[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3464-3476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 1, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND 
                        REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). All time yielded 
during consideration of the motion is for debate only.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I think the need for this action is obvious. The country is in 
trouble economically. We need to put an economic recovery package in 
place just as soon as possible. Going to conference is the next step to 
making that happen, and I would urge support for the motion.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  It was less than 2 weeks ago that we debated the House version of the 
economic stimulus package. When we

[[Page 3465]]

began this process, I was hopeful that the House and the Senate would 
heed the President's call for bipartisanship. Madam Speaker, clearly, 
that has not occurred. The House and Senate have now cleared their 
respective versions of the same legislation. To date, eleven Democrats 
have opposed the stimulus package in the House, and only three 
Republicans--that is three Republicans--have supported it in the 
Senate.
  The manner in which this package was developed is the clearest 
demonstration to date that, while the President expresses his sincere 
interest in bipartisan collaboration, his own leadership in the House 
stubbornly clings to a top-down approach to governing. That top-down 
approach to governing that has dominated our politics in the House 
these last 2 years is the single greatest impediment to bipartisanship 
and is the greatest threat to this institution that most of us love so 
much.
  I am absolutely convinced that, given the opportunity, the chairmen 
and ranking members of each of the twelve appropriations subcommittees 
could have and would have worked together responsibly to develop a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that would stimulate the economy and 
would create millions and millions of American jobs. Given the 
opportunity, Republicans and Democrats would have produced a package 
that would have garnered the support of the House majority on both 
sides of the aisle. That, however, did not occur with this package.
  The chairmen and ranking members of our Appropriations subcommittees 
were never given an opportunity to work in such a fashion. Not only 
were subcommittee chairmen and ranking members prevented from working 
constructively, but the majority staff of the Appropriations Committee 
was instructed on more than one occasion not to engage or to share 
information with their minority counterparts. Think about that, Madam 
Speaker. At the subcommittee level, we have very fine staff, very fine 
members who spend time concentrating in areas of expertise, and they 
were told by the top of the committee, ``do not communicate at the 
staff level within the subcommittees,'' cutting off any sensible form 
or chance for compromise.
  Bipartisanship is a pragmatic and constructive willingness on the 
part of both parties to engage in a beneficial give-and-take on various 
areas of disagreement to form consensus. Given this definition and 
approach and the manner in which critical legislation is now written, 
bipartisanship in this House really is no longer possible. It certainly 
does not even appear to be desired by the leadership.
  I have said publicly and sincerely on several occasions that I want 
to see our President be successful. The urgency of the present economic 
situation demands that we work together in a constructive fashion, but 
that cannot occur when decisions are made solely by a handful of 
powerful leaders while the voices of other Members, who have much to 
contribute, are routinely disregarded and are summarily dismissed.
  Spoken during our floor debate when he was discussing this process 
just 11 years ago, the words of Chairman Obey ring particularly true 
when we consider my frustration at this moment. I quote my chairman, 
Mr. Obey.
  He said, ``This is no way to establish bipartisan consensus. This is 
no way to establish a decent working relationship between the executive 
and legislative branches. We need to try to find common ground between 
the two parties.''
  We are proceeding with a motion to go to conference, but let us not 
for one moment believe this stimulus package is an example of 
bipartisan legislation, because it is not now nor was it intended to be 
from the very beginning.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, before we continue with a stimulus 
policy that has consistently failed to stimulate anything other than 
the government, I think the supporters of this program need to answer 
some very simple questions.
  For example, the President, himself, told us yesterday that this $800 
billion of new spending is going to produce 4 million new jobs. Well, 
that's great until you pull out a pocket calculator and realize that 
that comes to $200,000 per job.
  Question: Why don't we just send those 4 million lucky families a 
check for $100,000 and save half of what the President wants to spend 
according to his own numbers?
  The President, himself, told audiences this weekend that the spending 
bill would produce a renaissance of highway, road and bridge 
construction.
  Question: If that is the object of this bill, why is only 3 percent 
of the funding going for that purpose?
  The Congressional Budget Office last week noted that the current 
spending bill, although producing temporary relief, will incur so much 
long-term debt as to reduce overall GDP growth over the next decade.
  Question: How do we strengthen our economic future by leaving the 
next generation with an unprecedented debt that will take decades to 
pay off?
  We know of many cases where massive government spending and borrowing 
has destroyed economies and has brought down great nations. One need 
look no further than to the old Soviet Union.
  Question: When in the recorded history of civilization has massive 
public spending ever stimulated an economy?
  It did not work in Japan in the 1990s. The Japanese call that their 
lost decade. It did not work in America in the 1930s. The unemployment 
rate in 1939, after nearly a decade of New Deal spending, was the same 
as it was in 1931.
  Madam Speaker, history warns us that bankrupt nations do not last 
very long. Before we continue with yet another round of massive 
spending and borrowing, I suggest we get some answers to these 
inconvenient questions.
  Mr. OBEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 
minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, like many people, I have had a chance to 
at least look briefly at this bill. I have grave concerns about what it 
is going to do.
  We are spending more than $1 trillion in a hurried-up fashion here 
with very little oversight and with no hearings. Everything is just 
rushing forward. Everyone understands that we have got a real problem--
an economic downturn in this country. We've got to do something, and 
we've got to act quickly to save those jobs, those opportunities for 
our families. We've got to get the country back on its feet again so it 
can prosper.
  We had a proposal brought forth that was totally ignored--the idea of 
creating over 6 million new jobs at half the cost of what this bill 
costs--and it has been totally thrown aside. This would have put money 
immediately into people's pockets. It would have had them spending and 
getting this economy going and rolling again. That is exactly what we 
need to do, but we've never had an opportunity to put those into this 
bill.
  It's not only what the bill does as far as spending over $1 trillion. 
Some provisions in here make dramatic changes in the way our government 
operates. When we look at reversing welfare reform, the one great thing 
back from the Clinton administration, this is going to turn that on its 
head and allow people to stay on welfare for as long as they would 
like.
  I think it also is very, very serious when we talk about a major 
change in health care reform in that this is going to put the 
government in charge of rationing health care, standing between you and 
your doctor. This is something that at least there should be some 
debate about. Somebody should have a chance to offer amendments to 
change these bills, these ideas that make massive changes in the 
fundamental way that we have welfare reform and the way our health care 
is delivered in this country.

[[Page 3466]]

  Madam Speaker, to me, this is outrageous. We have got to step back. 
We have got to think about these things before we just jump into these 
major changes that are going to do great harm to our economy and to the 
future of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. OBEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a 
meaningful solution to the economic challenges facing our Nation. The 
House Republican economic recovery plan, for example, would have 
created 6.2 million new jobs, and would have provided critical tax 
breaks for the small businesses that are the engine of our economy.

