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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my friend from Worcester for yielding me the traditional 30 minutes and I yield myself, as I said, such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we all know that the United States of America is facing one of the greatest challenges we have ever had. This is a very tough and painful time for Americans all across the economic spectrum. People have been losing their homes. We have seen the jobless rate surge. And we have challenging and difficult days ahead of us. Every one has acknowledged that. Conservative, liberal, moderate, wherever you stand on the political spectrum, we all know that we are dealing with extraordinarily difficult times.

I have to say at the outset as my friend went through the litany of challenges that President Barack Obama has now inherited, it is true, we are facing very tough times. But I think it is very important to note that I was privileged to come to this institution in 1981. And when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, if you look at the numbers that existed in 1980 and 1981, the time of the transition from the Carter administration to the Reagan administration, the inflation rate was 13.5 percent, the unemployment rate was 7.1 percent and interest rates were well into double digits.

Now, no one knows what tomorrow is going to bring. And most people have said that tomorrow is going to be challenging and difficult. And I personally believe that it is. But I think that it is important to note that the challenge which President Obama has inherited and which we, as elected leaders in this country, have inherited is a tough one. But it may or may not be unprecedented.

We do know this. And I'm very pleased that President Obama is at this moment right here in the Capitol meeting with members of the Republican Conference. And I have just come

from that meeting to begin the debate on the issue of the so-called economic stimulus package. President Obama, in his presentation to us, provided a very nice, encouraging message with which I agree. He said that as we deal with this economic stimulus package, let's work as hard as we possibly can to put politics aside.

This is a message that President Obama has carried repeatedly throughout his campaign. And 1 week ago today, as he stood on the west front of the Capitol, he made it very clear that that was that exactly what he wanted to do, was to put politics aside.

Now I will say to my friend that pointing the finger of blame is an unfortunate thing, and I think it is really being political, and that is why I hope very much that we can follow the words of encouragement that President Obama has just given Republican Members, and that is to put politics aside and as we debate this stimulus package, focus on the merits. ``Focus on the merits'' are the exact words that the President of the United States just used within the last few minutes downstairs.

I believe it is absolutely imperative that we look at the merits. Everyone knows that we need to take action to stimulate our economy, to get people back to work, to help people buy and keep homes, to keep businesses investing, job creating, and to ensure that the very important societal needs that are out there are adequately addressed.

The problem that we have, Madam Speaker, is that as we look at this package that is before us, unfortunately there has not been the kind of bipartisan cooperation that President Obama has encouraged and has personally sought.

As we look at the legislation, the measure that we are going to be working on further today upstairs in the Rules Committee, it is an $825 billion package. It is an $825 billion package which, based on the report that was released yesterday from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, has levels of expending that go not just a year beyond where we are, not just 2 years beyond where we are, but to 10 years. And, Madam Speaker, I know very few Members have recognized this, one of our crack staff members found this out last night in looking at budget authority versus outlays, there is actually $2.3 billion, according to the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that in this stimulus packaged is expended beyond 10 years, beyond 2019.

Now again, following the words of encouragement that we as Republican Members have just received from President Obama downstairs focusing on the merits of the stimulus package versus politics is going to be a high priority for us. And that is why, again, this study which just came out from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, remember this is not a Republican publication. Yes, I am a Republican, proud to be a Republican, I am simply reporting to the House, Madam Speaker, what it is that was included in this Congressional Budget Office study which I commend to every single one of our colleagues. I encourage people to look at the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study, and the reason I am focusing on it is I want to share, along with the information that I just provided, that $2.3 billion of this is actually expended beyond 2019, 10 years from now.

I would like to share a couple of paragraphs from this study. It is on page 4 and this is entitled H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 as introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday on January 26. It provides a summary. This is, again, from the CBO. It reads: ``CBO expects that Federal agencies, along with States and other recipients of the funding, would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs.''

This study goes on to say: ``Lags in spending stem in part from the need to draft plans, solicit bids, enter into contracts, and conduct regulatory or environmental reviews. Spending can be further delayed because some activities are by their nature seasonal. For example, major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid disrupting classes, and construction and highway work are difficult to carry out during the winter months in many parts of the country.'' It is snowing outside right now. We know that to be the case.

And then, Madam Speaker, this report, not a partisan report from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office goes on to say: ``Brand new programs pose additional challenges. Developing procedures and criteria, issuing the necessary regulations and reviewing plans and proposals would make distributing money quickly even more difficult--as can be seen, for example, in the lack of any disbursements to date under the loan programs established for automakers last summer to invest in producing energy-efficient vehicles. Throughout the Federal Government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than expected and rarely been faster.''

Madam Speaker, again, these are not my words. There is nothing partisan about this. These words came from the study released yesterday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. I focus on this because I believe that President Obama was absolutely right 15 minutes ago when he said to Republican Members of this institution that we should focus on the merits and not on politics. We don't want to focus on politics because we know it is absolutely essential that we come together with a package that will truly stimulate our economy, get Americans working, create jobs and deal with this very serious economic challenge.

