[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1796-1808]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 92

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental 
     appropriations for job preservation and creation, 
     infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, 
     assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal 
     stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, 
     and for other purposes. Further general debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and amendments specified in this 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The amendment printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be 
     in order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations shall 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than February 4, 
     2009, such material as he may deem explanatory of 
     appropriations measures for the fiscal year 2009.
       Sec. 3. The chair of the Committee on Ways and Means may 
     file, on behalf of the Committee, a supplemental report to 
     accompany H.R. 598.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against 
consideration of the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all 
points of order against the provisions in the bill and amendments made 
in order by the rule and, therefore, it is in violation of section 426 
of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language consisting of the waiver against amendments in the resolution 
on which the point of order is predicated. Such a point of order shall 
be disposed of by the question of consideration.
  The gentleman from Florida and a Member opposed, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), each will control 10 minutes of debate on the 
question of consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, thank you very much.
  I will be using most of my arguments from the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate dated January 26, 2009. The CBO and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting the provisions in 
division B would reduce revenues by $76 billion in fiscal year 2009, by 
$131 billion in fiscal year 2010, and by a net of $212 billion over the 
2009-2010 period.
  So combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, the CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill would increase the Federal budget 
deficit by over $170 billion over the remaining months of the fiscal 
year 2009, by $356 billion in the year 2010 and $174 billion in 2011, 
and it continues on, $816 billion over the period 2009 to 2019.
  There is a wide range of Federal programs here which increase the 
benefits payable under the Medicaid unemployment compensation nutrition 
assistance program, and the legislation would also reduce individual 
and corporate income tax collections and make a variety of other 
changes to tax laws. This is basically an unfunded mandate.
  CBO anticipates that this bill would have a noticeable impact on 
economic growth and employment in the next few years. Following long-
standing congressional budget procedures, this estimate does not 
address the potential budget effects of such changes in economic 
outlook. But the point that the CBO is making is that this is a huge 
unfunded mandate, particularly in the Medicaid and unemployment 
compensation and nutrition assistance program.
  So with that, Madam Speaker, in light of the provisions in the bill 
and the amendments made in order by the rule, are, therefore, in 
violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act, I do, Madam 
Speaker, raise this point of order.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Technically this point of order is about whether or not to consider 
this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. In reality, it's about 
trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and 
without any opportunity

[[Page 1797]]

for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. I think that is wrong 
and hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we consider this important 
legislation on its merits and not kill it on a procedural motion.
  We have a long day ahead. Let's not waste more time on dilatory 
measures. Those who oppose this bill can vote against it on final 
passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass H.R. 1 today.
  I have the right to close, and, in the end, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and let me 
say that I rise in strong support of this effort to raise this point of 
order. And I will say to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Rules, this 10-minute period of time is when we can debate whether or 
not this is, in fact, an unfunded mandate that is going to dramatically 
increase costs. That's what this debate is all about.
  It's not about simply killing the bill, it's about utilizing a 
procedure that exists here in this institution, and I hope very much 
that our colleagues will join with our friend from Florida and ensure 
that we do address this very, very important issue.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, if I may continue, the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee has indicated that this point of 
order would eliminate debate and not offer the opportunity to Members 
to really discuss the rule at all. But I would like to say to her, and 
she was in the Rules Committee when I came out to present my amendment, 
when the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up that portion of the 
stimulus package, we were in session for 12 hours. During that time we 
had six amendments accepted on the Republican minority side.
  It turns out that all six of these amendments were agreed to 
unanimously by the majority. When the bill went to print and when I 
went to the Rules Committee, I found my amendment was not included, and 
neither was the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy's or Mr. 
Blunt's. Three of the amendments were not included, and we questioned 
how could this be that out of a full markup of Energy and Commerce 
Committee, we passed six amendments and only three were put in. Yet the 
Speaker's office had a sheet, a fact sheet, which indicated that all 
six amendments were put in the bill and all six of these amendments 
show the bipartisan-ness of this stimulus package.
  Now I think what happened on the Energy and Commerce Committee 
happened in the Ways and Means Committee and it happened in 
Appropriations Committee. So this, in fact, stimulus package is not 
bipartisan.
  Reading from the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her fact sheet of 
January 27, 2009, she says this is a bipartisan, open and transparent 
legislative process. It is not, Madam Speaker. The amendments that came 
out of Energy and Commerce, 50 percent were dropped arbitrarily, 
capriciously, without any comment from the minority.
  Now one of those amendments, which was mine, indicated if you are 
going to give federal subsidies for COBRA, which is unemployment 
compensation for individuals in America, why give them to people who 
have a net worth of $1 million or $100 million?

                              {time}  1030

  There was no threshold in this bill. So, I basically said, if you're 
going to give COBRA subsidies, that is you're asking to have the 
taxpayers pay 65 percent of the COBRA for anybody unemployed, including 
a man who, for example, left Lehman Brothers or Bernie Madoff; all 
those people who, under the Democrats' position in the stimulus 
package, would be able to apply for COBRA subsidies and have the 
taxpayers in my home county have to pay for their health benefits.
  They are asking the taxpayers to pay 65 percent almost indefinitely. 
And I basically said this should not apply to people that are making 
$100 million, $10 million, or have a net worth of that amount. And, Mr. 
Waxman, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce, was kind enough 
to say, I agree with you, and that should be part of the bill. So my 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. Yes, I'll be glad to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I'd simply like to 
inquire of him again about this procedure through which this committee 
went. It's my understanding that these amendments were all adopted in a 
bipartisan way, with a unanimous vote in support of these amendments 
that were later just dropped from the bill that was introduced. And 
then, we have this statement from the Speaker's press office, a fact 
sheet stating, In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 57 amendments were 
dropped, and 43 by Republicans, 6 of which were adopted and 
incorporated into the bill.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished Member. That is absolutely 
true. And I think, as he clearly points out, I think we should really 
ask the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, why were, in 
this case, three amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and 
Commerce, why were they dropped from the print?
  And, perhaps if she can't, then I think really the Speaker, whose 
office this fact sheet came from, should clearly tell us why she 
dropped amendments that were passed through the democratic process here 
in the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Yet, 
they have a fact sheet saying they are still in here. She uses the word 
``bipartisan'' when you can't say it's bipartisan if, in my case, my 
amendment is not in there. It was agreed upon. And others in the Energy 
and Commerce, their amendments are not here as well.
  So I would be glad to yield time to the distinguished chairwoman of 
the Rules Committee to find out why these amendments, after they were 
passed overwhelmingly in the Energy and Commerce Committee, are not in 
the print.
  The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, does she wish to 
answer?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. We had a thorough airing of this last night, Madam 
Speaker. Everybody knows what happened here. It had nothing at all to 
do with the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I'd be glad to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. With all due respect, for the Chair of the Committee on 
Rules to stand up and say we had an hour discussion on this last night, 
and everybody knows what happened. Madam Speaker, I don't think the 
author of the amendment, Mr. Stearns, was there when last night in the 
Rules Committee discussed this and this came forward. I just don't see 
that as any kind of answer.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEARNS. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it's clear she has no response to the 
rhetorical question: Why were amendments that were agreed upon in the 
Energy and Commerce dropped capriciously and arbitrarily from the 
print. And I think we will just let that as a question remain in the 
House of Representatives and point out to all the Members that when the 
Speaker puts out a sheet, a fact sheet, in which she says it's a 
bipartisan bill, it's open and transparent, well, that obviously is not 
true.
  There's no one on the Democrat side here this morning to explain how 
amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce were dropped, 
and perhaps the same was true of the Ways and Means, and also the 
Appropriations Committee.

