A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Early Educator Worthy Wage Day.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler amendment and full support for the bill.

With my Texas accent it is hard to say anything in 30 seconds, but with a light rail transit project, the new starts that would come under this amendment, we can put $410 million worth of hiring people to do utility easement work and have light rail in the fourth largest city of the country if this amendment passes. That is why this amendment is important, and I am proud to be here and support it.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Congressman Nadler's amendment to H.R. 1 and the full bill. I ask unanimous consent to place the full statement in the Record.

This amendment will increase transit capital funding by $3 billion including $1.5 billion for Capital Assistance Grants, also known as the New Starts program.

It is important that we invest additional capital in the New Starts program simply because these are new projects and they will create new jobs as opposed to just funding existing contracts on existing projects. The latter will not stimulate the economy.

For example, there are two light rail projects in my district that are near the end of the FTA review process and could be under contract with a design-build firm within 90 days.

About $410 million of early work items for the projects are shovel ready because the transit authority has already selected contractors and completed all necessary engineering and design and purchased all necessary rights of way.

These are exactly the kinds of infrastructure projects that make sense for an economic stimulus bill in 2009, creating about 18,000 jobs within 90 to 120 days.

These projects will promote transit ridership which is a far more environmentally friendly way to move people more efficiently.

These projects will also serve economically disadvantaged areas under Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) criteria.

So not only will the projects enhance mobility for transit dependent and lower income persons, but it will rejuvenate the surrounding communities by spurring economic development.

Mr. Chair, Houston METRO has the expertise and experience delivering such projects. They already built and operate one of the most productive light rail lines in the nation.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to increase New Starts money so that Houston METRO and other transit agencies across the country can start turning dirt, creating jobs, and stimulate this economy.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this economy is in crisis. The financial system of the country is in crisis. Retirement plans of millions of Americans have been destroyed. Families are angered and terrified. They see layoffs happening all around them. They and their friends are not only losing their jobs, they are losing health coverage. They are losing their ability to help their kids pay for college education.

President Bush, when he saw the initial stages of the problem, got Congress to give him $750 billion to try to calm the chaos on Wall Street.

President Obama is now looking for action to help Main Street. This package is designed to create jobs through construction and through changing the way we do business in the field of energy. It attempts to try to help victims of the recession by providing unemployment insurance, by increasing their ability to get Medicaid coverage if they lose their health care coverage and by increasing their ability to be able to afford COBRA payments if they lose their health insurance. This proposal is also aimed at rebuilding the economy, especially by changing the way this economy works in the energy area, in the science area and in the technology area. And I think we need to be about getting that done.

This bill is hugely expensive. But it is not nearly so costly as continuing business as usual. It has a big price tag because we are dealing with a big problem.

Unfortunately, the debate has been incredibly trivialized. Last night, for instance, we heard speaker after speaker discuss the need to act. But then they would say, ``Well, I can't vote for this package because it contains money for the arts or money for the Mall.'' I would like to put those two items in perspective.

The arts funding in this bill is a tiny fraction of this entire bill. The arts expenditure in this bill represents about 6 cents out of every $1,000 contained in this legislation. People ask, well, what does funding for the arts have to do with jobs? It is very simple. People in the arts field are losing their jobs just like anybody else. You have local arts agencies, you have local orchestras, local symphonies and local arts groups of all kinds who are shutting down, laying people off, and in a number of instances going bankrupt. This is a small, tiny effort to keep some of those people employed over the next 2 years. I make no apology for it. We have an obligation to salvage as many jobs as we can regardless of the fields in which people work.

The second issue is the Mall. People say, ``Well, goodness gracious, what on Earth does spending for the Mall have to do with creating jobs?'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that, again, the funding for the Mall represents about 25 cents of every $1,000 in this bill, a tiny, tiny fraction. Three-quarters of that amount was directed at trying to preserve the Jefferson Memorial which is slowly sinking into the Tidal Basin and needs to be salvaged. But because these items have become such distractions, we've decided to take several items out. So the Mall is gone. We don't have to worry about refurbishing the Mall any more. That will have to wait for another time.

