Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Capuano. And I appreciate the comments that you have made.

I have a chart that shows exactly how much was done under the Republican Congress and the Republican administration in terms of reforming and revamping the GSEs, or, in other words, the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and what was done to deal with subprime lending during the Bush administration, and at the same time when Congress was in the hands of the Republican Party.

My friends earlier today from the other side of the aisle were blaming everything on Democrats when they were in charge. Now, it is nice to try to lay blame when there is a realistic argument for laying that blame, but they can't do that. It simply is a fact that nothing was done to try to deal with what was becoming a tremendous housing bubble; that there were excesses in the way that lending was taking place, that restraints didn't exist, that regulation was being eliminated or ignored. And as a consequence, we had a tremendous burst of a bubble.

And it is under the Democratic Congress, under the chairmanship of Barney Frank, that there has been a real effort to try to rein this in. So instead of having zero, this Congress, one of the very first things it did under the Democrats and under Chairman Frank's leadership was to begin reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was one of the very first bills that the Congress in 2007, when I was elected, when Congressman Ellison was elected, it was one of the very first things that we did, knowing full well that there were excesses with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the subprime lending. We still didn't have much success with the Bush administration. Certainly, the Obama administration is going to deal with this directly.

We are in the process of working on subprime loans and predatory lending. We did finally get some Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation passed at the end of last year. And now we can start regulating these kinds of vehicles, this kind of lending in a serious fashion, not one that is going to bring the market to a halt, but one that respects the fact that you can get out of control, and that is precisely what happened.

I know my friend from Massachusetts read the quote from Mr. Oxley, who was the Republican chairman who tried to do something but was stalled by the Bush administration. But I think it again bears reading. He says, this was last summer, when we actually passed the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation and all of a sudden there were a lot of Republicans saying the Democrats should have done something about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier before there were any kinds of financial problems. And he said something, he fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues--this is Republican former Chairman Mike Oxley, ``All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this. What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.''

So when there was an attempt, even under the Republican Congress, to try to reform things, the White House refused to do that. So that kind of gives you this big zero, what actually happened.

The subprime chart that Congressman Capuano showed a second ago was another sign of the excesses that were taking place under the Republican Congress and the Bush administration. And then you see what we get from all of that.

My friends on the other side of the aisle were complaining about the deficit and the debt that is being incurred

right now, but it is that debt that was created under the Bush administration. The Obama administration has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit; that's where they start. That is where this administration starts. And it starts with a banking crisis, a $1.3 trillion deficit, loss of jobs, and a housing crisis.

What we are doing is to provide some funding so that people can buy homes at an interest rate that is reasonable. We are trying to stop the foreclosures that are occurring. So we are trying to stabilize the housing market and we are trying to stabilize the financial market.

Now, much of what we did to try and stop the crisis or the fall of the financial markets was done last fall, really under a bipartisan effort of the Democratic Congress and the Bush administration, but it was in free fall. So the Obama administration is trying to get the financial markets on the right path again. It appears that that is going on.

And then we really, this Congress and that administration, also under the leadership of Barney Frank, we came up with a stimulus bill, which is going to spur more jobs, creation of jobs, as well as a new energy economy, revamping education, and dealing with health care costs.

Now I would like to give my friend from Minnesota an opportunity to speak about this, and we will then have a conversation.

It has. The underlying principle of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill, is jobs, jobs and stabilizing the housing market, financial market. But what it does with the Neighborhood Stabilization Act is it starts to absorb foreclosed properties, takes those foreclosed properties, upgrades them, rehabilitates the properties, and makes them energy-efficient homes. So not only does it stabilize the housing market, it creates jobs by upgrading these homes to energy-efficient standards, and then helps us move to a new energy economy, which is one of the key points in the stimulus bill. So it really has so many facets to it, the stimulus bill does, to get us back on track after falling off a cliff, as you can see what happened under the Bush administration.

I would yield back to my friend from Minnesota for any further comments; or I know my friend from Massachusetts is to be guiding all of us tonight, so wherever you would like to go.

Would the gentleman yield for just one second?

I just have to go back to the quotes from Mr. Oxley, the Republican chairman at the time, trying to deal with excesses within the mortgage market. This is from the Financial Times, dated September 9, 2008.

He says, ``We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed.''

With that, I'd yield back to my friend from Massachusetts.

Would the gentleman yield?

And I think that's the important point here. We want to explain to anybody who might be listening within this House. This is in an effort to be bipartisan. There was in 2005. There was when we took the control of the Congress in 2007 and 2008 and now 2009. Barney Frank seeks that in every single vote and every single bill as we go through this, and then so does the President of the United States, Barack Obama. But we're not going to sit on our hands and allow the country to just stall out.

I mean, some of my friends on the other side, their mantra is ``Just say no. We like the status quo.'' We can't afford the status quo any longer. So we're going to stabilize the housing market and the financial markets, we're going to stimulate this economy, and we're going to place back into the system reasonable regulations so that America can really get back on track. And we see signs of that today.

It's going to be a rocky time and a steep hill for us to climb, but we are turning the corner. I am just proud to be part of this Financial Services Committee with my friends here under the chairmanship of Barney Frank and under a presidency of Barack Obama.

With that, I return the message to my friend from Massachusetts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and mourn the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine High School tragedy in Littleton, Colorado.

On April 20, 1999, the people of Colorado and across our Nation learned about the senseless act of violence which took 13 lives that day. My friend Congressman Coffman represents Columbine High School. I represent an area where many of the families attended Columbine High School. One of my daughters played soccer against a girl who was killed at Columbine. Our neighbors had a nephew who was killed at Columbine. It was a tragedy that affected our community deeply and affected this country deeply; but from a terrible tragedy such as that, with unspeakable evil and violence, we've seen the growth of a community, the coming back together of a community, and we've learned from the families of the victims of this terrible violence.

