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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and let me say that I rise in strong support of this effort to raise this point of order. And I will say to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, this 10-minute period of time is when we can debate whether or not this is, in fact, an unfunded mandate that is going to dramatically increase costs. That's what this debate is all about.

It's not about simply killing the bill, it's about utilizing a procedure that exists here in this institution, and I hope very much that our colleagues will join with our friend from Florida and ensure that we do address this very, very important issue.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. I'd simply like to inquire of him again about this procedure through which this committee went. It's my understanding that these amendments were all adopted in a bipartisan way, with a unanimous vote in support of these amendments that were later just dropped from the bill that was introduced. And then, we have this statement from the Speaker's press office, a fact sheet stating, In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 57 amendments were dropped, and 43 by Republicans, 6 of which were adopted and incorporated into the bill.

Is that correct?

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

With all due respect, for the Chair of the Committee on Rules to stand up and say we had an hour discussion on this last night, and everybody knows what happened. Madam Speaker, I don't think the author of the amendment, Mr. Stearns, was there when last night in the Rules Committee discussed this and this came forward. I just don't see that as any kind of answer.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by not only thanking the distinguished Chair on the Committee on Rules for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, I would like to associate myself with the first three sentences of her presentation.

It was in the opening remarks that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules presented that she talked about the pain that the American people are feeling as we go through one of the most serious economic downturns in our Nation's history. It is a very, very difficult time. And on that, Democrats and Republicans are in total agreement and it is absolutely imperative that we take action in this institution and that we take action that will provide the best jump start for our economy that we possibly can.

The Republican Conference, Madam Speaker, was very privileged to welcome the President of the United States yesterday afternoon. We had lunch downstairs and a freewheeling discussion on the issue that we are here addressing at this moment. And that issue is how do we get this economy growing again. And we are in the midst of a raging debate on it. It is true that we are very concerned. And most Republicans have, since we saw this $825 billion package introduced, been opposed. But yesterday we did listen to President Obama. A number of questions were posed to the President in this freewheeling discussion.

The thing that I came away with from that meeting yesterday was we need to focus on the merits of this issue that is before us and not on politics. Pointing the finger of blame is useless. What we need to do is figure out how we can come together and put into place the very best fiscal policy that we can to be sure that we grow our economy. I agree totally with President Obama. We need to set politics aside and focus on the merits. And I think that he left us with a good feeling about his commitment to do just that.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we have seen with the development of this package, the way it was handled in the House Rules Committee, and the way that we are considering this measure on the floor, it appears that there is very little focus on the merits and that most of the attention is focused on politics. I will say that when we focus on merits, it seems to me that the wisest thing for us to do is not to listen to the words of a partisan Republican or the words of a partisan Democrat or even the words of a bipartisan Republican or bipartisan Democrat. What I believe we need to do, Madam Speaker, is to look at the message that has come to us from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Now, the Congressional Budget Office had a preliminary study which the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations dismissed. And I understand that. He made some very compelling arguments before the Rules Committee the day before yesterday on that. And frankly, I couldn't dispute them. But they did come forward yesterday with a very, very exhaustive study in which they say, and I quote, Madam Speaker, ``CBO expects that Federal agencies along with States and other recipients of the funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs.'' It goes on, Madam Speaker, to talk about the challenges of dealing with the regulatory structure that is in place. And we looked at the issue of budget authority versus outlays. And I would focus my colleagues' attention on the third-to-the-last graph on the Congressional Budget Office study in which it makes it very clear that $2.3 billion, $2.3 billion, of this package will, in fact, not be expended until after 2019. That is 2-0-1-9. That is not 2009, not 2010, not 2011. That is more than 10 years from now.

So, Madam Speaker, if we are, in fact, coming together in a bipartisan way to figure out how we can jump-start our economy immediately, this is obviously not the answer.

This is a copy of H.R. 1 that has just been given to me. It is 627 pages long. And that totals $1.18 billion for every single page in this bill, H.R. 1.

What we need to focus on, Madam Speaker, is the issue of getting the economy growing with what most economists believe and what history has shown to be stimulative: Tax relief. Growth-oriented tax relief. Now this morning I picked up the US News and World Report issue that has a ``Capital Commerce'' column from James Pethokoukis who quoted a wide range of economists making 10 points that very, very seriously raise concerns. And I would like to point to just one of them. Christina Romer, who is the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama, said that tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output. The more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.

Now, Madam Speaker, it's obvious that the kinds of tax cuts that we are talking about are those that generate economic growth, relief on job creators, making sure that we have marginal rate reduction that will benefit 100 percent of American taxpayers. These are the kinds of things that we are offering in our Republican substitute. And I hope very much that our colleagues will support it.

This package that is before us is badly flawed, as we are going to hear throughout this debate and as was pointed out yesterday. And I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule is very unfair. There were 206 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Eleven have been made in order of 206 amendments. A majority of those amendments were offered by Democrats. So obviously there is a desire to make major modifications in this legislation. And for that reason, this rule is badly flawed. I'm going to urge my colleagues to reject it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very hardworking new member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to our distinguished former Republican whip, my friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds to continue his very important argument about the issue that Ms. Foxx raised.

