat and cool homes, reduce home energy bills and create jobs in the 
home weatherization industry: a win-win for everyone.
  It creates a temporary $6 billion Department of Energy loan guarantee 
program for renewable energy and electric transmission projects, up to 
$500 million of which can be used for the development of leading edge 
biofuels, including biodiesel.
  I applaud the inclusion of $4.6 billion in funding for the Army Corps 
of Engineers, although the Corps needs much more funding to address its 
backlog of critical projects. While the funding is not distributed to 
specific projects, it is my hope the Corps will fund worthy projects by 
the Port of Houston and the Harris County Flood Control District. I 
also support the $1.2 billion for EPA's nationwide environmental 
cleanup programs, including Superfund, which I hope can be utilized to 
clean up the San Jacinto River Waste Pits.
  Mr. Speaker, our economy is crumbling, workers are being laid off, 
people are losing their health insurance, and families are finding it 
harder and harder to make ends meet. This legislation will start us 
back on the right track by looking out for those who have been most 
affected, and by broadly investing is multiple sectors of our economy. 
We cannot stand by and do nothing, and for those reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report to the economic stimulus legislation.
  I understand that Americans are hurting. Many have lost their jobs, 
are unable to pay their mortgage, don't have health insurance and are 
struggling to make ends meet. Small businesses have especially felt the 
brunt of the recession.
  Congress needs to come together with the president to restore 
confidence in the economy and create a climate conducive to job growth. 
But instead of a narrowly focused effort to stimulate the economy 
through targeted programs to put more money in the hands of taxpayers 
and create jobs, this massive spending bill--the largest in our 
Nation's history--creates new programs and bolsters others, many of 
which have nothing to do with economic recovery. I don't question the 
urgency of congressional action to stimulate the economy, but I do 
question the priorities in this package and its price tag.
  I have never been more concerned about the future of our country. The 
unprecedented amount of borrowing and spending in this package will 
place a tremendous burden of debt on present and future generations. 
This economic stimulus package was not only an opportunity to look at 
short-term solutions to help jump-start the economy and assist 
struggling taxpayers and homeowners, but also a historic opportunity 
for Congress to address the long-term financial plan for our country.
  I have been speaking out for several years about getting mandatory 
spending under control. Congressman Jim Cooper and I have authored 
bipartisan legislation, which I first introduced in 2006, to set up a 
national commission to review our nation's long-term economy, including 
entitlement spending, discretionary spending and tax policy, and 
recommend a plan to Congress to get America on a sustainable financial 
path. The Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Act would address 
this financial crisis and solve it with bipartisanship. The SAFE effort 
differs from others because it requires an up or down vote in Congress 
on the commission's proposal, similar to the process for closing 
military bases enacted in 1988.
  As the piece of the budget pie continues to grow to pay for 
entitlements, spending for discretionary programs shrinks. That means 
fewer dollars for education, for medical research, for investment in 
technology, for national security, for transportation, and a myriad of 
other programs on which Americans rely. Not only is it unacceptable to 
shoulder our children and grandchildren with a crushing debt burden, I 
believe it raises serious moral questions. Is it right for one 
generation to live very well knowing that its debts will be left to be 
paid for by others?
  I reached out to both Democrats and Republicans to push for a 
bipartisan entitlement reform commission to be considered as part of 
the stimulus package. The SAFE idea has garnered growing support. I 
offered the SAFE Commission as an amendment when the stimulus 
legislation was marked up in the House Appropriations Committee, and 
again when the Rules Committee decided which amendments would be made 
in order for consideration on the House floor as a part of House 
legislative package. I was disappointed that my amendment was not even 
allowed to be debated by the House.
  I am deeply concerned about the divisiveness in Congress and believe 
that a bipartisan commission may well be the only way to mandate action 
on long-term budget controls. President Obama has indicated his 
willingness to reach across the aisle to find bipartisan solutions. I 
have always believed that working together in a bipartisan manner is 
what the American people expect of their leaders.
  The Congress had the chance in this measure to take a bold step for 
America's future financial security and instead we are going down the 
same road of adding to the deficit and national debt with questionable 
programs that are touted to create jobs and stimulate the economy. We 
can do better and we must

[[Page H1578]]

do better--for our children and our grandchildren's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert with my statement an op-ed from yesterday's 
Washington Times by Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation who 
understands the urgency of Congress and the administration coming 
together to stop the financial tsunami that threatens the financial 
future of our country.

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 12, 2009]

          Butler: Congress Needs Cover to Reform Entitlements

                           (By Stuart Butler)

       The price tag is stunning. Pegged at nearly $800 billion--a 
     figure that doesn't even include interest payments--the so-
     called ``stimulus'' bill sets an all-time record for deficit 
     spending by a single bill.
       Congress has gotten away with deficit spending in the past, 
     because foreign investors were willing to buy U.S. bonds to 
     cover the debt. But the size of this bill will send our 
     deficits sky-rocketing, to the point where overseas investors 
     may have second thoughts about lending us more.
       And that's the good news!
       The bad news is there's a far bigger problem threatening to 
     undermine overseas confidence in America's finances. That's 
     the looming fiscal tsunami due to wash over us as baby 
     boomers start retiring in ever-growing numbers and start 
     claiming Social Security and Medicare benefits Congress has 
     promised them. They are promises even the most robust economy 
     could not afford to keep.
       Some lawmakers fear that Congress is incapable of 
     addressing this problem, given the way it currently does 
     business. They say the entitlement tsunami needs a very 
     different approach. They are right.
       Let's understand the situation. Over the next 10 years, 
     Congress says the stimulus will cost about $800 billion we 
     don't have. In its single most expensive year--2010--Congress 
     will borrow just over $350 billion to create ``energy-
     efficient visitors centers'' and otherwise ``stimulate'' the 
     economy. That's a lot of money.
       But let's look at what Medicare alone must borrow--every 
     year--to cover the gap between what it spends and takes in 
     through premiums and payroll taxes. It's already costing 
     taxpayers almost $200 billion this year. Within 10 years, 
     yearly borrowing will hit the equivalent of $285 billion in 
     today's economy. In 20 years it will be close to $600 
     billion, with hundreds of billions more from red-ink 
     saturated Social Security and Medicaid spending.
       And we are worrying about a peak of $350 billion for the 
     stimulus?!
       Two congressmen, Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, 
     and Rep. Jim Cooper, Tennessee Democrat, don't believe 
     Congress has the stomach to rein in such staggering 
     shortfalls in these politically sensitive programs.
       To give weak-kneed politicians the cover they need, Mr. 
     Wolf and Mr. Cooper propose a bipartisan commission to 
     recommend long-term structural changes in entitlement 
     programs. Commission proposals would be sent to Congress for 
     an up-or-down vote.
       Mr. Wolf and Mr. Cooper reckon their commission would get 
     members off the hook of voting line-by-line for unpopular 
     changes. And a bipartisan commission means both parties get 
     the political pain and gain of taking tough action.
       Now, we've had budget commissions before. Sometimes they 
     consist of top congressional leaders who meet behind closed 
     doors and produce few real program changes but more real 
     taxes. Or they produce a report that goes nowhere.
       But the Wolf-Cooper plan has two stages that may change the 
     political dynamic.
       Before the commission even meets to talk turkey, for 
     several months it would hold a national conversation across 
     the country, with town meetings and other ways to gauge 
     public sentiment. Only then would the commission begin its 
     work. Armed with this public support, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Cooper 
     reason, lawmakers could vote ``aye'' with political 
     protection.
       This ``public mandate'' stage is modeled after something 
     called the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. The tour consists of 
     representatives from the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog 
     group, as well as the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings 
     Institution, together with former U.S. Comptroller General 
     David Walker.
       This left-right panel has held dozens of large meetings 
     around the country, talking with tens of thousands of 
     Americans. As a ``made member'' of the tour, I can tell you 
     how Americans are likely to react to a commission seeking 
     their views:
       People want the truth about our fiscal future. If they get 
     the facts in a nonpartisan way, first they are stunned and 
     then they want action.
       The elderly, as well as young Americans, are willing to 
     support tough steps on Medicare and other programs--if they 
     are first brought into a serious conversation.
       And they doubt that more money sent to Washington would be 
     used to avoid future deficits. They are sure it will be 
     spent.
       Here's a thought. Let's say President Obama were to back 
     the Wolf-Cooper two-stage commission. Imagine if he and 
     congressional leaders from both parties were to hold their 
     own tour. They would jointly give Americans the full picture 
     of the future tsunami and an honest description of the major 
     options from all sides. And imagine they asked the American 
     people what to do. Then, say, a commission put together a 
     package of reforms based on the people's mandate and sent it 
     to Congress for a vote.
       That's the kind of commission report that could work. The 
     kind of change you can believe in.