There is a memorial now built at Clement Park to honor the victims. It is near where I live, and it serves as a reminder of the loss but also of the growth we can develop from that point on. It was a terrible day in Colorado 10 years ago, but if you take a look at the people who have risen from those ashes, so to speak, we have five kids who attended Columbine that year who are now teachers at the high school. There is growth in this country. We deal with evil from time to time, but when we come back together, we are a stronger Nation for it. I know my community is stronger for the terrible tragedy that we suffered 10 years ago.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 306 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 306.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 306 provides for consideration of H.R. 1664 to amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.

This is under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in order seven amendments which are listed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes except the manager's amendment, which is debatable for 20 minutes. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the American people rightfully demand that the taxpayer dollars they put in to help stabilize the banking system be spent wisely by the banks and by the institutions that borrow under what is called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Recently, when information came to light showing AIG gave, roughly, $165 million in retention bonuses to senior executives, hardworking Americans all across the country quickly asked, How as a Nation can we recover this money? Now the House considers a similar question: How do we reasonably prevent this from happening again?

The grounds for this action are simple. As the lender to AIG and to a number of other institutions, the United States has the authority to define the terms by which we are lending money. This is a standard in business practice, as lenders from time to time put limits on executive compensation, as do their shareholders.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) recently related to me that you have to be just before you are generous, that you have to take care of your creditors before you can pass out gifts. In this case, generosity, or generous, is taken to a whole new level with the retention bonuses that we saw recently. We as Members of Congress must assert our rights to protect our constituents and the people of this country from any further losses. I want to make clear several things about this bill:

First, it only applies to financial institutions that have received a capital infusion under the TARP program. An amendment by Representative Bilirakis will clarify this point, and an amendment by Representative Cardoza would exempt smaller community banks which receive TARP funds.

Second, it only prohibits compensation that is unreasonable or excessive or prohibits any bonus or other supplemental payment that is not performance-based. Guidelines are established by the Treasury Department within which to determine what is unreasonable or excessive.

Third, the bill only applies while the TARP capital remains outstanding. Once the institution has paid the taxpayers back, they may meet any contractual obligations allowed by their board of directors and shareholders regarding bonuses.

I support the private sector, and I believe in rewarding employees for doing a good job. This bill does allow for performance compensation, but if you have received a capital investment of American tax dollars through TARP to make it through these extraordinary times, there should be commonsense limits on bonuses. My constituents in Colorado do not want their hard-earned dollars going to inflate the senior executives' life rafts as the ship steers close to the rocks.

We are going through this economic downturn, but we need to make sure that middle-class America can trust the money that has been placed into the banking system to keep that system functioning properly. If an institution has an outstanding debt to the Federal Government, it has to pay it back before it gets bonuses that are excessive or unrealistic.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend from North Carolina. I just have to remind her that it was President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury who came to the Congress, hat in hand, because of a potential collapse of the financial system, asking for immediate assistance from this Congress to right the financial system, to put it back on some sort of stable footing. Since then, we have seen a variety of financial institutions take advantage of the assistance that was given. This is designed to restrict the way companies can take advantage of taxpayer dollars until they have repaid the loans and capital that have been advanced to these companies.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, point of order.

I would ask my friend to address the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend from North Carolina just to remind her that when Secretary Paulson came to the Congress asking for $700 billion, he brought us a three-page document. The first page said, I need $700 billion. The second page said, I can do anything with it I want. And the third page said, You can't sue me.

Well, we took that in a crunch time based on his--not his demands, his pleas, his pleas to the Congress to act quickly to preserve our banking system because so many things were going wrong all at one time. We took that three pages, which was completely ridiculous----

Let me finish.

Which was completely ridiculous. We expanded it to a hundred pages, and acted promptly at the request of President Bush and his administration to try to get our financial system stabilized. And it is still rocky, but it's going. But we've seen certain companies take advantage of the assistance of the people of America, and we've got to prevent that. This bill is about compensation where it's excessive or not based upon performance.

What I would like to do now, though, is turn it over to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and I would yield him 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I will use so much time as I might consume, and I'd like to remind my friend from Missouri, first of all, the first time any kind of regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was proposed was in this Congress, was by the House of Representatives, as early as March of 2007 to provide some regulation to those two entities.

The second thing I would remind my friend--and I appreciate his comments about, you know, the shot across the bow of the AIG executives and the fact that they are returning some of the money--but I would also remind him that in the business world, a lender in making a loan to a company may, as part of that loan agreement, put limits on compensation to the executives until that loan is repaid. That's a standard operating procedure in the business world, and shareholders do that, too.

So a board of directors of a company may be restricted by an outside influence like a lender or by its own shareholders. In this instance, we are placing a lot of money into many institutions across this country, and I believe the people of this country have some say as to what the compensation should be of those institutions until those loans or that capital is repaid.

Now, there may be something that might make the gentleman from Missouri a little happier, and that is, there is an amendment that will be proposed, I believe it's an amendment by Mr. Cardoza, that will exempt, in effect, institutions that have received less than, I think it's $250 million, which is still a lot of money. But small community banks, smaller financial institutions will not be part of the program, if that amendment is accepted.

Certainly.

Thank you. And I would just respond to my friend from Missouri by saying that we, at least in this House, passed the GSE reform bills twice, once in 2007 and again in 2008, at which time the President signed it in the summer of 2008.

Secondly, I would just say that the financial sector has been in a heap of trouble, and without the assistance of the people and this government, they would be in worse trouble today. That is my belief, and I think that would be the record reflected by many experts across the country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just advise my friend, Mr. Kingston, that take a look at the bill. It's a very simple bill. My friend from North Carolina was correct, and it just basically says no financial institution, while it has money that's taxpayer money through TARP or otherwise, can pay excessive compensation or anything other than performance bonuses. An executive cannot hold the company hostage, as was done in the AIG instance.

And if and when that money's paid back, then fine, the board of directors, and the shareholders will determine what appropriate salaries their management deserves, and that is all this does. Lender has a chance in this instance to put some restrictions on salaries, and if the borrower, being the financial institution, doesn't like those restrictions, feels it's in a solid position and can return the moneys, then so be it. That's the way it is.