My point in discussing these two items is to simply express my regret at the way this debate has been trivialized. But I also think that it is revealing because I think it tells us what is really going on. And in my view, what is going on is this. At least one of the leaders in the Republican Caucus advised his caucus members that the way for the Republican minority to behave was to behave ``like a thousand mosquitoes'' to harass the majority. That may suit somebody's legislative style. It would not suit mine.

I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

But I think that comment is revelatory because that, for all practical purposes, is what we saw last night, many Members behaving like mosquitoes, focusing on trivia and ignoring the big picture. Some people will say, ``Oh, you're moving too fast.'' I would point out, this work should have been done 3 and 4 months ago. Some of us tried in September to pass a very small economic recovery package. The then-Bush White House would have no part of it. They were not interested. So we've had to wait until now. But it is now essential for us to move. We've got to get this job on the road. Every week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don't think we want that on any of our consciences.

This package is aimed at creating jobs. It's aimed at helping people who

are most impacted by the recession. And it is aimed at trying to modernize and freshen parts of the economy so that we can rebuild the ability of middle-income families to actually increase their income over time.

Mr. Chairman, the main reason we're in this fix today is because over the last almost 20 years or more, we have had very little wage growth and very little income growth on the part of average working families in this country. In fact, if you go back to the year 2001, 95 percent of the income growth in this country has gone into the pockets of the wealthiest 10 percent of American families. That means that the other 90 percent, the great middle American family swath, those families have been trying to keep their heads above water. And how have they been doing it? By borrowing. So they borrowed for housing. They borrowed for tuition. They borrowed for health care. They borrowed for a lot of other things. And now the rubber band has finally snapped. The markets are in chaos, people are panicked, and we've got to try to do something to stabilize the situation. We have to try to reinflate the purchasing power of consumers, and we have to do it in such a way that we build an opportunity for average working families to raise their income again so that they aren't beset by the same economic problems that they were beset by the last 10 years.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge an ``aye'' vote for this package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the minority continually spouts the myth that the minority was not allowed to be involved in the development of this legislation. Here are the facts:

In September, when we developed our first recovery package, I specifically asked the ranking minority member of this committee to please let us know what he felt ought to be in that package and what shouldn't.

In December, we held a hearing with a number of governors and other witnesses on the issue of a stimulus or recovery package. The ranking minority member urged Republican members of the committee not to show up at that hearing, and only three did.

In December again, I sent a letter to every member of the Appropriations Committee, Republican and Democratic alike, asking them for their input. We got a lot of suggestions from both sides of the aisle, although obviously a number of the Republican members preferred to provide their information on a confidential basis because they evidently felt----

I yield myself an additional minute. They evidently felt they were being discouraged from participating so that it would be easier for them to vote ``no'' on the final package.

On January 11, I sat down with the ranking member of this committee and discussed in general terms where I

thought the bill was going and again urged that we be given any information about what program levels they thought were appropriate; got no real indication of interest.

On January 13, I met and went over what we were thinking about doing in detail with the ranking member of this committee. And again, we got very little indication that there was any real interest at the top of the power ladder in the Republican Caucus in having the Republicans participate in this process.

So if someone says, ``I'm sorry I was shut out,'' but it is they who turned the key in the lock that kept them on the outside, that certainly isn't our fault. We have tried to welcome any advice, any suggestions from any source--not just Members of Congress, but others in this society--and this product reflects that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority whip.

I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

We are on the Internet. That's all I would say to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Chairman, I have only one remaining speaker, the Speaker herself.

I thank the gentleman for his cooperation, and I yield our remaining time to the distinguished Speaker, the gentlewoman from California.

I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman have remaining, and who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to ask the Chair what year is this? I thought it was--yeah, I didn't think it was 1933--I thought it was 2009, or something close to it. I guess all I would say is, you know, they don't look like Herbert Hoover, but there are an awful lot of people in this Chamber who think like Herbert Hoover, and I think this amendment illustrates that.

If you vote for this amendment, you'll be knocking out all funding for education funding, including every single dollar in this bill to prevent State and local governments from raising taxes in the middle of a recession in order to avoid laying off teachers, in order to avoid laying off speech therapists, school nurses, and the whole shebang.

You would be cutting out all infrastructure. You would be eliminating $30 billion for highway construction. Those jobs go blewy.