Now as we move ahead, Madam Speaker, what needs to be done is we need to have a package that will not do as the Congressional Budget Office, the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated, create slow, wasteful, duplicative spending, and that is basically what they are saying here. They are talking about in their independent analysis how difficult it is going to be to get these dollars out there, and to not spend $2.3 billion of this 11 years from today, we should instead focus on fast acting, immediate action.

Now what is it that we can do to deal with the issue of immediacy that faces us? Well, on the opening day I was pleased to introduce legislation which is included in the alternative package that we are going to bring forward. That legislation is focused on addressing a particular problem that is out there in our economy, and that is the housing industry. Traditionally, the housing industry has played a very important role in reigniting our economy.

Yesterday the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in his testimony before the Rules Committee, said there is no way the housing or the auto industry will be able to play a role in bringing us out of economic recession. And I challenged him on that because I don't believe that is in any way accurate in concluding it because we can take action.

On opening day I introduced legislation which calls for incentivizing Americans to purchase and have an interest in keeping their homes. What it consists of, and we will have this in our package, is a $7,500 exclusion to help people offset the downpayment they make on their home. Everyone has recognized that a big part of this problem in the housing industry has been the fact that people put absolutely nothing down and had subprime rates of interest. And those subprime rates of interest allowed people, unfortunately, to treat their homes like rental units. So they had no vested interest in it, and so they were actually encouraged to walk away.

If we can say to an American, and we all know that the savings rate has gone up because of these challenging economic times, that they put some dollars aside that actually utilizes that to increase the percentage of their downpayment on that home purchase will play a role in dealing with that inventory of housing that is out there.

We saw the reports of the layoffs at Home Depot and a wide range of other companies yesterday. We know if we are able to encourage people to have a vested interest in their home and purchase their home, that will go a long way towards encouraging responsibility and seeing that they have a vested interest in that home. That is just one example.

We also believe when it comes to tax relief that we should provide tax relief to Americans who pay taxes. That is why in our package we are going to call for an across-the-board cut for every single American, reducing from 10 percent to 5 percent on the first level of income that is taxed.

Action like this, I believe, Madam Speaker, will provide an immediacy which is what the American people want. They want an immediate response. And yes, some spending is necessary. We recognize that infrastructure spending is necessary. But as we look at the litany of items that have been included in this package that in no way stimulate our economy, I believe that we should in fact focus on responsibility, private sector job creation, and economic growth. That, I believe, will mitigate the pain which so many of our fellow Americans are suffering at this moment.

Madam Speaker, because of the direction in which we are headed, I am going to encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule. I recognize it is only a general debate rule, but I am very troubled with the legislation that we have seen, some of the actions that have been taken in the committees of jurisdiction. With that, I am going to urge opposition to this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say that I stand here, having just left the meeting with the President to come up to voice my strong opposition to the $825 billion package that was unveiled without consultation with the Republican leadership. The partisanship has, unfortunately, been demonstrated through actions of my friend on the other side of the aisle. So we are seeking opposition to it.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I assume my friend has seen this Congressional Budget Office study, and I want to add, as we talk about this Congressional Budget Office study, that it is important to note that while our friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee talked about his acceptance of amendments, it is fascinating that the Energy and Commerce Committee had a rigorous debate on a number of amendments. They accepted four Republican amendments by voice vote that dealt with things like COBRA qualification, health information technology, the rights of pharmacists, and they dropped those four amendments from the bill. So what kind of bipartisanship is that, I ask my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say to my good friend from Clayton County, Georgia, who does a spectacular job, that we all want to ensure that schools and the other very pressing needs out there are addressed. Getting our economy growing is critical for that and I know my friend concurs with the importance for us to do that, and that is why I point to this independent, professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study which has indicated that there is going to be a tremendous lag time in getting those resources to those schools to which my friend has referred.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I am happy to yield to my good friend, the former Rules Committee member and a great appropriator, an additional minute.

I will yield time to you if you will agree to yield for a question here.

I will be happy to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute, if he will yield.

I just yielded him an additional minute.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I simply wanted to engage in a little debate here, if I might, and that is the reason I yielded time to my friend, so that we could ask the question as to whether or not the gentleman has looked at the Congressional Budget Office study, the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Study.

If I could complete my thought, my question is, have you in fact looked at the professional, nonpartisan CBO study that came out last night talking about the slowness with which we will have to contend at getting these resources? And I agree with my friend on the need to try and get it in, and I thank my friend for yielding.

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

I will say that I truly do believe that we are making an attempt to follow the directive that was provided to us within the last hour by President Obama in his address to the Republican Conference when he talked about the need to focus on merits rather than politics here.

We are, in fact, offering an alternative. We are, in fact, saying that we believe that encouraging private sector growth and, yes, putting into place spending that will help to develop our infrastructure is important. So we acknowledge that.

The fact is if you look at what Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981, as I was saying in my opening remarks, an inflation rate of 13\1/2\ percent, interest rates that were beyond 15 percent, an unemployment rate that was in excess of 7 percent, what was it that was done the last time that we faced a challenge that, quite frankly, according to the numbers as of right now was even greater than it is today? What was the response, in a bipartisan way, of Democrats and Republicans alike? And I remember very vividly as we did this in May of 1981 and August of 1981. What happened, Madam Speaker, we put into place a package that restrained the rate of growth of Federal Government, cutting by 17 percent the rate of growth of Federal spending. That was done in May of 1981, known as the Gramm-Latta budget package. Then in August of 1981, the bipartisan Conable-Hance economic growth package brought about a broad across-the-board marginal rate reduction which tripled the flow of revenues to the Federal Government as it unleashed tremendous economic growth.