But the private sector, and particularly the financial system, was on shaky ground until this loan was made to them, and the purpose of this is to make sure that the institutions don't take advantage of the good graces of the American people.

It brought kind of a chuckle when my friend Mr. Kingston talked about FEMA and the way the government ran FEMA. Well, FEMA under the Clinton administration, I would say, was run in a very good fashion. FEMA, on the other hand, under the Bush administration was at best a troubled organization.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from North Carolina whether she has any other speakers.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule. So we will begin with that. The rule is designed and provides for seven amendments to a bill that limits executive compensation that is excessive, unreasonable, and not performance-based.

If an executive of an institution that's been loaned money or in which it has had capital advanced by the United States of America, by the people of America, and pays $5 million, $10 million, $20 million for no reason, in an excessive manner, then that kind of bonus is restricted.

The people's money as we've advanced it is to get the institutions back on track and not to pay executives exorbitant salaries. The people across the country expect that, number one. So I support the rule and I support the underlying bill.

Now there are a lot of reasons we got into this position where the government and the people of this country have had to assist the financial system--not the least of which was something like the Gramm- Leach-Bliley, which dropped regulations; or an inattention by the Bush administration to regulations within the financial system. But we are where we are.

President Bush and Secretary Paulson asked for a huge advance to the financial system to keep it upright. We did that. As a Democrat and as a Democratic Congress, advancing $700 billion to a Republican President and his Treasury Secretary to put the financial system back on track was not the first thing I wanted to do. But they made a good case. Their pleas were heard. And we did that.

Now we've got to make sure that people within that system don't take advantage of the good graces of the American people. And that's the purpose of this bill.

It provides for guidelines and regulations. There will be amendments, Mr. Speaker, that will potentially limit this to bigger banks--not to smaller community banks.

I would agree with my friend from North Carolina that whether it's on this floor or out in public, hyperbole and rhetoric can impugn somebody's character. She's concerned about Mr. Grayson. I would say there are others on her side who call people un-American because of the way they vote here.

I would just say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Members of this Chamber, that our words do really matter, and we do need to keep an eye on what we say. We really do have to watch ourselves and not get caught up in the heat of debate.

This bill is appropriate at this time to manage the lending that this country has done. As companies pay back their TARP advances, they're no longer subject to this. The management payments and salaries are subject to the board of directors and their shareholders.

But at this point in time, with those particular institutions, we are both lenders and shareholders, and we certainly have a say over the compensation of the management.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I was just listening to my good friend from North Carolina, and she and I are friends. We serve on committees together. We agree on a lot of things, but we couldn't disagree more on how we got into this place and what it is going to take to get out.

We had an administration and a Republican Congress that said America, it's okay to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country and have wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and go into debt.

Well, it turned our country from a very prosperous Nation into one that was borrowing money from all across the globe, something that can't go on forever. And it finally came home to roost about 6 or 7 months ago when the banks had trouble, the automakers had trouble, everybody saw our economy just crunch like we hadn't seen it in generations. That's what we are faced with today, ladies and gentlemen. That's what we are faced with today, Madam Speaker.

So what are we going to do about it? Well, in the past month we passed the stimulus bill which is designed to do at least five things to get our country back on track.

First, it rebuilds our infrastructure, our roads, bridges and waterways. It builds a new energy grid so we can get power throughout our Nation in a cheaper and more efficient way.

Second, it creates a new energy economy. If we want to keep sending tons and tons of money across the waters to the Middle East, then we should do nothing, keep the status quo. That's what our friends on the Republican side of the aisle would like us to do, just vote no, we like the status quo. But I don't like the status quo. I don't like sending our hard-earned dollars to the Middle East year after year after year, and we are creating a new energy economy within the stimulus bill.

We are helping our States which have found themselves to have lost lots of revenue over the last 6 months, so they can continue to employ teachers and firefighters and policemen. So we are helping our States continue to provide the services that we so desperately need right now.

There are tax cuts within the stimulus bill and within the budget for almost every American, but not the wealthiest 5 percent, so that each one of us gets a little bit of a break, but we are not giving it to the top people who have had the break for the last 8 years.

The last thing it does is it provides assistance to people who have been laid off and need assistance with unemployment or with their COBRA health insurance so they don't just run into a wall, to get us through this difficult period.

President Obama inherited a budget deficit that was $1.3 trillion. It is a lot of money. It is more than any of us can comprehend being in the red. When President Clinton left office, we had a budget surplus. We were paying off the debt, and we got just the opposite when President Bush left office.

We are doing three things in particular to get us out of this predicament. First is to provide a new energy economy, similar to the stimulus, but the budget moves this forward another 4 years.

Second, it deals with health care which is something that everybody has talked about for years but really little has been done. And for each company out there, for each individual, we have seen our health care costs going up. We have to come at it a whole different way, and that is what the budget proposes.

The third thing is to make sure that our education system, our kindergarten through 12th grade, and then our higher education system is the best in the world so we continue to be able to compete globally, so that business comes here and stays here and doesn't go overseas like it has been doing.

It is a very ambitious agenda, but it is one that is going to take us into the 21st century, something we didn't do during the last eight years of a Republican Administration. We just lived on borrowed time and borrowed money. And now it is time to move forward. The budget that has been proposed reflects those particular values. At the same time, it maintains for middle America, for 95 percent of Americans, smaller taxes. But it is a difficult predicament we are in now. This President has provided to the Congress a budget that is going to get us out of this ditch, and it is going to take the work of each and every one of us to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, for bringing this critical bill to the floor today.

One of the most pressing dangers posed by wildfires is the thousands of acres of dead woods and dead trees caused by invasive species, particularly the bark beetle in my own State of Colorado and throughout the Rocky Mountain West.

These insects have created literally millions of square miles of dead forest which endanger thousands of communities should they ignite into flames.

This amendment simply clarifies that the FLAME fund can be used for containment activities to prevent a burning fire from reaching dangerously infested areas, which pose a higher risk of the intensification and spread of that wildfire.