[[Page 1798]]

  And, for those Members, like myself, who came up and asked why my 
amendment that was accepted was not included as an amendment to the 
stimulus package, and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules 
Committee cannot even answer the simple question of why were amendments 
not included, when in fact they were passed overwhelmingly in Energy 
and Commerce.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, let me correct what Mr. Dreier thinks I 
said. I said we had a thorough airing of this issue last night at 
Rules. Although it is not our job to explain why the Speaker's press 
office--
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will not.
  Certainly, by now, we know a red-herring when we see one. This is one 
of the reddest I have seen in such time that I have been here. And I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on a motion to consider so that we 
can get about the business of the United States, debate, and pass this 
important piece of legislation that over 80 percent of the people want 
us to do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. The 
question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. 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 240, 
nays 174, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               YEAS--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     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)
     Lipinski
     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
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     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
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--174

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     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
     Lee (NY)
     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
     Petri
     Pitts
     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)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Aderholt
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Clay
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dingell
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Platts
     Ruppersberger
     Simpson
     Solis (CA)
     Space
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1105

  Mr. TIERNEY and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  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.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. LaTourette was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                       Welcoming Tiberi Triplets

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I just for a minute ask the membership 
to pause for an announcement, and I will be very brief. I do see the 
dean of our Ohio delegation over there, Ms. Kaptur, and I know she will 
want to share in this news as well.
  By luck of retirements and defeats and everything else, I now have 
the pleasant responsibility of being the Republican dean of the Ohio 
delegation. And some of you may have noticed that our colleague, Mr. 
Tiberi of Columbus, has not been with us for votes. Some were concerned 
that he was ill, something was going on.
  I have the happy duty to inform the House that he and his wife Denice 
a week ago Sunday, are now the proud parents of triplets. Daniela, 
Gabriela, and Cristina are all doing well. Cristina is scheduled to be 
released from the hospital soon.
  So if Congressman Tiberi looks a little tired and a little more worn-
out than he has in the past, that is the reason. I know that the House 
will want to congratulate him and Denice and their three daughters.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and

[[Page 1799]]

extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, nothing is on the minds of Americans 
more than the sad state of our economy. At dinner tables and water 
coolers across this great Nation, Americans are concerned not only 
about our economy, but their own well-being. Will they have a job next 
week, will they be able to retire when they plan to, will they be able 
to afford the mortgage, the rent, and their child's education.
  Madam Speaker, the Bush administration left us with the worse economy 
we have faced since World War II. The economic downturn is no longer 
subject to debate. In the last 4 months, this country has lost 2 
million jobs. And, unfortunately, is expected to lose another 3 to 5 
million in the next year alone. In fact, 2008 was the worst year for 
job loss since 1945 while unemployment has skyrocketed to the highest 
level in 15 years.
  This week, major corporations from Caterpillar to Sprint, Nextel to 
Home Depot announced that they were cutting 62,000 jobs.
  Fortunately, it is not too late to turn things around, but the time 
is almost gone. We must act now. If nothing is done, our economy will 
continue this downward spiral, and we must take action to boost this 
economy and to start putting America back to work.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a critical and 
necessary investment that will create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, 
will jump start our economy and begin the process of transforming it 
for the 21st century with $550 billion in carefully targeted priority 
investments.
  Madam Speaker, this plan helps to strengthen Main Street and the 
middle class, not Wall Street. In order to improve the plight of 
hardworking Americans, we will provide immediate, direct tax relief to 
over 95 percent of Americans.
  Not only will the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan create jobs 
and grow the economy, it makes a significant investment in our future.
  By doubling clean, renewable energy production, we will put people to 
work in the short term while freeing us from our dependence on foreign 
oil in the long run.
  By renovating public buildings and homes to make them more energy 
efficient, we will create jobs that can't be exported while curbing 
global warming at the same time.
  By rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and improving our roads, 
bridges, and schools, we will strengthen our path forward.
  And by investing in our health care system, we will cut red tape, 
prevent mistakes, and save countless dollars and lives.
  I am particularly proud that this bill contains funding for 
AmeriCorps, which will provide recent college graduates with jobs, 
sending them into struggling communities to help turn them around, much 
like the Civilian Conservation Corps did after the Great Depression.
  Finally, we will assist those who have been impacted most by the 
crisis by increasing food stamp and unemployment benefits, and making 
it easier for those who have lost their jobs to keep their health 
insurance. And these are just a few highlights of this comprehensive 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting. They are also 
justifiably concerned whether government spending in such difficult 
times is correct. I want them to know that this bill contains strict 
accountability measures to ensure the maximum return for every tax 
dollar invested. Americans will be able to go on the web to see how 
their tax dollars are being spent and to provide public comment.
  The bill contains no earmarks and ensures that funds to help small 
businesses will not go to entities that already receive money from the 
financial rescue package.
  Furthermore, the legislation doesn't waste any time. It will 
immediately help to put people to work and begin to stabilize our 
economy.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, three-quarters of 
the overall package will be spent in the first 18 months. And in an 
independent analysis, economist and former McCain adviser Mark Zandi 
found that 41 percent of the funding in this bill will be spent this 
year alone to jump start our economy and result in 4 million new jobs 
by 2010.
  Madam Speaker, our economic woes will not be solved overnight, but we 
did not get into this mess overnight. This bill alone will not solve 
all of our economic challenges. We know that the road back to economic 
stability and prosperity will require hard work over time to truly turn 
things around. But America has faced great challenges before and turned 
crises into opportunity. This legislation is critical to build a 
foundation for long-term prosperity.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and by doing so, to restore 
confidence, to strengthen our economy, and lift up our hardworking 
citizens from coast to coast.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by not only thanking the distinguished 
Chair on the Committee on Rules for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, I would like to associate myself with the first three 
sentences of her presentation.
  It was in the opening remarks that the distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Rules presented that she talked about the pain that the 
American people are feeling as we go through one of the most serious 
economic downturns in our Nation's history. It is a very, very 
difficult time. And on that, Democrats and Republicans are in total 
agreement and it is absolutely imperative that we take action in this 
institution and that we take action that will provide the best jump 
start for our economy that we possibly can.

