Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against this resolution because the resolution is in violation of section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution before us violates the provisions of 426(a) because it contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report, including a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which prohibits the consideration of a conference report in violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

We got this 1,000-page package online after midnight, totally in violation of the 48-hour commitment that was made by every Member to support that period of time during which it could be read; and we have no idea, Madam Speaker, as to whether or not there are in fact unfunded mandates in this measure.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying I see my friend from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) here. It was announced late last night when we were in the Rules Committee that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Mrs. Slaughter, would be managing this rule; and I can only surmise that she is not here due to the very tragic news that we got overnight of the loss of 48 lives in the Continental plane crash that took place just outside of Buffalo.

Yes, I am happy to the yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what I wanted to say. As we begin this debate, our thoughts and prayers go to all of the victims and the families and Mrs. Slaughter whom I know is dealing with that issue, Madam Speaker.

Let me say, as we now focus on this very, very important debate, we had a unanimous vote here in the House, a unanimous vote, that called for 48 hours to be provided for Members of Congress and the American people to see this measure before we would have a chance to vote on it. We all know, as Speaker Pelosi said yesterday, that this is both transformational and historic. And for that reason, I believe that if we have a measure before us that is historic and transformational, we should comply with the vote that was cast by every single Member who was present at the time saying that 48 hours should be provided. And unfortunately, there was virtually no time provided. We had a copy of the bill placed before us in the Rules Committee very late last night. And it is my understanding that the online measure at that point, which was touted by Members who were in the Rules Committee, actually omitted three sections of the bill and that it was not placed online as we're going to be voting on it today until after midnight; after midnight. So that means earlier this morning is when it was placed online.

Now, Madam Speaker, I have a statement here from our good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, who said, ``The House is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving Members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon.''

Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting. We are going through one of the most difficult economic challenges that we've faced in modern history. There is no doubt about it. In fact, if one looks at the economic downturn, we suffered in 1991 and 2001 very, very shallow economic recessions. The early 1980s was the last time we faced a challenge as difficult as the one we are in the midst of today. We have put forward a very pro-growth economic package that I know that the American people would be able to support. And I'm convinced, based on the empirical evidence that we have of what took place in 1961 and 1981, it would unleash the potential of the American people, because we are the most productive worker on the face of the Earth. We are the people who are the most innovative in the world. And for us to, in any way, constrain that growth potential is, I believe, wrong.

And what we have before us is a 1,000-page bill. This is 1,000 pages, Madam Speaker. And I'm reminded when Ronald Reagan was delivering a State of the Union message when he held up a document that was just about like this, and he dropped it right there on the lectern. And he said that he would never sign anything like that again. And here we are on Friday the 13th of 2009, we are in the midst of considering a measure following a campaign that promised transparency, disclosure, accountability and hope. And as we listened to the debate last night in the Rules Committee, which went on for quite a while, I have to say that there is a lot of hope involved in this 1,000-page bill. But there are things about it that we know. It is approaching $1 trillion when you take interest in consideration. I know it is $790 billion, but when you take into consideration the interest that will be shouldered, it is a $1 trillion package. We know that.

The hope is that people are saying it is this or nothing else, Madam Speaker, this or nothing else. And I have got to tell you that that is not the case. That is not the case. We, as Republicans, have come forward with a package from our economic stimulus working group which I believe would prevent us from having to deal with anything like this whatsoever. And the point of order that I'm raising, Madam Speaker, has to do with the fact that we don't know what is in here. I don't think that anyone knows whether or not there are unfunded mandates in here that have been imposed on the private sector, on the American people, or on local governments.

And so with that, I would like to, at this juncture, reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on the debate on the point of order.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to say this saddens me greatly. President Obama has come forward and talked about the issue of transparency, disclosure and accountability, and he has talked about hope, and he has talked about change. And we've all been very inspired by the words of President Obama. And we've been inspired by many of his actions and his effort to reach out and work with us in a bipartisan way to deal with the challenge of getting our economy back on track. It is something that I believe is terrific. It's wonderful. And it's what is needed at this time.