You would be eliminating $19 billion for clean water projects, flood control and environmental restoration. Those jobs go blooey.

You would be eliminating all energy funding in this bill, $32 billion to transform the Nation's energy transmission distribution production systems. So those jobs go blooey. And we also lose the chance to modernize this economy.

All science funding, all of the jobs that would be provided in the science area by this bill, those jobs are out the window.

All of the jobs that would be created by giving rural America an opportunity to get wired up with real broadband, just like the rest of the country, that would be out the window, too.

This amendment in my view demonstrates that some people recognize the cost of everything and the value of nothing. It is an amendment that we can ill-afford to pass, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is this economy is in mortal danger of absolute collapse. We are trying to avoid that by injecting consumer spending into the economy in hopes that it will reinflate the economy at least to some degree. The fact is that the cost of doing nothing would be astronomical.

Of course this package costs money. How much will it cost us if the credit markets totally freeze up? How much will it cost us if we lose employment opportunities for another 3 to 4 million Americans?

How much will it cost us in added unemployment compensation, in added welfare payments and all of those items if we don't do something to stave off economic disaster?

This amendment is primitive economically. It does not recognize the reality of a modern economy. I urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your recognizing this mosquito who is rising to urge people to look very, very carefully at this package before they decide to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' but specifically for those who really want to see our new President have a chance at success over these next couple of years. Indeed we are going to need as many people positively addressing this huge package as we possibly can.

I very much appreciate the Chairman asking that question, and since you did, I will yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am very, very intrigued by my colleague suggesting that this bill really shouldn't bother too many people because it's long overdue and certainly desperately needed. And indeed, he was almost mocking some of those questions raised yesterday about programs, people suggesting that the money that we're talking about for the arts in some way is not stimulus, that the money that we might put in the National Mall in some ways isn't really meaningful stimulus. I have the bill here on my desk. Someone wrote earlier that the cost of this bill is approximately $1.18 billion per page.

It's about time we began to recognize that the money we're talking about is not just huge in terms of numbers of dollars, but potentially a very huge burden on future generations of Americans. As we debate this stimulus package, we're throwing around an awful lot of big numbers. But let's be very clear that these big numbers are real dollars and that real families are involved. In my own family, we have seven children, my wife and I, and from that some 11 grandchildren. Those grandchildren are going to be paying for this all their lifetime, long after the chairman and I are angels. If every American family were asked equally to shoulder the burden of this $816 billion stimulus package, it would be like asking to take on an additional $10,247 for each family.

Our constituents are already facing unprecedented economic challenges. They want credible economic stimulus.

I remember the chairman suggesting throughout this discussion that he spent an awful lot of time with us in consultation looking for input as to what ought to be in this package. I remember the first session that he and I had in his office. It wasn't a long session, but it was a stimulating one in which he suggested that the package that was going to come forth would likely be designed to stimulate the economy to create jobs. And he talked about infrastructure as being one of the major items. My goodness. The infrastructure in this bill, the infrastructure spending is something less than 10 percent of the whole package. And for shovel-ready projects, it is smaller than that. I also remember the second session I had with my chairman regarding this matter. We spent almost a whole hour together in that discussion. He asked if I had a pencil so I could write down some of the numbers. He was going to describe what might be a part of the package. I was really thrilled he was going to be that personal with his ranking member on the committee and actually get involved so we would have a chance to evaluate it. And my chairman, as he was watching me make notes and my staff making notes, decided probably not to tell me that a day and a half later he was issuing a 15-page press release before the bill had been filed that went into a considerable amount of detail, considerably more than he shared with either his ranking member or any of the rest of the members, at least on my side of the aisle, in the Appropriations Committee.

It is my understanding that many a subcommittee chairman, or at least their staff, were told very specifically that there was an embargo relative to their communicating and sharing information with our subcommittee staff people as well as subcommittee members. The minority was not included in developing this package. And it has become a horrendous package that is going to place a burden on the American people for a lifetime.

While Members are proceeding with nothing but good intentions in this package, let us be mindful of the fact that this additional burden will be placed squarely on the backs of our children. But also let us be mindful of the fact that next week we are going to be considering an omnibus package that involves over 410 billion additional dollars. And we didn't get the work done. Indeed, that package is going to come to us with all kinds of funding that should have been done and should be available already. But the chairman chose to put that spending on the shelf in order to develop this stimulus package with others in his leadership.