While not regionally specific, my amendment is especially relevant to the Rocky Mountain West.

From Canada down to New Mexico, the bark beetle epidemic has been called ``the largest known insect infestation in the history of North America.'' This epidemic has the potential to cripple our communities, our forests, our tourism sector, our economy, and our way of life in Colorado.

But heaven forbid a forest fire should start in an infected area; far more will be lost.

The effects of the bark beetle infestation are apparent in the transformation of our mountain landscape, which has been described as turning ``a blanket of green forest into a blanket of rust red.'' To put this transformation into perspective, in my own State of Colorado and in Wyoming in 2006, there were 1 million acres of dead trees. In 2008, it is expected to total over 2 million. These acres of dead trees trigger and perpetuate catastrophic fire risk and scope.

The FLAME Act will play an instrumental role in helping to suppress these catastrophic wildfires.

My amendment will explain further and make clear the Secretary of the Interior's and the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to provide suppression activities in response to crisis insect infestations.

I ask for the Members to support this important amendment.

With that, I yield to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just ask for an ``aye'' vote on amendment No. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle. The problem is they forget, and they're kind of revising history. It's the Republican President and a Republican Congress that drove this country into the ditch financially and economically, and what we've got to do is change the course of this Nation.

That's what the President is undertaking to do, by providing small business with tax credits, with assistance as to funding of their particular projects, because that's where the real engine of our economy is--in small businesses.

So, last week, the President announced various initiatives to assist small business to make credit available to them for their various projects, to purchase their loans so that they could go forward, so small banks could make loans to small businesses.

This President is making available to 95 percent of us tax credits. So for 95 percent of the American public, they will see their taxes go down.

So my friends on the other side of the aisle forget the history that brought us here. The Republican administration, by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest while prosecuting a war, put us in a very difficult position, but we will get it out by changing the direction of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

[From Parade, Feb. 15, 2009]

I Must Save My Child

(By Melissa Fay Greene)

WHEN SUSAN AXELROD tells the story of her daughter, she

begins like most parents of children with epilepsy: The baby

was adorable, healthy, perfect. Lauren arrived in June 1981,

a treasured first-born. Susan Landau had married David

Axelrod in 1979, and they lived in Chicago, where Susan

pursued an MBA at the University of Chicago and David worked

as a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune. (He later

would become chief strategist for Barack Obama's Presidential

campaign and now is a senior White House adviser.) They were

busy and happy. Susan attended classes while her mother

babysat. Then, when Lauren was 7 months old, their lives

changed overnight.

``She had a cold,'' Susan tells me as we huddle in the

warmth of a coffee shop in Washington, D.C., on a day of

sleet and rain. Susan is 55, fine-boned, lovely, and fit. She

has light-blue eyes, a runner's tan, and a casual fall of

silver and ash-blond hair. When her voice trembles or tears

threaten, she lifts her chin and pushes on.

``The baby was so congested, it was impossible for her to

sleep. Our pediatrician said to give her one-quarter of an

adult dose of a cold medication, and it knocked her out

immediately. I didn't hear from Lauren the rest of the night.

In the morning, I found her gray and limp in her crib. I

thought she was dead.

``In shock, I picked her up, and she went into a seizure--

arms extended, eyes rolling back in her head. I realized

she'd most likely been having seizures all night long. I

phoned my mother and cried, `This is normal, right? Babies do

this?' She said, `No, they don't' ''

The Axelrods raced Lauren to the hospital. They stayed for

a month, entering a parallel universe of sleeplessness and

despair under fluorescent lights. No medicine relieved the

baby. She interacted with her parents one moment, bright-eyed

and friendly, only to be grabbed away from them the next,

shaken by inner storms, starting and stiffening, hands

clenched and eyes rolling. Unable to stop Lauren's seizures,

doctors sent the family home.

The Axelrods didn't know anything about epilepsy. They

didn't know that seizures were the body's manifestation of

abnormal electrical activity in the brain or that the

excessive neuronal activity could cause brain damage. They

didn't know that two-thirds of those diagnosed with epilepsy

had seizures defined as ``idiopathic,'' of unexplained

origin, as would be the case with Lauren. They didn't know

that a person could, on rare occasions, die from a seizure.

They didn't know that, for about half of sufferers, no drugs

could halt the seizures or that, if they did, the side

effects were often brutal. This mysterious disorder attacked

50 million people worldwide yet attracted little public

attention or research funding. No one spoke to the Axelrods

of the remotest chance of a cure.

AT HOME, LIFE SHAKILY returned to a new normal, interrupted

by Lauren's convulsions and hospitalizations. Exhausted,

Susan fought on toward her MBA; David became a political

consultant. Money was tight and medical bills stacked up, but

the Axelrods had hope. Wouldn't the doctors find the right

drugs or procedures? ``We thought maybe it was a passing

thing,'' David says. ``We didn't realize that this would

define her whole life, that she would have thousands of these

afterward, that they would eat away at her brain.''

``I had a class one night, I was late, there was an

important test,'' Susan recalls. ``I'd been sitting by Lauren

at the hospital. When she fell asleep, I left to run to

class. I got as far as the double doors into the parking lot

when it hit me: `What are you doing?' '' She returned to her

baby's bedside. From then on, though she would continue to

build her family (the Axelrods also have two sons) and

support her husband's career, Susan's chief role in life

would be to keep Lauren alive and functioning.

THE LITTLE GIRL WAS AT RISK OF falling, of drowning in the

bathtub, of dying of

a seizure. Despite dozens of drug trials, special diets, and

experimental therapies, Lauren suffered as many as 25

seizures a day. In between them, she would cry, ``Mommy, make

it stop!''