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference 
Report for H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This 
legislation will start to address the most critical needs of our 
flagging economy by providing relief to struggling individuals and 
small businesses, while creating and saving 3.5 million jobs across 
America.
  These are challenging times for families in North Carolina and across 
the nation. Each month it seems that we get more bad news, or hit a new 
record on an economic indicator. On Friday, the U.S. Department of 
Labor announced the unemployment rate was at a 34-year high of 7.6 
percent. The increase in the last quarter is the largest since the end 
of World War II. This increase in the jobless rate is hitting every 
region, and every state, but North Carolina is particularly hard-hit. 
We are one of the top five states in terms of month-over-month 
increases, and one of the top three in increases since last year. Here 
in North Carolina, unemployment is 8.7 percent. In addition to the 
unemployed, there are many more workers who are seeing their hours and 
wages cut.
  I have heard from North Carolinians from across the Second District 
about the need for swift action. H.R. 1 addresses the need by making 
investments in our economy that will produce new jobs while providing 
tax relief for 95 percent of Americans. With 3.6 million jobs lost in 
the past year, the 3.5 million jobs created by this bill will put us on 
track to an economic recovery.
  Some of these jobs will be created, and created quickly, by the $25 
billion in school construction bond tax credits in this bill which I 
have worked on with Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel for more 
than 12 years. The tax credits will create more than 11,000 jobs in 
North Carolina alone. This funding will allow work to start on stalled 
and delayed school building projects and address overcrowding and 
deteriorating schools. The jobs created by making these investments in 
our future will invigorate our economy today, and provide a strong 
foundation for the working families of the future. I am proud that the 
tax credits in this bill will give local school districts support to 
improve their schools and the education they provide.
  As the former Superintendant of Schools in North Carolina, I have a 
special understanding of the needs of our students, and I am pleased 
that H.R. 1 includes significant investments in education. In addition 
to the ABCs Act tax credits, the bill includes $39.5 billion to help 
schools modernize their facilities and prevent layoffs or cutbacks to 
essential educational services. It provides $25 billion to support our 
most vulnerable students through Title I and IDEA, and $4 billion for 
early childhood education to ensure that kids have the right start on 
the path to learning. This package also invests in higher education 
with a new tax credit for individuals seeking a college education and a 
$500 increase to Pell Grants. We must give the next generation the 
tools to support learning throughout their lives, to enable them to 
compete in our 21st Century economy.
  To jump start our economy and turn the tide on unemployment, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 makes investments to 
create or save 3.5 million jobs. At the same time, it provides a down 
payment on our most important national priorities. H.R. 1 will also get 
the stagnant economy moving again supporting targeted infrastructure 
investments to improve bridges and roads, modernize public buildings, 
and expand mass transit. H.R. 1 also strategically invests in America's 
``green sector,'' supporting alternative and environmentally-friendly 
energy, like the biofuels we grow and produce in North Carolina, and 
new technology that creates energy from waste products. It also expands 
energy tax provisions like the Production Tax Credit and Clean 
Renewable Energy Bonds while providing the funds we need to transform 
our energy distribution system and weatherize and modernize our homes 
and public buildings to increase efficiency.
  Millions of Americans will see their taxes reduced by H.R. 1, and 
others will receive support in making purchases that help our economy. 
More than 95 percent of the nation's taxpayers will see an increase in 
their take-home pay through the ``Making Work Pay'' tax credit, $400 
for individuals and $800 for working families. H.R. 1 will prevent 26 
million families from being subjected to the Alternative Minimum Tax. 
It also includes relief for Americans that will spur our economy by 
providing an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home-buyers.
  In addition, the small businesses that form the backbone of our 
economy will get relief under the recovery package. H.R. 1 includes 
bonus depreciation to help them invest in new equipment, loss carry 
back to help them weather reduced sales, a delay of the 3% withholding 
tax on payments to businesses

[[Page H1579]]

that sell goods or services to governments, and a cut in the capital 
gains tax cut for investors in small businesses who hold stock for more 
than five years. It also provides incentives for businesses that create 
new jobs.
  For those suffering in the economic downturn, this bill provides 
temporary support to help struggling families make ends meet and help 
workers train and find jobs. It extends and improves unemployment 
benefits, increases food stamps and food support, and provides aid to 
seniors, disabled veterans, and Social Security recipients. It extends 
Trade Adjustment Assistance for displaced workers, and extends and 
improves local job training, job placement, and vocational 
rehabilitation initiatives. This spending quickly makes its way into 
the economy, and will help those most in need.
  Our country is facing difficult times, and though we have many 
challenges to meet, this package is a bold step in the right direction. 
I support H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Economic 
Recovery bill that will put America back to work and throw a life-line 
to the millions of people that are struggling to support their 
families.
  In the last four months alone, the economy has lost over 2 million 
jobs. By the end of 2009, an additional 3-5 million Americans could 
lose their jobs and without this package, the unemployment rate is 
likely to rise to 12 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the transportation and housing investments in this bill 
will create jobs, generate economic growth, and significantly improve 
our transportation and housing infrastructure.
  The bill appropriates over $48 billion for surface transportation and 
aviation and over $13 billion for housing investment.
  Within the $48 billion for transportation over 75 percent of that 
money will quickly go to the states through existing authorized formula 
programs for ready to go highway and transit projects. This funding 
will create over 1 million new jobs.
  Among discretionary transportation initiatives, $8 billion is 
provided for high-speed and intercity passenger rail which is an 
historic investment in America's future.
  The bill invests in the nation's public housing, provides funding to 
communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis to purchase and 
rehabilitate foreclosed housing, and includes money to fill financing 
gaps in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit caused by the collapse of the 
credit market. Together these housing appropriations will yield about 
250,000 jobs.
  While I believe more must still be done to adequately invest in 
public transit and to help communities with the growing number of 
foreclosures, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  This is a good bill Mr. Speaker and I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of transparency, 
because Republicans, the media and the American public were shut out of 
negotiations, I am suggesting a new name for the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, this so-called stimulus bill.
  Based on what we know, I propose that we call it the Emergency 
Massive Expansion of Federal Spending to Double Our Budget Deficit by 
Circumventing the Legislative Process to Roll Back Welfare Reform, 
Intrude on Individual's Healthcare Decisions, Buy Green Golf Carts When 
We Don't Know How They Will be Used, Bail Out Fiscally Irresponsible 
States, But We'll Give People an Average Whopping $13 per week of Tax 
Relief, So We Hope They Won't Mind, Non-Stimulus, Non-Recovery Act of 
2009.
  There, I think that does a much better job of describing this bill.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, we need a stimulus bill that will put 
people back to work and create jobs. We don't need a big government 
spending bill that has become a grab bag of special interest spending.
  I have several concerns about the bill, but I would like to speak 
today about a specific issue involving special education funding.
  Like most of my colleagues I'm sure, I hear all the time from 
educators--teachers, parents, superintendents--about special education 
funding. When the federal government enacted the special ed mandate 
back in 1974, it promised to provide 40 percent of the funds.
  But it has only provided about 17 percent annually, which means local 
school districts have to make up this shortfall. This is patently 
unfair to our local school districts.
  But now this bill contains a particularly troubling provision that 
would further exacerbate the problem. The stimulus bill contains 
restrictions on special education funding that would not provide the 
needed relief to local schools because it would only allow them to use 
the funds for specified programs and services--not give local school 
districts the flexibility they need to make up for the current 
shortfall in funding. Even worse, the ``maintenance of effort'' 
provision in the stimulus would force states and local schools to 
sustain spending in these tight budget times or lose their federal 
funding.
  And the conference report extends this mandate from two years to 
three years--through 2011.
  Mr. Speaker, our teachers play an exceptionally integral role in 
shaping our children and our Nation's future. They understand the needs 
of each student--far better than Washington bureaucrats ever will. We 
need to ensure that our educators are properly equipped and given the 
proper decision rights in how to make each child succeed.
  I believe we should allow local schools more flexibility, and I urge 
the Secretary of Education to keep that important principle in mind as 
he implements the ``maintenance of effort'' provision.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report to H.R. 1, the so-called economic stimulus package.
  Congressional Democrats crafted this bill behind closed doors and 
only released all the details to us at midnight last night.
  Their plan makes a bad bill worse by reducing tax relief for working 
families in order to fund more wasteful spending.
  Our economy needs a shot of adrenaline, not a load of long-term pet 
projects.
  I believe we need to act now; but we must get it right.
  Much of this spending is for worthy projects, but they're not 
stimulative and should go through the regular appropriations process.
  I joined my Republican colleagues and proposed a plan that focuses on 
letting individuals, families, and small businesses keep more of their 
hard-earned money through tax relief. It would create 6.2 million jobs 
at half the cost, and that's using the Obama Administration's own 
statistical models.
  Only 18 percent of conference report is dedicated to lowering federal 
income taxes. In fact, it provides for even less tax relief than the 
original House-passed bill. Infrastructure spending, similarly 
comprises only 17 percent of the discretionary spending in this 
package--down from $1 billion in the original House bill.
  Shovel-ready infrastructure projects and individual tax relief for 
small businesses should be part of our efforts to boost the economy. 
But that doesn't mean Congress should use this crisis as an excuse to 
spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars on 33 new programs that 
won't have any economic impact in the near-term.
  Mr. TANNER. I rise today in support of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. I do so with a strong sense of responsibility and a 
heavy heart.
  Throughout my career in this body, I have stood up to champion the 
cause of fiscal restraint. I have seen the majority in this House 
change two times; presidents of both parties come and go. In all that 
time, I have called on the powers that be not to spend more than we can 
afford, whether it be in the form of excessive spending or unaffordable 
tax cuts.
  This is truly an economic and financial crisis unlike any we have 
ever seen, and it is forcing tough decisions unlike any we have ever 
faced. Economists from across the ideological spectrum believe that our 
nation is in the midst of an economic catastrophe that requires 
government action. The papers are filled with sobering stories: small 
and large businesses on the verge of collapse, massive layoffs, 
historic levels of unemployment and families unable to afford their 
homes. The numbers are grim: 3.6 million people out of work since this 
downturn started; in my district alone nearly 6,000 citizens have been 
laid off in the last 13 months. Eight counties in my district have an 
unemployment rate of over 10 percent, and all but one county's 
unemployment rate is considerably above the current national average of 
7.2 percent.
  Blame for this crisis can be found far and wide: greedy Wall Street 
giants, irresponsible lenders and consumers, and regulators that were 
asleep at the switch. I truly believe that without action our economy 
will get much worse, and our nation will enter a period of hardship not 
known since the Great Depression. Inaction is simply not an option.
  The bill before us is not perfect. It contains spending measures that 
I believe may have merit but should be vetted through the regular 
appropriation process. But the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good 
in these serious times.
  This legislation contains critical infrastructure spending that 
invests in communities, roads, waterways and needed technology upgrades 
in West Tennessee and across this great country. The stimulus package 
contains tax provisions that will provide relief for families living on 
the margins and businesses struggling to meet payroll. Under this 
legislation, in fact, 95 percent of Tennessean and American taxpayers 
will receive a tax cut. Most importantly though, it will help create 
and save 7,900 private sector jobs in my district. By putting people to 
work, we will put money