But I will say, Madam Speaker, that as we look at what has been put before us, a 1,000-page bill, and we are told by so many that if we don't vote for this bill, we're choosing to do nothing, in fact, I will say that I did not like it when the President said that there are some out there who want to do nothing. And Madam Speaker, I will say that I know of no Republican, no Democrat, I know of no one in this country who wants to do nothing. Because just the other night when I had a telephone town hall meeting and listened to a number of people, including a small contractor, a small businessman who is a building contractor, having trouble getting access to credit so that he can get to work, I was struck with the fact that he told me, looking at a $1- trillion measure is not only not going to help him, but in fact, it will exacerbate, it will worsen the challenges that he has. We talked about our alternative.

In fact, in this town hall meeting, Madam Speaker, one of my constituents asked me at the outset to support President Obama and his package. And when I began explaining the difficulty with this package and the alternative that we have that is focused on small businesses, entrepreneurs, the self-employed and families across this country, focusing on marginal rate reduction, focusing on encouraging responsibility so that people can gain equity in their homes by incentivizing them to make a greater down payment on that home and to take up the inventory that exists there, as I walked through these provisions, this person who began saying to me that it was imperative that I support this package then said, your alternative makes much more sense.

And so, Madam Speaker, I want to disabuse any of my colleagues of this notion that we want to do nothing. We very much want to work diligently to ensure that we can get our economy back on track. And we have a pro-growth package which is modeled after what John F. Kennedy did in 1961 and what Ronald Reagan did in 1981.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to begin by expressing my great appreciation to my friend from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Let me begin, as I did at the outset of the debate on the unfunded mandate point of order, Madam Speaker, by saying that we are all saddened with the very tragic news that Ms. Slaughter and her constituents have faced with the tragic plane crash which has taken place just outside of Buffalo with, reportedly, 48 people killed, and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with all of them.

Let me say, at the beginning of this, Madam Speaker, I asked my friend who's managing this rule to yield to me, because I find it--I will associate myself with many of the points that he made. I will associate myself with certainly his closing remarks about the ability of the United States of America to take on great challenges that we face.

But, Madam Speaker, to stand here and somehow talk about the great degree of transparency, when we, at midnight, were sitting in the Rules Committee, and the questions being posed to us could not be answered; that we were posing could not be answered, number one. And number two, we had before us a bill that we were told was exactly what the gentleman had said, made available on-line so that the American people could see it, and then I arrived just a few hours later, had come in early this morning to find that the measure was not even available on- line until well after midnight because three sections of the bill were, in fact, missing.

And so, my point is that we all know how much pain there is right now across this country. When you look at the people who have lost their jobs, if you look at people who are losing their homes, if you look at the tragic loss of life that is taking place, I talked to a good friend of mine yesterday who told me that his son's best friend's father had just committed suicide because of the economic downturn that we are facing.

Madam Speaker, we know how personal this is. We know how terrible the situation that we face is. And that's why I believe that the commitment that has been made overwhelmingly, across the board, by Democrats and Republicans alike, that we would spend time deliberating over this issue to ensure that we get it right, that we would work in a bipartisan way, as President Obama repeatedly has promised, from his inaugural address right here on the west front of the Capitol to speech after speech that he's delivered, and through many of his actions.

Now, last night, as we sat approaching midnight in the Rules Committee, my very good friend, the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations was before us, talking about the fact that every single day, since the election, save two, he and members of his staff have been working to try and put this bill together. He referred to the fact that members of his staff, for the second time in a week or two, have gone 2 days without any sleep, working to put this bill together.

We all understand, Madam Speaker, the urgency that is there. No one wants to delay action. No one wants to delay action on this very important bill because of the fact that the American people are hurting.

But we do know this: What we've been able to see in this measure, in fact, goes way beyond the goal that is stated, that being stimulating our economy. We understand that important infrastructure spending cannot only play an important role in creating jobs, but it also can deal with the very important issue of goods movement, ensuring that our constituents are able to move around. We know that the grid and broadband infrastructure development is critical if we are going to remain competitive in this global marketplace. And yet, that is a very small fraction of this nearly $1 trillion measure, Madam Speaker.

Now, as we listened to the testimony that was delivered in the Rules Committee, an exchange took place between the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations and our new Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). And in that exchange, the question that was asked by Ms. Foxx was, how many jobs are going to be created by this measure?

And I congratulate the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations for pointing to the fact that he has no idea how many jobs are going to be created. And he correctly said that we can all find our own economists who support the notion of a certain number of jobs being created.