Madam Speaker, I tell my friend from California that her dream has come true, this bill, according to CBO, is $1.1 trillion.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Westminster, South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to a hardworking member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and to respond to his questions by saying again I would commend to him and his colleagues today's U.S. News and World Report that has just come out with an analysis from Democratic- and Republican-leaning economists, all of whom point to the fact that increasing spending dramatically, as this measure would do, in fact, will undermine the potential for what it is we're trying to do and tax cuts are the answer to get the economy growing.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to our very good friend, my junior colleague from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my good friend from California, our new father from California, to simply say that if one looks at many analyses that have been provided, it is very apparent that juxtaposing growth-oriented tax cuts to spending, those growth-oriented tax cuts can provide the immediate jump-start that is necessary for the economy, and that's why I think we should come together in support of our package.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend from Mesa an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, the majority has the ability to modify that date as they see fit, and it's a very easy procedure that can be done.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our new colleague from Peoria, Illinois, the home of Caterpillar, Mr. Schock.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.

I thank my friend for yielding and let me say I completely concur with several points that he has made which I think are very important. His first point that President Obama has reached out in a bipartisan way, it is nearly unprecedented, very unprecedented that he came and met, as he and the gentleman and I discussed yesterday privately, right here in this Capitol with Republican members.

The second, the fact you said we have, in fact, seen bipartisanship from the other side, there were 94 amendments submitted by Republicans and 104 amendments submitted by Democrats. A grand total of 11 amendments have been made in order. When you have so many Democrats and so many Republicans who have been cut out of the process, it's very unfortunate.

The third point that the gentleman makes, which I think is a very valid one, we need to have a bold, strong package here rather than doing nothing. That's why I believe passionately that growth-oriented tax rates, as has been stated by economist after economist, are the way to the future, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself an additional 30 seconds and engage in a discussion with my colleague on this.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that economist after economist has pointed to the fact that if we focus on spending, which the gentleman has talked about, there is a lag time. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis has indicated that spending will go as far as beyond the 10 years from now.

So the gentleman is absolutely right, Madam Speaker, we need to immediately stimulate the economy. And more than a few of these economists, including the President's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, pointed to the fact that tax cuts are, in fact, the way to provide that immediate stimulus.

We have got a limited time. I have already yielded my friend an additional minute. Maybe Ms. Slaughter might yield the gentleman a minute so that he could respond.

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 15 seconds to simply say to my colleague that yesterday we had a great discussion about Clayton County. I appreciate the fact that he has several shovel-ready projects.

I still point to the fact that the CBO analysis points out that getting those dollars immediately is, in fact, not going to happen in fact as fast as the gentleman from Clayton County and I would like to see happen.

At this point I would like to yield, Madam Speaker, 1\1/2\ minutes to our very hardworking friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I think at this juncture we have a couple of speakers remaining.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side, Madam Speaker.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very, very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to another member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, our new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker again how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Madam Speaker, on the 9th of January, then President-elect Obama made it very clear. He said, There is no disagreement. That we need action by our government; a recovery plan that will jump-start our economy. And there is total agreement on that. Total agreement on that.

We all know, both sides of the aisle, that in our districts, whether it's Georgia, New York, California, our constituents are hurting. We are all feeling the pain of this economic downturn. The question is: What action will we take? Are we going to put into place a bill that is 627 pages long, $1.18 billion for every single page of that bill, with spending that will go beyond the next 10 years as we seek to immediate immediately jump-start our economy, or are we going to do what so many economists from both sides of the aisle have indicated we need to do-- put into place strong growth-oriented tax cuts that can provide the fast-acting jump-start that we all seek. That is the choice that we have here.

Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this rule, this rule does not allow the kind of debate the Democrats and Republicans deserve: 206 amendments offered to the Rules Committee, most of them amendments from Democrats. Ninety-four of those 206 came from Republicans. Yet, only 11 were made in order.

That is why this rule is unfair, and it's unfair to the American people. We need to have a growth-oriented package, and we are going to come forward with that, but we also need to have a number of these other creative, thoughtful proposals that so many of our colleagues have offered come before us.

This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will exceed $1.1 trillion if you take into consideration the interest payments. That is going to impose a tremendous burden on future generations, and it is not going to provide the jump-start that President Obama has talked about.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation. But when we do have our opportunity to provide a balanced, growth-oriented package, I hope the Democrats and Republicans can come together to provide that immediate jump-start that we need.

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

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

Mr. Chair, because the Committee on Education and Labor did not mark up its portions of H.R. 1, I am including in the record, at their request, their views on the portions of the bill that should have been marked up by the Education and Labor Committee. Had the Committee marked up the bill, these would have been included in the Committee report. I hope that in the future, we can do a better job of adhering to regular order so that it will not be necessary to take these steps.

Minority Views on H.R. 1

Committee on Education and Labor Republicans

Although it is described by the Democratic majority as an

``economic stimulus package,'' this massive spending vehicle

contains some of the most sweeping changes to the role of the

federal government in elementary/secondary and postsecondary

education policy in decades. And despite the far-reaching

nature of the proposed policy shifts and spending expansions,

these changes have not been approved or even reviewed by the

U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor, the

congressional committee with sole jurisdiction over these

matters. Instead, less than a week after it was publicly

released, Democrats are poised to approve a bill loaded with

wasteful government spending; a bill that will not have the

intended effect of creating jobs and stimulating our shaky

economy; and a bill that makes broad, unprecedented education

policy changes with little to no congressional guidance.