                              {time}  1430

  Unfortunately, today the Senate passed a borrow-and-spend bill that 
is full of wasteful spending and fails to provide the immediate relief 
the American people demand.
  According to Rasmussen Reports, 62 percent of Americans want more tax 
cuts and less government spending in an economic stimulus plan. Yet 
only one-third of the Senate's bill focuses on that much-needed tax 
relief.
  Madam Speaker, I've been contacted by hundreds and hundreds of 
Minnesotans who understand the need for meaningful relief. These men 
and women are frustrated with ineffective legislation that favors the 
creation of new government programs over new jobs--and saddles our 
children and grandchildren with more debt and bigger government.
  One of these Minnesotans owns a trucking company. And he reported 
that he's had the worst quarter and the worst months in the history of 
his company, which is a second-generation company. They're having to 
lay off truckers. It's hard times. He does not support the Senate 
stimulus package.
  One of those Minnesotans is another employer, a small businessman, 
had over 150 employees. They've had no new orders for systems since 
this summer. They, too, were having to lay off employees.
  We understand that there are people hurting, but neither of these 
Minnesotans favors this non-stimulus plan.
  Madam Speaker, let's listen to these American people. Let's listen to 
the Minnesotans. They deserve a stimulus that works.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 1 minute 
to Mr. Roe of Tennessee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, this weekend the administration 
warned that our economic crisis could become a catastrophe if we failed 
to pass an economic stimulus package. Madam Speaker, avoiding a 
catastrophe is exactly why House Republicans are opposed to the package 
that the House considered just 2 weeks ago. The Senate bill, being 
hailed as a compromise by some, spends more money than the House bill 
did and still contains too much wasteful spending.
  We strongly support a stimulus bill, but it must be a stimulus bill 
that grows our economy, creates jobs, and doesn't saddle our 
grandchildren with unnecessary debt. Purchasing golf carts for the 
Federal Government is not stimulative; neither is money designed to 
follow-up the census which doesn't even begin for 2 years.
  We support reducing taxes for working families and small businesses 
and improving our roads and water and sewer infrastructure. All of this 
lays the groundwork for future growth and is a much wiser use for our 
precious tax dollars.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Mr. 
Poe of Texas for 2 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it's been said: ``a billion dollars 
here, a billion dollars there, eventually we're going to be talking 
about real money.'' Well, we're talking about real money in this 
stimulus package. Madam Speaker, let's make it clear. Spending money 
doesn't automatically stimulate the economy. That is a myth.
  Now, this package is, oh, 800, $900 billion. How much is that? Well, 
that means different things to different folks. Down in Australia, that 
is the entire cost of the Australian economy. Or looking at it another 
way, $900 billion, if you take every junior and senior in high school 
in every high school in the United States, this money could give them a 
4-year college education at a private university--now we're talking 
about real money--and still have $150 billion left over.
  Or looking at it another way, you could pay off 90 percent of the 
home mortgages in the United States.
  This is serious business, Madam Speaker, and this bill does not 
stimulate the economy; it just spends a lot of taxpayer money.
  What we should do is let Americans keep more of their own money. Cut 
taxes for those that pay taxes. Then they have their own money, they 
can spend it the way they want to, and they can stimulate our economy.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I can't tell you how it warms my heart to 
hear the former chairman say he was pleased to yield me time. I 
appreciate that.
  But one thing that isn't pleasing is this so-called stimulus bill. 
It's an abomination. We should not be doing this to future generations. 
I've got two pairs of words for you: One pair of words, tax holiday; 
another pair of words, American energy.
  Our President went from promising all of these millions of jobs, 
three million, I believe, initially through this stimulus package to 
now saying we're going to create or save four million jobs. Why would 
we add ``save''? Because there is no way to document saved jobs. So 
whatever happens, ``Well, we lost four million jobs, but gee, we saved 
four million in the process.'' I guess that's what will be said at the 
end of it.
  The problem is this is not going to stimulate the economy when over 
half of it, 60 percent of it, is not going to be spent for a couple of 
years or so.
  The economy needs help now, and we need to do it without devastating 
our children and grandchildren. I used to sentence people for doing 
unconscionable things to their children or to children, and here now 
I'm a part of a body who wants to live better by taxing and hammering 
future generations. That's not right. There is nothing virtuous, there 
is nothing noble in loading down our future generations with this kind 
of debt.
  And, in fact, my Democrat colleagues got in the majority by talking 
in 2005 and 2006 about the deficit spending, and they were right then. 
We shouldn't be doing it. Tax cuts got us record revenue in the 
Treasury; deficit spending got us in trouble. Greed got us in trouble. 
The immorality of people wanting it for themselves was just too much.
  It is time to get back to morality and not loading up future 
generations, not making our children suffer for the sins of their 
parents. Let's don't sin any more by being immoral in the way we throw 
money. Let's do this the right way.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen), for 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I strongly support an economic 
stimulus bill that will produce jobs that actually put people to work, 
especially in the private sector. H.R. 1 does not do that.
  The notion that we need to expand State and Federal public employee 
rolls with a massive dollar increase in existing and entirely new 
domestic programs is not what my constituents back home want. My 
constituents are losing their jobs on Main Street and on Wall Street. 
The value of their homes has been reduced. Some teeter on the brink of 
forfeiture. Families' savings and investment accounts have been 
savaged.
  And in this context, the House leadership proposes a bill that 
guarantees a burst of state and Federal hiring: bureaucracies that will 
undoubtedly

[[Page 3467]]

handcuff small businesses with more rules and more regulation.
  What's wrong with this picture?
  As an illustration of what's wrong with the bill, let's look at the 
energy and water portfolio. Frankly, more funding has been proposed in 
H.R. 1 than could be possibly spent intelligently and effectively.
  Under the bill, the budget for Department of Energy grants and loans 
explodes to $30 billion. This sum alone is greater than the entire 
budget for the whole Department of Energy last year. Instead of being 
our premier R&D agency, DOE will become a grants-manager for tens of 
billions of borrowed money, much of it spent in expanding the Federal 
workforce. And what's left will expand State governments. Little will 
filter down to people who actually work with their hands, actually make 
things more efficiently, and advance technology.
  This is all a recipe for more dysfunction for government acquisition 
systems that can barely handle their own workloads today. Are the State 
governments prepared? Their manpower is down, and those who might 
provide oversight and accountability are walking the unemployment lines 
as we speak.
  My colleagues, remember Katrina: Poor planning, shoddy execution, 
noncompetitive contract awards, abuse of contractor flexibility, 
inadequate oversight, a climate for waste, an open invitation to fraud 
and corruption.
  Madam Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose H.R. 1. Those who do 
not remember the lessons of Katrina are bound to repeat those mistakes. 
In the meantime, we're missing a precious opportunity to create real 
private sector jobs and prevent layoffs.
  I've heard from my constituents in New Jersey. They want a stimulus 
package, but they don't want this one.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, could I inquire about the 
time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
has 12 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
29\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the ranking member for recognizing 
me.
  And I want to just say, you know, as I spent time at home this 
weekend, I would see the polls were 38 percent of the American people 
in favor of this stimulus bill. Evidently those 38 percent don't 
understand that this is a government-expansion spending bill and not 
really a stimulus bill. But I don't know who the 38 percent of those 
people were because everybody I talked to in my district was upset that 
we were trying to create new government spending programs and claim it 
to be a stimulus.
  There are 20 new programs in this stimulus bill that have never been 
in the government before, 20 new programs. There needs to be some 
programs that we find that are inefficient. I can't believe that every 
program in our government is working to where it services the citizens.
  But let me say this: The things that we are spending money on, such 
as car credits--a lot of people say, ``Good. Car credits are great,'' 
but they're for two-wheel, three-wheel electric plug-ins; not for the 
cars that are sitting on these lots today that these dealers need to 
get rid of.
  So we need to look at what the Republican plan did and actually give 
people money to keep in their own pocket. In fact, they wouldn't even 
have to give it. They could just keep it from what they're paying right 
now in their Federal taxes. This is a way to stimulate the economy. 
Spending other people's money does not stimulate. Spending other 
people's money does not stimulate. We are spending people's money that 
are the taxpayers. They need to spend that money. We're borrowing money 
from foreign countries to be able to do this. We're printing money at a 
very rapid rate.
  What we need to be doing, Madam Speaker, is looking at ways to create 
the jobs that the average person that's standing in the unemployment 
line can have right now, not create more government and create more 
government jobs, but create more jobs in the private sector.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute 
to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California 
for yielding.
  Today, earlier, President Obama held a town hall meeting in Fort 
Meyer, Florida. He discussed the need to create more jobs for Florida 
families and families across our country. This has been one of our 
shared goals since the outset of this process. And that's why House 
Republicans have crafted a plan that creates the most jobs in the 
shortest period of time. In fact, our plan would create 141,000 more 
jobs for Florida families than the package that's under consideration.
  And overall, it would create twice as many jobs, some 6.2 million 
jobs in all, at half of the price of the bill that's moving through 
Congress.
  And don't just take my word for it. This is based on the methodology 
used by President Obama's own nominee as chair of the White House 
Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer.
  How? How do we create all of these jobs? We encourage investment and 
create jobs by letting families, small businesses, home buyers and job 
seekers keep more of what they earn. Unfortunately, the House and 
Senate bills take us in a different direction.
  We already know that they rely on slow-moving, wasteful spending here 
in Washington, but there's more.
  The plan that's currently on the table tries to take advantage of the 
crisis in our economy to enact a series of liberal policy proposals 
that have nothing to do with economic recovery. It discourages 
Americans from working, loosens welfare reform's work requirements, and 
encourages more Americans to become dependent on government programs. 
And through a proposal called Comparative Effectiveness, it aims to put 
the Federal Government in charge of some of the most important life and 
death decisions that families face.
  The bill is supposed to be about creating jobs, not about reversing 
welfare reform or letting government ration out America's health care 
options.
  There is still time for both parties to work together to craft a bill 
that puts job creation first and foremost. But I think it's up to the 
majority to help make that happen.