                              {time}  1115

  The Republican Conference, Madam Speaker, was very privileged to 
welcome the President of the United States yesterday afternoon. We had 
lunch downstairs and a freewheeling discussion on the issue that we are 
here addressing at this moment. And that issue is how do we get this 
economy growing again. And we are in the midst of a raging debate on 
it. It is true that we are very concerned. And most Republicans have, 
since we saw this $825 billion package introduced, been opposed. But 
yesterday we did listen to President Obama. A number of questions were 
posed to the President in this freewheeling discussion.
  The thing that I came away with from that meeting yesterday was we 
need to focus on the merits of this issue that is before us and not on 
politics. Pointing the finger of blame is useless. What we need to do 
is figure out how we can come together and put into place the very best 
fiscal policy that we can to be sure that we grow our economy. I agree 
totally with President Obama. We need to set politics aside and focus 
on the merits. And I think that he left us with a good feeling about 
his commitment to do just that.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we have seen with the development 
of this package, the way it was handled in the House Rules Committee, 
and the way that we are considering this measure on the floor, it 
appears that there is very little focus on the merits and that most of 
the attention is focused on politics. I will say that when we focus on 
merits, it seems to me that the wisest thing for us to do is not to 
listen to the words of a partisan Republican or the words of a partisan 
Democrat or even the words of a bipartisan Republican or bipartisan 
Democrat. What I believe we need to do, Madam Speaker, is to look at 
the message that has come to us from the professional, nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Now, the Congressional Budget Office had a preliminary study which 
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on

[[Page 1800]]

Appropriations dismissed. And I understand that. He made some very 
compelling arguments before the Rules Committee the day before 
yesterday on that. And frankly, I couldn't dispute them. But they did 
come forward yesterday with a very, very exhaustive study in which they 
say, and I quote, Madam Speaker, ``CBO expects that Federal agencies 
along with States and other recipients of the funding would find it 
difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing 
programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the 
resources provided for their ongoing programs.'' It goes on, Madam 
Speaker, to talk about the challenges of dealing with the regulatory 
structure that is in place. And we looked at the issue of budget 
authority versus outlays. And I would focus my colleagues' attention on 
the third-to-the-last graph on the Congressional Budget Office study in 
which it makes it very clear that $2.3 billion, $2.3 billion, of this 
package will, in fact, not be expended until after 2019. That is 2-0-1-
9. That is not 2009, not 2010, not 2011. That is more than 10 years 
from now.
  So, Madam Speaker, if we are, in fact, coming together in a 
bipartisan way to figure out how we can jump-start our economy 
immediately, this is obviously not the answer.
  This is a copy of H.R. 1 that has just been given to me. It is 627 
pages long. And that totals $1.18 billion for every single page in this 
bill, H.R. 1.
  What we need to focus on, Madam Speaker, is the issue of getting the 
economy growing with what most economists believe and what history has 
shown to be stimulative: Tax relief. Growth-oriented tax relief. Now 
this morning I picked up the US News and World Report issue that has a 
``Capital Commerce'' column from James Pethokoukis who quoted a wide 
range of economists making 10 points that very, very seriously raise 
concerns. And I would like to point to just one of them. Christina 
Romer, who is the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers for 
President Obama, said that tax increases appear to have a very large, 
sustained and highly significant negative impact on output. The more 
intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large 
and persistent positive output effects.
  Now, Madam Speaker, it's obvious that the kinds of tax cuts that we 
are talking about are those that generate economic growth, relief on 
job creators, making sure that we have marginal rate reduction that 
will benefit 100 percent of American taxpayers. These are the kinds of 
things that we are offering in our Republican substitute. And I hope 
very much that our colleagues will support it.
  This package that is before us is badly flawed, as we are going to 
hear throughout this debate and as was pointed out yesterday. And I'm 
going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule is 
very unfair. There were 206 amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee. Eleven have been made in order of 206 amendments. A majority 
of those amendments were offered by Democrats. So obviously there is a 
desire to make major modifications in this legislation. And for that 
reason, this rule is badly flawed. I'm going to urge my colleagues to 
reject it.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Matsui.
  Ms. MATSUI. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding 
me time, our leader on the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, everyone here knows the dire state of our economy. I 
have talked with and listened to many of my constituents in Sacramento 
who are struggling to make ends meet. They are facing layoffs, 
furloughs, foreclosure, unpaid medical bills and a lack of support to 
help them in this crucial time.
  Last month, the Greater Sacramento unemployment rate rose six-tenths 
of a point to 8.7 percent, the highest monthly job loss since 1993. 
Approximately 4,700 jobs were cut in the region just that month. And 
also last month, the State of California suffered the third biggest 
monthly job loss since the end of World War II.
  That is why my colleagues and I have been working to develop this 
economic recovery package. This package includes historic investment in 
clean technology, transportation infrastructure, flood protection and 
our children's education. It also goes to great lengths to assist our 
States in these difficult times with unemployment, Medicaid and COPS 
funding.
  These investments will help important priorities in my city and 
region as well as across the State. Sacramento needs urgent funding to 
strengthen levees on the Sacramento and American Rivers, make 
renovations at Sacramento State University and our local schools, 
invest in Sacramento Regional Transit's light rail and bus, improve the 
terminal at Sacramento International and work to improve Sacramento 
Municipal Utility District's electric grid. We also have progress to be 
made on the downtown intermodal station and the accompanying relocation 
of the downtown rail lines.
  I am glad that all of these important projects will be eligible for 
funding under this package. Each project will improve our city and 
create jobs that will stimulate the economy. This legislation will go 
to great lengths to help Sacramento's 8.7 percent unemployment rate. I 
also understand that Sacramento will receive, actually California will 
receive about $4 billion in education funding, something our State 
desperately needs.
  Another key investment in this package is our Nation's broadband. It 
is unacceptable that our country has progressively fallen behind in 
broadband deployment. This new investment will ensure that every 
American can access information so they can achieve the American Dream.
  Of significant importance to Sacramento is flood protection. The 
constant threat of flooding makes it more urgent than ever that the 
Federal Government commit to flood protection infrastructure. I am 
encouraged that this bill includes $2 billion to fund the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers Construction account. This money will help restore 
levees in my district and other flood control infrastructure across the 
country.
  I know that there needs more to be done especially in the Natomas 
area of Sacramento. And I look forward to working with Chairman Obey 
and Chairman Visclosky to continue their commitment to the Corps and 
ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to flood protection and 
public safety.
  Madam Speaker, we need to address this economic crisis head-on. This 
package is a substantial step forward. As we have heard from experts on 
both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the political spectrum, this 
will not cure our economy's problems. But it will begin to ensure that 
hardworking Americans get back to work and back on track.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 
minutes to our very hardworking new member of the Committee on Rules, 
the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee, for giving me this time.
  I want to say that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
practice revisionist history. President Bush inherited a recession. But 
the tax cuts that were put in place in 2001 and 2003 helped revive our 
economy and put it on the path to having 54 straight months of 
excellent job growth. When things started going poorly in the economy 
was when the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007. That is 
when we started having problems. And I think it's important that we 
point that out.
  They have a real hard time, I think, dealing with the facts. 
Yesterday we got what was called a ``fact sheet'' from the Speaker's 
Office saying that this was a bipartisan, open and transparent 
legislative process. And yet we learned during the process of the 
committee meeting that information on

[[Page 1801]]

here was not accurate. And I think it is important, again, that we see 
there is a pattern of trying to change the facts to suit themselves.
  Now I want to talk a little bit about what else is wrong with this 
rule and the bill that it supports. I have a strong background in 
education. I was a school board member, a university administrator and 
a community college president. And I want to say that putting money 
into education in the way it's being done in this bill is not going to 
help stimulate the economy. We know, again, from research that more 
spending K-12 does not significantly improve educational performance. 
So this is not going to stimulate the economy. We also know that 
Federal early education programs don't have lasting benefits for 
disadvantaged children. Much as we would like to rewrite the facts, it 
doesn't happen.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 and want to 
thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairwoman Slaughter and all of my 
colleagues for their timely and decisive leadership on this issue.
  Like most Americans, I am distressed about the state of our economy 
and the impact of our recession on hardworking families.
  My home State of Colorado and many of our school districts, faced 
with draconian budget cuts, are seeing reductions in critical services 
when they are needed most, workers are being laid off left and right, 
and there is a massive scaling back of statewide investment. Tens of 
thousands of Coloradans lost their jobs in October and November alone.
  The time has come to set aside partisanship and ideology and to 
forcefully tackle these underlying conditions and factors that have 
frozen economic activity in our Nation.