Now, I will say that the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, under President Obama, has, based on her study, found that the alternative proposal that we Republicans offered would create nearly twice as many jobs in half the amount of time than this package that is before us. So using one of his economists, Madam Speaker, I will say it buttresses our argument to ensure that we put into place our package for commission growth, as opposed to a massive spending bill.

So the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said he has no idea how many jobs are going to be created.

And what is it that we have before us? We have before us a package that is indicative of what I describe as the ideological baggage of the past. It is nothing but throwing money at the problem, without the kind of oversight that is necessary, without the kind of scrutiny that is necessary.

And as my friend from Texas, Judge Poe, said earlier, one of his constituents wants to opt out of this plan because the estimates are that it will cost $10,000 per family. Well, unfortunately, that's not an option that we have before us right now, because this is the measure that people are going to be voting on and I suspect will pass.

I believe that it's a mistake. I believe it's a mistake, and I will tell you who

else I believe if he were alive would conclude that it's a mistake. And we've used this quote repeatedly. It first came to my attention by our friend from St. Louis, Todd Akin, who told me that his 88-year-old father who obviously lived during the time of the Great Depression found this quote. Henry Morgenthau was the Treasury Secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he testified before the House Ways and Means Committee in 1939. And in that testimony, Madam Speaker, the Secretary of the Treasury, under Franklin Roosevelt, obviously, not some right-wing conservative economist, the Treasury Secretary under Franklin Roosevelt said: ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent, and it does not work. I say, after 8 years of this Roosevelt administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.''

Now, that was in 1939, Madam Speaker. We are making a mistake if we proceed with this measure. I believe that.

The American economy is going to get stronger because, as I said earlier, we are the most productive, we are the most innovative people on the face of the earth. We're going to get stronger. My fear is that this measure will, in fact, slow the economic recovery that we all would like to see take place soon.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

As I listen to my good friend from Worcester, I would say, my gosh, we certainly have seen a change in the level of debate around here. It is fascinating to see.

Madam Speaker, as I listen to my friend from Colorado, I have got to tell you that, when I was quoting Dr. Christina Romer, chief of the Council of Economic Advisers, it was her methodology that was used that created twice as many jobs at half the cost.

With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very distinguished colleague from Tulare, California (Mr. Nunes).

Madam Speaker, it's not often that we have the opportunity to hear the brilliance of both Diaz-Balart brothers in the same debate.

Now I would like to yield 1 minute to our good friend from Miami, the other Diaz-Balart.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our hardworking new colleague from Tequesta, Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Madam Speaker, we share the goal of getting our economy back on track. One of the most compelling stories came from a town hall meeting in the hometown of our great friend, the distinguished chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence). I yield him 3 minutes.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to our very dynamic new member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I was just congratulating Ms. Foxx on her thoughtful statement. At this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to our good friend from Westminster, South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to a former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to our good friend from Roswell, Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to our friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Will the gentleman yield?

I would yield my friend 30 seconds. Has his time expired, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say to my friend, who unfortunately wouldn't yield, we do have a thousand pages here. This was put online after midnight. We all voted in favor of 48 hours--you voted in favor of 48 hours--to allow the American people and our colleagues to see this. We all understand the urgency of this matter. Has my colleague read this? Many of us have been trying to go through it since after midnight in the Rules Committee.

Two-and-a-half hours, and you went through a thousand pages.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield----

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a former Rules Committee member, one of our new appropriators, the gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield a minute to my good friend from Tyler, Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this point 30 seconds to our good friend from Texas, distinguished secretary of the Republican Conference, Mr. Carter.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I began by reporting to the House of the sad news that I received yesterday when a man telephoned me to say that his young son's best friend's father had just committed suicide because of the economic difficulty their family was facing. We all know how serious this situation is. We have friends who have lost homes, people who have lost jobs, and we all know that it is imperative that we take action and that we take action now, and most important, Madam Speaker, that we do the right thing.

Now I'm going to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question on this measure. Why? So that we can do what every single Member of this institution on a unanimous recorded vote said they wanted to do on Tuesday, and, that is, say that 48 hours should be provided for Members to look at this bill. The Rules Committee got this package very late last night, around midnight. We were told at that time just before midnight that it was online, available for the American people to see, and, Madam Speaker, it was not. Three sections were missing. Not until well after midnight was this made available. And so any Member who cast a vote in favor of allowing 48 hours for this measure to be considered should vote no on the previous question so that we will provide an amendment to allow for what everyone said they wanted to in fact take place.