Committee Republicans believe that Congress should pass a

real economic stimulus package that will provide middle-class

families, job seekers, small business owners, and the self-

employed with reforms that will create jobs and put the

economy back on track. Instead of giving billions of dollars

to federal and state government bureaucrats to spend on pet

programs created and supported by the Congressional

leadership and the new Administration, we need to put more

money in the hands of American families and businesses and

empower them to help in our nation's economic recovery.

Will the Proposed Education Spending Measures Create Jobs and Stimulate

the Economy, or Simply Saddle Our Children with Unmanageable Debt?

The Democrats' spending package could provide more than

$145 billion in new spending for elementary/secondary and

postsecondary education. This staggering funding level is

more than double the Department of Education's current

discretionary budget for all of its programs and activities.

In light of the fact that this bill is being considered

outside of the normal authorization and appropriations

processes, it is vitally important that we ask tough

questions and demand satisfactory answers before committing

hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to funding new and

expanded programs. In each case, we must ask--

``Will every dollar allocated truly stimulate the

economy?''

``Will the funding in the education portion of this bill

actually create jobs?''

``How many private sector jobs will the bill create?''

``How long will these jobs last?''

``Is the funding sustainable once the initial infusion is

gone?''

``Or will this simply create an unrealistic demand for

federal dollars and expectations that will continue to drive

our deficit into the trillions of dollars in the future?''

``Is the funding in the economic stimulus bill truly

`emergency' spending, or could it wait and be considered

through the normal legislative process?''

Unfortunately, when one looks at the package proposed

unilaterally by congressional Democrats and attempts to

answer these questions, the only logical conclusion is that

the spending in this bill will not provide the job creation

or other benefits needed to support our economy in the short-

term. Nor will it provide the necessary levels of immediate

relief to struggling American families and businesses. The

vast majority of spending being proposed would simply bloat

the federal bureaucracy and expand the federal government's

role in education in previously unseen directions.

Perhaps the Washington Post said it best in an editorial

that appeared just days before this massive spending plan is

scheduled for a vote in the U.S. House. It said, ``Helping

hire, equip and pay police, a $4 billion item under the bill,

might be a good idea, but writing checks to individual

households for the same amount would do more to stimulate the

economy. Ditto for $16 billion in Pell Grants for college

students, $2.1 billion for Head Start and $50 million for the

National Endowment for the Arts. All of those ideas may have

merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed

to kick-start the economy? . . .

``[G]iven their cost, and the inherent difficulty of

forecasting their impact, Congress should vet them through

the normal legislative process, weigh them against other

priorities and pay for them.''

And although some of the money in the bill is intended for

worthy goals that enjoy bipartisan support, such as those

that will increase student awards in the Pell Grant program,

the funding increase is slated to vanish after two years. For

students entering college this year, with this temporary aid

increase, we must ask: How will they make up the difference

when the additional federal money is no longer there in two

years? Either all low-income students will see their Pell

Grants slashed by $500 or more, or Congress will need to find

at least $16 billion each and every year going forward just

to maintain this funding level. This scenario will not only

play out on college campuses, but in states, school

districts, public schools, Head Start centers, and local

workforce centers all across the country that are slated to

receive billions in temporary taxpayer dollars.

It is fiscally irresponsible and unfair to students and the

American taxpayer to hold out the promise of additional money

only to pull it back, or to set up a situation in which

federal spending--and along with it, the deficit--has nowhere

to go but up to relieve the tremendous pressure to continue

programs at exorbitantly high levels once the stimulus is no

longer in effect.

Unprecedented Expansion of Federal Government's Role in School

Construction with No Congressional Oversight

Over the past decade, the condition of local public school

facilities has become an important component of the education

debate in communities throughout the nation. In both cities

and suburbs, students, parents, teachers, and many public

officials argue that school buildings are overcrowded,

unsafe, and obsolete. As a result, the amount being spent on

school construction, modernization, and renovation has become

a significant issue in many states and local school

districts.

While strongly supportive of public education,

historically, the federal government has had an extremely

limited, almost non-existent role in financing school

infrastructure projects and facility improvement programs,

which have been a state and local responsibility. The federal

government has chosen to maintain this limited role in school

construction while focusing on adequately funding programs

that increase student achievement, primarily through the

Title I program for low-income students, and on helping

states provide a free, appropriate public education to those

students with special needs under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It has also chosen to

focus limited federal resources on providing lasting and

permanent increases to the Pell Grant program that directly

benefits low-income students pursuing a college education.

Ignoring more than 40 years of deliberate effort by

Congress to limit its focus to these national priorities

since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,

IDEA, and the Higher Education Act, the Democrats responsible

for drafting this spending package have chosen to create an

unprecedented $20 billion federal school construction

program. The program would weaken efforts at the state level

to fund school construction, dramatically increase the cost

of building elementary and secondary schools and public

colleges and universities, and dramatically expand the size

and scope of the federal government.

With the unmet need for school construction and renovation

at the elementary and

secondary level estimated at $112 billion, and with states

and local school districts spending an average of $20.7

billion annually on school construction, it's a valid

question to wonder how a new federal school construction

program administered by the U.S. Department of Education

(which received roughly $22 billion last year for all

programs under the Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education) could do a better job at building schools than

state and local officials.