                              {time}  1130

  That's why we must ensure that this legislation passes the House and 
Senate and reaches President Obama's desk as soon as possible.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be part of the 
solution and be part of supporting this measure to rebuild our Nation's 
infrastructure, both physical and human infrastructure, and renew 
confidence in our economy.
  As some of you may know, before joining Congress I served as chairman 
of our State Board of Education in Colorado and superintendent of the 
New America Charter School. As an educator, I can tell you that 
education is the most meaningful medium and long-term investment that 
we can make to stimulate the American economy. This bill lays the 
foundation of an education system and green economy for the 21st 
century by investing in our future. It builds high-tech green schools, 
reaches out to at-risk kids and children with disabilities, and 
increases Pell Grants and Work Study aid to help students afford 
college. Without it, we risk losing precious ground in our fight to 
close the gap in education.
  In my district, Adams County has suffered enormously from the 
economic downturn, experiencing the 10th highest unemployment rate out 
of Colorado's 64 counties with over 16,000 unemployed workers. This 
historic bill will immediately prevent further job loss in hard-hit 
places like Adams County. I urge support of this bill on behalf of 
American families.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute 
to our distinguished former Republican whip, my friend from 
Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, last year, I worked with the Speaker to 
help pass a stimulus bill that the Speaker at that time said had to be, 
first of all, timely and targeted. And, Madam Speaker, I would argue 
that this bill is neither. It's certainly not targeted; it's a broad 
brush of everything that the majority has wanted to do for the last 
decade even before they were in the majority. And it's not timely. In 
fact, the estimates are that 7 percent of the money that would be spent 
in this bill could be spent in the next year.
  Alice Rivlin, President Clinton's budget director, said yesterday 
before the House Budget Committee, we would be a lot better off if we 
were debating that 7 percent, and we were taking the other 93 percent 
and having hearings and trying to do what the Speaker said in her fact 
sheet we had done here. Ms. Foxx just mentioned this fact sheet--which, 
frankly, Madam Speaker, wasn't even factual when it was printed. It 
says in my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, that six 
Republican amendments were adopted and incorporated into the bill. 
Three of them were already taken out of the bill before the fact sheet 
was printed, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an 
additional 30 seconds to continue his very important argument about the 
issue that Ms. Foxx raised.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Three of these were 
already out of the bill when this was printed. The amendment I had just 
simply said nothing in this legislation would prevent pharmacists from 
talking to their patients. That wasn't quite good enough. So in the 12-
hour markup--that really did nothing to change the bill as it turns 
out--we spent 3 hours of that 12 hours agreeing on language so 
pharmacists could talk to their patients, and that language was taken 
out before this fact sheet was even printed. The fact sheet is not 
factual. The stimulus isn't stimulating. I urge that we defeat this 
rule and defeat this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Colorado will manage the time of the gentlewoman from New York.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California, a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Ms. Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you for yielding. And let me just say I, 
today, rise in support of the rule and also, of course, the bill.
  First let me just say the economic policies of the previous 
administration we all recognize has left our Nation in shambles. The 
huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the war in Iraq--$10 billion a month--
and the greed in this unregulatory environment of the previous 
administration has brought us to this point. And so I think it's 
incumbent upon the Republicans, especially, in this body to work 
together to try to help this country dig itself out of what has 
transpired in the last 8 years.
  Today, more people are living in poverty, more people are living 
without health insurance, and more people are unemployed than they were 
8 years ago, and it's only getting worse. That's why the bill we're 
debating today is so important.
  I applaud President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, our leadership, 
Majority Whip Clyburn and Chairman Obey, for crafting this robust 
economic stimulus package and their efforts to ensure bipartisanship in 
this. I'm pleased that it includes funding for a number of important 
initiatives that many of us have fought for, including extended 
unemployment benefits, expanding the food stamp program, and providing 
increased Medicaid funding to the States to help people just get 
through this crisis. It also funds a range of transportation and 
infrastructure projects to rebuild our roads, modernize our schools, 
rehab our housing stock and prevent foreclosures. It creates jobs. It 
puts our Nation's path to recovery in a very strong position by 
including $4 billion in job training, including $500 million in green 
jobs and $1.2 billion in youth training programs.
  I'm pleased that State and local governments will be able to tap into 
the $2.7 billion of these job training funds to fund innovative 
programs to provide reemployment services, job training, summer jobs, 
and year-round employment for youth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page 1802]]