So, Madam Speaker, this notion that we are saying we are for small business but, we are for all these other things but, as my friend from Worcester has said just a few minutes ago, is preposterous. We have a very, very strong and positive track record on what needs to be done to get this economy growing. We have the ability to do that. And I believe that President Obama is sincere when he says we need to talk about the merits and not the politics.

Again, looking at 1981, when a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined in a bipartisan way to do this, that is the prescription for the challenges that we face today. It worked then, and I believe very strongly that it can work now. Encouraging

individual initiative and responsibility, stepping forward with ways in which we can help these industries that have been suffering greatly is something that can be done. And when this study that was done by the Congressional Budget Office made it very clear that in this package that has been brought before us, without consultation with the Republican leadership, without consultation with the Republican leadership, we are, in fact, expending dollars which will be slow and wasteful; and, Madam Speaker, we're expending dollars more than 10 years from now in this package.

So I will agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle we are never going to come to a perfect agreement, but I believe we should use what has, in fact, worked in the past in generating real economic growth.

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

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

I am going to try again, Madam Speaker. I know that my friend who was a senior in college when I began my service here in the institution, I appreciate his reminding me of how much older I am than he, although I have to tell him I was not too much older than he when he was a senior in college and I was proud to begin my service here.

The fact is, okay, I've talked about Ronald Reagan. And I know my friend is from Worcester, and he's very proud of that, and what I would like to do is talk about John F. Kennedy, the President of the United States from his State.

In 1961 we all know John F. Kennedy became President. He did a lot of great things. He's been a model for Democrats and Republicans alike in so many areas. There were challenging economic times in the early 1960s, and John F. Kennedy did exactly what Ronald Reagan did in 1981, and my friend describes this as the ``same old, same old.''

Well, I believe that it's imperative for us to recognize the best way to get our economy growing. Not only Ronald Reagan but John F. Kennedy recognized it and put into place policies that unleashed the kind of economic growth to which we all aspire today. We know that it's been done many times throughout world history and it can happen.

So if my friend wants to criticize the gentleman from his State, President Kennedy, just as he criticizes Ronald Reagan for the same old, same old, Madam Speaker, I welcome his doing that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that it's become very clear in this debate that we all recognize the fact that there is a great deal of suffering going on here in the United States of America. Our constituents are hurting. We are dealing with a very, very challenging economic downturn, and we all want to come together to try to find a way to jump-start our economy.

President Obama has, just a few minutes ago, completed an address to the Republican Conference, Republican Members of this institution, and he went over to meet with our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. And the words that really struck me that he offered to us were that as we deal with this economic stimulus package, Madam Speaker, it's important for us to focus on merits and not politics. Merits and not politics. And I completely concur with that. I completely concur with that. And, again, it was 1 week ago today that we were all privileged to be on the west front of the Capitol as we were able to witness history and we heard a similar message put forward by President Obama.

That's why, as we move ahead on this issue, we are going to expend our time and our effort focusing on the merits and what needs to be done to get our economy growing.

We know that there is going to be some very important government spending stimulus, and we support things like infrastructure spending, because we know that goods movement, as the economy starts to grow, is imperative, and it needs to be addressed. And so, yes, we support the kind of infrastructure spending that we have talked about.

But, Madam Speaker, as we look at the analysis that has been done on this $825 billion package, it doesn't do what is essential. I believe that we need to make sure that every dollar expended gets into, on track, just as quickly as we possibly can. We all want to try and move that. President Obama has already talked about shovel-ready projects. We understand the imperativeness of this.

Unfortunately, the study that has been provided by the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made it very clear that it is virtually impossible for us to achieve that goal with this package that has been put before us. In fact, Madam Speaker, in looking at the spending, it's not just beyond a year or 2 years, and the President in his remarks downstairs talked about the fact that he wanted us to get-- maybe not within this year, but within the next 2 years--this spending out.

Yet, Madam Speaker, based on this professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study again, not a Republican statement, $2.3 billion of this package won't be expended until 2019. That's more than 10 years today, and that's what the CBO study has said, and I would commend that to all of our colleagues.

What is it that needs to be done? We need to recognize that bold, strong, decisive, across-the-board marginal rate cuts, doing everything we can to encourage individual initiative and responsibility, is the kind of legislative action that we here can take to get our economy growing and, as we discussed, as the President has said, the merits of this, unfortunately, we don't do that in this package.

That is the reason, Madam Speaker, that we will be coming forward with an alternative, an alternative, a very positive alternative that brings about marginal rate reduction for 100 percent, 100 percent of American taxpayers, so that they can save and invest. And we, of course, want to encourage consumption. We, of course, want to encourage the steps that are necessary to get our economy growing.