One of the most troubling aspects of the massive new

federal school construction program authorized in this so-

called economic stimulus bill is that it will be subject to

the requirements of the Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act, which

requires construction projects to be paid using flawed

``prevailing wages'' and favors union wage workers. It is

estimated that this requirement raises the costs of school

construction by as much as one-third in some parts of the

country, especially in those local communities that have

lower costs and are not subject to the flawed prevailing wage

structure.

The federal government should maintain its longstanding

focus on assisting states and local school districts to

improve student academic achievement and providing low-income

students with Pell Grants so that they can go to college. It

should not undertake a $20 billion school construction

experiment.

Denying Students with Disabilities the Ability to Receive a High

Quality Education at Public or Private Schools

The proposed economic stimulus package prohibits states and

school districts from using funds under the State

Stabilization Fund from assisting students that attend

private elementary or secondary schools. This provision

directly contradicts the rights guaranteed to students with

disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act or IDEA, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme

Court. Under IDEA, parents of children with disabilities have

the right to place their children in an education environment

that best meets the needs of the particular student--

regardless of whether it is a public or private school. Under

the statute, states and school districts can also place

children with a disability in a private school in order to

meet the law's requirement that a disabled child be provided

a free and appropriate public education. In both cases, IDEA

requires that children in private schools receive special

education and related services in order to enhance their

education. The economic stimulus package, which would

prohibit states and school districts from using funding under

the bill to educate students with disabilities in private

school settings, jeopardizes the fundamental and basic tenet

of IDEA, which is to ensure that all students with

disabilities, regardless of where they attend school, are

entitled to the same high quality elementary and secondary

education as their peers. The provision is a major reversal

in the federal government's effort to ensure that services

are provided to students with disabilities and one that

should be removed from the package.

New Federal Education Policy Mandates Jeopardize Money to States that

Want Federal Assistance

The Democrats' economic stimulus package also includes $79

billion for a new ``state stabilization fund'' to assist

states in coping with their recent budget problems. Of the

total funding, at least 61 percent must be spent in support

of elementary/secondary and postsecondary education. In order

for a state to receive assistance under this new program, it

must: maintain state support for elementary/secondary

education and postsecondary education at the level that it

had in fiscal year 2006; address inequities in the

distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty

schools; establish a statewide longitudinal data system;

enhance reading and math assessments; and ensure that all

students with disabilities and those who are Limited English

Proficient (LEP) are included in state assessments and are

offered proper accommodations to enable their participation

in state assessments.

According to current data on just three of the five

requirements outlined above, many states will be unable to

qualify for the additional money under the state

stabilization fund. Certainly, none will qualify in the near-

term. Hence, we have to determine that the state

stabilization fund is not likely to lead to any job creation

or stimulate the economy in any meaningful way.

conclusion

Under the guise of economic stimulus, this spending package

makes unprecedented changes in the direction of federal

education policy without observing the regular legislative

process. Even more troubling, it is doubtful that the funding

will actually create jobs or stimulate the economy. It is far

more likely that the high levels of spending in the bill will

only stimulate expectations for future spending to levels

that are unrealistic and unsustainable. Our children will be

saddled with debt, our states and schools will be left

holding the bag when the funding disappears, and our economy

may be left worse off than it is now.

Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon.

Peter Hoekstra.

Mark E. Souder.

Joe Wilson.

John Kline.

Rob Bishop of Utah.

Brett Guthrie.

David P. Roe.

I want to thank you, the rest of Leadership, and the chairmen of the committees that put this bill together for your work to create a package that will create jobs, invest in America's infrastructure needs, address pressing healthcare needs, and expand opportunities for education and worker training. I strongly support the provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Our district and the surrounding areas in southeast Texas were devastated by Hurricane Ike last September. People are getting back on their feet, but there is still a significant need for additional federal funding. I would have liked to seen that included in this package as it is one of the most pressing recovery needs in our country, but since it was not, I hope it can be included in either in upcoming omnibus or supplemental appropriations bill.

In Texas we've seen the unemployment rate jump from 4.2% a year ago to 6% in December of 2008--the unemployment rate in the Houston-Baytown area is 5.5% and will likely only rise with the significant drop in the price of oil and refined product, and the impact that has on our energy sector jobs. It is important we invest in this sector and this legislation makes valuable contributions to diversify our nation's energy and environmental resources.

It makes critical improvements to the smart grid provisions established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 by eliminating the cap on the allowable number of smart grid demonstration projects and increasing the grant funding available for these efforts.

My hometown of Houston is a leader in moving toward smart grid solutions. Center Point Energy, a leading energy delivery company in Texas, will invest over $600 million in automatic metering systems, or AMS, over the next five years to support smart grid infrastructure. AMS technology is the first step in moving toward an automatic grid which will allow consumers to manage and monitor the electric use in real- time, reduce energy consumption, and improve grid reliability.

I also support Representative Ed Markey's (D-MA) amendment to this section that will expand the protocols smart grid projects can use to obtain grants authorized in this bill.