While some of Lauren's cognitive skills were nearly on

target, she lagged in abstract thinking and interpersonal

skills. Her childhood was nearly friendless. The drugs Lauren

took made her by turns hyperactive, listless, irritable,

dazed, even physically aggressive. ``We hardly knew who she

was,'' Susan says. When she acted out in public, the family

felt the judgment of onlookers. ``Sometimes,'' Susan says,

``I wished I could put a sign on her back that said:

`Epilepsy. Heavily Medicated' ''

At 17, Lauren underwent what her mother describes as ``a

horrific surgical procedure.'' Holes were drilled in her

skull, electrodes implanted, and seizures provoked in an

attempt to isolate their location in the brain. It was a

failure. ``We brought home a 17-year-old girl who had been

shaved and scalped, drilled, put on steroids, and given two

black eyes,'' Susan says quietly. ``We put her through hell

without result. I wept for 24 hours.''

The failure of surgery proved another turning point for

Susan. ``Finally, I thought, `Well, I can cry forever, or I

can try to make a change.' ''

Susan began to meet other parents living through similar

hells. They agreed that no federal agency or private

foundation was acting with the sense of urgency they felt,

leaving 3 million American families to suffer in near-

silence. In 1998, Susan and a few other mothers founded a

nonprofit organization to increase public awareness of the

realities of epilepsy and to raise money for research. They

named it after the one thing no one offered them: CURE--

Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy.

``Epilepsy is not benign and far too often is not

treatable,'' Susan says. ``We wanted the public to be aware

of the death and destruction. We wanted the brightest minds

to engage with the search for a cure.''

Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton signed on to help; so did

other politicians and celebrities. Later, veterans back from

Iraq with seizures caused by traumatic brain injuries

demanded answers, too. In its first decade, CURE raised $9

million, funded about 75 research projects, and inspired a

change in the scientific dialogue about epilepsy.

``CURE evolved from a small group of concerned parents into

a major force in our research and clinical communities,''

says Dr. Frances E. Jensen, a professor of neurology at

Harvard Medical School. ``It becomes more and more evident

that it won't be just the doctors, researchers, and

scientists pushing the field forward. There's an active role

for parents and patients. They tell us when the drugs aren't

working.''

The future holds promise for unlocking the mysteries of

what some experts now call Epilepsy Spectrum Disorder.

``Basic neuroscience, electrophysiological studies, gene

studies, and new brain-imaging technologies are generating a

huge body of knowledge,'' Dr. Jensen says.

Lauren Axelrod, now 27, is cute and petite, with short

black hair and her mother's pale eyes. She speaks slowly,

with evident impairment but a strong Chicago accent. ``Things

would be better for me if I wouldn't have seizures,'' she

says. ``They make me have problems with reading and math.

They make me hard with everything.''

By 2000, the savagery and relentlessness of Lauren's

seizures seemed unstoppable. ``I thought we were about to

lose her,'' Susan says. ``Her doctor said, `I don't know what

else we can do.' '' Then, through CURE, Susan learned of a

new anti-convulsant drug called Keppra and obtained a sample.

``The first day we started her on the medication,'' Susan

says, ``her seizures subsided. It's been almost nine years,

and she hasn't had a seizure since. It won't work for

everyone, but it has been a magic bullet for Lauren. She is

blooming.''

Susan and David see their daughter regaining some lost

ground: social intuition, emotional responses, humor. ``It's

like little areas of her brain are waking up,'' Susan says.

``She never has a harsh word for anyone, though she did think

the Presidential campaign went on a little too long. The

Thanksgiving before last, she asked David, `When is this

running-for-President thing going to be finished?' ''

CURE is run by parents. Susan has worked for more than a

decade without pay, pushing back at the monster robbing

Lauren of a normal life. ``Nothing can match the anguish of

the mom of a chronically ill child,'' David says, ``but Susan

turned that anguish into action. She's devoted her life to

saving other kids and families from the pain Lauren and our

family have known. What she's done is amazing.''

``Complete seizure freedom without side effects is what we

want,'' Susan says. ``It's too late for us, so we've

committed ourselves to the hope that we can protect future

generations from having their lives defined and devastated by

this disorder.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to rise to recognize two extraordinary people, Susan Axelrod and her daughter Lauren, for their work on issues concerning epilepsy. One of the very first meetings I had in the Congress was with Susan Axelrod, who came to visit me because she knew that I have a daughter with epilepsy. As parents of kids with chronic illnesses, and many people have family members who have chronic illnesses, it is a life-consuming endeavor to try to find a cure.

Susan founded the nonprofit organization called CURE, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, to educate the public, encourage research and raise funds for epilepsy. Susan's research through CURE revealed a new drug treatment which has stopped Lauren's seizures for the last 9 years.

In the decade since its inception, CURE has raised millions of dollars and has made great strides in the scientific community to develop research projects which one day may find a cure for other people with epilepsy like my daughter Alexis. Susan also assisted me with a bill to help returning service men and women who have suffered brain injuries and now are having seizures. I applaud her commitment to increasing funding for epilepsy research, and I honor her today.

I will submit for the Congressional Record an article about Susan and Lauren's commitment to curing epilepsy published in Parade Magazine dated February 15, 2009, entitled ``I Must Save My Child.''

Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you tonight to talk about what's going on in Congress and about a change that's coming in this country--a needed change, a change from the direction that was taken in the prior 8 years.

I don't have to tell anybody in this room or anywhere else across the country that somebody drove the car into the ditch, and we've got to get that car out of the ditch in terms of the economy--in terms of the financial and housing systems across this country. We are grappling with an economy that's struggling at best and with a deficit that we've inherited from the Bush administration of well over $1 trillion. What are we going to do about it?

The first thing you have got to do is stabilize the financial and housing markets. Those two things are being done through recapitalizing the banks and by giving them the ability to stay on their feet. The housing market we need to stabilize, and the administration has a complete program as to how to do that:

One in terms of interest rates that good and creditworthy borrowers can take advantage of like they haven't been able to take advantage of in years and years and years. I mean solid loans that aren't fly-by- night, phony baloney types of loans but 5 percent interest rates available to good and creditworthy customers.

Second, for people who find themselves in markets that are difficult, where the prices of the houses have dropped but they're paying their way and they're struggling, there is an ability for them under the administration's proposal to refinance so that they, too, can take advantage of low mortgage rates that are available today. For those who have been laid off or who are otherwise having trouble with their homes and their mortgages, there are other avenues available to them.