I would say again, the idea of incentivizing people to get off the couch and into showrooms of automobile dealerships, the idea of having people take responsibility and being incentivized to make a greater down payment on a home so that they will have a vested interest in it and not this very, very, very failed zero down payment and subprime rates of interest, these are the kinds of creative, bold, policies that we can put into place. That's what we want to do as we deal with the suffering that is out there.

I am convinced, Madam Speaker, based on the last half century and looking at the policies of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, that if we were to do that, we would do exactly what happened following the implementation of those policies by both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in the 1960s and the 1980s. We will boost the economy, increase the flow of Federal revenues to the Treasury and be able to address the challenges that are before us.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, because the underlying legislation itself is very, very badly flawed, and it's not what the American people need.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 88.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 88 provides for general debate on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I would like to think this rule is not controversial because it is only about general debate, but it will lead the way to an important debate on the underlying legislation, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Madam Speaker, George W. Bush left this country with an economy much worse off than the one he inherited from the Clinton administration. Eight years after being handed record budget surpluses, President Bush passed on to President Obama an economy that has record budget deficits and is in worse shape since the Great Depression.

Unemployment is rising. Fifty-five thousand more jobs were lost yesterday alone. Wages are stagnating. And work hours are being cut back. People are having trouble making ends meet, including putting food on the table.

And that is where this recovery package steps in. The provisions that make up the American Recovery and Reinvestment Package range from investments in infrastructure and green technology to extending unemployment for workers who have exhausted their benefits. We provide aid to struggling State governments and tax cuts for low and middle- income families and small businesses. These are all good investments that we hope will help reinvigorate our economy. And I look forward to voting for them tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, some of the most important parts of this package, in my opinion, are the antihunger provisions that will not only stimulate the economy, but will also help combat hunger in this country. This recovery package includes $20 billion for the Food Stamp program, $200 million for elderly nutrition services, including Meals on Wheels and Congregate Meals, $726 million to increase the number of States that provide free healthy dinners to children in need, $150 million to purchase commodities for food banks to refill emptying shelves, and $100 million to improve State management information systems for the WIC program.

Madam Speaker, food stamp increases will reach about 14 million low- income households as soon as 25 days after enactment. About 90 percent of all food stamp households have income below the poverty line. In other words, these are benefits that are timely and they are targeted.

It is important to note that every dollar in food stamps that a low- income family receives enables that family to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. And don't just take my word for it. Leading conservative economists support inclusion of these benefits in the recovery package. Former Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein has said that a temporary food stamp increase would place resources in the pockets of people with a high propensity to spend quickly, rather than save, the limited income that they have.

Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to the McCain campaign, says that a temporary increase in food stamp benefits gives the best ``bang for buck.'' Specifically, he estimates that such an increase would generate $1.73 in increased economic activity for each $1 in cost.

Madam Speaker, increasing food stamps is not charity. It is stimulus. It is not a handout or a give-away. But investments in antihunger programs do fulfill our moral commitment to make sure our fellow citizens have enough to eat. More than 36 million Americans went hungry in 2007, before the economy took this drastic spike downward. Yet the last stimulus plan signed into law didn't include increases for food stamps or any kind of antihunger programs.

The fact that hunger remains a problem in America should make every single Member in this Chamber feel ashamed. H.R. 1 gives us a chance to begin to solve this problem and to prevent many more American families from slipping into hunger.

Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes large investments in our infrastructure to help rebuild our roads and our bridges, to help with our water and sewer plants, to help State and local governments deal with the financial burdens and crises they are currently faced with. This is a bill that will help put people back to work and that will create millions of jobs that will hopefully stimulate this economy. The one thing I do know, Madam Speaker, is that doing nothing is not an option. That is what has been happening in the previous administration. They ignored this problem for far too long. And their response when the probably became a huge problem was grossly inadequate.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support this package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am all for bipartisanship, but I find it curious that the gentleman is preaching bipartisanship when this morning, and I read from Politico, there is a story that says this morning House minority leader John Boehner went for the jugular, urging his members to oppose the economic centerpiece of Obama's first term just hours before the President paid the Republicans the compliment of coming to the Capitol for a private meeting, even before he did the same for House Democrats.

I will yield to the gentleman in just a second.

It seems to me if we want to be bipartisan, then everybody should reserve judgment until all the facts are on the table. I would like to think that the House minority leader would have reserved his judgment on the overall package until he and the Republican Members of this House had an opportunity to hear the new President out. That did not happen.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is the economic downturn is no longer subject to debate. In the last 4 months, the country has lost 2 million jobs and is expected to lose another 3 to 5 million in the next year. This recovery package represents a crucial first step forward in a concerted effort to not only save but create millions of more jobs in this country. This is a defining moment for every single person in this Chamber. We need to act. We need to move forward with something big and bold, and not the same old, same old.

And bipartisanship, Madam Speaker, doesn't mean that Democrats should capitulate to every request that the Republicans make. Bipartisanship doesn't mean that we should embrace policies that have failed in the past, embracing the same old, same old.