This measure is, as has been reported, a thousand pages, and no one knows what it's going to do, including our friend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who in his testimony last night before the Rules Committee said he had no idea how many jobs would be created. He had no idea how many jobs would be created, but we have to take action. And, Madam Speaker, we can take action by putting into place a growth- oriented tax package which will in fact get our economy back on track.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 168 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, the plane crash is why she is not here today. And it is a tragedy that we all feel this morning.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and ultimately the underlying bill. But we know what it is really about, and that is about trying to block the bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. And that is just plain wrong.

I sincerely hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this critical legislation today on its merits and not kill it on a procedural motion. We have a long day ahead. Let's not waste any more time on trying to stop this legislation from being debated or enacted. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. That is their prerogative. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this conference report for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act today.

I have the right to close. But in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again I want to urge a ``yes'' vote so that we can consider this rule and consider the legislation today. It is not a time for delay. It is not a time for inaction. For 8 years, we've had continued deferred maintenance, we've had continued problems in the economy to the point we are now required to move forward and move forward in a bold way. That is the purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It has been discussed and debated over the course of the last month in full view of the American people. And it is time to take it up here in the Congress and pass it.

And with that I urge a ``yes'' on the consideration of the rule.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for debate only.

And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 168.

Madam Speaker, America is in a tough spot today. Today we face one of the greatest economic challenges we've seen in the history of this Nation. With this great economic crisis comes great responsibility for this body which is vested to represent the best interests of the American people. Madam Speaker, the Bush administration left us with the worst economy we've faced since World War II. Like President Franklin D. Roosevelt did over 75 years ago, we must build a floor under our economic downward spiral and set America on a new, more prosperous course.

Since this recession began, 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last month alone, the country lost nearly 600,000 jobs, the equivalent of losing every job in the State of Maine. Even more troubling is the news that our Nation is expected to lose another 3 to 5 million jobs within the next year if we don't take action now. And it must be taken now. In fact, 2008 was the worst year for job loss since 1945, while unemployment has skyrocketed to the highest level in 26 years.

Madam Speaker, Americans are worried. Nothing is on the minds of American workers and families more than the troubled state of our economy.

At dinner tables across this Nation, American families are concerned, not only about our country's economy, but about their own futures and their own well-being. Will they have a job next week? Will they be able to retire when they plan to? Will they be able to afford their mortgage? Can they sell their house? What about the rent and the child's education?

We must act now to turn things around. If nothing is done, our economy will continue its downward spiral, jeopardizing the futures of all Americans.

As President Roosevelt once said, ``In our seeking for economic and political progress, we all go up, or else we all go down.''

And, Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues here today determined to make sure that all Americans go up, each and every one of us. We are here to take swift, bold action to boost our economy and put Americans back to work. Our actions today may determine the prosperity and well- being of Americans for generations to come.

This compromise of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a major victory for the American people. It will help strengthen our economy and help Americans hurt by this recession today, as well as investing in our shared future.

This bill will create and save nearly 4 million jobs, jump-start our economy, and bring the process of transforming it for the 21st century with carefully targeted priority investments. We will also provide immediate direct tax relief to over 95 percent of all Americans.

Madam Speaker, for our future, we will significantly increase clean, renewable energy production, invest in a new smart power grid, put people to work in the short-term, while freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil in the long run.

We'll renovate buildings and homes to make them more energy efficient, and create jobs that can't be sent overseas, while helping to curb global warming at the same time. We will rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and improve our roads, bridges, and schools, and in doing so, we will strengthen our path forward.

We will invest in our health care system, cutting red tape and ensuring broader coverage, while saving countless lives and dollars.

Finally, this legislation will assist those who have been impacted most by

this crisis, by increasing food stamp and unemployment benefits, and making it easier for those who lose their jobs to keep their health insurance. These are just a few highlights of this comprehensive bill.

Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting and they demand action. But they are also justifiably concerned about government spending in such difficult times. I want them to know that this bill contains strict transparency and accountability measures. It is open and visible and will be for people to look on the Web for each dollar that is spent. Americans will be able to go on-line to see how their tax dollars are being spent and provide comment.