                              {time}  1445

  Republicans want to work in a constructive way to help families 
during this economic crisis, and we want to answer the President's call 
for bipartisanship and his call for a plan that creates jobs first and 
foremost. The bills being considered don't do that.
  We do believe that our economy is in a crisis. Families and small 
businesses are hurting, and the government must act, but we must act in 
a prudent way that does what we all want to do, and that's to preserve 
jobs in America and to create more jobs in America.
  Unfortunately, the plans that we're seeing don't do that. The plan 
that we put on the table for consideration would, in fact, create 6.2 
million jobs over the next 2 years, twice as many jobs as the bills 
being considered at half the price tag.
  It's time to work in a bipartisan way to solve this crisis, and I 
would urge my colleagues to listen to our ideas and work with us on 
behalf of the American people.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to take a second look 
before committing this bill to conference.
  We're making some fundamental changes in the way health care is 
administered in this country as a result of this bill, which has 
nothing to do with the creation of jobs but everything to do with the 
government taking a greater and greater share of our

[[Page 3468]]

personal liberties that pertains to health care.
  Certainly the funding cliffs that are present in the funding for 
Medicaid and COBRA--COBRA extending medical benefits for 12 months, 
Medicaid an additional 18 months--but what happens at the end of that 
12- or 18-month interval? Do those individuals just fall off a cliff or 
will Congress have to come back with yet more money?
  Already we're talking about an $800 billion bill. We don't include in 
that the cost of capital. If we were honest about this bill and 
included the cost of capital and the cost of funding past those funding 
cliffs, this, in reality, would be a $3 trillion product.
  And, Madam Speaker, I spent an hour today down at the Bureau of Debt 
and watched $32 billion be auctioned off shortly before one o'clock 
today. That was the third time today that they've had an auction down 
there. This is an incredible amount of paper that we're selling on the 
worldwide market, and you have to wonder how long the market can 
sustain that.
  And perhaps just as pernicious, we heard the minority leader mention 
the comparative effect of this statute, the health information 
technology statute, something that I support, that I believe in but 
really has no place in a stimulus bill. Look at the power, look at the 
power we're giving to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health 
Information Technology that provides medical decisions, sets the time 
and place of care. We're devolving an enormous amount of power to an 
individual that none of us, in fact, even know who that is at the 
present time.
  We're politicizing health care in this country in a way that's never 
been done before, and we at least ought to be honest with the American 
people about what we're doing and not do it under the cover of night.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 2 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I stand in opposition to H.R. 1, and I can stand here and talk about 
specific line items in the bill that were first presented to us in the 
House, not a whole lot different from what's coming over from the 
Senate, but the bottom line is that we on this side of the aisle have 
an alternative that would do a whole lot better, and I don't think I 
can say it any better than comparing my own State of Georgia.
  The Republican alternative would create 186,000 jobs in the State of 
Georgia. This bill would create 113,000. That's a difference of 73,000 
jobs, and we do it, Madam Speaker, with much less spending, in fact 
less than half of the spending that's in this current bill. And we do 
it by making sure that the tax cuts are directed towards small 
businessmen and -women and, of course, lowering the capital gains and 
the tax on dividends.
  So we get money in the hands of the people immediately, 5 percent cut 
in taxes across-the-board, every marginal rate, and last but not least, 
Madam Speaker, to cut spending 1 percent across the board, with the 
exception, of course, of national defense.
  I've heard President Obama and others say, you know, we need to do 
something right now; don't just stand there, do something. But this 
clearly is a time that we need to take a deep breath and make sure that 
we do the right thing because the downside risk of adding $1.2 trillion 
worth of debt to a 10.7 current debt, I don't know how our children and 
grandchildren will ever pay for this, and the chances of it being 
successful are slim and none in my opinion.
  I'm opposed to it. I think we can do better.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield 2 minutes 
to Mr. Cole from Oklahoma, a member of the committee.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against going to conference on 
the stimulus bill, H.R. 1. However, I'm also rising in support of 
keeping the conference open.
  The time has come to expose this legislation for what it is, a grab 
bag of special interest projects that will do little in the way of 
stimulating the economy and will significantly increase our deficit, 
literally risking our bond rating and triggering future tax increases.
  Never in the history of our country has so much money been spent in 
so little time with, frankly, so little oversight.
  As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, a gentleman asked 
me, well, what's it like? I said, I don't know. I showed up to one 
meeting. We spent $358 billion in about 3 hours. It was an open 
process. There was full debate, but there hadn't been subcommittee 
meetings, and there wasn't time for genuine discussion and give-and-
take, in my view.
  This train is moving so fast down the tracks, it's hard to determine, 
frankly, what's in the legislative package from day-to-day, and 
unfortunately, in my opinion, the package has not been bipartisan in 
nature. It's not been developed through negotiation and discussion.
  Madam Speaker, I trust the President when he says that this should be 
a bipartisan package, and frankly, I wish the Democratic leadership in 
the House had seen fit to make it so. But a bipartisan package 
generally requires the two sides to sit down and negotiate, and 
frankly, genuinely bipartisan legislation usually requires that some 
Members on each side vote ``no.''
  What we have today is a package that's going to be rammed through on 
a largely partisan vote where, frankly, the minority feels like it 
hasn't had an opportunity to participate. Again, I have no problem with 
that because that's the legislative process. As our friends like to 
say, they won the election.
  Of course, so did we. Everybody that's in this body won an election. 
Everybody has a point of view, and if you want to have genuine 
bipartisan legislation, then you have to involve the other side.
  The route we're taking will end up, again, in virtually universal 
support by Democrats and universal opposition by Republicans. It 
doesn't have to be that way. We could have either debated the 
Republican alternative or done something else and found common ground.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time. May I inquire of the chairman if he has any additional speakers. 
I'm going to reserve and yield back my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I have one speaker, myself.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I don't intend to take a lot of time, but I 
do want to respond to some of the claims and comments made today in 
opposition to this legislation.
  First of all, I do want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole). Like myself, he is a committed partisan, and I think, like 
myself, he is also an institutionalist, and while I recognize that he 
very much differs with the product that we have before us, I appreciate 
the fact that he did indicate that the committee consideration of this 
bill was an open process.
  Let me simply respond to a few of the comments made by my friends on 
the other side of the aisle.
  We're told by numerous speakers that this package is too large. In 
fact, I fear that it may be too small. We can't determine the proper 
size of any economic recovery package unless we have some understanding 
and some anticipation of the size of the problem that it is meant to 
alleviate.
  My old friend Archie the Cockroach, for instance, in talking about 
the need for proportion said once, In life you always need proportion. 
``Of what use is it for a queen bee to fall in love with a bull?''
  I think that if we have large and serious economic crisis coming at 
us, that response needs to be large, bold and aggressive, and that's 
what I believe the President's package is.
  Now, this package is $820 billion. It represents less than 6 percent 
of our total gross domestic product spread over several years. I would 
point out that when World War II hit us governmental spending went from 
10 percent

[[Page 3469]]

of GDP in 1940 to 44 percent in 1943 and 1944, a huge percentage, an 
increase of 34 percent. That was to save the country in time of war.
  I would submit that the challenge to our economy today is every bit 
as large as the challenge of World War II was to this country in 
another time because we have been faced with the prospect of virtually 
total collapse of the financial sector of this economy.
  Under the previous President, President Bush, when the crisis finally 
hit, this Congress gave him the benefit of the doubt, and even though 
we, many of us, had strong misgivings about the wisdom of the proposal, 
and even though many of us were frustrated by the fact that Secretary 
Paulson would not provide sufficient relief on the mortgage front, we 
nonetheless supported the President's request because we were told that 
the alternative was to see an absolute freeze up and collapse of the 
credit markets in this country, with disastrous results. Not just for 
those Wall Street wizards who helped cause the problem, but would also 
have resulted in the crushing of everybody else below them on the 
economic ladder as they fell from their Wall Street perches.
  And now the President is asking us to do two additional things. His 
Secretary of the Treasury today is scheduled to explain to the country 
what their second step will be with respect to trying to stabilize the 
financial system in this country and, at the same time, trying to do 
something to deal with the horrendous collapse of housing prices and 
the horrendous collapse of people's equity in their homes. And then the 
next thing the President wants us to do is to pass this package.
  Now, this package, as I've said, is a huge, huge endeavor. It is 
certainly of the size that would have been shocking just a few months 
ago, but it's responding to a problem just as large, and I want to show 
you what we're trying to respond to.
  This chart shows projected unemployment levels from now through 2 
years from today. It was presented by Mr. Mark Zandi, one of the 
principal economic advisers to Senator McCain in the last campaign. He 
represents Moody's Economy.com. The red bars indicate what he expects 
to happen to the unemployment levels if we do nothing. What he expects 
is that unemployment will rise from over 7 percent, slightly over 7 
percent where it is today, to almost 11 percent and perhaps even higher 
2 years from now.