So, first, we have got to stabilize the marketplace. That's happening. Second

and more important is rejuvenating and invigorating the economy. We did that 2 weeks ago with the President's major recovery act.

There are components in that of investing in America like we've never done before or we haven't done for years and years and years.

And that investment costs money. There is no question about it. Whether you're a family or a business or a country, there are times you have to invest. And we have invested, and those returns we're going to see in a new energy economy, in a change in how we deal with our health care system and rebuilding our infrastructure. Those returns are going to be long term, but they are jobs today. Jobs in America today. Jobs that we need desperately from coast to coast.

The third piece in getting this country back on track and changing its direction, and getting that car out of the ditch is to restore confidence in both the economy and the financial systems. And we are working to see which regulations, which laws that were eliminated that should be reinstated, and which laws or regulations have compounded the problem and should be eliminated so that we can restore confidence, reinvigorate the economy and stabilize the markets.

All of this is going to be done starting with a tremendous deficit in this country but reducing it by half over the next 4 years in a fiscally responsible fashion.

There is a lot of hard work for us here in Congress, but even more hard work for people all across this country. But this country is capable of doing it, has done it time and time and time again, and we will get the car out of the ditch. We've got an administration and a Congress that is dedicated to doing that. And so we will change the direction of this Nation and get it back on track.

With that, to my friend from Kentucky, I yield back.

Would the gentleman yield?

That's a great question because, in Colorado, we sort of went into the downturn of the economy before the rest of the country, and we've been climbing out. We had a much smaller drop in property values, our employment rate has been higher, but if the job layoffs were to continue, we would be falling into the same ditch as the rest of the country.

So for somebody from Colorado, the ability to maintain and build jobs--good energy jobs, health care jobs, jobs in rebuilding our highways, our transit, our electric grid--that will keep my State from driving into the ditch. So we're focused more on the jobs piece, but obviously having a strong and healthy financial system, as well as a housing market, is key as well. So this affects all of us, and we've seen it kind of roll across the country.

So even if in Colorado we have it better off today, we want to keep it that way. We don't want it to fall farther behind. So all of us are in this together.

Would the gentleman yield?

Well, Mr. Courtney, one of the things that you've made the point so well, and Mr. Dreier, when he and I were arguing about the stimulus bill 2 weeks ago, is the immediacy of this, the urgency of this. The time to act is now, not 10 weeks from now, not 20 weeks from now. I mean, your friend's life was on the line. Mr. Dreier's friend, it was a tragedy because of job layoffs and a number of other things. So Mr. Dreier, explaining it as somebody on the other side of the aisle, but still wanted to vote no.

And what I've seen--and not to really pick on the other side because it's time for us to move forward in a positive way--their position is, just say no, we like the status quo. This country can't afford the status quo any longer. We need to move quickly, we need to move with purpose, and we need to move now. Because whether it's to maintain or create new jobs, provide COBRA where jobs have been lost, maintain State government--backfilling them so we keep the teachers and the firefighters and the policemen and the maintenance workers employed in this difficult time--or to assist people who have suffered, we've got to move now. And this Congress and this President are moving now.

Now, my friends on the other side don't like it, but their old ways-- and I'm pointing to the record deterioration of the budget--have just driven us right into the ditch. I said that before. We have to turn this around. And so we will, under the President's approach and the congressional approach, reduce what was a record deficit that we've inherited by almost half or more, doing so in a way that creates new jobs, creates a new energy economy, creates a health care system that works, and at the same time assisting people who have fallen on hard times. So I just appreciate working with all of you to get going on these problems and to turn this around.

I will now yield back to my friend from Kentucky, or to my friend from Connecticut.

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

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 92, I was unavoidably detained; otherwise I would have voted ``yes'' on the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act.

Madam Speaker, we just can't ignore the facts. The facts are, we lost 600,000 jobs last month and the prior month and the prior month, and some 3.6 million jobs last year. Banks have failed. We have had a real contraction in the economy. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, their position is, ``Just say no. We like the status quo.''

We can't afford the status quo anymore, ladies and gentlemen. We must act. This is a time for bold action, and in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act we will maintain or create somewhere between 3 million and 4 million jobs in the construction industry and the energy industry; we will maintain jobs of teachers and firefighters and policemen. We will pass this bill today in the House of Representatives, and I am glad, because in Colorado we need this effort, we need these jobs, and so does the rest of the Nation.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I now reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

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

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

I continue to reserve.

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

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

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

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do we each have?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 157 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions for the House to suspend the rules at any time between now and tomorrow.

As most Members know, clause 1(a) of rule XV of the Standing Rules of the House only allows for consideration of bills under suspension of the rules on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

The House has before us today and tomorrow many bills honoring the service of great Americans, recognizing the achievement of amazing athletes, and bringing attention to Americans issues affecting millions of our countrymen.

In order for the House to proceed, we must allow for consideration of these matters under suspension. Therefore, the House must pass House Resolution 157.

Should this resolution pass, the House will debate several measures of importance to the American people. First is House Resolution 110 by Representative Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, which congratulates the Pittsburgh Steelers for winning Super Bowl XLIII. It's hard for me to say that, because I am a lifelong Denver Broncos fan, and it hurts to see the Pittsburgh Steelers winning that game. But it was certainly one of the Super Bowl's most exciting games ever, and the Steelers played a tough and entertaining game that earned them the championship. The final minutes of that game will surely go down in football history as some of the most thrilling ever. While the Steelers did well this year, next year they're going to have to go through Denver if they want to repeat.

Second is House Resolution 112 by Representative Christopher Lee of New York, which expresses support for American Heart Month and the National Wear Red Day.

Roughly 80 million Americans have some form of heart disease. Many forms of heart disease are preventable through proper diet and exercise. And as a member of the Congressional Fitness Caucus, we continually strive to promote these principles of healthy living.