  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Taken together, this bill will help put our 
Nation back on the right track.
  But frankly, I think--and many of us think--it could and should have 
been much bigger, at least $1 trillion, but we're working together to 
try to reach some type of consensus so that we can move forward in a 
bipartisan fashion. It should have been enacted, I think, a year ago, 
when some of us first called for a new stimulus package to jump-start 
our economy. Instead, the previous administration just refused to take 
action, letting our economy collapse before choosing to bail out their 
friends. So let's move this bill forward. Let's move this bill forward 
for Main Street.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I tell my friend from California that her 
dream has come true, this bill, according to CBO, is $1.1 trillion.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend 
from Westminster, South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule of H.R. 1. And 
it's surprising that out of the 206 amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee only 11 were accepted and going to be debated here today.
  Today, we will spend about 8 hours on a bill that cost about $825 
billion and could potentially put our country in much more debt than we 
can handle.
  Without a doubt, Madam Speaker, the American people are suffering. In 
my home State of South Carolina, the unemployment rate was about 9.5 
percent in December, the highest in 25 years. Our national debt is 
increasing. And on Monday alone, 70,000 Americans lost their jobs.
  Unfortunately, rather than focusing on job-creating measures like 
infrastructure and tax cuts--like I think should be in there--the 
Democrats have put forth legislation with billions in unwarranted and 
unrelated spending. I believe the government's responsibility is to 
ensure the actions taken are aimed at providing immediate and 
meaningful economic stimulus while at the same time trying to offer 
long-term solutions.
  The Democrat plan fails to provide a swift and substantial positive 
impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office alone has 
estimated that much less than half of this money would be spent over 
the next 2 years. American families, Madam Speaker, are struggling to 
make ends meet and cannot afford that long to see an improvement in 
this economy.
  In addition to having reservations regarding the effectiveness of the 
proposed stimulus package in the short term, I'm concerned that my 
Democrat colleagues have filled this bill with non-stimulative 
spending. The Democrat plan provides, for example, $50 million for the 
National Endowment of the Arts, $250 million for NASA to study climate 
change, and $1 billion for the 2010 census package.
  If Congress truly wants to stimulate the economy without damaging our 
future by increasing the debt, we should make real choices and cut 
programs in order to pay for other initiatives that truly stimulate the 
economy. In these challenging financial times, we cannot afford to open 
the door to more spending.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Mr. Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the constant refrain of Republican critics 
on this bill is that it spends too much money and spends it too slowly. 
That shows, in my judgment, a failure to appreciate the depth and the 
duration of our economic crisis.
  In testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday, the CBO 
Director, Doug Elmendorf, explained that if nothing is done, our 
economic output will fall below its potential by $1 trillion in 2009, 
by $900 billion in 2010, and by at least $600 billion in 2011. That 
would represent a loss in Americans' income and output of $2.5 
trillion, or about $8,000 per person that would be lost forever. 
Director Elmendorf noted that this would be the largest gap relative to 
the size of potential output since the Great Depression.
  When put in that perspective, this $825 billion package is not too 
large, even with a sizeable multiplier--in fact, it's probably smaller 
than it ought to be, but it's well worth doing.
  In addition, the fact that some infrastructure efforts will take more 
than 18 months to complete, and thus outlays will continue into 2011 is 
also justified despite the criticism.
  As economist Alan Blinder recently told the Wall Street Journal, 
because we face a deep and prolonged gap in output, we could certainly 
use some time release capsules in the form of infrastructure spending 
to continue to provide a boost to the economy. It ought also to be 
worth noting that what matters after all is what employers decide about 
employment, not when the Federal Government outlay takes place.
  State and local governments, as well as private construction 
companies, are making decisions now about whether to fire their staff 
or how many to fire. Federal reimbursements to governments for 
education or infrastructure may not occur for a year, but the jobs are 
preserved today. I would hope that we would remember that.
  Much is also made of the fact that this bill will cause an increase 
in the deficit; absolutely, without question. But the proper question 
to ask them is how much more would that deficit increase if we do 
nothing? How much deeper would our employment numbers fall if we do not 
do something? How many more Americans will lose their health insurance 
as well as their jobs, as well as their retirement security if we 
continue to talk about business as usual?
  The fact is that we need to compare the cost of this package with the 
cost of doing nothing. The cost of doing nothing would be catastrophic. 
The cost of this package is well worth the risk considering the 
alternative.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute 
to a hardworking member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, the 
gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1, the 
so-called ``economic stimulus package.''
  At a time of record unemployment, deficits and foreclosures, I 
believe that we can't do nothing. I believe it is our duty to act 
swiftly and responsibly to jump-start our ailing economy, and that is 
why we should be enabling families, entrepreneurs, small businesses and 
job seekers to keep more of what they earn through fast-acting tax 
relief, not new wasteful government spending on numerous programs that 
hold little potential for economic stimulus.
  Today, Congress should be considering increased deductions for 
individuals and small businesses, and tax-free unemployment benefits to 
help individuals get back on their feet and provide for their families.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the bill before us today misses the 
mark. It contains at least $132 billion in new programs and spending 
that will not create jobs in the immediate future. In fact, a report 
issued on Monday by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting H.R. 1 would increase 
budget deficits by $816 billion.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the bill before us 
today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) now controls the time.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  And as I sat on the floor today and listened to some of the dialogue, 
let me very quickly, before I make comment, share with you. I had to go 
home last

[[Page 1803]]

night to the wake of a very dear friend of mine. As I stood in the 
receiving line, every single person, irregardless of their party 
background, came up to me and said, ``You need to go back to Washington 
and vote for that recovery package. We're hurting, and we need it 
passed quickly.''
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 1, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and for the underlying bill. 
This bill provides urgently needed relief for struggling individuals 
and businesses and will create or retain three to four million jobs in 
this country.
  H.R. 1 includes America's Better Classroom Act, which will provide 
tax credits to enable up to $25 billion in school construction and 
modernization, an initiative that I've been working on for over 12 
years, along with my colleagues. Together, with $20 billion in grant 
funding, these tax credits will enable local communities to address 
overcrowding and deteriorating classrooms and make sure that students 
have facilities that prepare them to enter the workforce of the 21st 
century. School construction projects will create over 10,000 jobs in 
North Carolina alone.
  While investments are also in this bill for improving roads, bridges, 
alternative energy, environmentally friendly energy sources, and 
modernizing public buildings, it will create even more jobs while 
helping to bring our infrastructure into the 21st century.
  We need this legislation to address the urgent and dire economic 
conditions in my home State of North Carolina and across this country. 
The tax credits and job creation provisions of H.R. 1 are a bold step 
that will put our economy back on track quickly. It will invest in the 
people here in America. And it will do so with accountability and with 
transparency.

                              {time}  1145

  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The people I talked with last night in Rocky Mount, they weren't 
interested in arguments. They want results from this Congress, and they 
want us to act quickly.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to 
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and to 
respond to his questions by saying again I would commend to him and his 
colleagues today's U.S. News and World Report that has just come out 
with an analysis from Democratic- and Republican-leaning economists, 
all of whom point to the fact that increasing spending dramatically, as 
this measure would do, in fact, will undermine the potential for what 
it is we're trying to do and tax cuts are the answer to get the economy 
growing.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to our very 
good friend, my junior colleague from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, instead of tax cuts, we've given Wall Street and the 
bankers $700 billion in the bailout; $14 billion to the auto industry; 
and this bill is $850 billion, an ``economic stimulus'' package. No tax 
cuts really, just more and more spending. And this is going to cause a 
severe inflationary problem down the road.
  And what have the President, the Vice President, and chief economic 
adviser to the President said? They said this is a good down payment on 
the problem. So today on television some of the news commentators said, 
well, is the money we're spending so far going to be enough? And I will 
just say to them right now if they're paying any attention, according 
to the administration and the chief economic advisers, this is just a 
down payment. We're going to spend trillions and trillions more, 
wasteful spending into a black hole, in my opinion, and it's going to 
cause severe inflationary problems and economic problems down the road 
that nobody really anticipates.
  We have got to cut spending and we need to cut taxes. That's the 
solution to the problem.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  This bill contains aid to States, which is important because the 
worst thing for us to do in a recession is to fire cops and teachers. 
This bill includes $114 billion of business tax incentives, which are 
well crafted because we do not cut tax rates. What we simply do in this 
bill is allow businesses to take deductions in 2009 that they would 
otherwise be taking early next decade. And, in fact, of that $114 
billion listed as going to business, well more than 80 percent comes 
back to the Treasury early next decade.
  But what can we tell markets today about what is likely to happen to 
the national debt over the next decade? We are saddled with an $11 
trillion national debt. The Fed has quietly issued $7 trillion of 
guarantees and loans. We've sent nearly a trillion to Wall Street, all 
on top of a trillion dollar deficit.
  Before we do more, we should put into statute the tax increases and 
expenditure cuts, painful as they will be, that will go into effect in 
the year after unemployment drops below 4 percent. Sure, we would have 
to modify such provisions before they go into effect. But we need to 
adopt both halves of Keynesian economics, both stimulus now and 
austerity later, and we need to put both halves in statute. Otherwise, 
those of us who will be advocating fiscal restraint in the future may 
well lose, and our only recourse will be to prevent the full measure of 
stimulus that this economy needs now because we are fearful that we 
will not be able to reverse it later. And, in fact, that is what has 
happened.
  This bill provides inadequate stimulus today and inadequate recapture 
of that stimulus, actually virtually no recapture of that stimulus, 
early next decade.
  If we're going to use Keynesian economics, let's put into statute 
both halves. Otherwise, we can provide only empty promises to our 
children and empty promises to Wall Street and to the world economic 
community that we will do something about this deficit next decade.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my 
good friend from California, our new father from California, to simply 
say that if one looks at many analyses that have been provided, it is 
very apparent that juxtaposing growth-oriented tax cuts to spending, 
those growth-oriented tax cuts can provide the immediate jump-start 
that is necessary for the economy, and that's why I think we should 
come together in support of our package.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very 
good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my objection and 
disappointment to this massive spending bill, perhaps a trillion 
dollars by the time it's all done. And that is being sold as the only 
way to jump-start the American economy.
  Portions of this bill may lead to financial relief for some 
individuals and some small businesses, but most of the new spending 
will simply increase the size of the Federal Government, creating a new 
baseline which is not sustainable. Now, that concerns me greatly 
because this trillion dollars goes to the national debt, which is, to 
me, a drag on the economy now.
  Economists tell us, and I believe them, that this will cause an 
increase in the inflation rate, create stagflation, and increase 
interest rates over the next several years. This is not the right way 
to go at this point of time.
  If the bill contained tax cuts, incentives, as well as the 
infrastructure that is much needed in America, I could support that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, the people of my district, like all 
Americans, are deeply worried about the economic challenges facing our 
Nation and optimistic about the future under our new President. They 
know that swift and meaningful action is