                              {time}  1500

  In other words, he sees the economy sliding ever more deeply into the 
abyss over the next 2 years if we do nothing.
  The blue bars represent what he thinks the unemployment levels will 
be if we do pass a $750 billion economic recovery package. Even then, 
he projects that by the second quarter of--not this year, but next 
year--he projects that unemployment will still have risen to around 9 
percent.
  As the President said last night, what that means is that no matter 
what we do, we are going to have a very, very rough year. And it is his 
hope and it is the expectation of most economists that if we pass this 
package, or something close to it, then we will be able to mitigate the 
rise in unemployment, that we will be able to reduce the expected 
levels of unemployment by at least 2 percent. And we hope what that 
will do is to begin to bring additional revenues back into the Treasury 
and, at the same time, in combination with the other actions of the 
President, restore a modicum of public confidence in the economy. 
Between those two actions, get the economy moving again, slowly but 
surely.
  So this package attempts to use the only tool that we have available 
to get the economy going again. Normally, when we run into economic 
trouble, what we would do is rely on monetary policy in order to get us 
out of it. The problem is we have already fired that gun. The Federal 
Reserve has already brought interest rates down to record low levels. 
So we don't have that bullet in the gun any more.
  About the only bullet left that we can fire is one of fiscal 
stimulus. And that is what this bill tries to do. It tries to make up 
for the fact that over the next 2\1/2\ years we are expected to have a 
$2.5 trillion hole in the economy because of the collapse of consumer 
purchasing power. And, as a result, what the President is trying to do 
is to partially fill that economic hole to mitigate the expected steep 
rise in unemployment.
  And so the President is trying, in essence, to create or preserve 
about 4 million jobs by providing additional funding to produce clean, 
efficient energy alternatives. He wants to provide more jobs by trying 
to transform our economy through beefing up science and technology. He 
wants to provide more jobs by modernizing roads, bridges, transit, and 
waterways, to deal with the crumbling infrastructure of the last 30 
years.
  He wants to preserve hundreds of thousands of jobs by helping States 
to maintain their education budgets as their own revenue sources 
collapse so that we don't have to lay off school teachers; so we don't 
have to lay off janitors; so we don't have to lay off speech therapists 
and guidance counselors; so that we don't have to lay off cops; so that 
we don't have to lay off park workers.
  In addition, he wants us to provide tax cuts in order to enable the 
middle class to finally get a little better deal on the tax side of the 
ledger. He wants to help workers hurt by the economy by providing 
additional help for those who have lost their jobs by way of an 
extension and an expansion of unemployment compensation. And he also 
wants to help those who have lost their health insurance by providing 
greater access to Medicaid and by providing some help to keep up with 
what is called their COBRA payments.
  So that is what this package is all about. It is not perfect by any 
means. And we have substantial, but I hope not overpowering, 
differences between us and the Senate.
  And so the purpose of this motion is to simply have us get on with 
it. To take the next step we know that we have to take if we are going 
to do something constructive to move this country forward. We can all 
debate the fine points of this package until the cows come home, as 
they say in my area of the country. But the fact is, sooner or later we 
need to take heed and remember what Franklin Roosevelt said in a not 
very different situation years ago when he said, ``We need action, and 
action now.''
  This package is meant to begin that process. I would urge Members to 
support the motion.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I support quickly moving forward with a 
recovery package to put America back to work.
  The reckless actions of much of Wall Street, coupled with years of 
inadequate regulatory oversight, have led to a housing and financial 
crisis of enormous proportions. Spiraling foreclosure rates have put 
millions of families on the brink of disaster and infected the entire 
economy. We must stop an economic collapse and throw a life-line to the 
millions of people that are struggling to find work and support their 
families.
  In the last four months alone, the economy has lost over 2 million 
jobs. By the end of 2009, an additional 3-5 million Americans could 
lose their jobs and without this package, the unemployment rate is 
likely to rise to 12 percent.
  Any final bill must create new jobs by: repairing and improving our 
nation's roads, highways and bridges and improve and expand public 
transportation in urban and rural areas. Surface transportation funding 
in the House bill would create more than 1 million new jobs.
  The House and Senate bills would also create jobs by investing in 
safety and capacity improvements at our Nation's airports; capital 
investments in Amtrak and intercity passenger rail; and energy 
retrofits in our Nation's public housing, HUD assisted housing and 
Indian reservation housing.
  This is just some of the important job creating stimulus in this 
bill.
  It is important that we act quickly to bolster the sagging economy.
  I strongly support this investment package because it will help put 
America back to work and improve our transportation and housing 
infrastructure.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be 
here to support this motion to go to conference on the Recovery bill. 
It has been some time since we have had an actual conference on a tax 
bill. The

[[Page 3470]]