I am also pleased with the increase in funding and changes to the Weatherization Assistance Program which will help low-income families make their homes more energy efficient, as well as the additional $1 billion provided for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that will help more Texans heat and cool their homes during these troubled economic times.

While I support the temporary Department of Energy loan guarantee program created under Section 5003 for renewable energy and electric transmission projects, I hope the Committee does not forget about the strategic importance of funding the larger DOE loan guarantee program so that other valuable projects can move forward that reduce carbon emissions and that employ new innovative technologies.

In addition to the extension of the renewable production tax credits, I also believe Congress should provide a long-term extension of the biodiesel blenders tax incentive to help this critical renewable energy industry. Houston is home to several biodiesel producers that directly or indirectly employ hundreds of workers in good-paying jobs, and over 50,000 jobs are currently supported by this industry nationwide. Without a long-term extension of this tax credit, producers are not able to provide the certainty required to bring in much needed capital for renewable energy projects. In addition to creating and sustaining jobs, the biodiesel industry helps our nation reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is developing next generation feedstocks such as algae that will further enhance our energy security.

Finally, I appreciate the inclusion of an additional $100 million for the National Estuary Program, which could help protect the Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Galveston Bay is a critical ecosystem home to an abundance of plant and animal species that are vital to our region's way of life and local economy. These funds can be used for such useful purposes as restoring wetlands or habitat restoration, and can be leveraged with public and private sector funds to generate large returns on investment. The Port of Houston Authority also actively participates and supports this key environmental program.

The legislation also makes significant investments in health care services and coverage in this country during these tough economic times.

Unfortunately, when individuals lose their jobs they often cannot afford medical care or COBRA premiums and often forgo treatment due to the cost.

AARA will provide COBRA premium assistance for 12 months for workers who have been involuntarily terminated and their families. COBRA premium assistance will allow individuals who would typically be unable to afford COBRA maintain coverage and obtain medical treatment.

States like my own have asked Congress for assistance with the States Federal Medical Assistance Percentage to help assist them the rising number of individuals needing Medicaid coverage. In order to avoid state deficits, many states may have to reduce their standards for Medicaid eligibility, which will actually increase the number of uninsured.

A temporary increase in FMAP funding until December 31, 2010 will help avert this potential problem and allow states to continue to provide Medicaid coverage to this uninsured population. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 contains a 4.9% increase in FMAP for states. Texas, in particular, will benefit from an FMAP increase and the temporary formula and hold harmless provision.

AARA will also place a moratorium on 7 Medicaid regulations. My home state of Texas is affected by all seven of these cuts but most affected will be the payments for graduate education, Targeted Case Management Rule, Cost Limits to Public Providers, Coverage for Rehabilitation Services. These regulations would reduce funding to these valuable programs and leave states in a significant budgetary crisis.

AARA also provides valuable funding for Health Information Technology. We're all aware of the benefits that improved IT would bring the health care sector and the patients it serves. With integrated information technology, patients could manage their electronic health records and avoid having to haul multiple records to their various physicians.

If implemented correctly, Health IT can improve patient safety and garner cost savings.

The funds provided in AARA are an investment in the future of health care in this country. Providers will have to pay some up front costs to obtain the technology, but they will receive $40,000 to $60,000 in financial incentives for adopting interoperable health IT systems.

Another key component that this package contains provides an investment of critical funds into our state and local transportation agencies. This is the quickest way to create jobs immediately. The Texas Department of Transportation alone has 853 ``shovel-ready'' projects. One of these projects in my district will create 1200-1350 new engineering and construction jobs in the Houston area in the next ninety days. This is significant in an economy where thousands of job cuts are announced every day.

It is easy to make the case for an infusion of transportation dollars when our state departments of transportation have run out of money. However, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are asking why we should invest billions of dollars in education around the country. The answer to this question is simple. Investing in our children's education is investing in our economic competitiveness.

When states came across hard fiscal times in the last year, education funding is typically one of the first areas where they cut back. Additionally, with the increase in foreclosures, property tax revenues are down and cities have also cut back on financing critical education services. If we do not invest in our children's education and give them an opportunity at a better economic future, then we are setting ourselves up even more federal spending on social services in the future.

By increasing the amount of the Pell Grant by $500, we give students across the country the financial help they need to get the certification or degree necessary to pursue and keep a job in this economy. By investing in Head Start, we are setting a whole generation of students on a path towards economic viability. Head Start has been proven to help close the achievement gap between students of differing socio-economic status across the country.

Finally, I am encouraged that this bill will lower the child tax credit eligibility level making it available to all working tax filers with children. This will help our constituents put food on the table and pay their essential bills as the cost of living continues to increase.

Mr. Chair, I again state my strong support for this package which will provide an immediate infusion of funding into shovel-ready projects, creating jobs and starting our economy on the road to recovery, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, the current economic crisis requires bold solutions that address the enormity of our economic woes, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will do just that.

The $825 billion recovery package that we are voting on will create or save an estimated 4 million jobs and will make key investments in our future.

But first and foremost, the economic recovery package focuses on blunting the effects of the recession and helping families in need.

In addition to increasing food stamp benefits and expanding unemployment benefits, our plan protects health care coverage for roughly 20 million Americans during this recession by increasing the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) so that no state has to cut eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP, the children's health insurance program, because of budget shortfalls.