Chairman Obey was before the House Rules Committee last night and talked about the Republican amendments that he accepted during debate on this package in the Appropriations Committee. This is not everything I would like, Madam Speaker. Quite frankly, I think the package needs to be bigger. But this represents, I think, the best judgment of our new President, working with his advisers, and I think this package is a crucial first step forward in trying to bring this economy back from where it is today. This is a crucial step in trying to create millions of more jobs to put people back to work to try to stimulate this economy to get things moving again.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that the Congressional Budget Office study report is disputed by many, many on the House Appropriations Committee and many on the Senate Appropriations Committee. In fact, Mark Zandi who is a conservative economist and former adviser to John McCain, your Presidential candidate in the last go-around, projected that this stimulus package would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010 and it will provide a vital boost to this lagging economy.

The bottom line is, I think it is obvious that the kind of investments that are in this package, infrastructure, green jobs, investments in education, investments in Food Stamps and investments in medical technology, investments in making sure that we have more nurses and more primary care doctors, all of those things create more jobs and will stimulate the economy.

We can debate reports all we want, but those of us who have been here for awhile know that when you invest in things like infrastructure, you create jobs back home. That is what we are doing here. There are expedited provisions here to make sure that the money gets out quickly.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this point 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

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

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker, who I had the pleasure of serving with on the Rules Committee for many years, but what we seem to be hearing over and over from the other side is they care about job loss, but. They care about the survival of small businesses, but. They care about the fact that hunger is a growing problem in America, but. They care about the infrastructure, but.

Well, ``but'' nothing. The time has come, because things are so bad, and we don't have to argue about how we got here, but the reality is I think there is a consensus that we are in a serious economic meltdown right now and that in fact we need to do something. We need to do something big and bold. We need to try to jump-start this economy.

This may not be all that needs to be done, quite frankly, but the fact is, if you care about infrastructure, you need to support a bill that spends and invests in infrastructure. If you care about job losses in this country, then you have got to do something other than just talk about it, and invest in programs that will help create more jobs. If you care about the fact that hunger is a growing problem in the United States of America, which is shameful, then you need to do something that will not only help feed hungry people, but stimulate the economy. And this bill does that, and more.

So there are lots of things in this bill that I think will stimulate this economy. We could all find something that we don't like. But the fact of the matter is, if everybody had the opportunity to write this bill, there would be 435 different bills. This bill I think represents the best judgment of the new President of the United States, working with the Democratic leadership and working with Members in this House, and I think it deserves support.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's history lesson about Ronald Reagan and about what happened in 1981. I wasn't here in 1981. I was a senior in college, but I appreciate the gentleman's giving me that history lesson.

But when he talks about the strong track record of the Republicans, I beg to differ. I think the American people differ. That's what the outcome of this election was about. People do not want more of the same. They're tired of the Republican track record. They want to go in a very different direction.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairmen Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Oberstar, Miller, Spratt and Gordon for their incredible work on this package, and I want to thank their staffs.

I also want to thank Rosa DeLauro for championing the antihunger provisions in this package, which I think are so important, not only in terms of our moral obligation to help people in this country who don't have enough to eat, but it also helps stimulate the economy.

I also am grateful to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their leadership in trying to put a good and solid reinvestment recovery package together.

Madam Speaker, we are facing extremely tough times. This economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Millions and millions of people have lost their jobs and millions more will lose their jobs unless this Congress, working with this President, takes decisive action.

We are not talking about statistics, we are talking about people. We are talking about families, and they are hurting. There is not a single one of us in this chamber who, when we go home, do not encounter people who have lost their jobs or who are on the verge of losing their jobs.

People are struggling, people are fearful. Small businesses are struggling. They are asking for our help. Cities and towns and States are facing the worst financial crisis in decades, and they are looking for help.

The underlying bill before us provides a first step in helping remedy this terrible situation. John F. Kennedy liked to say that a rising tide lifts all boats. Well, that is what we are trying to do with this package.

We are trying to stimulate the economy. We are trying to make sure that everybody, not just the few who are rich, but everybody, those who are in the middle class and those who are poor, gets the help that they deserve.

My colleague talked about a substitute that the Republicans will offer. Well, that's great, and they will have an opportunity to debate and make their substitute and let the votes fall where they may. But the fact of the matter is that I personally believe that their approach, which I referred to as the same old same old, will not prevail. I hope it doesn't prevail. That's what this election was about. People do not want more of the same. They want a different direction.

Quite frankly, this stimulus package that we debated today should have been what President Bush asked for a year ago. We are late in coming to rescue so many families across this country.

I know it's fashionable on the other side to talk about tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. The bill that President Obama and the Democratic leadership are putting together, 95 percent of American taxpayers get a break.

But I should tell my colleagues that for every dollar of direct spending, the economy gets $1.50 in stimulus. Every dollar of tax cut produces 75 cents in economic stimulus. So I do think, while we can make the argument that tax cuts are important, investment in our infrastructure, investment in our schools, investment in our economy, is incredibly important.

People have said, well, there is no way we can get all this money out. I should point out in this bill there are strict accountability measures to ensure that highways and transit funds get out of the door quickly to create

jobs. It requires States to obligate 50 percent of the highway and transit funding within 180 days, or the Transportation Department can reclaim some of the States' highway and transportation funding in the bill. So there are incentives to get this money out quickly to help stimulate this economy.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me say that this really is a defining moment. People are looking to their government for help. They are looking for us to take big, bold steps. They are looking at us the same way that people looked at Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression to come and try to put together a package to help get people back to work.

