Recognizing and commending University of Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford for winning the 2008 Heisman Trophy and for his academic and athletic accomplishments.

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.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

I have one speaker, myself.

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 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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

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

Has the gentleman from California yielded back his time?

Just one.

How much time do I have remaining?

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

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.

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

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 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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 1 minute to Mr. Roe of Tennessee.

(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Poe of Texas for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a member of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), for 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire about the time remaining on each side.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Cole from Oklahoma, a member of the committee.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the committee, Mr. Kirk of Illinois.

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, our conference chairman, Michael Pence.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the whip on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Cantor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I hate to inquire again, but I really need to know if I have enough time for my colleague.

In that event, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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.

Okay, then I would yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, from February 3, 2009, to March 4, 2009, I missed Roll Call votes 47-96. Unfortunately, I underwent a surgical procedure and was in California recuperating. Had I been here, I would have voted the following:

Roll Call Vote 47: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 82, raising awareness and encouraging prevention of stalking by establishing January 2009 as National Stalking Awareness Month;

Roll Call Vote 48: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 103, supporting the goals and ideals of National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week;

Roll Call Vote 49: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 559, The Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely (FAST) Redress Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 50: No on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 51: Yes on the motion to commit with instructions S. 352, the DTV Delay Act;

Roll Call Vote 52: No on passage of S. 352, the DTV Delay Act;

Roll Call Vote 53: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 738, the Death in Custody Reporting Act;

Roll Call Vote 54: Yes on the motion to instruct conferees on H. R. 1, Making Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending 2009;

Roll Call Vote 55: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 114, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Girls and Women in Sports Day;

Roll Call Vote 56: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 60, Recognizing and commending University of Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford for winning the 2008 Heisman Trophy and for his academic and athletic accomplishments;

Roll Call Vote 57: No on the motion to table H. Res. 143, Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House;

Roll Call Vote 58: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 128, Honoring Miami University for its 200 years of commitment to extraordinary higher education;

Roll Call Vote 59: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 134, Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to India and the positive influence that the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi had on Dr. King's work during the Civil Rights Movement;

Roll Call Vote 60: No on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 47, Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses;

Roll Call Vote 61: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 154, Honoring John D. Dingell for holding the record as the longest serving member of the House of Representatives;

Roll Call Vote 62: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act;

Roll Call Vote 63: No on the motion to agree to H. Res. 157, providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes;

Roll Call Vote 64: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 117, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week;

Roll Call Vote 65: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 35, Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 100th anniversary;

Roll Call Vote 66: No on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 168, providing for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 67: No on H. Res. 168, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 68: No on the question of consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 69: Yes on the motion to recommit the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 70: No on agreeing to the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 71: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules agree to H. Res. 139, Commemorating the life and legacy of President Abraham Lincoln on the bicentennial of his birth;

Roll Call Vote 72: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 911, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act;

Roll Call Vote 73: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act;

Roll Call Vote 74: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 601, the Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act;

Roll Call Vote 75: No on approving the journal;

Roll Call Vote 76: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act;

Roll Call Vote 77: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 637, the South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act;

Roll Call Vote 78: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 83, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month;

Roll Call Vote 79: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 234, the Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building;

Roll Call Vote 80: Yes on approving the journal;

Roll Call Vote 81: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 47, Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day;

Roll Call Vote 82: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 180, Supporting the goals and ideals of the third annual America Saves Week;

Roll Call Vote 83: No on the consideration of H. Res. 184, providing for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations for 2009;

Roll Call Vote 84: Yes on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 184, providing for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations for 2009;

Roll Call Vote 85: Yes on H. Res. 184, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 86: No on passage of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 87: No on the motion to table H. Res. 189, raising a question of the privileges of the House;

Roll Call Vote 88: No on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 190, providing for consideration of H.R. 1106 to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability;

Roll Call Vote 89: No on H. Res. 190, Providing for consideration of H.R. 1106 to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability;

Roll Call Vote 90: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 183, expressing condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims of the crash of Continental Connection flight 3407;