[[Page 1804]]

needed to restore confidence in our markets, save jobs, and rebuild our 
economy.
  This rule allows the House to take an important step to address the 
needs of people and industries most affected by the current economic 
downturn and to stimulate the innovation that is essential to drive our 
economy in the future. Action is necessary now towards energy 
independence, educational advancement, infrastructure, and improvements 
in quality and efficiency in health care to better enable us to meet 
the economic challenges ahead.
  I am particularly proud of the major new investment in health 
information technology. By increasing the use of health IT to 90 
percent of physicians in this country within 10 years, we can assure 
that vital medical information is available at the point of service, we 
can improve quality and reduce unnecessary interventions, better 
coordinate care, save lives, and save costs for patients, employers, 
and taxpayers, all leading to a healthier, more economically 
competitive America. It is a smart, timely investment to meet today's 
challenges and fulfill America's promise.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, to vote 
``yes'' on final passage, and by doing so vote ``yes'' for relief for 
American families, to vote to stimulate job growth here in America, to 
vote ``yes'' for the essential investments we need now for the future.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to our friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I'm glad that this stimulus, and I think all of us are 
glad, most of us are glad, that this stimulus contains no earmarks from 
Congress. There's a lot of pork in it certainly, but not earmarks from 
Congress.
  What most people don't realize, however, is that next week we're 
slated to consider a huge omnibus bill to pass spending bills that 
didn't get passed in last year's session. That bill, that massive, 
massive, massive bill, is going to come to the floor with at least, and 
we have no idea how many, but at least 4,000 earmarks, 4,000 earmarks 
that have not been vetted by the whole House. Most of them have not 
even been vetted by the full Appropriations Committee. Some were passed 
by the subcommittees, but few of them, like the Labor-HHS bill with 
about, I think, 1,200 earmarks, wasn't even vetted by the full 
committee; yet it's going to be considered on the floor without the 
ability to challenge these individual earmarks. Nobody can stand and 
challenge individuals earmarks. There may be questions about campaign 
contributions that coincide with earmarks being put out. We can't 
challenge that. We can't do it because it simply wasn't allowed.
  Now, the other side will likely blame our side, well, you guys held 
up appropriations. We have not been in charge of this body for 2 years; 
yet we're going to be asked to consider legislation with thousands of 
earmarks that have not been vetted by the full House and where there is 
no ability by anyone in this Chamber to actually strike an individual 
earmark or to question spending.
  Now, the reason I bring it up now, this rule, section 2 reads: ``The 
Chair of the Committee on Appropriations shall insert in the 
Congressional Record not later than February 4, 2009, such material as 
he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal year 
2009.''
  What that is to do is to finally get the report of actually what 
earmarks will be in the bill. Well, guess what.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. February 4 is the same day we will actually be considering 
this bill on the floor.
  I would yield to the chairman of the Rules Committee to see if she 
would consider amending the rule to allow the report to be filed on 
February 2. That is what our own rules say we should have, that space 
of time, at least 2 days for people to actually consider these 
earmarks.
  I yield to the gentlewoman of the Rules Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend from Mesa 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We appreciate your thoughtfulness, Mr. Flake, and the good work that 
you do in the House. But we don't have the capacity to change the date 
for that report. Otherwise, we would have been happy to consider it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the majority has the ability to modify 
that date as they see fit, and it's a very easy procedure that can be 
done.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. FLAKE. Keep in mind, Madam Speaker, that unless the date is 
changed, we are likely to get a report on the same day that we vote. 
More than 4,000 earmarks stuffed into an omnibus bill that we've had no 
ability to see.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would offer a proposition to the gentleman 
from Mesa.
  He continually raises the question of the nexus between earmarks and 
campaign contributions. I think there's a terrific way to eliminate 
that nexus. Would he care to join me in cosponsoring the legislation 
which I introduced in the first day of the Congress to create 100 
percent total public financing and to forbid a single private dollar 
from being contributed to any Member of the House's campaign? That 
certainly would eliminate totally any potential nexus between campaign 
contributions and earmarks and allow the Congress to use its judgment 
legislatively without bringing into question the integrity of the 
political process.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I see no reason to put the taxpayers on the hook to fund 
our campaigns. We shouldn't----
  Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, it's obvious the gentleman, I guess, 
is more comfortable complaining about earmarks than doing something 
about campaign financing.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to our new colleague from Peoria, Illinois, the home of 
Caterpillar, Mr. Schock.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment process for H.R. 1.
  A couple of points. First of all, I rise in opposition as a Member 
who has submitted a thoughtful, bipartisan amendment to the Rules 
Committee, one of the over 200 that was submitted, one of the few that 
had bipartisan support. I worked with my good Democratic colleague from 
the State of Washington.
  Simply put, it would have required the Federal Government, State 
government and local governments receiving this stimulus money to spell 
out who is getting this money, what contractors were awarded the money 
and its intended use. Just shortly, a few months ago, we awarded nearly 
$700 billion to financial institutions; $350 billion has been spent, 
and many taxpayers in my district and around the country are asking 
where it went. This simply would have required that this money moving 
forward would clearly spell out who is getting it for what purposes.
  I can tell you, coming from the State of Illinois, where we have a 
Governor on trial right now for giving pay-to-play contracts for 
campaign contributions, I and many of my colleagues from our State wish 
to know where this money is going to go given the great latitude given 
to local governments and States.