[[Page H1580]]

in the pockets of all Americans to reenergize the economy.
  There is no doubt that this bill comes at a cost, one greater than 
the $787 billion price tag associated with it. Money will be borrowed 
and interest will have to be paid. Madam Speaker, as a fiscal 
conservative, that gives me great pause; I would not support this 
package if I did not believe that our country's future hung in the 
balance.
  So I rise in support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I 
know that the recovery will not be immediate, but without this package 
recovery may not be possible at all.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that legislating is the 
``art of compromise.'' Today, the House is considering a carefully 
negotiated economic recovery bill that represents a good balance of tax 
cuts and spending stimulus to help get our economy back on track and 
help get people in this country working again.
  As a representative of small town Missouri and Chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, I am particularly pleased that the 
legislation directs needed resources to rural parts of the country and 
further addresses an economic downturn that has become a national 
security threat to the United States.
  Over the past year, the Government has taken steps to help reduce the 
impact of the recession on the American people. Some of those actions 
have proven helpful, while others must be reviewed and improved. But, 
economists from across the political spectrum have indicated that 
further economic stimulus is necessary to help reduce layoffs and 
create jobs.
  Since January, bipartisan consensus has been built around a $789 
billion economic recovery bill designed to boost employment and invest 
in the health, education, and safety of the American people.
  This legislation invests heavily in rural priorities, such as 
boosting funds for rural water programs; for rural highway and 
infrastructure projects, for school modernization initiatives; for 
Corps of Engineers projects; for agricultural-based alternative energy 
development; and for expanding Internet broadband technology. It 
directs additional funds toward military and VA construction projects 
and toward streamlining the VA claims process. And, it provides 
individual and small business tax relief, helps turn our country toward 
greener energy solutions, and strengthens the safety net for workers 
who have fallen on hard times.
  The economic recovery bill is not perfect. But, sitting on the 
sidelines, simply watching our economy deteriorate, is simply not an 
option. Inaction on our part would undercut America's national security 
and would imperil jobs, savings, farms, and small businesses. We must 
do what we can to prevent such a tragedy, which is why enacting this 
legislation is in the best interest of our country.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
wasteful, unfocused, and massive government-spending bill. It is true 
that our country is in the middle of a severe economic downturn and 
economists on both sides of the financial debate agree that the current 
housing market and lack of available credit are at the root of this 
problem. Yet, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate decided to strip 
this legislation of an obviously stimulative $15,000 homebuyer tax 
credit, in favor of a $5 billion earmark to make federal buildings 
``green.'' This is one of many glaring examples that this bill is not 
about stimulating the economy; it is about expanding the Federal 
Government in a time of crisis.
  I believe White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel characterized this 
democrat-spending bill best when he said, ``You never want a serious 
crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do 
things you think you could not do before.'' In a rush to capitalize on 
our country's economic situation the other side of the aisle has used 
fear and pronouncements of imminent catastrophe to fulfill their wants 
and achieve their goals of government expansion, longstanding liberal 
spending policies, and political payback.
  Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance during 
this difficult time, particularly to the New Deal instituted by 
President Franklin Roosevelt. Looking to the past we discover that 
Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR's Treasury Secretary, gave this quote in May 
of 1939 during the Great Depression.
  ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have 
ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, 
and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this 
country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people 
get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after 
eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment 
as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.''
  Unfortunately, what many economists have found at present and in the 
past is that New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate 
into economic stimulus in the 21st century. To find further 
confirmation that unfocused infrastructure and public works projects 
fail to stimulate a recessive economy one need only look to Japan 
during the 1990s.
  Like this country's current situation, Japan in the late 1980s 
experienced the bursting of a real estate bubble. To combat the 
economic situation, the Japanese government embarked on a colossal 
spending spree pouring trillions of taxpayer dollars into wasteful 
roads, bridges and infrastructure projects. Japan finally came out of 
its economic tailspin, but many economists contend that it was not 
infrastructure spending that caused the economy to recover, but rather 
an intensive cleanup of the banks, and a growing export sector that 
boosted the country. According to a February 5, 2009, New York Times 
article, ``Among Japanese citizens, the spending is widely disparaged 
for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state 
and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the 
blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used 
government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep 
the party in power.''
  For these, and many other reasons, I regret that I cannot support 
this unprecedented big government grab for citizen reliance on the 
federal government. History shows that the best way to encourage an 
economic turnaround, preserve jobs, and spur widespread economic 
growth, is to ensure that job-creators face a lower tax burden. It is 
evident that this country needs to lower its corporate and small 
business tax rates, and provide tax relief to middle-class families. 
What this country does not need is a scatter shot approach of federal 
spending that will only increase the debt burden on future generations 
and create government dependence, while doing nothing to stimulate or 
create meaningful long-term job growth.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the stimulus 
package that our colleagues behind closed doors because of the lack of 
stimulus.
  The American people are hurting. Too many jobs have been lost, and 
too many hard working Americans are worried about their future. Every 
day I receive calls from Arkansans opposed to Congress recklessly 
throwing around billions of dollars in an attempt to spend our way out 
of this crisis by getting more into debt.
  The American people do need action; but responsible, focused action 
that will create jobs and return tax dollars to working Americans 
immediately. This is the time-proven and fastest way to truly stimulate 
our economy. We cannot afford nor can our children afford--an $800 
billion mistake which gives too little attention to creating and saving 
jobs and securing our retirement savings. I can't says to the average 
Arkansan who is fearful he or she will lose their job that this 
stimulus will save their jobs and help their lives it--so it does not 
deserve our support.
  I urge Congress to work harder and together for a focused, 
responsible bill that will save and create jobs and protect pensions.
  Mr. TERRY, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  I come to the floor to oppose this bill reluctantly. When I am home 
in my District I talk to my neighbors, old school friends, and folks in 
the coffee shop, they share with me the economic problems they are 
facing--fellow workers being laid off, difficulty in meeting the house 
payment because there is now only one wage earner. Small business 
owners are laying off people due to slow sales especially at car 
dealerships, retail stores, and restaurants.
  The slow down of the U.S. economy has not missed my community--folks 
are hurting and Congress needs to act in ways that will jump start the 
housing markets, get credit and lending flowing, increase U.S. exports 
and provide tax relief so families have more money in their pocket to 
pay for daily household expenses.
  But Mr. Speaker, I have many worries about the massive bill that we 
have before us today.
  I worry there is too much spending in this so-called ``Stimulus'' 
package. The cost of this bill today is $791 billion. Over time the 
bill will cost $1.138 trillion. There is too much spending on 
government programs that should be funded through the normal 
appropriations process, not in this bill. Under the guise of stimulus, 
the huge increase in these government programs significantly raises the 
baseline on which future spending cannot be sustained without large tax 
increases. This policy could be devastating to our economy and prolong 
the current economic recession.
  I worry that too little of the package goes toward the most effective 
tools for creating jobs for small business owners, like lower taxes and 
tax credits. In fact, the only help directed to small business, net 
operating loss, carry-back was reduced by this bill from $1 billion to 
$2 billion. The home buyer tax credit was reduced from $35 billion to 
$2 billion; the car tax credit to purchase a new car was reduced from 
$11.5 billion to $2 billion.
  Infrastructure money for roads and bridges was $67 billion, which I 
appreciate, although my request to add $13 billion for combined