For my home state of New York it more than doubles the FMAP match resulting in roughly $10.42 billion over 9 quarters. This is critical funding for our state which is seeing an increase in caseloads as a result of the recession.

The recovery plan also invests in important needs that have been neglected over the past eight years. America's school, roads, bridges, and water systems are in disrepair and this is creating a drag on economic growth.

Our plan will spread job creation out over the next two years, which will soften the downturn and foster a solid economic recovery.

We have an historic opportunity to make the investments necessary to modernize our public infrastructure, transition to a clean energy economy, and make us more competitive in the 21st century.

It's time to get our economy back on track. I urge my colleagues to support the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.

I thank the chairman of Appropriations for yielding, and I want to thank him for the extraordinary work he has done to put this package together. I want to thank Mr. Lewis for the work that he has done as well, even though he may not agree with the final product.

I want to start by remarks--and I may take a little bit of time--I want to start my remarks talking about bipartisanship, and how we got here and why we're here.

Over a year ago, it appeared to us that the economic program adopted in 2001 and 2003 was not working. It also appeared to the administration that it was not working. It appeared to Mr. Boehner that it was not working, that we were in real trouble, and that we weren't producing jobs. We had the worst 8 years of job production that we've had in any administration since Herbert Hoover. And as a result of the failure to produce jobs, our country was in great distress and our people were challenged and at risk.

And so the administration and the Democratic leadership of the Congress and the Republican leadership of the Congress sat down at the table together and came up with a program to stimulate the economy, about $160 billion. And we worked together in a bipartisan fashion. It was a Republican President, but a Democratic-led Congress--in fact, agreed to the administration's increase in that program, as you recall, because we had suggested $100 billion--and we worked in a bipartisan fashion.

And then in September, some months later, Secretary Paulson, the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, came to us, met with the leadership, and said we have a crisis. Indeed, we had invited him down because we thought that there was real trouble. He said we have a crisis, we need to act, and we need to act immediately. A Democratic- led Congress responded to Secretary Paulson and said, we'll work with you. We'll work with you because our country needs a joint response. And we did that.

And when that legislation came to the floor, very frankly, a majority of Democrats supported the Republican administration's request; a majority of his party in this House did not. We now have a Democratic administration and a Democratic-led Congress, and I'm hopeful that we'll have bipartisan work continuing to meet this crisis caused, from my perspective, by the failure of policies that we've been pursuing economically over the last 8 years.

I do not say that for the purposes of being partisan. I say that for the purposes of our being instructed on what has worked and what has not worked.

As you know, we're dealing with one of the worst economic climates in memory: 2.6 million jobs last year; the worst housing market since the Great Depression; financial turmoil that has threatened the savings and retirement of millions. That's the context in which this administration is taking office.

As we move to confront this crisis, we welcome the criticism of our Republican friends and others. But let's put that criticism in some context, again, not for a partisan sense but for a sense of instruction of the perception of what worked and what did not. I would suggest that, frankly, much of what I have heard from my Republican colleagues over the last 20 years in terms of what would work and what would not work was inaccurate.

Let's remember President Bush's saying, ``My administration remains focused on economic growth that will create more jobs.'' Let's remember how the minority party reacted to the Clinton economic plan in 1993. Newt Gingrich said of that plan that it would lead to ``a job-killing recession.'' A leader of the Republican Party made that observation. He was dead, flat, 100 percent wrong. In fact, we created 22 point some odd million jobs in those 8 years, an average of 256,000 per month. This administration has averaged less than 40. You need 100 to stay even.

John Boehner, the Republican leader, said at that point in time, ``The message is loud and clear, cut spending first and shrink the size of this Federal Government,'' in opposing the economic program.

In reality, the Democratic plan led to unprecedented economic growth. We all know that. The 1990s were the best economic period of time statistically that we have had in this country in the service of anybody in this Congress including the Reagan years.

Let's remember how Republicans reacted to Budget Reconciliation Act in 1990 when George Bush the first was President of the United States. Tom DeLay said, ``The Democratic package will destroy our economy.'' Now, the Democratic package was, of course, an accommodation made between President Bush; Dick Darman, head of OMB; and ourselves. In reality, that program, opposed overwhelmingly by Republicans, reduced the budget deficit by approximately $482 billion.

What we have seen from our Republican colleagues is history, frankly, of overstatement of what their program would do and a great understatement of what the programs and policies that we pursued would do. I would suggest that we consider the representations being made today in that context. Today, I hope that our Republican colleagues will put that history aside and join with us to pass this bill and try to help restore our prosperity.

None of us have served in this Congress at a lower ebb of the economy than today. Nobody in this Congress including John Dingell, the Dean of the Congress of the United States.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is projected to create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. What does it do? I know Mr. Obey has said this, but let me repeat it. Tax relief, $275 billion to working Americans and to small businesses. States will be helped. Policemen, teachers won't have to be laid off so that we can keep our communities safe and our children educated. Core investments in infrastructure. I know we'd like to do more in infrastructure. The sad news is it's tough to spend it quickly in the infrastructure field. We need to do more. We will do more.

Protecting vulnerable populations. People are in food lines historically long. People are unemployed in historic numbers. States are stretched with their Medicaid assistance to people who need health care.