[[Page 1805]]

  The second point. This bill flies in the face of the American 
public's wishes. Frank Luntz just released a survey that over 84 
percent of the American people wish for more spending on infrastructure 
as a means to stimulus, yet $800 billion in this bill, less than 8 
percent is going to go for infrastructure. A similar super majority of 
Americans oppose giving tax incentives, tax credits, tax cuts to people 
in this country who do not pay income tax, yet this bill does just 
that.
  So we have heard a lot of talk about bipartisanship, we had a great 
meeting yesterday with the President, his willingness to work with us, 
but bipartisanship is not ``you write the bill, we vote for it.''
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, bipartisanship is important, and 
we are reaching out for it. There is no President in history that has 
reached out and has done more to reach out and to show them than 
President Barack Obama. He has done so.
  On our side, the amendments that you wanted, many of those were 
included by Chairman Obey, Chairman Rangel and the other chairmen in 
this. There were some objectionable items.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, thank you very much, I can certainly use 
it.
  Because of this, this country is looking for us to provide the kind 
of leadership that is needed. They don't want us to hang around the 
docks like little boats. They are looking for us to go way out where 
the big ships go. We must think big and bold. Our economy is crumbling 
around us.
  Let me speak for a moment about what we need in Georgia. I don't know 
about your States, but Georgia's economy is crumbling and is in need. 
We will get just more than $6 billion in construction, and these are 
ready-made construction projects. Let me read what we have in the law.
  It says these new starts and priority projects would be under 
construction, and, we would be able to award contracts at least within 
120 days so that we are moving forward and making sure that these jobs 
are created in the areas that are needed most.
  Now, we don't have a choice in this. The wrong thing for us to do is 
to do nothing. We have got to act big, we have got to act bold, and the 
American people are looking to us. We have got to move with confidence.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I would yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and let me say I 
completely concur with several points that he has made which I think 
are very important. His first point that President Obama has reached 
out in a bipartisan way, it is nearly unprecedented, very unprecedented 
that he came and met, as he and the gentleman and I discussed yesterday 
privately, right here in this Capitol with Republican members.
  The second, the fact you said we have, in fact, seen bipartisanship 
from the other side, there were 94 amendments submitted by Republicans 
and 104 amendments submitted by Democrats. A grand total of 11 
amendments have been made in order. When you have so many Democrats and 
so many Republicans who have been cut out of the process, it's very 
unfortunate.
  The third point that the gentleman makes, which I think is a very 
valid one, we need to have a bold, strong package here rather than 
doing nothing. That's why I believe passionately that growth-oriented 
tax rates, as has been stated by economist after economist, are the way 
to the future, and I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, tax cuts are good, but they are not the 
only thing. Every economist that we have talked with has said it is 
spending, because when you spend, you are putting money directly into 
the economy, creating jobs, and those jobs will yield back tax receipts 
as well.
  When you have tax cuts, it's discretionary. A person can use it to 
save, they can use it to do whatever. But when you inject money 
directly into the economy, you are, in fact, stimulating that economy.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself an additional 
30 seconds and engage in a discussion with my colleague on this.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say that economist after economist has 
pointed to the fact that if we focus on spending, which the gentleman 
has talked about, there is a lag time. In fact, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office analysis has indicated that spending will 
go as far as beyond the 10 years from now.
  So the gentleman is absolutely right, Madam Speaker, we need to 
immediately stimulate the economy. And more than a few of these 
economists, including the President's Chairman of the Council of 
Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, pointed to the fact that tax cuts 
are, in fact, the way to provide that immediate stimulus.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Does the gentleman have more time to yield?
  Mr. DREIER. We have got a limited time. I have already yielded my 
friend an additional minute. Maybe Ms. Slaughter might yield the 
gentleman a minute so that he could respond.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I can yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds but no 
more.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I am so glad you pointed that out, because let 
me show you, let me just illustrate to you, everything is different, 
every State is different.
  My State has over 6 billion shovel-ready projects ready to go. In one 
county alone, in Clayton County, we have got $43 million ready to go; 
in Cobb County, $50 million; Henry County, $12 billion; in Douglas 
County, $11 million and in Fulton County, $62 million. These are 
shovel-ready projects ready to go that will create jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 15 seconds to simply 
say to my colleague that yesterday we had a great discussion about 
Clayton County. I appreciate the fact that he has several shovel-ready 
projects.
  I still point to the fact that the CBO analysis points out that 
getting those dollars immediately is, in fact, not going to happen in 
fact as fast as the gentleman from Clayton County and I would like to 
see happen.
  At this point I would like to yield, Madam Speaker, 1\1/2\ minutes to 
our very hardworking friend, the former chairman of the Committee on 
Small Business, the gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The 
problem today is nobody is talking about restarting manufacturing. 
That's what we need to do in order to re-stimulate the economy.
  We need to help businesses create orders and make sales, and the 
place to start is by offering a voucher, so that if you buy a brand-new 
automobile you get a $5,000 voucher. This is the way to jump-start the 
economy without continuing to spend trillions of dollars.
  In 2007, 17 million new cars were sold, a year later, only 10 
million. That sucked $175 billion out of the economy. If we can get 
back to selling 15 million cars, we can add $125 billion to the 
economy, and if you multiplied that times three or seven, which is 
economic growth, easily over $1 trillion.
  When cars and trucks start selling, people go back to work. It 
refurbishes local and State tax funds. It restarts the manufacturing 
and supply chains. People, instead of receiving unemployment 
compensation, start paying Federal and State income tax.
  This is so easy. Get the people back to work to manufacture the 
automobiles, have a $5,000 voucher. The total cost is only $75 billion 
for 15 million new automobiles. This is what it takes. This is called 
trickle-up economy. You aim the focus of the stimulus at the problem, 
and that's the lack of sales of automobiles and trucks in this country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman and rise in support of the rule and 
the stimulus bill.

[[Page 1806]]

  In 2008, more than 2.6 million Americans lost their jobs, the highest 
yearly job loss total since 1945. In my home State of California, the 
unemployment rate soared to 9.3 percent last month, its the highest in 
15 years.
  It's clear that Congress must take aggressive action to stave off a 
long and deep recession. This legislation will help create jobs 
quickly, restore purchasing power and help those in need.
  With such a large stimulus under consideration, we also have an 
opportunity to build infrastructure that will promote long-term 
prosperity. While we have to place a premium on dispensing funds 
quickly, we must also make a large significant and lasting investment 
in our country's future. When this recession is far behind us, I hope 
we can look back and see that something positive came out of it.
  By investing in renewable energy, we can achieve both short-term and 
long-term goals. We can fund many shovel-ready projects that will give 
the economy a quick boost, but we can also make an investment in 
America's future, creating high-paying jobs and changing the energy 
paradigm of this country.
  Let's make sure we produce a foundation for the Nation's long-term 
health and prosperity and a lasting improvement in our standard of 
living.
  In 2008, more than 2.6 million Americans lost their jobs, the highest 
yearly job-loss total since 1945. In my home state of California, the 
unemployment rate soared to 9.3 percent last month--its highest point 
in 15 years. It is clear that Congress must take aggressive action to 
stave off a long and deep recession and that we must do more to ensure 
that appropriated money is spent efficiently and effectively to ensure 
America's future success.
  This legislation will create jobs quickly, help restore purchasing 
power, assist those in need and begin to reignite our flagging economy. 
With such a large stimulus package under consideration, we also have a 
unique opportunity to build infrastructure that will promote long-term 
prosperity. While we must place a premium on dispersing these funds 
quickly, we must also make a large, significant and lasting investment 
in our country's future. I hope to be able to look back on this period, 
when the recession is far behind us and see that something positive 
came out of this crisis.
  By investing in renewable energy, we can achieve both short-term and 
long-term goals. The green energy sector has many shovel-ready projects 
that would give the economy a quick boost. But renewable energy is also 
vital to our continued economic health--it creates high-paying American 
jobs in a fast-growing industry and protects our nation's natural 
resources. In passing this bill, we take the first step on the path 
toward a clean sustainable high-tech economy.
  I believe that the stimulus will help revive our economy both by 
helping American families who are struggling to make ends meet and by 
making critical investments in our future. It will help establish the 
foundation for the nation's long-term economic health and prosperity 
and ensure a lasting improvement in the standard of living for our 
children and their children.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Knoxville, 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill that it 
brings to the floor. The bill has some good things in it, but we simply 
can't afford them.
  When a family falls deeply head over heels into debt, it doesn't go 
out and immediately and greatly increase its spending. If it does, it 
gets in even worse trouble.
  The majority voted to increase our national debt to an 
incomprehensible $11.315 trillion in the last big bailout bill. Now we 
are told we face trillion-dollar deficits for several years to come.
  We simply cannot afford this so-called stimulus package. All it is 
really a short-term fix for our addiction to spending. And it's false 
to say if we don't pass this package, we are voting to do nothing. We 
haven't given enough time to see what effect all the trillions of 
dollars of actions taken by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury over 
the last few months have had and will have.
  Most Americans support more spending on our infrastructure, but this 
is less than 8 percent of this bill, and highway spending is only 3 
percent. We could do far more, Madam Speaker, for our economy at far 
less cost if we would give significant tax credits to anyone who would 
buy or build a new home and people who would buy new or used cars and 
trucks.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how 
many speakers he has remaining?
  Mr. DREIER. I think at this juncture we have a couple of speakers 
remaining.
  May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side, 
Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\3/4\ 
minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very, 
very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I have now successfully amended this bill 
twice. The first Kirk amendment blocked stimulus funds from going 
through Governor Blagojevich's hand.
  The second Kirk amendment deleted funding for $200 million to resod 
the National Mall. Now the Mall plan collapsed last year after the Park 
Service received 13,000 objections, including the ACLU, that objected 
to the plan's restrictions on protest space.
  I also objected to the need to turn the reflecting pool into an ice-
skating rink, for an expensive contemplation area and new water-taxi 
service the taxpayers would pay for but no one would use.
  It's surprising the Appropriations Committee even approved this 
funding. Unfortunately, congressional leaders have rejected my 
amendment allowing bipartisan oversight over the $825 billion of 
spending in this bill.
  This bill claims to set up a transparency board and an advisory 
committee, but all of the members will work for the White House. 
Congressional leaders rejected any oversight by anyone who does not 
report directly to the President.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to another member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, our 
new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. I thank our esteemed ranking member for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule, but more importantly to the 
underlying bill. The stimulus bill is fraught with spending that truly 
misses the mark, and what we need to turn around is our struggling 
economy. The stimulus should spark job creation and ease the strain on 
middle class America.