[[Page H1581]]

sewer operations funds in the infrastructure section fell on deaf ears. 
Compare this to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid $8 billion for a high 
speed train from Las Vegas to Disneyland. The priorities in this bill 
are wrong.
  The small business tax breaks and infrastructure spending make up 
about $100 billion of the total $791 billion in the bill, but accounts 
for 2.5 million jobs of the 3.5 million jobs the White House has 
estimated will be retained or created by H.R. 1.
  Mr. Speaker, to state it another way, $691 billion of the spending 
may retain or create just one million jobs, most of which will be 
government bureaucrats that populate the big gray buildings in 
Washington, DC. That does little or nothing for job creation in my 
District.
  I worry that printing nearly a trillion dollars of new money will 
result in inflation that will create economic problems over the next 
several years that will negate any short term gains that might be 
achieved by this package.
  I worry that this additional trillion dollars of new money will 
create new economic problems by ``crowding out'' private investment 
dollars that otherwise might be available to stimulate our private 
sector economy, create new jobs, and grow the economy. Instead, the 
U.S. government will be sucking up those dollars to pay off its debt. 
Not to mention the burden this places on our children and grandchildren 
who will be saddled with the responsibility of paying off that debt.
  I am also very frustrated with the non-stimulus liberal policies that 
found their way into this bill. Two of these policies have earned a lot 
of attention. First, there is more than $1 billion for ``comparative 
medical treatment research'' that will be spent by a new panel of non-
physicians that reviews the medical treatment decisions of physicians 
and healthcare professionals. Many feel that this treatment review 
committee could result in the rationing of treatments of drugs for 
patients, or even deny medical care to some people, especially seniors. 
Some have labeled this a form of ``euthanasia.'' While I don't foresee 
that any time soon, it is very scary.
  Another liberal policy that was put in this bill is the reversing of 
welfare reform, which was the ``Welfare to Work'' program that was 
enacted on a bipartisan basis in 1996. This legislation will encourage 
individuals to remain on welfare who would otherwise be given two years 
to develop skills and training to get a job and move off of the welfare 
rolls. The roll-back of this program will end up costing the taxpayers 
more money and reduce a job pool that many employers looked to for 
entry level hires.
  Mr. Speaker, this 1,100 page bill was made available to Members at 
10:30 p.m. last night. I suspect the majority of my colleagues, like 
me, have not had time to read through this bill line for line. We do 
not know what other policy shenanigans have been tucked into this 
massive bill.
  I am also frustrated that a viable alternative, at least half the 
cost, was not even considered. The Republican alternative focused on 
small business owners and manufacturers, tax relief, consumer 
incentives to purchase new homes and cars and truck, along with 
infrastructure funding. Economists estimate this alternative would have 
created over 6 million jobs, twice the jobs at half the cost of the 
measure before us. But this alternative bill was stiff-armed by the 
Majority.
  Mr. Speaker, it is because of all these worries and frustrations that 
I am not able to support this package. We could have worked on a 
bipartisan basis to craft a bill that we could all support. But we were 
not given a chance to do that. This bill was written behind closed 
doors by a small group of House Democrats. The American people deserve 
better from us. I will be voting against this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report on 
H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.''
  The economic challenges we are confronted with are as serious as any 
we've faced since the Great Depression. There is no doubt that we are 
paying the price for eight years of unregulated markets, regressive tax 
breaks, and a lack of investment in the needs of the American people. 
Now is the time to act boldly to create jobs, strengthen the frayed 
safety net, begin to fix our health care system, and make long-overdue 
investments in education, scientific innovation, and infrastructure 
that will spur our economy forward in the years to come. This 
legislation achieves all of these goals.
  As Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, I am most 
proud of the health provisions in this legislation.
  It is no overstatement to say that the development of an 
interoperable health information technology system in America will 
revolutionize medicine. H.R. 1 does just that. In addition to 
increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending in our medical 
system, electronic health records will enable doctors to have the 
information they need--at their fingertips--to best treat their 
patients.
  By building financial incentives into Medicare and Medicaid, and 
developing new grant programs, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that this bill will encourage 90 percent of physicians in 
America to adopt standardized health IT and that 70 percent of 
America's hospitals will do the same. They also calculate that the 
improvements from this legislation will generate more than $12 billion 
in savings from federal health programs and reduce health insurance 
premiums in the private sector as well.
  H.R. 1 also makes a substantial investment to expand comparative 
effectiveness research. Right now, patients with the same diagnosis 
often receive dramatically different treatment. Medicine is an art, but 
also must be guided by science. By investing in this research, doctors 
and other health care providers will be able to obtain unbiased 
information regarding which procedures, pharmaceuticals, devices and 
other treatments work best for particular conditions. That way, they 
can choose the right treatment from options that have been 
independently evaluated.
  If you've heard any controversy about this provision, it's because 
the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are spending millions 
of dollars to drum up opposition. They don't want doctors or patients 
to be able to objectively evaluate the value of their products. The 
smear campaign of disinformation has also been advanced by conservative 
ideologues in a cynical effort to foment distrust and discord prior to 
beginning a national conversation on health care reform. In fact, this 
research is broadly supported by a wide range of groups representing 
patients, physicians, health care organizations, unions and others.
  H.R. 1 also protects the health care coverage for millions of workers 
who are losing their jobs because of our economic crisis. COBRA health 
continuation coverage provides a vital bridge for people to maintain 
their health benefits when they are between jobs. However, an average 
family COBRA premium is more than $1000 a month--a financial commitment 
most unemployed workers can't afford on top of their mortgages and 
other costs of daily living. By providing a 65 percent subsidy for 
these premiums for up to 9 months, H.R. 1 will help more than seven 
million people maintain their health coverage while they seek new 
employment.
  When H.R. 1 is signed into law, the 111th Congress and President 
Obama will have done more to advance health care in America in less 
than two months, than was done over the entire two terms of the Bush 
Administration. We will also have set forth a solid road to move into 
the debate to guarantee that each and every person in America has 
affordable, quality health care that can't be taken away.
  In addition to the vital health care provisions, H.R. 1 includes 
essential provisions that will stimulate our economy in the short-term 
and build a foundation for long-term prosperity. By funding ``shovel-
ready'' road, rail, water, school, and energy infrastructure projects 
we will create millions of new jobs, including more than 7,500 in my 
district. By bolstering safety net programs such as Unemployment 
Insurance and Food Stamps we are giving assistance to those hardest hit 
by the downturn. By investing in all levels of education, science, and 
clean energy we are setting the stage for economic renewal and the 
innovation that will drive our economy.
  As President Obama has said, we will not get out of this economic 
mess overnight. But we can take the bold action that the current crisis 
demands and start the process of rebuilding our economy by passing the 
legislation before us today.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Business Activity 
Tax Simplification Act of 2009, a measure with far-reaching 
consequences for businesses throughout our nation.
  Traditionally, states and localities have levied corporate income, 
franchise and other taxes only on those businesses that have a physical 
presence in the taxing jurisdiction. The growth of the Internet and 
interstate business transactions has made it possible for businesses to 
conduct transactions without the constraints of geopolitical 
boundaries. As a result, recently some states have attempted to expand 
their tax base by assessing business activity taxes against out-of-
state companies that have customers but no property or employees in the 
taxing state. Both large and small companies are facing an increasingly 
unpredictable tax environment for businesses, which hinders business 
expansion and threatens the continued development of e-commerce.
  The legislation we are introducing today, which I am pleased to 
champion with my colleague and good friend Mr. Goodlatte--as well as 
Mr. Artur Davis, Ms. Bachmann, Ms. Herseth-Sandlin, Mr. Jones, Mr. 
Bobby Scott, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Pence and Mr. Joe Wilson--will 
bring certainty to today's increasingly chaotic tax environment for 
businesses by clarifying that the states cannot