In energy, we have all talked about energy independence. We had a big debate last year about energy independence and how to get there. This bill deals with energy independence and creating jobs in the course of getting to energy independence.

Health care, we all know John McCain talked about it in his campaign. Barack Obama talked about it in his campaign. Everybody knows that if we don't get soon to health care reform and health care progress, we won't be able to afford the kind of health care that Americans need and want accessible to them and their families.

Education, training, we're not going to be competitive in this world if we don't make sure our children are well educated. We're pricing young people and their families out of an education. We can't afford to do that or we won't compete with the Japanese, the Chinese, the Germans, the Indians, and others.

Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to Senator McCain's presidential election, found that ``the jobless rate will be more than 2 percentage points lower by the end of 2010 than without the fiscal stimulus.''

I'm sure almost every Member of the House could find something that he or she thinks should not be in here. I know I could. I know others could. Some people want more in, some people want less in. But, frankly, most of the economists I have talked to think

this is about the right mix. It may not be specifically what each wants but about the right mix between tax cuts and spending.

This legislation is a result of an honest, urgent effort to include the best ideas from economic experts from across the spectrum as well as both sides of the aisle. It's an effort that cannot become weighed down by bipartisanship or parochial interests. There are no earmarks in this bill. Overall, this plan contains what is widely viewed as the right mix of spending and tax cuts to spur our economy. It will include tax relief for 95 percent of working families; tax cuts for job- creating small businesses; projects to put Americans to work renewing our crumbling roads and bridges; and nutrition, unemployment, and health care assistance to those families who are being hit hardest by this recession.

This administration inherited the situation in which we find ourselves. The Democratic leadership tried to work with the Bush administration to get us out of it. Hopefully, we will continue to do that in a bipartisan fashion.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that two-thirds of the recovery funds will be spent in the first 18 months, which means an immediate jolt to our economy. And we will continue working with President Obama to increase that number.

The CBO also estimates that if we pass this bill, by the end of next year, America will have up to 3.6 million more jobs, 3.6 million more Americans working and being able to support their families.

Besides creating jobs immediately, we will invest in new energy technology, upgrade our schools with 21 Century classrooms, and computerize health records to reduce costs and improve care.

All of those are investments that promise growth and savings in the years to come to ensure that our Nation does not slip back after bringing us out of recession, which is what this is designed to do. We don't want it to slip back. So we have medium-term investment as well as short-term investment.

Finally, we have included in the recovery plan unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency so we and our constituents will know that their tax dollars are being spent on getting us out of a rescission, not siphoned off to the politically connected. So there will be no earmarks or pet projects in this bill. The new Accountability and Transparency Board will be working to keep waste and fraud far away from this bill. And all of the plan's details, all, will be published online so that we and our constituents can track the success of these efforts to turn our economy back into the productive engine that it's been in the past.

I close the way I started. We worked in a bipartisan fashion with the Bush administration. When they saw a crisis, we responded. The majority of our Members supported the programs suggested, promoted by the Bush administration. We did so because we believed it was in the best interest of our country. We move on this bill because we believe it's in the best interest of our country.

So I ask all of us, Democrats and Republicans, but people who care about their country, their constituents, our families and our children, to join together. Lyndon Johnson said once, ``It's not difficult to do the right thing; it's difficult to know what the right thing is.'' We have worked together over the last months to try to come up with as close to the right thing as we can.

We urge all of the Members on this floor to vote for America, its people, its economic health. Support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, the people of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, the State of Michigan, and our nation voted for change. Perhaps more importantly, they want HOPE. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is a beginning, a down payment, on turning around eight years worth of mismanagement, misunderstanding, and missed opportunities with the people's purse. This bill, which will soon be signed into law, is a bold, aggressive investment in Americans and American industry. I enthusiastically and emphatically endorse and support this bill and hope that the collective wisdom of Congress ensures its quick passage.

Investing in our nation's infrastructure not only rebuilds the bridges, sewers, railroads, streets, avenues, and buildings of our nation, but it also delivers employment and development opportunities. We must provide help, healing, and hope to America's urban and rural communities, communities that have lost more than 1\1/2\ million jobs since November of 2008. Every billion dollars of investment in our nation's infrastructure will create 30,000 jobs. Generating these jobs will provide cities and counties with tax revenues that will help ensure police officers, teachers, firefighters, and others have the resources they need to work together to stabilize our communities. These funds will also make our rail, highways, roads, bridges, water, and electrical grid more flexible and accessible to local officials and more affordable and reliable for our nation's senior citizens and families. This new stimulus package includes several important components valuable to families, businesses, and state and local elected officials.

This bill has no earmarks and it is not a perfect bill. I would have preferred a newer version of the Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) that provided so many jobs to so many people in the late 1980s. I hoped for stronger ``Buy American'' language for our automobile manufacturers and steel, concrete, asphalt, and aggregate suppliers. As Congress moves forward, I will continue to fight for these programs. However, this bill is a down payment to the American people and American business.

This bill contains an increase in the Food Stamp Program, the most efficient and effective economic stimulus of all. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``food stamps are one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus because low-income individuals generally spend their available resources on meeting their daily needs, such as shelter, food, and transportation. Therefore, every dollar in food stamps that a low-income family receives enables the family to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. USDA research has found that $1 in food stamps generates $1.84 in total economic activity.'' With 37 million Americans living in poverty and 250,000 homeless veterans sleeping in our streets, Congress' increase in the Food Stamp program means very simply that people will be able to eat.