purpose of conferences is to work out differences between the chambers 
and that give-and-take will usually result in a better bill.
  I commend Chairman Rangel for crafting a responsible tax title that 
will deliver substantial relief in tough economic times. This means 95 
percent of all taxpayers will see tax cuts through the Making Work Pay 
credit, including 2 million families in Massachusetts. Working families 
will also benefit from improvements to the child tax credit, the earned 
income tax credit, and a new higher education tax credit.
  Businesses across the country will benefit from bonus depreciation 
and small business expensing provisions, as well as relief for those 
businesses with net operating losses. And state and local governments 
will see substantial relief for infrastructure needs through greater 
bond authority and lowering the costs to borrow.
  The Senate has worked its will and made a number of changes to our 
House bill, which our conferees should give due consideration. Twenty-
six million families will be protected from the AMT under the Senate 
bill, and that is a provision I am hopeful we can include here. It is 
something we will enact this year, no doubt. But sooner is better than 
later.
  However, some of the spending cuts, especially for education and 
higher education, could eliminate the possibility for many of our 
schools, colleges, and universities to pull out of this economic slump, 
where credit is tight and borrowing prohibitively expensive.
  I am very optimistic and have great confidence in our conferees to 
craft a recovery package that lifts our economy out of the mire. As the 
President has directed, time is of the essence. So I urge my colleagues 
to support this motion.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I supported H.R. 1, the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act, because we need to create and preserve jobs. In 
the final analysis I believe that this bill offers enough stimulus to 
earn a ``Yes'' vote from me. There is no question that help is needed. 
Each day seems to bring more sobering news about layoffs and business 
closings. This bill will serve as a boost for job creation and for our 
overall economy. It is estimated that the legislation, once enacted, 
will create or save millions of American jobs. I also believe, however, 
that this legislation relies too heavily on tax cuts to stimulate the 
economy and a fair amount of the spending, though generally desirable, 
does not offer a truly stimulative aspect. Nevertheless, on balance I 
felt that it was better to accept an imperfect bill than wait for a 
perfect measure that may never materialize. We simply cannot wait much 
longer to provide as much relief as possible to the American public.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Mr. Lewis of California moves to instruct the managers on the part of 
the House that they shall not record their approval of the final 
conference agreement (as such term is used in clause 12(a)(4) of rule 
XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives) unless the text of 
such agreement has been available to the managers in an electronic, 
searchable, and downloadable form for at least 48 hours prior to the 
time described in such clause.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  The debate over the Pelosi-Obey nonstimulus package has often focused 
on the nearly $1 trillion it will spend, much of it in ways that will 
not stimulate our economy or create badly needed jobs. It will, 
however, stimulate tremendous growth in the size and scope of the 
Federal Government and our national debt.
  Well-meaning people can disagree about this legislation, but the 
simple truth is that nearly 2 weeks after it passed the House, we are 
still discovering every day what exactly is in this package. The Senate 
just passed its own version this afternoon and I'm certain that 
Senators, too, will discover aspects of this bill in the coming days 
that they were simply unaware of when it came to a vote.
  What is most troubling is how some of the Federal agencies will 
distribute the massive amounts of funding provided for in this bill. 
For instance, agencies will use funding in the House-passed bill for 
these endeavors: $30 million for salt marsh harvest mouse habitation 
restoration in the San Francisco bay; $8 to $10 million for oyster 
restoration in the Gulf of Mexico; $600 million for the acquisition of 
plug-in vehicles, which are not made or currently available in the 
United States. Sadly, the list goes on and on.
  While these may be worthy endeavors, they certainly do not meet the 
test of being ``timely, targeted, and temporary.'' And they certainly 
do not belong in an economic stimulus bill.
  I had hoped when this process began that the House and Senate would 
embark on a bold new experiment--building a bipartisan consensus--to 
reflect not only the tone set forth by the President, but to live up to 
the expectations of the American people.
  Let's face it--my voters and your voters are sick and tired of the 
typical Washington finger pointing and want us to work together. The 
House leadership had a tremendous opportunity to use this legislation 
as a vehicle for bipartisanship. Much to my disappointment, the 
decision was made to forego bipartisanship in the name of expediency. I 
believe this expediency will prove costly over the long run.
  As the House and Senate prepare to conference separate versions of 
the stimulus package, it is absolutely essential that House Members and 
Senators know exactly what is included in the final conference 
agreement.
  It is for this reason that I am making this motion to instruct House 
conferees not to sign the final conference agreement unless the text of 
such agreement has been available to the conferees in an electronic, 
searchable, and downloadable form at least 48 hours prior to their 
approval.
  If the House is about to cast its approval of the largest spending 
bill in history, the least we can do is to ensure that Members have 48 
hours to review what is in it. That is not an unreasonable request. To 
the contrary, it is the reasonable and responsible thing to do.
  While this motion limits public availability to conferees, I think 
any final agreement should, in practice, be available to the public in 
advance as well. Members have an obligation to their constituents to 
know the contents of the conference report before they cast their vote 
in what certainly will be one of the most important votes they will 
ever cast in this body. They should know--have a chance to know--what 
is in it. We ought not act in haste when spending almost $1 trillion of 
our taxpayers' money.
  I urge Democrats and Republicans alike to join me in supporting this 
motion to instruct conferees and provide that 48 hours I mentioned.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam Speaker, we 
have often been accused of trying to push this bill rapidly through the 
Congress. In fact, we have been trying to push a recovery package 
through this Congress for the last 150 days.
  We began this process in September when we tried to persuade the 
previous Bush administration of the necessity to support an economic 
recovery package. That White House would have none of it. Nonetheless, 
we put together a package--very modest in size compared to this one--
trying to look for anything that President Bush would sign, and that 
product was well known.
  It has evolved gradually since that time as the economy has descended 
further and further and further into a recessionary and deflationary 
spiral. We now have had this legislation in both the House and the 
Senate appear on the Web.
  Our committee, as soon as we produced the final product in the House, 
placed the bill on the Web. And the Senate placed the Nelson amendment,

[[Page 3471]]

which is the amendment that they are now operating on, they placed it 
on the Web as well. So I think both Chambers have demonstrated that 
they are trying to do every bit that they can to provide transparency 
for the process.
  I have no objection to what the language in this motion to instruct 
conferees says. I do have one caution: every day that we do not take 
action, an additional 20,000 Americans lose their jobs. And that is 
accelerating.
  I don't intend to go anywhere. The Speaker has made it quite clear 
that this Congress is not going to go home for its Presidents Day 
recess until this package is finished. So we are scheduled to adjourn 
for that recess on Friday. But I have no problem sticking around for as 
long as it takes to get the job done.
  I would point out that there's considerably less to this proposal 
than meets the eye because all it does is to require the text of the 
proposal to be available to the managers of the bill. And I suspect 
that the managers, who will be participating in these discussions, will 
know literally from moment to moment exactly what it is that they are 
doing.

                              {time}  1515

  I am sure that each and every person appointed to be managers on both 
sides of the aisle will be reasonably competent so that they can do 
that. So I would simply point out the effectiveness is simply to delay 
consideration of this legislation when it does come back from 
conference. If that is what Members want to go on record as supporting, 
I have no objection whether this passes or not. I will be around as 
long as it takes; and, frankly, I expect it is going to take a whole 
lot longer than just this week.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. First, let me say I rise in support of the 
motion to instruct. But what I really want to talk about is President 
Obama's call for bipartisanship. We heard it last night in his press 
conference; we have heard it in every major speech that he has given. 
And, somehow, it is just the Republicans' fault that we are not being 
bipartisan. Well, I have had it up to here with the rhetoric. The 
reality is totally different.
  We have before us a motion to go to conference in which not one 
Republican amendment was accepted on the House floor, in which there 
were no hearings in any of the committees in the House of 
Representatives, in which in the Energy and Commerce Committee of which 
I am the senior Republican we didn't have any hearings. We did have a 
markup. We got five Republican amendments accepted in the markup in 
committee, but three of those were stripped when the bill came to the 
floor. We are apparently going to have five House conferees out of 435 
Members; we are going to have nobody from the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, nobody from the Education and Workforce Committee, nobody 
from the Ag Committee, nobody from Homeland Security, nobody from 
Veterans', nobody from Financial Services. The list goes on and on. 
That is not bipartisanship. I don't know what it is; but if President 
Obama is listening, if you really want to be bipartisan, pick up the 
phone and call the Speaker and say: allow the 41 percent of the House 
that represents the Republicans to be a part of the process. It is not 
bipartisan where we are presented a bill and told ``take it or leave 
it.''
  Now, I understand that if one side has 59 percent and the other side 
has 41 percent, the 59 percent can win every vote; but that doesn't 
mean that the 41 percent has no say. And we have a bill somewhere 
between $820 billion and $850 billion, which is more than the entire 
economy of the country of Australia, which is 20 years of state 
spending of the State of Texas, which is equal to almost the entire 
discretionary budget of United States of America, and we are going to 
pass it after a floor debate 2 weeks ago of 3 to 4 hours, and I don't 
know how many hours of debate we are going to have today and tomorrow, 
but it is 3 or 4 hours. Now, that to me is shameful.
  The regular appropriation process, which Mr. Obey is the chairman of, 
they have 12 subcommittees; they have hearings in every subcommittee; 
they have markup in every subcommittee. They take each bill to the full 
committee and have a markup. The bills, theoretically, come to the 
floor separately and under an open rule where any Member of the House 
can stand up and offer an amendment.
  This process is a dictatorship. I could talk about the substance of 
the bill, but at least know, the American people, that the process that 
we are spending $800 billion to $900 billion is a closed system. I 
strongly oppose it.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself this time to simply observe that my 
friend from Texas is wrong in one respect. The gentleman suggested that 
no Republican amendments were adopted on floor consideration of the 
bill. The Platts amendment was adopted; the Shuster amendment was 
adopted. The last time I looked, both of those gentlemen were 
Republicans.
  I would also point out that in the committee consideration of the 
bill, more Republican amendments were adopted, much to my 
consternation, than were Democratic amendments. I would also point out, 
in our hearing in the full committee we did have a hearing on the need 
for an economic recovery package. When we held that hearing, I am sorry 
that only three members of the minority attended because the minority 
members were asked by the ranking member of the committee to boycott 
the hearing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time. I support his motion to instruct and think he has done a 
very fine job of explaining part of the problems that we have with this 
bill.
  President Obama I understand had promised that, before he would sign 
any bill, it would be available to the American public for at least 5 
days. We are only asking for 48 hours, and yet we are getting excuses 
after excuses for why this bill cannot be made available for 48 hours. 
We all remember the rush to fund Katrina, what a debacle that was. And 
I remember the old saying: act in haste and repent at leisure. We don't 
know what is in this bill, and we need to know.
  Much has been made of the Senate action to cut spending in the bill, 
but it doesn't show the full picture, because in many ways the Senate 
bill will lead to an even bigger expansion of the Federal Government 
and long-term Federal spending than the House bill. If all the new 
programs proposed by the House and Senate make it into the conference 
report, we will have created 42 new government programs, programs that 
the taxpayers likely are now on the hook to continue funding in the 
future. The Senate bill did nothing to cut the number of existing 
Federal programs that were included in the House. In fact, the House 
and Senate combined to propose to expand 87 existing Federal programs, 
82 billion from the Senate bill and 93 billion in the House bill. This 
is not funding for one-time stimulative programs, but will go on to 
expand these programs, forcing Congress to maintain most, if not all, 
of these higher funding levels. The public doesn't understand that.
  The final stimulus package can include as many as 129 new and 
expanded Federal programs. And my colleague, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, failed to mention that, in terms of 
amendments that were accepted by the committees, that after three 
amendments were accepted by the full Appropriations Committee they were 
taken out in the Speaker's office when the bill was rewritten in the 
Speaker's office.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 30 seconds to simply again correct the 
gentlewoman. The fact is that the amendment that related to the process 
by which highway projects were funded and approved was not taken out in 
the Speaker's office; it was taken out on