Representative Lee's resolution promoting awareness of heart disease will demonstrate Congress' commitment to saving lives across this Nation.

House Resolution 139 by Representative Phil Hare of Illinois commemorates the bicentennial of the birth of our great President, Abraham Lincoln. I certainly cannot describe the achievements and history of President Lincoln in the manner in which he deserves. Every Member of Congress knows Abraham Lincoln gave his life for his country and saved our Nation, as does almost every single person in this country. Honoring his bicentennial is a small token to show our gratitude. And today we will have a ceremony at 11:30 Eastern Standard Time in the Capitol Rotunda honoring President Lincoln's birthday, and President Obama will attend that ceremony.

House Resolution 663, by Representative John Barrow of Georgia, designates a post office in Sparta, Georgia, as the Yvonne Ingram- Ephraim Post Office. Yvonne Ingram-Ephraim was a beloved elected official in Sparta, Georgia, and designating a post office in her honor is a wonderful tribute.

These bills and resolutions celebrate great Americans and bring attention to an issue important to millions of Americans. I look forward to hearing more about these bills and resolutions so that the House of Representatives can express to the Nation our recognition of these individual and team achievements. For this reason, I hope we will agree to the resolution.

There is an additional provision in the resolution which amends the rules of the 111th Congress so that we can convene at 9 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, instead of 10 a.m., so that we can begin our work earlier, in hopes that we can return to our families and our homes and our districts earlier on those days. This is an important rule which will allow us to debate several matters, and will allow a change to our rules so we can return to our districts a little earlier on Fridays and Saturdays.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind my friend from North Carolina, this is about four suspension matters: Abraham Lincoln, the Pittsburgh Steelers, Ms. Ephraim and National Heart Month. And so I appreciate her comments, but they're not on point. This is about four suspension bills, as well as conducting our business earlier on Fridays and Saturdays.

And I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

No. I will wait and speak in my time. Okay. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Georgia who has gotten my blood boiling at 10:15 in the morning.

So, to my friend from Georgia, I have to say, first of all, the rule that we have before us is about the Pittsburgh Steelers, the American Heart Month, Abraham Lincoln, and about Ms. Ephraim. I look forward to him and to our other colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle voting against the rule for Abraham Lincoln, for the Pittsburgh Steelers, for the American Heart Month, and for Ms. Ephraim.

The focus needs to be on those four suspension rules, but since he has brought up the fact that he is concerned----

I will yield in a moment, but first, I want to talk a little bit about what is actually in the Recovery Act and not as it has been trivialized by my good friend from Georgia.

First of all, in looking at some notes we have here, he, in his district--and I think it is the First District of Georgia--would get 7,700 jobs from the bill that is being considered. The Republicans had two Members from the House as part of the conference committee, and the Republicans had at least two Members on the Senate conference team, and the Senate chaired the entire conference. So if he rails about anything, he ought to rail against his friends and against his colleagues who were on the committee for not sharing information with him. His Republican colleagues had a chance and have been part and parcel of every discussion if they've wanted to be. So let's just shove that aside and really talk about what the bill is about.

The bill is about jobs, jobs all across this country, from 7,700 new jobs in his district in the Savannah, Georgia area to my neighborhood in Colorado, to Lakewood, to Wheat Ridge, to Arvada, to Aurora where I get approximately 7,600 jobs.

Ms. Foxx, I'm not sure which district you represent in North Carolina.

The Fifth. Let's see what you would get. You would get approximately 7,600 jobs.

So this is about jobs across this country. We've been losing jobs at an incredible rate, at a rate of at least 600,000 jobs per month for the last 3 months. We must stop it. We must stop that job loss now. We cannot let it go any further. There were 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008. It is time to reverse this. We cannot continue to go on this path. We are going into a spiral. The purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is to rejuvenate this economy and to get it back on track. It is not going to be easy. It will take a series of bills and efforts, and it will take time, but this is about action, about action now.

So let's talk about what is really in the bill. First of all, there are no earmarks. For anybody and everybody who is listening to me speak this morning: There are no earmarks in this bill. There is no earmark for rats in San Francisco. There is money that goes to the EPA and to the Department of the Interior for the cleanup of wetlands or for maintaining wetlands. Apparently, this is on a list of ready-to-go projects, but it, like many others, must compete within the departments for that money. It is not a specific earmark within the bill.

Now, that trivializes this bill. This bill is in five parts. The first part is construction and the reconstruction of this country. It is new construction for roads, bridges, transit, and the energy grid. It is billions of dollars which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. In fact, this bill is intended to maintain or to create 3.5 million jobs in America for Americans. Number one, construction.

Number two, it is to really capitalize on the science and technology that we have within this country. It is so that we develop a new energy economy, energy research, energy development, energy manufacturing so that we are not hooked on oil from across the seas and so that we aren't at the whim of countries that, in some instances, would not like to see us do well. So this is about developing a new energy economy, and there are thousands and thousands of jobs, including upgrading some million homes across America to energy-efficient standards. One, it is jobs. It is jobs for carpenters, laborers, electricians, and for steelworkers--every kind of job imaginable. It is for lots of small businesses and for lots of contractors, and it has the added benefit of helping to reduce our energy consumption. Wow, that would be a real wonderful thing if we could have that.

There are also billions of dollars in this to upgrade our medical information technology, our health information technology, so that records are available to doctors, to hospitals, to health care providers so that there are no mistakes, so that there are clear directions, but there are also safeguards within the bill to make sure that people's personal health privacy issues are protected. That is an important element to move us forward in the health care industry. Ultimately, it will save billions of dollars.

First of all, there is IT business, IT work in here for a whole variety of people, and it ultimately will save the health care system and our country billions of dollars.

I want to get through the five sections, and I will yield to you for 30 seconds or so.

The first piece is construction and reconstruction of this country so that we have jobs now and an investment for the long term.

The second piece is innovation and science and creating a new energy economy. And also there is significant money in this bill for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control to develop new ways to combat various diseases across this country.