Well, that's what we're trying to do here. Madam Speaker, I will say this, I am proud to be on the floor today debating this rule which will pave the way for a debate on this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because it shows that this government, once again, has a conscience.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

As we begin today's debate, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my willingness and desire to work with President Obama.

Mr. President, each of us wants to see you be successful, and we welcome the opportunity to work with you and your administration. The challenges we face as Americans--not Democrats or Republicans, but Americans--are great. We have much work to do.

Mr. President, it is our sincere hope that we will work together across party lines to restore confidence in our economy and create a climate conducive to job growth. We can no longer afford to point fingers and cast blame. If there was ever a time for our country to come together, it is now.

There is no greater challenge facing working families today than our Nation's struggling economy. Each of us can speak passionately and with great empathy of people we know in our own districts who have lost their jobs, are unable to pay their mortgage, don't have health insurance, or are struggling to make ends meet. They are asking for our help. As we demonstrate our compassion, let us also be mindful of our responsibility to assist those in need without creating an untenable situation for future generations. That is the balance we must strive to achieve.

The centerpiece of any stimulus bill ought to be job creation. Government has a role; but our constituents are not asking for an unlimited expansion of government. They are asking Congress to focus on specific sectors of our economy and to provide solutions that will offer tangible, near-term results.

Most of us would agree that the recent $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, is an illustration of how good intentions don't always deliver desired results. Many Members, I'm sure, would like to have their vote back if they voted for that package.

When Congress spends too much too quickly, it doesn't think through the details and oversight becomes more difficult. The TARP bill is only the most recent example. The lesson learned was this; we cannot manage what we do not measure. We simply cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

Public dismay over the lack of transparency in TARP implies a public desire for more openness and thoughtful consideration of stimulus spending. A Web site is not oversight. Posting $606 billion worth of Federal spending on a Web site does not ensure that these funds will be well spent. Each and every agency should be required to submit a spending plan to Congress--on the front end, not after the fact--to ensure that every dollar is spent as intended. Our constituents, Mr. Chairman and Members, deserve no less.

These taxpayers, who will repay this debt over time, also deserve specific answers before we spend another nickel of their money. They deserve to know how many jobs will be created in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, or longer. They deserve to know where these jobs will be created, how many of these jobs will be skilled and unskilled positions, and whether these jobs will be sustained through higher taxes or even more government spending down the road. These are thoughtful, reasonable questions deserving a thoughtful and reasonable response.

Many have described this legislation as a transportation and infrastructure investment package. However, the fact remains that only $30 billion, or 3 percent of the funding, is directed towards ``shovel- ready'' road and highway spending. The backlog of these projects is some $64.3 billion. Similarly, $4.5 billion is allocated for the Corps of Engineers for improving flood protection and navigation, when a $61 billion backlog exists for Corps projects that are fully authorized. These are the types of targeted infrastructure investments that will create sustainable jobs and should be given even greater priority within this package.

Many Republicans support wellness programs, analog TV conversion coupons, and the NEA, for example, but these and many other items in this bill don't create jobs and ought to be funded through our regular appropriations process. They do not belong in a stimulus bill.

Nor should a stimulus package be used to establish 32 new government programs at a cost of some $136 billion, which this bill does. Thirty- seven percent of the appropriated dollars in this package, more than $1 out of every $3, is dedicated to creating new government programs.

Are we fostering job creation and economic stimulus, or are we simply growing the size of government? I know my taxpayers are asking. How about yours?

Our opposition to this package is not based on partisan politics but on economic reality. There is tremendous pressure on Congress to maintain funding of existing programs even before we create new ones. Again, let's take off our partisan hats and look at the sobering facts before us.

Congress recently provided $700 billion for TARP. It's now considering $816 billion in this stimulus bill. There is talk of the Senate's adding another $70 billion to address the AMT fix. Congress will next week, consider a $410 billion omnibus spending bill for the

work we didn't finish last year. And before long we will be considering another emergency supplemental spending bill.

Let's be perfectly honest. All these spending bills are placing a tremendous burden of debt on present and future generations. Our projected deficit of 2009 is already approaching $1.2 trillion, the largest in history, even before we consider this stimulus proposal.

So what can be done to make this a better and perhaps even a bipartisan spending bill? Let me offer four suggestions, Mr. Chairman:

First, narrow the focus of this bill to those items that provide measurable economic stimulus or produce jobs. Spending should be targeted to key infrastructure investments that will create jobs over the next 2 years. We don't question the urgency of this package. We question its priorities and its price tag.

Secondly, address public concerns over adequate transparency and accountability by requiring agencies to submit a spending plan before they start spending the money in this package, as we did in the 9/11 package. Such an approach will ensure that every dollar is spent as intended.

Further, I would suggest that this bill should ensure that it captures the full costs associated with waiving cost-sharing requirements and hiring of additional Federal employees. Proper safeguards are needed to prevent the unintentional growth of government over time.