[[Page 3472]]

the House floor when, on a bipartisan basis, Republican and Democratic 
members of the T&I Committee wanted to see that changed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I hope 
this bill can be vastly improved in the conference committee.
  While much has been said about the Senate cuts, their version of the 
bill still costs $838 billion, which is a $20 billion increase over the 
House-passed bill of $819 billion.
  Also, with regard to the Financial Services section of the recovery 
bill, and particularly since I am a new ranking member, I am 
disappointed that neither I nor the minority's committee staff were 
given an opportunity to consult with the majority members or staff 
before the bill was produced and unveiled on the Internet. I hope that 
this practice won't continue as this stimulus bill is negotiated with 
the Senate and as the committee begins its work for fiscal year 2010.
  With regard to the motion to instruct before us, it simply asks that 
the House conferees not approve of the final conference agreement until 
the text of the legislation has been available in an electronic, 
searchable, and downloadable form for at least 48 hours prior to voting 
on the final agreement. I think this is a simple request, and it is a 
simple request that ensures American people have an opportunity to 
review the bill and contact their representatives regarding its 
content. I believe, and I think all of us believe, that our 
constituents have a right to see the bill before it is voted out of 
conference and it is no longer amendable.
  Mr. OBEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from the committee, Mr. Kirk of Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Spending under this legislation totals over $800 billion, 
requiring the Bureau of the Debt, we project, to attempt to borrow $2.1 
trillion to finance this legislation. And this legislation isn't the 
only big spending bill we will consider. Shortly, we will consider a 
$410 billion omnibus appropriation reportedly containing 4,000 
earmarks, followed by a $100 billion supplemental.
  I was just at the Bureau of the Public Debt today watching the 
Federal Government go $32 billion in debt, one of three public 
auctions. We have an enormous requirement for borrowing money, five 
times more than in the history of the United States, totaling $76,000 
per taxpayer if this legislation passes. We have seen other sovereign 
debt issues fail. Recently, the government of Germany failed to auction 
its debt because so much was being offered.
  Under this legislation, and with other legislation that is pending on 
the omnibus and on the supplemental, the Bureau of the Debt will be 
forced to auction $150 billion per week of the United States going into 
debt. We have never seen so much debt auctioned before, and this is not 
coordinated with other governments. Other governments, like the 
Government of China, the Government of the United Kingdom, France all 
have their own stimulus packages going into debt $1.2 trillion 
themselves.
  The question: With all of these governments borrowing over $3 
trillion, who has the money to pay this? Now we know our kids are going 
to pay for this long term, but who is going to pay for this next week? 
And the answer is: maybe debt markets, maybe not.
  We have never seen the United States go this far into debt this 
quickly. It took 40 Presidents, from President Washington to President 
Reagan, to build up $1 trillion in debt. The previous President doubled 
our debt to $6 trillion. But now, we are going $2.6 trillion more into 
debt in a month. In a month. Can we auction this much debt this 
quickly? It is a question that should be asked and answered before we 
pass this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, the last people in the world I will take lectures from 
on fiscal responsibility are those Members of this House who voted for 
the Bush economic programs that borrowed $1.2 trillion and then took us 
into a war which, before it is over, will cost us another at least $1.5 
trillion.
  Secondly, I would simply answer the gentleman's question when he asks 
who is going to pay. I would ask, who is going to pay if we do nothing 
and do not implement this package? I would submit the people who will 
pay will be every American who loses his or her job, every businessman 
who loses his ability to get credit because of the constriction of the 
economy; every student who will have to quit college because his family 
cannot afford to help him go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  And every person who loses one-third to one-half the value of their 
401(k)s because of the continuing unraveling of the economy.

                              {time}  1530

  That is who will pay.
  We need to stop the political rhetoric and recognize this problem is 
serious enough that we need to rise above our usual recitation of 
trivia and deal with the major problems facing this country. And we 
can't do that without taking action on this package.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 23 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana, our conference chairman, Michael Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I take a second chair to no one in this conference in my respect for 
the integrity of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Obey 
is a man with whom I differ on a broad range of issues, but he is a man 
of integrity, Madam Speaker. And I come to this floor in part to 
acknowledge that.
  Let me say also how much I appreciate that the chairman said that he 
has no objection to the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1 that is 
before the body today that would require that before the House shall 
record its final approval to the conference agreement that the text of 
the agreement should be made available to the managers in an 
electronic, searchable and downloadable form for at least 48 hours. I 
commend the chairman for that.
  I would respectfully disagree with the statement that the chairman 
just made, Madam Speaker, and it's a statement that we heard the 
President of the United States make last night. And maybe it was 
inadvertent by the chairman, but it is this contrast that somehow this 
debate is between people that want to do something and people that want 
to do nothing. With great respect to the chairman, that is not an 
accurate articulation of the competing positions on this bill.
  House Republicans know we are in a recession. This is a very serious 
time in the life of American families and in the life of our economy. 
At the President's invitation, House Republicans brought forward a 
series of proposals that would bring fast-acting tax relief to working 
families, small businesses and family farms. And despite President 
Obama's laudable call for bipartisanship, those House Republican 
proposals were completely excluded from this bill. And so to hear last 
night on national television and to hear today that there are those of 
us in the body that would do nothing, I would say respectfully to my 
Democratic colleagues and to this administration, who are you talking 
about? I know of no Republican in the House or the Senate who believes 
in these challenging economic times that we should do nothing. House 
Republicans believe simply that we should do the right thing. And 
millions of Americans stand with us that this massive spending bill 
that is nothing more than a tired wish list of leftover liberal 
spending priorities is not the answer. But we simply