The bill contains no earmarks, and provides important protections to State whistleblowers who report fraud and abuse.

Furthermore, this legislation does not waste any time. It will immediately help put people to work, maintain their jobs, and begin to stabilize our economy. Just this week the CEO of Google said his company would ``absolutely'' hire new people if we pass this bill.

Additionally, economists and elected officials from across the ideological spectrum have broadly endorsed this bill, and beseech us to pass it, because they agree we need bold action to turn our economy around.

President Roosevelt told us that ``One thing is sure, we have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment. If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along.''

Madam Speaker, it took us many years to get into this situation. We know this bill alone will not solve all of our economic woes overnight. We know that the road back to economic stability and prosperity will require hard work over time. But this bill is the right size and scope necessary to truly help us turn things around. I'm proud to say that America has faced great challenges before and turned crisis into opportunity.

This legislation gives us the means to address this crisis immediately, and the opportunity to build the foundation for long-term prosperity. Like it has in the past, the ingenuity of American workers will be the engine of growth and prosperity if we just give them a chance to get back on the job.

I urge my colleagues to support the conference report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and, by doing so, restore confidence, strengthen our economy, and ensure a brighter future for our citizens from coast to coast.

I now reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just two points and then I would like to recognize my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

But I think the really sad story, Mr. Dreier, that you related about the suicide underscores the urgency of this bill and the reason that it needs to be handled without delay.

The second point I wanted to respond to is Christina Romer said that the Republican House analysis is flat wrong in its claim that the House Republican stimulus is much more effective. ``No matter what your analytical assumption,'' she says, ``the plan that the President supports would result in substantially greater job creation than the House Republican plan.''

And with that I would yield 3 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 3 minutes.

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of Education and Labor, Mr. Miller.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?

I reserve my time so we can kind of even up.

I continue to reserve.

I'd like, Madam Speaker, to yield 1 minute to my friend from New York, Mr. Bishop.

(Mr. BISHOP of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, and as she's getting ready, I would say to my friend, Dr. Price from Georgia, there's not anything in that bill about mice, $30 million for mice. We talked about it yesterday. It's not in there, and I challenge him.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'd like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I would like to inquire how much time remains, Madam Speaker.

I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Madam Speaker, how much time do we each have?

Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Madam Speaker, my friend from California's story about the gentleman who committed suicide underscores the urgency of this matter. This is not a time for delay. This is not a time for inaction. It is a time for action. The President has requested this bill get passed to put America back to work. This bill will maintain or create 3.6 million jobs. We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs over the course of the last few months. We need to stop that downward spiral and this will do that. It has five major components. First there's construction and reconstruction of our infrastructure. Current jobs, long-term investment. A look to the new energy future, new jobs in science and technology, in health care and in energy. It gives our States a chance to stay on their feet by backfilling some of their losses for teachers and firefighters and policemen and maintenance workers. There is a tax

cut for 95 percent of America in this bill. Finally, there is a piece that helps those folks who have been hurt by this downturn with Medicaid and food stamps and unemployment insurance.

This bill is a fantastic step forward. There will be a series of steps that have to be taken and it will take time. But we have faith in the American people. We have faith in this country. We are going to change the direction of this Nation and put 3.5 million people back to work.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

I yield the back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

If the gentleman would yield, I would simply note the House has already voted on how it intends to proceed, and I see no reason to depart from that.

If the gentleman is asking, would the gentleman yield for a response?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report accompanying H.R. 1, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

As Senator Cochran said, the time for talk is over. It is time to vote. The country needs this package. I urge support. I think we ought to get on with it.

Economic Analysis of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Economists generally agree that the Nation is facing one of

the most dire economic crises in our history. Over the past

three months 1.8 million jobs have been lost after falling

the same amount in the prior ten months. Other economic data

also point to an ever-faster sinking U.S. economy:

Unemployment has soared by 4.1 million, an increase of more

than 50 percent from 7.5 million to 11.6 million since

December 2007 when the recession began.

Full time employment dropped 3.5 million over the last

three months, much faster than at any time since the data

began in 1967.

Consumer demand for goods fell at an 11 percent rate in the

second half of 2008, faster than at any time in the 62 years

of data.