And, lastly, limit the use of the stimulus bill as a vehicle for increasing base funding of popular domestic programs. Large increases in these programs create unrealistic expectations for future spending.

I will conclude my remarks as I began them with a message for our new President:

Mr. President, the challenges we face transcend partisan politics. We have an historic opportunity to work together to craft a stimulus package that Republicans and Democrats can support. We appeal to you to include us in this process. We wish you and your family Godspeed and welcome the opportunity to work with you, Mr. President.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the original chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a member of this committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Speaking of smaller problems, I might mention I had hoped that the chairman put that Jefferson Memorial problem in the 2009 bill, which is yet to be passed, through the whole process.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson.)

I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I will be yielding time, Mr. Chairman, to others, so I will reserve my time for now.

Mr. Chairman, in order to ask a question, let me yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Buyer.

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the amount of time that's remaining?

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 88, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this country is facing what most economists, I believe, consider to be the most serious and the most dangerous economic situation in our lifetimes, certainly going back to the early thirties.

If you take a look at what has happened in the country, late last year, former President George Bush recognized that the world's credit markets were near a state of total collapse, and he asked this Congress to take unprecedented action in order to try to prevent that. Since that time, we've seen a continued unraveling of financial markets, we've seen a continued unraveling of the housing markets, and we've seen the most spectacular loss of consumer confidence in the modern history of this country. New claims for unemployment insurance last week hit 590,000. In the last 2 months alone, we've seen this country lose more than a million jobs.

Consumer purchasing power has evaporated. New home starts fell 15 percent in December, to the lowest number on record going back more than 50 years. And we've seen other evidence of panic in the marketplace and on Main Street.

Normally, when consumer purchasing power collapses, our government uses the tool of monetary policy in order to try to resurrect and reinflate the economy. The problem is we've already shot that bullet. The Federal Reserve has taken phenomenal actions to try to stabilize the situation to very moderate effect. And now we're being asked to consider the other tool in our arsenal. We're being asked to use fiscal policy to expand consumer purchasing power to try and stop the slide. And that is what this proposal before us here today will try to do.

In most recessions, we're eventually led out of those recessions through the leadership of the housing sector and the automobile sector. This time around, both of those sectors are in shambles, and they're not likely to lead anybody out of anything. So that leaves us with very limited tools.

This package today that we are considering is an $825 billion package that does a variety of things to try to reinflate the economy. It, first of all, provides tax cuts--which Mr. Rangel will discuss--in order to try to put some money in people's pockets. We hope that that succeeds to a greater extent than the last round of tax rebates did.

Secondly, this package attempts to jump-start job creation through infrastructure investments in roads, bridges, sewers, water repair, modernizing our electric power grid and expanding broadband access so that all parts of the country have an opportunity to compete, with Internet access.

Third, this package attempts to help those who are most impacted by the recession, who are losing their jobs, their health insurance, and losing the ability to send their kids to college.

Fourth, this package attempts to modernize the economy--or at least to begin a long process of doing that--by accelerating the development of new technology through key investments in science and energy.

And last, it attempts, also, to save jobs by stabilizing State and local budgets. Because of the economic collapse and because of the collapse of revenue now forecast at the State and local level, States face the need to eliminate gargantuan deficits because they're required to balance their budgets. Without help from the Federal Government to stabilize their situation, they will be forced to impose

major tax increases and devastating service cutbacks, which under these economic conditions would be hugely counterproductive. This package attempts to do all of those things.

Now, none of us can be certain about the degree of success that would flow from passage of this package.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

But the fact is we are as close as we will ever see to being in the same position that Franklin Roosevelt was in in the thirties. And at that time he tried some things; some of the things he tried worked, some of them didn't, and so he moved on and tried other things.

There is no person on this floor who can guarantee the success of this package. Certainly, standing alone, this package will not succeed, because it is going to have to be accompanied by further actions to build confidence in the economy. It is going to have to be accompanied by new actions to prevent massive house foreclosures all across the country. We are going to probably have to have even further intervention in the financial markets of the country. And this package that we have here today, the spending portion of this package, may very well undershoot rather than overshoot the target that many economists have set out for us.

When President Bush came to office, I was divided in my judgment about whether I should support his first major new initiative, which was the No Child Left Behind education package. I had grave misgivings about that package, but in the end I supported it, largely because I thought that, as the incoming President, the President deserves to have the benefit of the doubt. President Obama is in that same situation, only in far more dire straits. He has asked the Congress to pass an economic recovery package, and this bill today is attempting to do that.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

He has asked us to provide a reasonable balance between tax cuts and spending increases to revive the ability of consumers to purchase the goods and services produced by this society. Unless someone has a clearly better idea, I think we have an obligation to support the President's proposal, at this point as the only game in town. The risks are enormous if we do not move ahead.

Everyone talks, for instance, about how disappointed they are with what the previous Bush administration did with respect to the package on Wall Street. I'm certainly extremely unhappy with some of the actions taken by Secretary Paulson.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I believe, nonetheless, that the President was right at the time in telling the Congress that if we did not take action, the results could have been catastrophic. I believe if we do not take action on this package today, the results can be similarly catastrophic. And with that, I urge Members to support the package.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I yield 15 minutes to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel; 15 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman; 10 minutes to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller; 10 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar; 5 minutes to Ms. Giffords of the Science and Technology Committee; 5 minutes to the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez; 5 minutes to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt; and 2 minutes to the chairman of the Government Investigations Committee, Mr. Towns.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to quote CBO, we ought to quote CBO accurately. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has said that, in their estimate, 65 percent of the money in this bill will be spent in the next 2 years. The administration's estimate is 75 percent.