[[Page 3473]]

believe that we can do better. And by requiring that this legislation 
be on the Internet for 48 hours before final vote, we believe we're 
going to have a better opportunity to get the American people even more 
into that conversation than they are today.
  I still believe that we can achieve a bipartisan result. I believe in 
the goodwill of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I 
believe in his integrity. I believe in the goodwill of a great number 
of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle. And I believe our 
President is sincere in saying that in these difficult economic times, 
we ought to be coming together and bringing the best ideas from both 
sides of the aisle to confront this very serious recession. But let's 
bring the American people into this debate. Let's pass this motion and 
ensure that this bill is open to the public for 48 hours. And we will 
hear what they have to say.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me simply say in response to the gentleman's comments, that 
indeed I believe that Republican ideas have been included. I have had 
dozens of conversations with members of the minority side of the aisle 
who would talk to me about this item or that item that they thought 
either ought to be in or be out of the package. And we've responded in 
numerous instances. I would also point out that the President himself 
has pointed out that when he first talked to Republican leadership 
about what ought to be in this package, they told him there ought to be 
a healthy dollop of tax cuts in the package, and that when he produced 
the package, which did contain significant tax cuts, a number of 
Republicans then indicated that they were, in fact, pleasantly 
surprised by the fact that the President had done that.
  Apparently, however, since then, they have decided to move the 
goalpost. The President can't do much about that. And I can't do much 
about that. I suspect that the people moving the goalposts are the 
people who might consider moving it back again.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 
minute to the whip on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  And let me respond to the last statement from my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle, Mr. Obey, that that is not the way things 
happen. We were invited to the White House because the President felt 
it appropriate to reach out to us to take into consideration our 
proposals. We submitted to him in person a Republican economic recovery 
plan. Yes, it was more weighted for tax relief. Yes, it was, in a 
reduced way, a spending formula, because at the end of the day what any 
stimulus bill should be about is preserving, protecting and creating 
jobs, period. And as the President said last night, there is a lot in 
this bill that people may like. But do you know what? He also said the 
plan is not perfect because it was produced in Washington. This 
President came to this town and was elected because he said he was 
going to deliver on change.
  Madam Speaker, I would say if we are serious about a true stimulus 
bill, let's get down to business. Let's provide small business tax 
relief because they create 70 percent of the jobs in this country. 
Let's not embark on a spending spree that is the biggest spending spree 
in the history of this country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the saying everybody in here already 
knows is that ``if you find yourself in a hole, it's time to stop 
digging.'' And there was far too much deficit spending for far too 
long.
  This bill, clearly, with all its lack of transparency, is not about 
jobs. If it were just about jobs, then we could have the proposals by 
the Energy Committee and the Republicans in the Natural Resources 
Committee with some of the Blue Dogs, we could open up Alaska to oil 
and gas exploration where it has not been, open up the OCS, and we 
would get 3 million jobs without taking the future away from our 
children.
  Now, the American people intuitively know this is not a good thing. 
Even though there is so much that is not transparent, they are not 
allowed to see it because of the opposition to the former chairman's 
motion here. But they know. The Dow knows. I just saw we are down 380 
points even with this bill having passed the Senate and being brought 
in here now. People understand this is not a good thing. If it's 
something you're proud of, then go along with the motion to instruct 
and let the American people see this product you apparently are so 
proud of that is going to just auction off our children's future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Speaker Pelosi, as well as President Obama, talked about wanting to 
have a new era of openness and transparency. And that is exactly what 
this motion to instruct is all about. It is to bring openness and 
transparency of this huge bill to the American public.
  And I can't understand why my Democrat colleagues seem to be so bent 
on getting this bill to the floor and passed, because we don't even 
know what all is in there. I understand that the $600 million that were 
originally slated in the House bill to prepare America for socialized 
medicine has been expanded to $2 billion. And the American public has 
the possibility of having their health care decisions made by some 
health care czar and some bureaucracy here in the Federal Government, 
not by their doctor. And in fact, their doctor may be even chosen by 
this health care czar.
  This is not right. This is not transparency. This is not fairness. 
The American people deserve better than this. So I encourage my 
Democratic colleagues to look at this motion to instruct and to support 
it so that the American people can see what is in this bill. We can 
come back next week or some time or even through the weekend. We can 
put it online today. And we can vote on it on Friday evening or 
Thursday evening if you will just do that. So I encourage my Democratic 
colleagues to support this motion to instruct so that we can have the 
transparency that the American public deserves.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that the Thursday or Friday that the gentleman 
is talking about, I hope he recognizes that it's likely to be next 
Thursday or Friday, not this one. Secondly, I must say I am amused when 
I hear the reference to ``socialized medicine.'' Does anybody really 
believe that it's socialized medicine if we are putting $2 billion in 
this legislation in order to help change our medical records from paper 
records to computerized records so we can reduce the number of mistakes 
that are made in hospitals and create more efficiency and save money in 
the health care area? With the rising costs of health care nationwide, 
shouldn't we be looking for ways to make the system more efficient to 
save money? That is what that $2 billion does, despite somebody's 
desire to look for ghosts.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member 
for the opportunity to speak. And I do stand in favor of the motion to 
instruct requiring 48 hours for the information on this bill to be made 
available electronically in a readable, researchable and downloadable 
database. I think that is important to the American people.
  And I want to stress that we have heard a lot of talk about what 
people stand for. I haven't heard anyone that says that we shouldn't be 
doing something. We absolutely need to be taking issue with where the 
American economy is today, to be making sure that we are working as 
hard as we can to provide solutions. There are American families out 
there that are hurting each and every day. I don't think any of us up 
here don't have that first and foremost on our mind.

[[Page 3474]]

  Madam Speaker, it's not only important that we do something, but it's 
important that we do the right thing. This is such a monumental step 
for this government to take. It has been said that this is an historic 
precedent on the level of spending that we are taking to drive the 
economy. It really begs us to take the time to get it right. We need to 
take the time to focus on the right mix of tax cuts and spending that 
will truly stimulate the economy, dollars that make their way into the 
economy immediately. Over 60 percent of this bill doesn't make its way 
into the economy for more than 19 months. I don't know that anybody 
here would say that that is truly stimulative to the economy and things 
that are going to equate to jobs in a timely manner for folks that are 
suffering right now.
  I think it's important to make sure that all the American people are 
heard on this. This is so important. There are members on this side 
that represent folks out there that want to make sure that ideas we 
hear from them are projected in this bill and they make their way into 
the final version that is to be considered here coming out of the 
conference report. I think that is incumbent upon this body to make 
sure that that happens. This bill is too important to make sure that we 
have the participation of everybody. We need to make sure that this 
information is available for the American public to understand, for 
their comments to come back to us, for us to have the opportunity to 
make sure that those comments make their way into this legislation. 
This is groundbreaking legislation, and it needs to happen now.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Well, I thank my fellow congressman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) for the fine work he does for all Americans.
  I rise today in support of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 
1. I would argue that it should be retitled. It should be titled 
``People Before Politics.'' All it is asking is 48 hours to see the 
example of more than 800 pages spending more than $800 billion. It is 
roughly $1 billion a page. I think the American public has a right to 
know what is in the bill and what it is being spent on.
  When I was watching television today and watching one of the 
interviews by one of our fellow Senators, one that helped negotiate 
where this bill currently was, when asked a question, he said, I only 
agreed to $780 billion. But the score today says $838 billion. When 
they asked him a question about what has gone in and what has been put 
in about health care, he said, I never agreed to that. So even the 
Senators themselves that have been negotiating this bill before it goes 
into conference are questioning what is in it. I think the American 
public has a right to know.
  I would tell you that a little more than a week ago we sat on this 
floor and we had an debate about this bill. And unfortunately, there 
was a partisan vote and then a bipartisan vote about this bill. One 
side of the aisle almost all voted ``yes.'' That bipartisan vote was a 
handful of Democrats and Republicans who said ``no.'' And I think their 
voice has a right to be heard. And their voice of saying ``no'' is not 
``let's not do anything.'' We believe there is an ability to do 
something better. And on this side of the aisle, the Republicans have 
sat together, worked in a bipartisan group and worked together also in 
a working group and laid out to this President and have given him the 
ideas that said how can we improve, how can we move together in moving 
forward? And what we are saying with the motion to instruct is let's 
continue the work, let's improve it and let's make the American people 
be first and foremost. Let's put people before politics.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, there may be a lot of people that have 
objection to the process in which we have moved forward, but one thing 
is abundantly clear and that is, the President of the United States, 
and every economist from the left to the right, believes that if we 
don't do something and do it fast, that our economy would be in far 
worse shape than we find it today.
  To think the number of people that are losing their jobs, losing 
their health insurance, losing their families and losing their hope are 
things that are not labeled Republican and Democrats. This is what the 
core of America is all about.
  I cannot think of anything that's more American, even the American 
flag, than our middle class citizens, our middle class taxpayers. 
Whether we've been involved in war, whether we've been involved in 
depressions, it's been the guts of these people that's been able, with 
pride, with dignity, to be able to come back stronger than ever. And 
now we find that their demands have increased, but at the same time, 
their resources have decreased. These are people that work hard every 
day; that have families with kids in school, that want to protect their 
health. And the one thing they can't do is purchase.
  I don't understand this word that you have to build the confidence of 
people in the market. But one thing is that if you're the working poor, 
$500 or $1,000 in the family, that's not confidence, that's filling a 
gap, that's filling a need. And it seems like it makes so much sense, 
no matter what town or village that you live in. If people can't afford 
to buy, if they can't afford to buy from the small businesses in their 
towns and villages, then these people have inventory that has built up, 
but they also have staff and clerks and employees that they can't 
afford to hire. Once these people are discharged, fired, laid off and 
go right back into the general economy, these are the middle class 
people. They're not the rich. They're not the poor, they're not the 
homeless, but there are people that believe that this country will 
never let them down.
  And so the President says that 95 percent of people who work hard 
every day would be receiving some type of a tax cut. It would seem to 
me that, whatever objections you have, that time is not our friend. We 
find more small businesses closing, more people going into 
unemployment, losing their benefits for health. And in this bill we try 
to ease the pain, to try to stop the hemorrhage that we have from job 
loss, to try to make certain that someone who wants to buy would 
believe that they can keep their kid in school, that they will be able 
to have a job the next day and they don't have to hold back.
  I'm hoping that we try to break this partisan past that we have, 
because I don't see how anyone can explain to anyone that's in trouble 
as to what their party label would be.
  Our country is involved in an intensive care unit, and it seems to me 
that they're saying that we need an infusion of resources, an infusion 
of health care, an infusion of economic assistance. If we don't help 
this patient, our great Nation, then most every economist has said that 
she could come to near death. And every day we hold back this care, 
every day we hold back this injection of having funds, whether it's the 
earned income tax credit that allows people to work, even though they 
may be below poverty, they still are able to work and have their 
dignity, to be able to have children that are deductible where we can 
receive an additional two or $3,000 a year. It may not be much to 
people who are in the upper income, but to the people who have to count 
their salaries each and every week to see whether or not they can put 
food on the table, clothing on their children's back, or to be able to 
fulfill that dream, once the dream that Americans have, that they will 
not be able to succeed, to me, that's even more important than the 
economic loss that they would have.
  To believe that in this great Nation of ours, no matter what the 
economic setbacks will be, that we can and we will recover, we've done 
it before, during bad times. We've come back after World War II 
stronger than ever. And I think this President, this new President has 
given hope to people, not only throughout our towns and villages, not