Only five months in six decades of data saw lower use of

our manufacturing capacity than the 70.2 percent recorded in

December.

Exports fell at a 19.7 percent annual rate in the most

recent quarter.

Nothing indicates that these trends will not continue

unless the federal government acts. While forecasters differ

on specifics, many believe that without quick and decisive

action the Nation could suffer another 5 million job losses

over the coming year.

The U.S. economy is caught in a vicious downward spiral

with self-reinforcing declines in spending, sales, jobs,

income, profits, government revenues, state and local

services, investment, and global trade. The federal

government is the only major actor in the U.S. economy with

the capacity to stop the downward spiral.

The current downturn looks a lot more like the early stages

of the Great Depression than any episode since the 1930s:

Rapid shrinkage in private credit, with crisis in every

major financial sector;

The favorite tool of the Federal Reserve (the short term

rate to banks) already lowered to virtually zero;

Evaporating household wealth with plunging values of homes

and financial assets;

Record high supplies of vacant homes and declines in home

values with no end in sight;

The fewest cars sold relative to the population since the

1940s; and

Inflation is verging on negative territory or deflation, a

condition that discourages consumption, as people wait to buy

at lower prices, and investment, as sales become more

problematic and effective borrowing costs rise. Deflation

also undermines monetary policy because interest rates cannot

go negative.

Opponents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

often argue that ``spending is not stimulus'' because

spending by government just reduces spending by others. That

argument effectively assumes that total spending in the

economy cannot be raised. That would make sense if either (1)

we were at full employment or (2) increased government

borrowing came from lenders who would otherwise spend the

money on U.S. goods and services. Neither condition

applies today. We have high rates of unemployed labor and

capital equipment. We also find lenders eager to fund

federal borrowing rather than to spend, as evidenced by

exceptionally low interest rates on U.S. Treasury Bills.

These are textbook conditions justifying federal

government borrowing to boost the economy.

Some critics of this legislation have misinterpreted

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the effects of

this legislation on jobs and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

over the next ten years. CBO found that bills like those

passed in the House and Senate would increase job-years by

3.1 million to 9.0 million over the next six years and would

not lower jobs thereafter. CBO also found that GDP would be

raised over the next ten years. GDP would be boosted 3 to 10

percent over the next several years. If only this bill is

enacted and nothing is done to raise saving, the bill would

have a zero to 0.2 percent annual reduction of GDP in the

long run.

Other opponents of this legislation have proposed as an

alternative measures intended to boost housing production or

prices. With 2.9 percent of homes still vacant, half again as

much as at any time prior to 2005, we could fritter away

hundreds of billions of dollars of additional deficit with a

negligible boost to the economy or jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office and private economic

forecasters have evaluated various options for boosting

national spending from an additional dollar of federal

deficit. They have consistently found that the highest ``bang

for the buck'' occurs with either direct federal spending or

transferring funds to those with tight budget constraints

such as cash-strapped households and state and local

governments with falling revenues and balanced budget

requirements. In contrast, they find that much less

additional spending would result from making more money

available to those with high incomes or to companies with

excess capacity. In recent testimony, CBO Director Elmendorf

stated, ``In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a

substantial boost to economic activity over the next several

years relative to what would occur without any legislation.''

The bill's $789 billion price tag sounds large, but it is

more likely to be too little than too much. The CBO director

has testified that, if nothing is done, our economic output

will fall below its potential by close to a trillion dollars

this year and next and by another $600 billion in 2011. He

noted that this would be the largest gap relative to the size

of potential output since the Great Depression. It would

represent a loss in Americans' income and output of $2.5

trillion, or about $8,000 per person, that will be lost

forever.

The forecasters at the Congressional Budget Office, Moody's

Economy.com, Macroeconomic Advisors, and the Obama

Administration have all estimated that enactment of this

legislation could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. If we

can gainfully employ

those millions of people, as opposed to having them be

unemployed, they can create a stronger economy for the future

by building infrastructure, creating technologies, and

improving their education and skills.

The following table summarizes the funding levels in

division A of the conference report:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.014

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield myself 10 seconds.

I wish the other side would make up their mind whether it's mice or rats, neither of which are in this bill if they will read it. Got it right here. Find it and show it to me. Show it to me. Show it to me.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman.