                              {time}  1215

  We can't spend our way to prosperity and continue to add to an 
already bloated Federal Government. The bill does not provide adequate 
tax relief to small business and middle-class Americans who are on the 
front line of this crisis. For every dollar this plan devotes to small 
business, $6 are used to create new Federal programs, programs which 
never seem to end.
  Creating new Federal programs for every American is not a responsible 
blueprint for creating jobs in our country and in western New York. 
Western New Yorkers are no strangers to doing more with less. It's time 
the Federal Government follow that same pattern. Now Washington needs 
to do something quickly and responsibly.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker again how 
much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 2\3/4\ 
remaining, the gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, on the 9th of January, then President-elect Obama made 
it very clear. He said, There is no disagreement. That we need action 
by our government; a recovery plan that will jump-start our economy. 
And there is total agreement on that. Total agreement on that.

[[Page 1807]]

  We all know, both sides of the aisle, that in our districts, whether 
it's Georgia, New York, California, our constituents are hurting. We 
are all feeling the pain of this economic downturn. The question is: 
What action will we take? Are we going to put into place a bill that is 
627 pages long, $1.18 billion for every single page of that bill, with 
spending that will go beyond the next 10 years as we seek to immediate 
immediately jump-start our economy, or are we going to do what so many 
economists from both sides of the aisle have indicated we need to do--
put into place strong growth-oriented tax cuts that can provide the 
fast-acting jump-start that we all seek. That is the choice that we 
have here.
  Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this rule, this rule does not 
allow the kind of debate the Democrats and Republicans deserve: 206 
amendments offered to the Rules Committee, most of them amendments from 
Democrats. Ninety-four of those 206 came from Republicans. Yet, only 11 
were made in order.
  That is why this rule is unfair, and it's unfair to the American 
people. We need to have a growth-oriented package, and we are going to 
come forward with that, but we also need to have a number of these 
other creative, thoughtful proposals that so many of our colleagues 
have offered come before us.
  This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will exceed 
$1.1 trillion if you take into consideration the interest payments. 
That is going to impose a tremendous burden on future generations, and 
it is not going to provide the jump-start that President Obama has 
talked about.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, 
``no'' on the underlying legislation. But when we do have our 
opportunity to provide a balanced, growth-oriented package, I hope the 
Democrats and Republicans can come together to provide that immediate 
jump-start that we need.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, not anyone in the Rules Committee last 
night would ever have guessed that I was importuned more than once to 
make sure there weren't too many amendments out here today; that there 
were pending trips, things that people had to go to.
  The hypocrisy of it sometimes gets the better of me, and I must admit 
that even mentioning it is somewhat petty on my part. But, nonetheless, 
I think it needs to be said.
  I would be happy to stay here tomorrow and continue to debate this. 
Frankly, I don't know how anyone can go home this weekend and look in 
the faces of our constituents and look at the young people, as one of 
my neighbors said, who had to be pulled from college because he 
couldn't afford it; for people who don't know if they are going to be 
working next week; for people who absolutely don't know if they have 
any future, how do we continue this cold and bitter winter in upstate 
New York, where the heating prices go up every single day, and where 
absolutely too many people don't know where the next meal is coming 
from at the same time as the community kitchens are running out of 
food.
  We are in a very serious condition here, Madam Speaker. This is no 
time for politics. Everybody says it, but so few people mean it. I mean 
it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, and 
hope that we can do one today that will begin to rebuild the country we 
love, America.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight 
an amendment included in the legislation before us today that will not 
only put Americans to work, but will also improve the safety of our 
communities. This amendment will go a long way to help put firefighters 
back in our neighborhoods.
  President Obama clearly understands the value of firefighters in our 
communities, as in his inaugural address he spoke of the firefighters' 
``courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke'' in describing the 
faith and determination of the American people.
  By waiving the matching requirement under the Staffing for Adequate 
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program, this amendment will ensure 
that thousands of firefighters are either hired or retained nationwide 
without adding a single penny to the federal deficit.
  All across our Nation, State and local governments are struggling. My 
State of Connecticut is currently facing a one billion dollar budget 
deficit this year alone. As a result, our governors, mayors and 
selectmen are being forced to make deep and at times dangerous 
budgetary cuts that are unfortunately resulting in many localities not 
being able to participate in the SAFER program, which is meant to 
assist departments in hiring additional firefighters.
  Congress has funded the SAFER program in the past, and it would be 
irresponsible for the House to allow this funding to go unused. For 
this reason, I am extremely pleased that we adopted the aforementioned 
amendment and ensured that this funding gets to the local fire 
departments during this time of need.
  Madam Speaker, this is just one more example of the responsible, 
beneficial provisions included in the American Economic Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act that will lead our country back to economic stability. 
I thank all of my colleagues for their support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 92 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on S. 328.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 185, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               YEAS--243

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     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
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     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)
     Lipinski
     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
     Minnick
     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
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     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

[[Page 1808]]


     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     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
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     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
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     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)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cassidy
     Delahunt
     Solis (CA)

                              {time}  1243

  Mr. MINNICK changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________