I would point out CBO also says that over the next 2 years this bill will inject $526 billion into the economy, and they state that the implementation of this bill ``would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.'' That is a whole lot better than doing nothing.

I yield myself 15 seconds. My friend from Iowa says that this bill is too big. I will make a deal with him. I will be happy to give him a smaller bill if he will show me a smaller problem.

I would be happy to respond to that if the gentleman wants to yield to me.

I will be happy to respond to the gentleman if he wants, since I am responsible for the money in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

If the gentleman would yield, I want to say to the gentleman I share your concern that women receive equal opportunity to be trained and hired in the types of higher-paid positions that are traditionally occupied by men. The bill provides approximately $4 billion to train workers who need new or additional skills. Job training to train women in nontraditional job retains its priority recognition as under current law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

The bill also provides $80 million to enhance worker protections on those jobs including through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Health and Safety, and wage and hour enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I must say that I truly admire the courage of my friends on the other side of the aisle. In the middle of the worst economic downturn that any of us can remember, our parents told us about the Depression, an unprecedented and accelerating job loss all across the American economy in every sector, our friends on the other side of the aisle ask us just for one last time to do what they've been doing the last 8 years; to just one more time give the tax cuts to the richest people in the country; to just one more time dive into the tank of fiscal irresponsibility.

They inherited a $5 trillion surplus, and they squandered it to an $8 trillion deficit. They created the slowest job creation since World War II, the slowest job creation since World War II in a recovery. They held middle income wages stagnate. In fact, many families lost ground. The wealthy did the best.

They stood by while banks created liar loans, while banks created no- doc loans, while people on Wall Street played fast and easy with hardworking Americans' money in their pension plans. And what do we get for their 8 years? We see people now getting their returns on their pensions, their 401(k) plans, and 30, 40, 50 percent of their assets are gone and those who are over 55 living in panic about how will they have a retirement. And yet they stand here day after day and say just let us have more of what we were doing in the past.

You know, when that helicopter took off outside here in this plaza, millions of Americans gave that President a wave good-bye because in the middle of this historic downturn, millions and millions of Americans made a decision to go in another direction because what you were doing hadn't worked for them or for their families, hadn't worked for them or their families, because that was your policy.

Mr. Chairman, that was their policy, crude and rude with respect to working Americans in this country and their families.

So what do we have now? We have an incredible consensus of economists who are on the left, who are on the right, who advised Republican candidates in the past, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and they have said you have got to put together a recovery act where the government spends this money on projects to put people back to work to create jobs. It will not stop unemployment, but it will help. It will help. And that's what we're doing here. That's what we're doing here.

They also said from the right and the left, as they told us that the American economy is shutting down while you're asking to do more of the same, they said don't forget education. We cannot have young people lose a year or 2 years of education because of an economic downturn. You must support education at the local level. Why? Because the States and local governments are hemorrhaging, hemorrhaging the loss of revenues. Because people can't afford to buy a car, they're not buying a car. Because home price values are dropping so fast that they're going in and getting their property taxes reestablished because of the loss of value in homes, and that's costing local governments and school districts money from sales tax and property tax. So we're trying to make sure that those students don't lose that educational opportunity.

We see a number of students are now starting to forego college who are in the middle of their college education because of costs. Yes, we're going to increase the Pell grant so they can stay. We're going to give an income tax credit so they can stay in school. We're going to give them work opportunities on campus so they can stay in school. Because that's what the economists, that's what the venture capitalists said, that's the captains of industry said needs to be done. Don't lose that, because when this economy re-emerges, we need those people to be competitive with the rest of the world.

Yes, we're going to help school districts and school construction so that young students can go to school in a cleaner, better environment, so they'll be connected to the latest technology, so they'll have the educational opportunities. And it will be a safe school. It will be a modern school. Yes, we're going to help them out and do that because they don't have the ability to do that because your economic policies froze municipal bonds and school bonds where people voted to impose taxes on themselves to improve their schools, to improve their cities. But the credit markets are seized; so we're trying to help them out for the time being until those markets unfreeze.

And, yes, $300 billion was given to the Bush administration and Secretary Paulson, and so far it appears it was given without conditions in terms of any effort by the big banks to unfreeze the credit markets to lend to small businesses, to lend to families in need.

Yes, we're changing policy. And we're doing it at the direction of the American people because the policy you gave them for 8 years was a disaster for them, their families, their retirements, their wages, their health care. They want to go in a different direction, and we will take them in a different direction. We will take them to job creation. We'll take them to better education. And, hopefully, we'll take them to a stronger economy on the advice, on the advice, with all due respect, of not the other side of the aisle, but of economists from the left to the right of impeccable credentials who said the

only question about this package really is, is it large enough?

Announcement by the Chair