I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished dean of the House, the longest-serving Member in the House of Representatives of any Member in history, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the rule has allowed for 90 minutes of debate on this $800 billion package; is that correct?

It is my understanding that many Members who wish to debate this matter, thereby, will not be allowed time because of the limited time. I further understand that I am not allowed to ask for an extension of time under the rule; is that correct?

Then let me further say it is my understanding that an extension of time, which would be the request, can only be made by the gentleman from Wisconsin; is that correct?

You are forcing me to do that which we really should not have to do.

I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin will respond, but I would ask unanimous consent that we extend debate time by 1 hour.

Then let me ask the gentleman from Wisconsin: Would you consider such a request?

I believe the gentleman could initiate it by unanimous consent, and he has the authority for that. I urge the gentleman to do so. All of our people want more time.

I very much appreciate the Speaker for his time.

Mr. Speaker, in just a short while, the House will be voting on the President's $790 billion economic stimulus package. It is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever considered by this legislative body in its more than 200 years. I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation. Over the next few minutes, I would like to share my concerns about this bill as it is currently written.

The President, whom I respect a great deal, is a fine salesman. But as I have said on more than one occasion, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that this stimulus package does more to promote the growth of the Federal Government than it does to create jobs or to stimulate our economy. The fact is there are 104 government programs in this legislation that are being permanently expanded.

This includes 31 new government programs and permanent expansions to 73 existing programs. Taxpayers will pay for these programs well into the future. Of the total funding in this package, $190 billion--or 61 percent--is devoted to increasing the size of government. Only $122 billion--or 39 percent--is for a temporary one-time infusion of money into 98 Federal programs to stimulate the economy.

Again, these are the facts.

The interest on this new spending alone will cost no less than $350 billion. And, if all of the new spending in this bill is carried forward in the future years, Federal nondefense budgets will have to increase by at least 42 percent each year. One more time, these are the facts.

My colleagues, is there anyone in Congress who really believes that this spending can be sustained?

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to Washington spending taxpayers' money, a trillion has become the new million.

So how did we get to this point today?

Two nights ago, the President's chief of staff came to Capitol Hill under the cover of darkness and presented the framework of a final deal to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The only negotiation that took place occurred in the middle of the night in several back rooms of the U.S. Capitol between the White House and these two leaders.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of spending in this legislation, and yet not one member of the House Appropriations Committee--not even Chairman Obey--was in sight when the final deal was cut.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of tax provisions in this legislation, and yet not one member of the House Ways and Means committee--not even Chairman Rangel--was in sight when the final deal was cut.

The purpose of a conference committee is to negotiate differences between competing versions of the House and Senate bills. Amendments are usually offered, debated, and considered. But there were no negotiations between Republicans and Democrats at Wednesday's conference. The negotiations had taken place the night before.

Outside of the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader Reid, no one in the Congress has any idea what is really in this legislation. It was filed in the House as it was negotiated--in the darkness of night. And it became available to Members and the public on a Web site at 12:30 a.m. this morning, less than 12 hours ago.

This is precisely why every single Member present on Tuesday, more than 400 Members of the House, voted to have the conference report available 48 hours before House consideration. But the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader are clearly afraid that the more Members and taxpayers learn about this bill, the more Members will walk away from it.

The House should not vote on the largest spending bill in the history of the United States when no one on either side of the aisle has any real idea of what's in it. There is no doubt that urgent action is needed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Had the President and congressional leaders focused and put their attention on the real need for job creation, with an emphasis on infrastructure jobs, this package would be sailing through the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who would support reasonable transportation and infrastructure projects as well as reasonable tax reform, but that is not what is before us today.

In the end, funding for roads, highways, flood control measures, and other job creating infrastructure projects were downsized in order to increase the size and scope of government programs.

Mr. Speaker, that's not stimulus. That's not job creation, and it certainly isn't what the country needs or deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Hal Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that gets the vast percentage of increase in spending in this bill, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield $8.8 billion to the gentleman from Tennessee for 1 minute. That's the cost of the minute I'm yielding him on this bill, to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the partner of our chairman, Mr. Obey, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady fighting for jobs in Michigan, Candice Miller, for 1 minute.