Today, the unemployment rate in many cities is over than eight percent. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act focuses on addressing the needs of those who need assistance most by supporting initiatives that will create jobs, keep families in their homes, and provide all Americans with access to healthcare and higher education.

The bill contains an increase in The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. This program, which provides basic income support to poor elderly individuals and people with disabilities, is so desperately needed by our seniors and those with physical or mental challenges. How is this an economic stimulus? Again, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``because the beneficiaries of this payment have very low incomes, they are likely to spend the additional payment quickly, thereby providing effective stimulus.''

The Emergency Shelter Grant program, administered by HUD, provides formula grants to states and municipalities that may be used for homelessness prevention, emergency shelters, and street outreach. Twenty-five percent of the funds go to states; the rest go to our cities and counties. These grants are desperately needed in Michigan, a state with one of the highest rates of home foreclosure in our nation. These grants directly help families avoid homelessness, pay overdue rent or utility bills, and relocate into new apartments and homes. These funds are typically spent very, very quickly, therefore boosting the local economy. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) provides funds to cities and counties for job training and employment services for dislocated workers, youth, and adults.

This bill contains $300 billion worth of tax cuts that will enable businesses to hire employees. It extends bonus depreciation that allows businesses to recover the cost of capital expenditures over time according to a depreciation schedule. This measure also extends [expands] small business expensing, which helps small businesses quickly recover the cost of specific capital expenses by choosing to write-off the cost of these expenses in the year of acquisition in lieu of recovering these costs over time through depreciation. Most importantly, the bill has a tax cut that promotes the hiring of unemployed veterans and disconnected youth. Under current law, businesses are allowed to claim a work opportunity tax credit equal to 40 percent of the first $6,000 of wages paid to employees of one of nine targeted groups. The bill would create two new targeted groups of prospective employees: unemployed veterans and disconnected youth. Furthermore, ninety-five percent of all Americans will receive a tax break because of this bill.

This bill gives local elected leaders authority to oversee and administer the distribution of contracts, jobs, and funds. Local officials, particularly mayors and county executives, face severe and significant financial constraints as they try to resolve issues plaguing their communities. Congress has determined that a significant portion of the stimulus funds must remain in the hands of local government officials to ensure that we support people who need jobs and businesses that need contracting opportunities.

This bill allows small businesses and businesses owned by women and minorities to be able to compete fairly for contracts as primary contractors as we rebuild our country. Too often, these businesses are entirely excluded from the process or awarded smaller subcontracts by larger companies that receive the majority of the contracts. Qualified minority- and women-owned businesses must receive opportunities to compete and become primary contractors where possible. This bill does that. I am proud that this bill includes specific provisions that will ensure that qualified minority- and women-owned businesses will be able to compete and win.

Furthermore, we must promote green jobs, which are the future of our cities, counties, and states. We must explore renewable sources of energy, including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy. We obtain more than 70% of the oil that we use from foreign sources; to ensure our protection, we must become more energy independent. By retrofitting buildings so that they are energy-efficient, developing ``smart'' electric grids, and extending local and state commuter rail, mass transit, and freight railroads, we can create an additional two million jobs, according to the Center for American Progress. We can also preserve the planet for future generations, which will strengthen national security. I am proud to have helped to lead the fight for Advanced Battery technology funding that will preserve American jobs in Michigan for the Big Three. I am also proud of the fact that this bill includes funding that will rebuild and retrofit our nation's public schools using green technology and American steel and iron.

Finally, we must make sure that 100% of the stimulus plan dollars uses American steel, lumber, electronics, cement, asphalt, and other materials, services, and workers. This will stimulate the growth and development of American companies and industries. This uniquely American investment in our people and products will rebuild our nation, revitalize our communities, renew our spirit, offer financial support to cities, and put unemployed people back to work. While the ``Buy American'' provisions in this bill are a good start, I will continue to work during the 111th Congress for even stronger provisions that ensure that American automobiles are used at American embassies throughout the world, that American steel and iron is poured for our bridges and buildings, and that Americans get the jobs that are fueled with American tax dollars.

I am proud to serve the people of the 13th Congressional District and the entire State of Michigan as part of this historic 111th Congress. We must use this moment to generate the momentum needed to improve America's infrastructure. We must increase contracting opportunities to local businesses, stimulate financial investments that will create jobs for local citizens, and give hope to all Americans as we rebuild America together.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a timely, targeted, and tremendous first step as Congress works to right the fiscal follies of the past eight years. This bill is not the conclusion, but the beginning, of the hope, change, and challenge that our President, Barack Obama, illustrated in his Inauguration Address a little more than a week ago. Congress must pass this bill so that we can preserve a future not only for ourselves, but for

our children and our children's children. America has not been at such an economic precipice, and Congress has not had such an economic challenge since the Great Depression. In the past three months, almost two million jobs have been lost; the stock market continues its downward death spiral; food banks cannot keep up with the demand from homeless families, seniors, and children; home foreclosures are skyrocketing; and more importantly, the American people demand results. As the Bible says, and the President stated in his Inauguration Address, it is time for us--Congress and Americans--to put away childish things. It is time for Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.