[[Page H1582]]

attempt to tax the income of a company that has no physical presence 
within the taxing state's borders.
  Our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when 
businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. 
Generally, a business must use employees or services in a state for 
more than 15 days in a calendar year before it is liable to pay 
business activity taxes to that jurisdiction.
  The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act also modernizes 
legislation which Congress enacted 50 years ago that set clear, uniform 
standards for when states could tax out-of-state businesses for the 
solicitation of orders for sales. Like the economy of its time, the 
scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to income taxes on tangible 
personal property. Our nation's economy has changed dramatically over 
the past half-century, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized 
to apply equally to the sale of intangible property and services, and 
to other business activity taxes.
  I want to emphasize that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act 
does not diminish the ability of states and localities to collect tax 
revenue. Rather, it rationalizes and makes more predictable the process 
of doing so.
  The lack of clarity in current law has led to sometimes absurd 
results. A collection agent with the New Jersey Department of Taxation 
stopped a refrigerated truck on the New Jersey turnpike, loaded with 
product belonging to Smithfield Foods, a company headquartered in my 
state of Virginia. The agent held the truck and its driver for several 
hours and demanded that, to release the truck, Smithfield had to wire 
$150,000 immediately to the New Jersey Department of Taxation. The 
agent claimed that he had the right to hold the truck and its contents 
because Smithfield had failed properly to file New Jersey tax returns.
  Smithfield informed the New Jersey agent that his claim was 
unfounded. It explained that Public Law 86-272 protected it from New 
Jersey income taxation because it only engaged in solicitation in New 
Jersey and had no physical operations in the state. The agent refused 
to accept this explanation; however, he finally agreed to release the 
truck and its driver in return for $8,000.
  Smithfield appealed this aggressive and incorrect application of 
Public Law 86-272 to the New Jersey State tax commissioner. Ultimately, 
New Jersey accepted Smithfield's contention that it has no physical 
presence in the state and is not subject to New Jersey income tax. It 
issued Smithfield a refund and an apology for its roadside justice 
system, but not before Smithfield had invested much time and expense in 
resolving a situation which should not have arisen under current law. 
Our measure will help avoid such scenarios in the future by clarifying 
the physical presence standard embodied in Public Law 86-272.
  New Jersey has used similar tactics against out-of-state companies 
selling intangible goods to its residents, a situation not covered by 
86-272. It has argued that a mom-and-pop South Carolina software 
company with no physical presence in any states other than South 
Carolina and Georgia, owes a minimum of $600 per year in corporate 
income taxes and fees based only on the sale of licensed software to a 
New Jersey entity, and that the company would owe such tax every year 
that its software was in use in the state, even for those years in 
which the company had no income from any customer in New Jersey.
  The Louisiana Department of Revenue has threatened to assess business 
activity taxes on several out-of-state companies based merely on the 
fact that they broadcast programming into the state, arguing that the 
companies are exploiting the Louisiana market because the programming 
is seen or heard by individuals in Louisiana.
  Several states attempt to assess business activity taxes on out-of-
state credit card companies based on the fact that their customers 
reside in the taxing jurisdiction and on arguments that the credit card 
company has engaged in the ``substantial privilege of carrying on 
business'' in the state.
  The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act offers Members the 
opportunity to put an end to nonsensical situations like these. In 
doing so, we will provide certainty to both U.S. businesses and to 
states, thereby fostering economic growth and development. I thank Mr. 
Goodlatte and the original cosponsors of the Business Activity Tax 
Simplification Act for their support, and I urge each of my colleagues 
to assist us in enacting this much needed bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I ask 
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  American families, increasingly out of work and burdened by debt, are 
spending less, and businesses have drastically reduced their spending 
as a result.
  That leaves only the federal government as the spender of last 
resort.
  This bill is not perfect: it is not nearly large enough to replace 
the losses in Gross Domestic Product that characterize the current 
recession. But it lays a foundation of targeted government spending 
that will create millions of jobs.
  It will also strengthen the social safety net so that families who 
have been hit hard by the economic downturn have the basic levels of 
resources they need.
  The bill also addresses a component crisis of this recession: the 
spillover effects of large concentrations of foreclosed vacant and 
abandoned houses on our communities. Neighborhoods are the innocent 
bystanders in the foreclosure crisis.
  As foreclosures and the vacant houses they can create continue at a 
record pace, the bill provides an additional $2 billion to help our 
neighborhoods prevent the increased crime and deflated property values 
that come along with abandoned foreclosed properties.
  It will also create jobs, and those jobs will be located in some of 
the hardest hit areas of the country. Fortunately, those funds are 
there, after being taken out by the Senate. I would like to thank 
Speaker Pelosi and conferees for including $2 billion for the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House are being asked to say 
to vote for a so-called stimulus package. This comes after having only 
10 hours in the dark of night to read the final language of the 1,000 
page report, which itemizes how we are to spend nearly a trillion 
taxpayer dollars.
  Our economy is struggling right now and Kansans are well aware of 
that fact. Yet, by overwhelming majorities, they are asking me to vote 
against this package today. Kansans are pleading with Congress to look 
beyond just tomorrow and look toward what is best for long-term 
economic recovery. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office 
predicted that over the next decade, the extra debt created by this 
bill will ``crowd out'' private investment and lead to lower GDP. We 
are about to pass what will be the largest burden that one generation 
has ever passed on to another. And the non-partisan CBO says it won't 
even work! This hampers our economy in the long run and burdens our 
children with even more debt.
  My constituents in Kansas are asking for real economic relief, not 
funding for pet-projects. While the majority continues to claim that 
this bill contains no earmarks, it still has billions in it to fund 
``green'' golf carts, mouse habitats, and other such projects the 
majority evidently believes is a good use of Kansans' hard-earned tax 
dollars.
  The conference committee, behind closed doors, decided $8 billion for 
a high-speed railway between Las Vegas and Los Angeles will better 
stimulate the economy than an additional $200 in the pockets of hard-
working families all across our nation. My constituents are the folks 
who know best how to spend a dollar and stimulate the economy, not a 
distant federal bureaucracy in Washington.
  A real stimulus needs to have a balance of tax relief and targeted 
investment. The majority is exploiting the current economic downturn to 
jam through a bill full of irresponsible spending and government 
expansion.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this non-stimulus 
package because it is selfish and irresponsible.
  It is selfish--because it will burden future generations for years to 
come with unbelievable debt; trillions of dollars stolen from our 
children and grandchildren.
  It is irresponsible--because it won't work! It will not stimulate the 
economy. It will not create jobs. It has been shown to be misguided by 
over 300 prominent economists, including three Nobel Prize winners.
  In addition, the process has been an affront to all Americans. Less 
than 15 hours to read a bill over 1000 pages in length. Less than 2 
hours of debate on the floor of the House on the most expensive 
spending bill in the history of mankind!
  This is simply wrong.
  Attached are three articles from papers today revealing the folly of 
this process and product.

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2009]

                 Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork

                   (By Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima)

       The compromise stimulus bill adopted by House and Senate 
     negotiators this week is not free of spending that benefits 
     specific communities, industries or groups, despite vows by 
     President Obama that the legislation would be kept clear of 
     pet projects, according to lawmakers, legislative aides and 
     anti-tax groups.
       The deal provides $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, 
     for example, including money that could benefit a 
     controversial proposal for a magnetic-levitation rail line 
     between Disneyland, in California, and Las Vegas, a project 
     favored by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The 
     311-mph train could make the trip from Sin City to 
     Tomorrowland in less than two hours, according to backers.
       A new alliance of battery companies won $2 billion in 
     grants and loans in the stimulus package to jump-start the 
     domestic lithium

[[Page H1583]]

     ion industry. Filipino veterans, most of whom do not live in 
     the United States, will get $200 million in long-awaited 
     compensation for service in World War II.
       The nation's small shipyards also made out well, with $100 
     million in grant money--a tenfold increase in funding from 
     last year, when the federal Maritime Administration launched 
     the program to benefit yards in places such as Ketchikan, 
     Alaska, and Bayou La Bate, Ala.
       None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are 
     traditional earmarks--funding for a project inserted by a 
     lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process--according to 
     the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also 
     killed or reduced a number of projects they considered 
     objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in 
     Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.
       But many Republicans, anti-tax advocates and other critics 
     argue that the final version of the bill is still larded with 
     wasteful spending and dubious initiatives that will do little 
     to create jobs or spur financial markets. The legislation's 
     sheer size and complexity set off a lobbying spectacle over 
     the past few weeks, as diverse interests including 
     pharmaceutical companies, cement firms and manufacturers of 
     energy-saving light bulbs converged on Washington to elbow 
     for their share.
       ``You have a moving vehicle, and people are trying to pile 
     on and influence it in any way they can,'' said David 
     Merritt, a health policy adviser to the presidential campaign 
     of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who is now a project director 
     with Newt Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation.
       Stimulus advocates say the GOP complaints are overheated 
     and generally focus on projects that Republicans dislike for 
     ideological reasons. Chad Stone, chief economist at the 
     liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
     defended the bill. ``The overwhelming bulk of what is in the 
     package is effective and well-designed stimulus,'' he said.
       Money for high-speed rail ballooned during the stimulus 
     debate, from nothing in the House bill to $2 billion in the 
     Senate version and finally $8 billion in the conference 
     report, which was put together by Reid and other Democratic 
     leaders.
       Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in a statement that the 
     transportation secretary ``will have complete flexibility as 
     to which program he uses to allocate the funds,'' but he 
     acknowledged that ``the proposed Los Angeles-Las Vegas rail 
     project would be eligible.'' Summers said the rail funding 
     ``was a major priority for President Obama, and Sen. Reid as 
     a conferee supported it.''
       One of the biggest targets of GOP complaints was a measure 
     in the Senate version of the bill that did not name a 
     recipient but would have provided $2 billion for ``one or 
     more near zero emissions power plant(s).'' Sen. Tom Coburn 
     (R-Okla.) and other Republicans say the provision was clearly 
     directed at reviving the FutureGen Alliance project, a 
     proposed ``clean coal'' plant in Illinois.
       Coburn called the item the ``largest earmark in American 
     history,'' but in the end he was able to claim only a partial 
     victory, as the conference bill still contains $1 billion 
     that could be spent on FutureGen.
       Another $800 million is set aside for other carbon-capture 
     projects, and a clause allows the money to go to projects 
     that use petroleum coke instead of coal. That would probably 
     benefit a company called Hydrogen Energy, which is jointly 
     owned by British Petroleum and the multinational mining 
     company Rio Tinto and has plans to build a power plant in 
     California.
       A provision introduced by freshman Rep. Larry Kissell (D-
     N.C.), a former textile industry employee, will require the 
     Transportation Security Administration to purchase uniforms 
     manufactured in the United States; most TSA clothing is 
     currently assembled in Mexico and Honduras from U.S.-made 
     fabric. The cost of the requirement is unclear--the agency 
     spends about $3 million on 12,000 new uniforms each year--but 
     labor and trade groups argue that it will create 21,000 U.S. 
     jobs.
       ``We view this as a very inexpensive way to create jobs and 
     also stabilize jobs in place,'' said Lloyd Wood of the 
     American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition.
                                  ____