I presume what that really means is that within this bill is all kinds of funding that had its beginning within those nine other bills that now we are going to eventually get to next week. You combine TARP with this package, you take a look at that 400 plus billion dollars, people have been talking about additional interest costs--we are talking about in a very short period of time over $1.5 trillion that the majority is running forward with, with very little concern about the impact that this might very well have on our grandchildren.

I must say that many of us feel a little sorry for what this work will do to our families.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I normally would not proceed in this fashion, but I could have guessed that the chairman might react to some of those remarks that I made--especially remarks about his falling over backwards to cooperate with the minority--so I would like to take a little time to be very specific about this.

I appreciate Chairman Obey making the point that he reached out to the minority on the stimulus package. He did reach out to me, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and I made three suggestions relating to how the bill could become a bill that many Republicans could support.

I suggested that Chairman Obey consider less spending, and especially removing spending for those items that are not stimulus and should be funded through the regular appropriations process. What happened? Spending on programs that don't create jobs actually increased, particularly those in the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee that Chairman Obey chairs himself.

I suggested that Chairman Obey consider lowering the top line of spending on this package. What happened? The top line on spending actually increased.

I suggested a greater emphasis on targeted tax cuts for low-income families and small businesses. What happened? The tax relief portion of this stimulus bill got smaller as the top line on spending increased.

It's one thing to seek constructive input in the hopes of building bipartisan consensus on a bill as important as this package, but that clearly has not happened. Judging from the legislation as presently written, it's quite clear that the majority's desire is less about creating jobs and stimulating the economy and more about spending the public's money.

Do not for one minute believe that this bill reflects the input of House Republicans or even many House Democrats. This bill was largely written by two people. Any suggested negotiations on this legislation occurred between the Speaker and my chairman, Mr. Obey. That's not a negotiation, that is a travesty, a mockery, a sham. Wow! What a shame to waste a historic opportunity to bring Republicans and Democrats together to roll up our sleeves and work in a bipartisan fashion.

It's not too late to make this a better bill, a bipartisan bill. As I said in my opening remarks, I sincerely want the President to be successful. The challenges we face do transcend politics. If the President or his staff are listening, I ask them to pursue bipartisanship so this can be a package both Democrats and Republicans will support.

I say one more time, travesty begins when there's a flat embargo at a subcommittee level when our majority staff is told they shouldn't be communicating with the minority staff. Bipartisanship is the best of our committee, and if this pattern continues, our committee is not going to be able to continue to produce products worthy of its name.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I have many people who want to speak on the bill, but they don't happen to be present, and I am very anxious to hear the close.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

I have no additional speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition. I have no speakers in opposition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my friend yielding.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman and I have worked together for many, many years, and I learned much of his business at his feet in the then-Public Works Committee years ago. And the language in this amendment does stimulate the process and we think will help us try to stimulate the economy; so I appreciate very much the work of my chairman as well as my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and it will be very short.

I would love to support the gentleman's amendment. Indeed, if there were an offset within this bill relative to those things that aren't producing jobs, this is an amendment I could get very excited about. In the meantime, it does raise the top line, and everybody should know that. I know that Mr. Oberstar loves that, for it helps him out when he is trying to pass the bill down the line when he is short of money. But in the meantime, on this side of the aisle the vast percentage of my Members would prefer that we have an offset before we start raising the line of spending. So I will reluctantly have to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

And I do so very reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, for the gentlelady from California and I have worked together for many years. I'm not very excited about the job training provisions within this bill. I'm opposing the bill generally. And in the final analysis, I will end up voting against her bill. But I am not going to spend a lot of time convincing people that she is wrong.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Members may find it rather amazing to have me rise to be actively supporting an amendment by my colleague from Arizona. The last time I found myself doing that was when I heard in some mix that my friend from Arizona was opposed to subsidies for agriculture, and that is actually in your district. But this one I absolutely climb aboard, and I'm going to ride the train with you all the way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

It is not my intention to take much of that time, but I would yield 30 seconds to Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.