[[Page 3475]]

only throughout the United States of America, but indeed throughout the 
world.
  I don't see how any Democrat, having a Republican President, could 
not say during this time for our Nation that we'll put our party labels 
behind, we'll work together and try to save the economy of this great 
country. Now's the time, I really think, if you're talking about 
bipartisanship, that this is the time to see whether or not we can work 
together because this word ``confidence'' means not Democrats and not 
Republicans, but Americans working hard together.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I hate to inquire again, but 
I really need to know if I have enough time for my colleague.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 16 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. In that event, Madam Speaker, I am happy to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly 
agree with the previous speaker that we do need to have bipartisan 
cooperation on this. And of course, we got off on the wrong foot. This 
bill was passed in the House without having the beauty of subcommittee 
hearings. There was one general hearing back in December, before many 
of the Members who voted on it were even sworn in to be a Member of 
Congress. So I think we could go back and this week, maybe in a 
conference committee, open it up and allow some of the amendments that 
were left out of the Senate or the House side to be included in it, and 
maybe we could work in a bipartisan fashion.
  This bill, as it is now, is more expensive as it comes out of the 
Senate than it was by the House, which had a bipartisan vote against 
it. There was a partisan vote for it, but a bipartisan vote against it.
  Only 7 percent of the spending in the bill goes to public works 
projects. That's $57 billion out of $838 billion. And only 22 percent 
of the money could actually be spent this year. So much for urgency and 
shovel-ready projects.
  The Senate bill actually increases spending $19 billion over the 
House bill, which, on a bipartisan basis, so many of us voted against. 
It creates all kinds of new programs, 32 new programs. Now, some of 
them were being stripped out by the Senate that the House put in there. 
That was good. But I just found out about a new $100 million program to 
get new lunchroom equipment into schools. Now, maybe that's a good 
idea, but why can't that be done where it's always been done, on a 
local level? $100 million so that schools can buy new lunchroom 
equipment.
  There's also funding in there for the Department of Energy that 
actually doubles their annual appropriation, in a stimulus package. 
There's even a grant in there to study privatization on American Samoa 
and the Northern Mariana Islands. What is that about? Have you read 
that language? I don't think anybody has. It's very peculiar. How did 
that get in there?
  And you know, this bill the President brags about has no earmarks, 
let's be serious. It has $200 billion worth of earmarks, but they will 
be made by State and local authorities. It won't be made by the 
Congress. At least when the U.S. Congress does earmarks it gets posted 
on the Web page and people can find out who requests it. But no, we're 
going to have phantom, ghost earmarks to the tune of $200 billion.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican alternative to this bill creates more 
jobs at a lower price tag. The Republican bill, through tax credits to 
small business, creates about six million jobs, and that's from the 
Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan analyst of this. The price 
of the Republican one is about $400 billion.
  We stand ready to work with the President and work with the Democrats 
on a good, bipartisan package because we think doing something is the 
right move. But this package deserves a ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. Has the gentleman from California yielded back his time?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have not. I have no additional speakers, 
however and it's my intention to inquire of the chairman if he's got 
three or four speakers.
  Mr. OBEY. Just one.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Okay, then I would yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBEY. How much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 16 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is more than 150 days late. And every day 
that we delay, if you take a look at what's happening in the economy, 
an additional 20,000 people are losing their jobs.
  So we've had plenty of time to talk about our philosophical 
differences. We've had plenty of time to talk about our different views 
of the viability of the market. We've had plenty of time to talk about 
our views of the role of government.
  But people back home are not interested in our theoretical or our 
philosophical views. They're interested in whether or not we have a 
clue about what is happening on Main Street America, what is happening 
in businesses all over this country, what is happening when metal 
working companies and paper mills and dozens of other businesses lay 
off workers every day, every hour. And they want to know whether we can 
end the speechifying long enough to actually do something that will 
help them. That's what this is about.
  So we can argue about one-tenth of 1 percent of this bill, whether we 
like it or not. The fact is that some of the same people who were only 
too willing to vote for $1.2 trillion worth of tax cuts paid for with 
borrowed money under President Bush, the same people who were willing 
to allow us to go to war and spend over $1 trillion in a war that will 
plague us for years, these are the same people who supported economic 
policies that, essentially, resulted in the average working family 
having flat wages for the last 8 years. These same people are now 
telling us, ``Oh, don't do this. We've got a better idea.''
  Well, we've tried those ideas for 8 years, and what has been the 
result? The result has been that, for the last 8 years, over 94 percent 
of the economic growth in this country, over 94 percent of the economic 
growth of this country went into the pockets of the wealthiest 10 
percent of American families. And so, the other 90 percent were 
struggling to get table scraps.
  And how did they respond? They responded by borrowing. They borrowed 
more for their houses. They borrowed more to send their kids to 
college. They borrowed more to pay for health care and a lot of other 
things. And then, the housing bubble and the Wall Street bubble burst 
and they got hit with the results. And so, now they are suffering for 
the bubbles that we've had in the economy the past 8 years. And they're 
looking for somebody to recognize what's happened to them and looking 
for somebody who will help to actually do something about the fact that 
they're losing their health care, losing their homes, losing their 
jobs, losing their ability to send the kids to college, and losing 
hope.
  This package, by itself, will not solve any of those problems. All it 
will do, if we can finally produce it, all it will do is to minimize 
the damage and to try to inject an additional source of consumer 
spending in the economy, in hopes that we can begin the process of 
eventually turning this economy around. That's what this is all about.
  We've had our time for debates. It's been a long time now, over 150 
days, as I said. The time to move is now.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the motions on H.R. 1 considered today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 3476]]



                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to 
instruct will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to suspend the 
rules with regard to House Resolution 114, if ordered, and House 
Resolution 60, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 403, 
nays 0, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 54]

                               YEAS--403

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Gallegly
     Granger
     Grayson
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Johnson (IL)
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Putnam
     Rush
     Schock
     Sessions
     Souder
     Stark
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. PAUL changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________