                     [From Indystar, Feb. 13, 2009]

              Analysis: Stimulus Won't Jump-Start Economy

                          (By Jeannine Aversa)

       Washington.--No, the big stimulus plan won't ``save or 
     create 3.5 million jobs,'' as the president and congressional 
     Democrats claim--at least not this year.
       The economy will remain feeble through 2009, analysts warn, 
     and businesses will keep shedding jobs, though not as many as 
     they would have without the $789 billion boost.
       The stimulus agreement, heading for final votes in the next 
     day or so, goes to the heart of President Barack Obama's 
     strategy to revive the economy and will go far in shaping how 
     Americans view his economic leadership.
       What it won't do is quickly snap the country out of the 
     painful recession, now in its second year.
       It should provide some relief, economists say, though some 
     argue it won't plow enough money into the economy to prop it 
     up.
       Tax cuts will spur at least some spending by consumers and 
     businesses, and that should help save or create jobs. Aid 
     flowing to cash-squeezed states will prevent some layoffs.
       And money for big public works projects, such as bridge and 
     road repairs, and longer-term ventures, such as networks for 
     more high-speed Internet connections, eventually will 
     generate jobs and stir economic activity.
       But even with the stimulus, many economists predict a net 
     loss of 2 million, 3 million or even more jobs this year. The 
     recession already had cost 3.6 million jobs through January. 
     The unemployment rate, now at 7.6 percent, the highest in 
     more than 16 years, will probably hit at least 9 percent by 
     next year.
       ``The stimulus package is not going to turn the economy 
     around right now,'' said William Gale, director of economic 
     studies at the Brookings Institution.
       ``The best-case scenario is that it mitigates the depth and 
     the severity of the downturn. That's not a bad thing. It's 
     just not the magic bullet that fixes everything.''
       Some analysts say the job market won't return to normal 
     health--with unemployment hovering around 5 percent--until as 
     late as 2013.
       And the broader economy? No sudden revival there either.
       The economy is expected to slide backward for all of 2009--
     a decline in gross domestic product of more than 1 percent. 
     That may not sound like much, but it would be the first 
     yearly decline since 1991.
       ``Congress put the minimum charge into the stimulus 
     battery,'' said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global 
     Insight. ``We're taking this big chance, turning the key and 
     praying there is enough juice to turn over the economy. We 
     should have juiced it up so much that we are guaranteed that 
     this engine will start'' through a bigger package of tax 
     reductions.
       This recession has proved especially stubborn and 
     dangerous. The root causes--housing, credit and financial 
     crises--are the worst since the 1930s and don't lend 
     themselves to quick fixes.
       The package includes Obama's signature ``Making Work Pay'' 
     tax credit for 95 percent of workers. But negotiators scaled 
     it back from Obama's campaign promise: to $400 a year for 
     individuals, instead of his $500, and $800 for couples, down 
     from his $1,000.
       That equals around an extra $13 a week in most paychecks, 
     and it should show up very quickly after Obama signs the 
     bill. The hope is Americans will then feel more inclined to 
     go out and buy, which would help bolster the economy.
       But will recession-shocked consumers, spooked by vanishing 
     jobs, shattered nest eggs, tanking home values and surging 
     foreclosures, actually spend money?
       ``Chances are people are going to save much or most of the 
     tax cuts because of the climate of uncertainty and doom and 
     gloom,'' Gale said.
       Given the severity of the problems, economists said, the 
     bigger the economic revival package the better. Some said it 
     needed to be $1 trillion to make a noticeable difference this 
     year.
       Others argued that the package should have been front-
     loaded with a lot more money--at least $500 billion--in tax 
     cuts, which tend to act more quickly to boost economic 
     activity.
       Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, 
     estimates the bill will create just more than 2 million jobs 
     by the end of 2010. The problem is, the recession will 
     probably wipe out many more jobs than that. Zandi's 
     prediction: 6.5 million jobs will disappear.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 13, 2009]

                   CBO Predicts Lower GDP in a Decade

                    (Stephen Dinan and S.A. Miller)

       The Congressional Budget Office says President Obama's 
     giant economic recovery bill will actually hurt Americans' 
     paychecks in the long run, even if the plan's tax cuts start 
     out putting an extra $13 a week in most worker's pockets.
       Building on a report issued last week, the Congressional 
     Budget Office, Congress's official scorekeeper, said the 
     flood of spending will boost the economy in the short term 
     and will create new jobs. But over 10 years, extra debt will 
     ``crowd out'' private investment, leading to a lower gross 
     domestic product, which would hurt workers' wages.
       ``The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be 
     reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as 
     workers will be less productive because the capital stock is 
     smaller,'' CBO said in a report issued Wednesday night, 
     although it did not say how much damage would be done.
       But for now, Alyson Jacobson, 42, said she'll take the $13. 
     She said she'd spur the economy buying haircuts for her four 
     young children when the tax cut kicks in this spring.
       ``I'll have to save up for two weeks,'' the social worker 
     in Bowie said of the anticipated spending spree. ``It could 
     go into more fruits because fruits are getting so 
     expensive.''
       Her husband's pay is expected to get a $13 boost, and the 
     couple could pocket expanded child tax credits under the bill 
     that leaders of the Democrat-led Congress scrambled to 
     finalize Thursday.
       The child tax credit will put about $1,000 more in tax 
     credits in the pockets of qualifying families with at least 
     three children. The bill would expand the 15 percent credit 
     to every dollar earned over $3,000 from the current $10,000 
     threshold.
       As for the economy as a whole, CBO said in the short term, 
     it will be better off with

[[Page H1584]]

     spending; but over 10 years, the economy would at best break 
     even and could actually be two-tenths of a percent lower than 
     if Congress did not act.
       Republicans, who have fought Mr. Obama's stimulus plan, 
     said numbers confirm their fears.
       ``This is what happens when one party negotiates behind 
     closed doors--you end up with bad legislation,'' said Rep. 
     Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Ways 
     and Means Committee, which writes tax laws. ``What the 
     Democrats are asking the American people to do is buy a $1.1 
     trillion-dollar plane that barely gets off the ground before 
     crashing. The ones left inside that wreckage will be the 
     American worker and taxpayer.''
       Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 
     California Democrat, blamed the bulk of the debt problems on 
     former President George W. Bush and said they know they'll 
     need to take more action to produce good-paying jobs.
       ``We know the deficits created by the previous 
     administration are going to continue to have an impact on the 
     economy,'' Mr. Hammill said. ``We know that we can't afford 
     not to act with the legislation that has been finalized, and 
     we know there's going to have to be other pieces of 
     legislation to address other economic concerns.''
       The CBO report said the new spending would create or save 
     between 800,000 and 2.3 million jobs in 2009 and by 2010 
     would account for between 1.2 million and 3.6 million jobs.
       The White House did not comment on the report. Mr. Obama 
     has predicted that his plan could create or save up to 4 
     million jobs.
       The extra $13 a week will show up in pay this spring when 
     the withholding formula is adjusted. Starting next year, the 
     credit will add about $7.70 per week to individual paychecks.
       ``It's almost pocket change,'' said Cindy Hockenberry, an 
     accountant and research coordinator with the National 
     Association of Tax Professionals. ``To be quite honest, 
     amounts that small I don't think [taxpayers] are going to 
     feel it.''
       The tax relief, including business tax breaks, adds up to 
     $275 billion, or about a third of the $789 billion package. 
     The rest of the money--$515 billion--is spending.
       The Jacobsons also could be among the 23 million middle-
     class families to benefit from a suspension of the 
     alternative minimum tax (AMT), which would otherwise wallop 
     families making as little as $50,000 a year with a 26 percent 
     or 28 percent income tax rate.
       The AMT was adopted in 1969 to make tax-sheltered wealthy 
     Americans pay at least some income taxes. But it was not 
     indexed for inflation and, over time, hit middle-income 
     taxpayers if not forestalled by temporary ``patches'' passed 
     annually by Congress. This year's patch was included in the 
     stimulus.
       The tax cut--which is supposed to help 95 percent of 
     Americans, including low-income workers who do not earn 
     enough to pay income taxes--would give single workers up to 
     $400 a year and families up to $800.
       The tax credit phases out completely for workers earning 
     more than $100,000 a year and couple earning more than 
     $200,000.