This bill provides $64.1 billion for transportation and infrastructure investments under the jurisdiction of our committee. What is included in this bill from the jurisdiction of our committee will create and sustain 1.8 million jobs, real jobs, construction jobs, professional journeymen, career apprentice, brick layers, cement finishers, backhoe operators. Real jobs in the U.S. economy for people who will be paying taxes, not being paid unemployment compensation for not working. They will get a working day's wage, and they will pay taxes on it and their companies will pay taxes on it.

We'll generate $322 billion of total economic activity over the next 2 years.

And we are going to ensure that the States, departments of transportation, the municipal metropolitan planning organizations, the individual city and regional and metropolitan area planning organizations, and the transit organizations, and the airport authorities do what they have told this committee they will do: deliver jobs, half of that funding in the first 90 days. And we will hold hearings every 30 days with reports, according to a schedule we've laid out for the State agencies, on delivery of those jobs putting the money under contract.

The Portland Cement Association testified before our committee in January saying 45 companies had 130 million metric tons of Portland cement produced and invested in the marketplace in 2007. Last year it was 95 million metric tons. For this year they project 9 million metric tons. They can ramp up to over 90 million metric tons of cement produced for ready-mix concrete to put people to work in the marketplace.

In the transit sector, over 5,500 options are now on call for the producers who can go from their now 5,000 to over 7,000 transit vehicles ramping up in 30 days. I've been to one of the transit producers in this country, they are ready to move.

And 82 percent of their purchases are U.S. suppliers, all final manufacturers in the United States, and all steel. All cement in our surface transportation program will be made in America, produced in America, invested in America.

We can do this. We will put people to work. We will oversee the implementation of this program, and we will put that on our Web site so the American people will know that this program is working.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.

According to the employment statistics released by the Department of Labor last week, as of January 2009, there are 11.6 million unemployed persons in the U.S., for all sectors of the economy combined. In addition, when part-time and discouraged workers who want full-time jobs are included, the number of unemployed/under-employed workers increases to 22.3 million.

The construction sector has been particularly hard-hit--it has the highest unemployment rate (18.2 percent) of any industrial sector. As of January 2009, there were 1,744,000 unemployed construction workers in the nation.

This bill is urgently needed to put Americans back to work. The infrastructure investments funded by this bill will create good, family-wage jobs--jobs that cannot be outsourced to another country, because the work must be done here in the U.S. on our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems, airports, waterways, wastewater treatment facilities, and Federal buildings.

For more than a year now, I have worked to ensure that infrastructure investment plays a key role in our nation's economic recovery.

I thank Chairman Obey for working so closely with me in this effort. We consulted extensively on the transportation and infrastructure provisions in the bill. Through his efforts and those of his staff, we were able to retain many of the good provisions in the House bill that were not in the Senate bill, and to develop good compromises where the bills differed. I particularly appreciate the hard work of Beverly Pheto, Staff Director, and Kate Hallahan and David Napoliello of the Transportation Subcommittee.

The legislation before us today does not include everything I had proposed. While I would have preferred increased funding levels, and tighter use-it-or-lose-it deadlines, I do not intend to let ``perfect'' become the enemy of ``good''.

This is a ``good'' bill. It is desperately needed by the American people, and it deserves our support.

This bill provides $64.1 billion for Transportation and Infrastructure Committee infrastructure investments. This funding will create or sustain 1.8 million jobs and generate $322 billion of economic activity. It will get construction workers off the bench and back on the job.

To ensure that the purpose of this legislation is achieved, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will exercise vigorous oversight over the economic recovery funds within its jurisdiction. Federal agencies and grant recipients within our Committee's jurisdiction must understand that ``business as usual'' is not good enough anymore, and they will be held accountable to a high standard. We will insist that States, cities, and transit agencies live up to their assurances that they will be able to have contracts in place in 90 days for a substantial portion of the funding authorized by this bill. We will insist that projects under this bill be new projects, not simply replacements for projects which States were planning to carry out under existing programs. We will insist that Federal agencies expedite the process of approving projects and awarding grants.

With aggressive action by Federal agencies and grant recipients, the infrastructure funds provided by this bill can produce a substantial number of jobs by June, while also improving our deteriorating infrastructure and laying the foundation for our future economic growth.

I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Olver, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, and our colleagues for working with me and other Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure throughout the development of this legislation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Conference Report on H.R. 1, a true investment in America's future.