Roll Call Vote 91: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 146, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act;

Roll Call Vote 92: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 548, the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act;

Roll Call Vote 93: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 77, congratulating the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, VA for more than 100 years of service and leadership to the United States;

Roll Call Vote 94: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201, recognizing Beverly Eckerts service to the nation and particularly to the survivors and families of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Roll Call Vote 95: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 195, recognizing and honoring the employees of the Department of Homeland Security on its sixth anniversary for their continuous efforts to keep the nation safe; and

Roll Call Vote 96: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 45, raising awareness and promoting education on the criminal justice system by establishing March as National Criminal Justice Month.

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 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman from Kentucky knows, I was racing over here as my colleague from Oklahoma was extolling our Heisman Trophy winner Sam Bradford. I was caught on the barber's chair as this momentous event began, and so the gentleman has been kind enough to allow me to address some of my remarks toward Mr. Bradford's achievement.

I want to begin by thanking my good friend, the gentlelady from Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, for bringing the resolution to the floor honoring Sam Bradford and his remarkable achievements. He was born in my colleague's district, but his distinction was really earned in mine because he plays at the University of Oklahoma, and we're extraordinarily proud of him as a player, as any college would be.

He frankly has won two Big 12 titles in his 2 years. He's had the opportunity to play for a national championship. We came up a little bit short in that game, and we congratulate our friends at the University of Florida who played a great game with a great quarterback, Mr. Tebow, but we look forward to having the opportunity to meet them or somebody else somewhere down the road.

We're proud of everything he's done. He's led the country in passing. He's one of the most accurate throwers, led the country in touchdown passes. You could literally list the achievements at great length, but frankly, we're proud of him as a student.

In a day when a lot of athletes are there simply to play football or basketball or track or whatever their sport is, Sam Bradford is a 3.95 major in finance at the University of Oklahoma. So he's pretty serious about his academic life.

We're proud of him as a person. Frankly, he's active in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He is active in Read Across America. Obviously, we're very proud of his native heritage as a member of the Cherokee Nation. And that's important to us in Oklahoma, certainly important to me as a member of the Chickasaw Nation, to see the kind of role model he is, not only for Cherokees but, frankly, for young men and women all across Indian country, regardless of tribal affiliation.

I think we're probably most proud of him, Mr. Speaker, for the manner in which he leads. He is a quiet leader. He's not a shouter. He's not somebody that is theatrical on the field. You don't see him engaging in taunting for the type of celebration that frankly glorifies the individual at the expense of the team. You see him lead by example.

And all of his fellow players comment on this repeatedly, that in the huddle, he's quiet, he's professional, he's business-like, he's quick to give the credit to the people that he plays with; and, frankly, he's quick to give the credit to his opponents who he regards with respect and as worthy adversaries and people who bring their own traits of hard work and character to the field.

The relationship that he had with not only Mr. Tebow but also with our rivals in the south, Colton McCoy of the University of Texas, is the kind of relationship you like to see on the football field, and frankly probably something all of us in this Chamber could take a lesson from.

I doubt there is any fiercer rivalry in college football than there is between the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma. And I also doubt that there are any two schools that are prouder of their two quarterbacks, and

I also doubt there are any two quarterbacks that respect one another's talents more and are quick to praise the other's achievements not only over the course of the season but in the contest in which they're in.

So we are extraordinarily proud, obviously, of Sam Bradford, Mr. Speaker, because he's led us to victory on the athletic field, because he's been a student; because, frankly, he's engaged in activities beyond being an athlete and beyond being a student to help others and to help his community, because of his Native American heritage. But most of all, simply because of the kind of person that he is.

He's a role model not just in athletics and not just from my State but, frankly, he's the kind of person that all of us should aspire to be. And he's wise beyond his years, and he conducts himself in a manner well beyond his years.

With that, again, I thank my colleague, Ms. Fallin from the State of Oklahoma, for bringing this resolution. It's a privilege for me to speak on it.