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, at about 10:00 p.m. last nite, the text 
of the $792-billion so-called ``stimulus'' package was finally made 
available to Republicans. At 11:00 p.m., this 1073-page package was 
finally posted online for the public to see it. And, votes are expected 
by 2:00 p.m. today.
  Are Republican legislators really supposed to digest and comprehend 
the single most transformational piece of legislation that has come 
through Congress in 16 hours? We do a great disservice to the American 
people today by rushing this package through.
  But, the level of disrespect we show the taxpayers today by this 
perversion of process is far exceeded by the level of disrespect we 
show the taxpayer by the substance of this package. As the Los Angeles 
Times stated in an editorial today, this bill ``serves as a case study 
for the timeworn notion that haste makes waste.''
  Whether by design (The Washington Post did report that ``House 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi . . . called the legislation `historic and 
transformational' for its investments in Democratic social 
priorities.'') or as a byproduct of the political wrangling to get the 
bill to the floor, this bill is chock-full of the pet projects and 
political priorities that lobbyists and lawmakers insisted upon.
  But, the bill is supposed to have a single purpose: to stimulate the 
economy. Congress' one and only criterion for any project or program 
should have been its ability to help grow the economy and help create 
jobs. Again, the Los Angeles Times noted that scattered throughout the 
bill ``are proposals that advance a political agenda more than an 
economic one.''
  Targeted investment in transportation construction is proven to grow 
the economy and create jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
reported last year that every $1 billion in federal highway investment, 
when combined with the required state matching funds, supports 34,779 
American jobs. Of that, only about 12,000 are actual construction jobs. 
The rest are in supplier industries or related economic sectors. That's 
why Republicans in the House had moved to reprioritize spending in the 
House bill and triple investments in transportation construction--a 
motion the majority flatly rejected.
  There is a substantial and tangible ripple effect to these 
investments. Yet, it gets lip service in this bill: $27.5 billion of 
the $792 billion bill (a mere 3.4% of the total bill) is invested in 
this proven stimulator.
  Tax relief is similarly stimulative. The Republican alternative that 
was rejected by the majority would have created twice the jobs at half 
the cost. It would have done so by putting money back into the pockets 
of those who would use it to create jobs and to keep money cycling 
through the economy.
  Amongst other things, this alternative, which I did support would 
have:
  Reduced the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% 
to 5%. In Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, 272,306 filers 
would benefit from the reduction in the 10% bracket alone and 228,926 
filers would also benefit from the other rate reduction.
  Allowed small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of 
their income. Nearly half a million Minnesota small businesses--each 
employing 500 or fewer employees--would benefit from this.
  And, provided a home-buyers credit of $7500 for those who can make a 
minimum down-payment of 5%.
  What's more, Mr. Speaker, this package sets upon the shoulders of 
generations of Americans a debt that I don't think we can even 
comprehend. With this so-called stimulus, we raise the government's 
commitment to addressing this economic downturn over the past year to 
$9.7 trillion. From the first set of rebate checks passed last February 
to the bill before us now, $9.7 trillion has been spent or pledged to 
addressing this recession.
  And, all reports indicate that there is more to come. Treasury 
Secretary Timothy Geithner talked about another $2 trillion for 
financial service sector bailouts just this week. President Obama's 
economic advisor, Larry Summers, has talked about additional stimulus 
and financial service bailouts that will be needed in the months to 
come. President Obama noted that this is just a leg in a stool when he 
came before the Republican Conference only a couple of weeks ago.
  That's just for what's actually in the bill. A long history of 
expanding federal budgets has made it clear to the American people that 
no increase in spending is ever temporary. As the Los Angeles Times 
noted the $191 billion in increased benefit spending in this package 
``expand programs that may be hard to trim after the crisis passes. . . 
. What's worse, there are no accountability measures attached to those 
funds. . . .''
  An analysis by staff at the House Budget Committee looked at what 
happens if Congress continues to fund just 19 of the most politically 
popular programs at their new stimulus levels--programs like Pell 
Grants, Head Start, food stamps. Over the ten-year period ending in 
2019, ``these 19 programs alone would increase federal outlays and tax 
entitlements by $1.59 trillion.'' (Wall Street Journal, February 12, 
2009)
  Even before we add in the financial service sector bailout and this 
``stimulus'' bill, the American people were looking at the largest 
budget deficit in modern history for 2009--8.3% of the economy. 
According to an analysis by the Strategas Group, if you add in this 
bill and the bailout, ``the deficit could hit nearly $2 trillion, or 
13.5% of the U.S. economy.'' The Wall Street Journal rightly calls this 
``uncharted territory'' and reminds us that the consequences could mean 
``new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, 
which could test the limits America's credit-worthiness,'' and could 
mean that ``the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for 
the world's capital.''
  With this bill today, Congress isn't helping America to dig itself 
out of the recessionary hole, we're merely digging it deeper. I cannot 
support this new direction for the American economy, Mr. Speaker. I 
stand today on the side of the American taxpayer and will vote to 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the following letters relate to a matter of 
jurisdiction with respect to a provision included in the conference 
agreement to H.R. 1

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2009.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rangel: I write regarding the section 
     entitled ``Grants for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of 
     Tax Credits'' in H.R. 1. Although originally passed by the 
     House of Representatives as a program administered by the 
     Department of Energy, under the conference agreement on this 
     bill, this program will reside at the Department of the 
     Treasury.
       I am pleased that the consultation process between our 
     Committees has resulted in an

[[Page H1585]]

     understanding that this grant program will be under the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce despite 
     its administration through the Department of the Treasury.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to this program. I would also 
     ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     the conference report on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2009.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Waxman: I write in response to your letter 
     regarding the section entitled ``Grants for Specified Energy 
     Property in Lieu of Tax Credits'' in H.R. 1. Although 
     originally passed by the House of Representatives as a 
     program administered by the Department of Energy, under the 
     conference agreement on this bill, this program will reside 
     at the Department of the Treasury.
       I am pleased to confirm that the consultation process 
     between our Committees has resulted in an understanding that 
     this grant program will be under the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce despite its administration 
     through the Department of the Treasury.
       I will submit a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter for inclusion in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the conference report on the House floor.
       Sincerely,
                                                Charles B. Rangel,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, the economy is in crisis--my constituents 
in Southeastern Pennsylvania and I see it every day.
  Our families are struggling with lost income and lost health 
insurance--even as the demands on household budgets grow.
  Our businesses are struggling with lost consumers, increased costs, 
and difficulties in accessing capital.
  Our state, cities and towns are struggling with shrinking revenues in 
the face of increased demand for services, aging infrastructure and 
other obligations.
  Today we will take the action essential to provide relief, create 
jobs, and lay the groundwork for future economic growth.
  We will: cut taxes for 95% of American workers; reduce the cost of 
COBRA health coverage for the unemployed; improve access to capital and 
stimulate growth; repair infrastructure; invest in new energy sources 
and energy efficiencies; and drive the innovation that will keep 
America competitive in the global market place.
  I am particularly proud of the major new investment in health 
information technology that will lead to near universal use of 
electronic medical records within 10 years--improving the quality and 
coordination of care, saving lives, and saving costs for patients, 
employers, and taxpayers.
  This recovery package is a smart, timely investment to meet today's 
challenges and fulfill America's promise.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my 
Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and Chairman Obey for elevating the importance 
of Obey infrastructure investment towards the economic recovery of our 
Nation.
  I strongly support the Conference Report to H.R. 1, particularly the 
infrastructure components, which direct desperately needed funds into 
our Nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, airports, and water-
related infrastructure.
  Each $1 billion of Federal funds invested in infrastructure creates 
or sustains approximately thirty-four thousand jobs and $6.2 billion in 
economic activity.
  The $64 billion dollars for infrastructure investments outlined in 
the bill will provide a real, tangible benefit to the seven hundred 
thousand individuals currently unemployed in my state--whether as a 
paycheck for those responsible for constructing these vital projects, 
or through increased productivity for small businesses that produce the 
materials needed for infrastructure projects.
  However, unlike other economic recovery proposals, infrastructure 
investment provides not only a short-term benefit to American families, 
it also provides a long-term benefit in terms of sustainable and 
reliable infrastructure, as well as the potential for increased 
productivity for the Nation's economy through the efficient movement of 
goods and services.
  Finally, infrastructure investment provides one of the only benefits 
that cannot be shipped off to foreign lands. The direct beneficiaries 
of domestic infrastructure projects are our towns, our local 
communities, our constituents.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the American economy is in dire straits 
and our constituents are looking to us to act. This is a moment when we 
should be coming together, putting party differences aside, and 
crafting responsible legislation that will both solve the problem and 
unite the country. I do not believe H.R. 1 is this legislation.
  I am also disappointed that this conference was so small--with only 
five Members from the House--that it could have been conducted around 
the dining room table of my house in Cape Girardeau. It was so brief 
that it could have been over before I had the chance to make coffee for 
everyone.
  Despite the promises of bipartisanship made at the outset, this 
legislation has been constructed and finished behind closed doors. The 
motion to instruct conferees we passed here unanimously gave members of 
this House 48 hours to review the bill before we vote. We got 14.
  The American economy is hurting, families in my district in Southern 
Missouri are hurting, and we are applying a code of priorities here 
that doesn't fit the crisis we're facing. These funds should go to the 
people and places with the greatest potential to create jobs and 
improve the economy. This bill deviates from that mission while better 
solutions have been largely ignored.
  Regarding the contents of the Financial Services portion of the 
conference report, I am pleased it reduces funding below both the House 
and Senate levels. However, $6.9 billion for the Financial Services 
Subcommittee is still too much.
  GSA will get $5.5 billion to build and renovate new Federal buildings 
and ports of entry. However, in fiscal year 2008, GSA received a total 
appropriation of only $1.4 billion for construction and renovations. 
This is a huge windfall for an agency that, in my opinion, already has 
a hard time managing its regular budget.
  The Accountability and Transparency Board created by this bill was 
provided $14 million in the House bill, and $7 million in the Senate 
bill. The funding for the Board in this conference report mysteriously 
increases to $84 million. Even though this is called a ``transparency'' 
board, as the Ranking Member, I do not know how or why the funding 
increases by 600 percent over the House bill. Maybe these funds are 
needed, but no one on my side of the aisle knows who asked for this 
funding or how it will be spent.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and I congratulate President 
Obama, our leadership, all of the committee chairs, and the staffs for 
crafting this legislation under extraordinary circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, this country is facing the worst recession in its 
history. Economists across the globe have confirmed this fact stating 
``the U.S. recession will be the longest and will worsen without heavy 
government spending.'' Just last month nearly 600,000 jobs were lost 
which is the deepest cut in payrolls in 34 years and the jobless rate 
of 7.6 percent is at its highest level in more than 16 years. Moreover 
of the top 20 monthly job losses in the history of this country 5 have 
happened in the last seven months.
  Mr. Speaker as a student of history, I have tried to find a moment 
when our country faced such economic and political uncertainty. And as 
fate would have it, that moment was yesterday, as we marked the 200 
year anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's birthday and the 100 
year anniversary of the NAACP.
  As President Lincoln focused his efforts on keeping the Union whole, 
a great economic and social question loomed. What should the country do 
with its slaves? President Lincoln felt so strongly about maintaining 
the Union that he emancipated the slaves but the question of their 
economic and social well-being remained largely unaddressed.
  It took a civil rights movement, Mr. Speaker, led by organizations 
like the NAACP to highlight the deplorable and inequitable economic 
conditions freed blacks faced. These conditions lay bare for the world 
to see in areas like: education, employment, housing, nutrition, and 
health. And it is these issues, Mr. Speaker, which are addressed in 
this bill.
  For history has taught us that, you cannot pull a country out of 
recession or move a country forward unless you address these 
inequities. So while many of my colleagues will talk about all the new 
technologies and great ideas in this bill, I prefer to focus on the 
check Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about in 1963 at the Lincoln 
Memorial. Where he stated the following:

       In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a 
     check. When the architects of our republic wrote the 
     magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of 
     Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which 
     every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that 
     all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be 
     guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the 
     pursuit of happiness.
       It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this 
     promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are 
     concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, 
     America

[[Page H1586]]

     has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has 
     come back marked insufficient funds. But we refuse to believe 
     that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe 
     that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of 
     opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this 
     check--a check that will give us upon demand the riches of 
     freedom and the security of justice.
       We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America 
     of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in 
     the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug 
     of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of 
     democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate 
     valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. 
     Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of 
     racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the 
     time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

  Mr. Speaker, we have to act now, so that the families in Sumter, 
South Carolina will have clean water, so that children at J.V. Martin 
Junior High School in Dillon, South Carolina will no longer have to 
learn in a 150 year old school, so that a mother in Charleston, South 
Carolina will not be homeless, so that kids in Columbia, South Carolina 
will have a summer job, so that a teacher in Anderson Primary School in 
Williamsburg, South Carolina will not lose their job, and so that 
family in Florence, South Carolina looking for a way out of this 
economic recession will not suffer under a Governor's political 
ideology.
  Mr. Speaker, America works when all of America is working and today 
we are ensuring that this promise of work in America will not be marked 
``insufficient funds.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009. While this legislation is not perfect, it 
marks a strong response to the economic challenges faced by Oregon's 
hard-working families and it deserves support. In particular, I would 
like to highlight several elements of the legislation that are 
important to Oregonians and to the nation.
  This legislation will create 3.5 million jobs and will give 95 
percent of American workers an immediate tax cut. The bill also offers 
significant tax relief to homebuyers, manufacturers, and small 
businesses.
  The legislation provides a significant extension of unemployment 
benefits, provides aid to Oregon to modernize our unemployment system 
and expand its coverage, and helps unemployed workers maintain their 
healthcare coverage.
  This legislation puts a down payment on a much-needed investment in 
roads, bridges, mass transit, energy efficient buildings, flood 
control, clean water projects, and other infrastructure projects. These 
efforts will begin rebuilding and renewing America.
  The legislation invests in health information technology to modernize 
our health care system and improve health outcomes. This investment 
will put people to work and will create a more efficient, effective 
health care system with fewer deaths, fewer complications, and lower 
health care costs.
  The economic recovery package also represents a leap forward for the 
nation's clean energy economy. It includes about $37.5 billion in 
funding for energy programs, almost double the Energy Department's 
typical entire annual budget, and more than 10 times the amount 
normally spent on conservation and renewable energy. It also includes 
about $20 billion in tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable 
programs, which I helped design as a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Oregon is known for the progress that we have made developing a new 
energy future and for the innovative ways that we approach healthcare, 
sustainability, and transportation. This legislation will buttress 
those endeavors, while creating jobs and easing the economic impacts on 
those already hard hit. So, while I retain concerns about elements of 
the legislation, I feel strongly that we must seize this opportunity to 
rescue our economy and transform it to meet the challenges of the 
twenty-first century.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the 
conferees restored some of the state stabilization dollars previously 
approved by the House to help soften the financial crunch on local 
governments and schools. Having just come from the local government 
ranks--representing Fairfax County, Virginia, which if it were a city 
would be the nation's 13th largest city with the nation's 12th largest 
school system--I can tell you our local governments are hemorrhaging in 
the current economic crisis and are facing steep reductions in staff 
and services. You see, our state and local government partners do not 
have the luxury of printing money or enacting continuing resolutions. 
By statute they must balance their budgets annually.
  While the final number for local and state aid is not as much as we 
wanted--and significantly less than what is needed--this investment is 
nonetheless critical to ensuring that our state and local partners are 
in a position to quickly advance on the investments and initiatives as 
the dollars begin to flow from this stimulus package. The aid we 
provide will help prevent layoffs for the very workers who will be 
carrying out the mission of this historic recovery package.
  With respect to education, I and many of my colleagues, continue to 
be disappointed that the House's original proposal for school 
construction was not maintained. Some argued that school construction 
is not a federal responsibility when, in fact, the federal government 
has supported school renovation and construction in the past expressly 
for the purpose of creating jobs. During the Great Depression, the 
Works Progress Administration created hundreds of thousands of new jobs 
through the construction of 4,383 new schools and the renovation of 
thousands more in response to the greatest economic crisis of the 20th 
Century. Thankfully, some flexibility remains within the bill to allow 
school districts a means to address their growing capital needs and 
create new jobs.
  Current data indicate our economy may contract by as much as $2 
trillion during this global crisis. With our action today, the Congress 
is investing $789 billion to provide some cushion for workers, families 
and employers. We must do something. We must act. This bill is not the 
perfect solution, but, in the worst economic meltdown in 80 years, it 
is about stimulating economic activity, restoring credit flow to 
consumers and small businesses, financing critical investments that 
will have continuing returns for generations to come, and restoring the 
confidence of consumers and investors in our economy.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 168, the 
previous question is ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. In its current form, yes, I do oppose the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Miller of Michigan moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill H.R. 1 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to--
       (1) accept section 1008 of subtitle A of division B of the 
     Senate amendment (relating to above-the-line deduction for 
     interest on indebtedness with respect to the purchases of 
     certain motor vehicles), and
       (2) accept section 1009 of subtitle A of division B of the 
     Senate amendment (relating to above-the-line deduction for 
     State sales tax and excise tax on the purchase of certain 
     motor vehicles).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on adopting the conference report; and suspending the 
rules with regard to House Resolution 139, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 244, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               YEAS--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger

[[Page H1587]]


     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     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
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     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
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     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
     Flake
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     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)
     Kilroy
     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)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     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
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Campbell
     Clyburn
     Lee (NY)

                              {time}  1415

  Messrs. SERRANO, ADLER of New Jersey, LARSEN of Washington, Ms. 
WATSON, Messrs. HINCHEY, PASCRELL, CARDOZA, RUSH, and ELLSWORTH changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. McKEON, SOUDER, CARNEY, MORAN of Kansas, and YOUNG of Alaska 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               YEAS--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     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
     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
     Hill
     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)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     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
     Stark
     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--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     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
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen

[[Page H1588]]


     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Lipinski
       
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Campbell
     Clyburn
     Lee (NY)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1424

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

                          ____________________