The third section is to assist our States who have seen their revenue fall off tremendously because people are not earning incomes, businesses are not deriving revenues, business has fallen off, people are being laid off. And so the States have tremendous shortfalls which will result in the loss of jobs across America through our State governments and our local governments at a time when we can least afford it.

We need people to be doing teaching, we need our policemen, we need our firefighters, we need our maintenance workers, we need our engineers. We need the people in the system who are going to help folks who have been laid off, for goodness sakes. Tremendous piece in this bill to help our States maintain the services that they provide today because those are safety nets. Those are important across the board.

The fourth piece is the tax cut piece, and my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) was talking about tax cuts.

In this bill, 35 percent of the bill is devoted to tax cuts, and 95 percent of Americans will benefit by this bill with respect to tax cuts, not the wealthiest 5 percent, but 95 percent of us in middle income and the middle income range. So 95 percent of Americans will benefit by this bill in terms of certain tax cuts, as will small businesses.

Unlike the prior administration, which focused on the wealthiest people in America and gave them tax cuts, this administration and this Congress will look out for the regular American, the regular Joe and Jill out there so that they can benefit by some tax cuts and not just the richest people in America.

The fifth piece in this bill is to assist folks who are hurting, who've been laid off, who need unemployment insurance, who may need Medicaid because they can't get any medical care otherwise, who may need food stamps. So it's just the basic assistance that this country gives to its people in times of trouble.

So this bill--and it is a big bill, no doubt about it--but we have a big problem to combat. And the purpose of this is to create jobs and maintain jobs and rebuild this country, and that's precisely what it does.

And I'm not going to allow my good friend from Georgia to trivialize this bill. It is too big and it is too important. And I appreciate his comments, but we've got to focus on the key piece of this which is jobs and taking this country into the future instead of hanging back as we have over the past 8 years.

With that, I would yield my friend 30 seconds.

To my good friend from North Carolina, I have seen the House version and I have seen the Senate version, and I have highlights of the compromise. That's what I have. And so between the House version and the Senate version and the description that we received, the outline that we received as the bill is being drafted, as the compromise is being drafted, I can tell you what's in the bill. And I'm not going to let my friend from Georgia trivialize this thing because too many people's lives are at stake here.

To my good friend, let me reserve the balance of my time and turn it back over to you.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to know how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I'd like first to respond to my friend from North Carolina when she was making complaints about the States and the States should stand on their own. Generally I would agree with that. The trouble is we're in some unprecedented times.

In Colorado, for instance, our economy was humming along. We were doing very well. And in the last 3 months, we've seen things really come to a halt in many ways, and job losses have been mounting. This is the same thing that is occurring across the country. And unless we jolt this economy back moving in the right direction, we're going to have greater and greater trouble for a longer and longer period of time.

And I would just point, as my good friend knows, to an economist named Mark Zandi--who was the consultant and adviser to Senator McCain--in a report that he gave to people on January 21, 2009, about the importance of moving a major piece of legislation like this forward so that we develop jobs across this country.

And the proposal that the Republicans had put forth, instead of 3.5 million jobs, was only going to create 1.3 million jobs. And it was based only on tax cuts, which is sort of what we heard through the last 8 years: Let's cut taxes, let's prosecute a war in Iraq, let's turn this country's finances upside down.

It's time to change the direction of this Nation. That's what we're doing with this bill. We want to get it going again. We want to create a good future for ourselves, our kids, and our grandkids and leave them with a country they can be proud of. And that starts with this administration of Barack Obama. It is going to be key that we pass this recovery act.

But the bill in front of us, the rule in front of us is about suspension measures. And as you mentioned there are Abraham Lincoln, and at this point we expect the Heart Association, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and Ms. Ephraim.

The bill on the Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be taken up, and it will have 500,000 jobs being created to develop a smart grid, advanced battery technology, and energy efficiency across the country, tax incentives to spur energy savings and green jobs, energy efficiency savings in homes across the country, upgrading low- to moderate-income housing that is either owned or underwritten by the Housing and Urban Development authority across the country, transforming our economy with new science and technology, lowering health care costs.

One of the key pieces--and to my friend from North Carolina as you were complaining about assisting the States--is maintaining our teachers in our local schools who have seen their tax revenue fall off, who have seen the ability of the States to help them fall off. I know I want my kids to get the best education they can get. I don't want there to be any disruption, and I want them to be in schools that are well constructed. This bill will help do that.

Finally, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been an effort at bipartisanship unlike anything that I've seen while I have been in Congress. President Obama reaching out to your side of the aisle, inviting and participating with the members of your caucus, much of the bill being driven by at least three Republican Senators--two from Maine and one from Pennsylvania. The use of the moneys will be on the web so that every American or anybody across the globe who wants to check in to see how the money is being used and where it's going will be visible and open and apparent to them.

This is a time we must act, and we are going to act. We're going to get this country back on track. We're going to change the direction of this Nation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just by way of closing, I want to remind everyone, we're here on House Resolution 157, which is to allow us to hear certain bills under suspension today and tomorrow. Among those are bills concerning American Heart Month; Abraham Lincoln, his 200th birthday; Ms. Ephraim, who was a leading citizen in Sparta, Georgia; and then, of course, the Pittsburgh Steelers. Also, we're asking that on Fridays and Saturdays for the rest of the year that we begin business at 9 o'clock in the morning as opposed to 10 o'clock.

That's the resolution that's before the body today. We've had a lot of discussion about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has been debated really as part of the election, through the end of the year, through this last month, and it will be debated hotly, I'm sure, today and tomorrow concerning how to get this Nation back on track.

I just want to read something from Mark Zandi, again, an adviser to Senator John McCain, but somebody who, as many economists across the country, is concerned about this Nation and its economy in terrific terms. This is what he says on page 17: ``The financial system is in disarray, and the economy's struggles are intensifying. Policy-makers are working hard to quell the panic and shore up the economy; but considering the magnitude of the crisis and the continuing risks, policy-makers must be aggressive. Whether from a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity, crises end only with overwhelming government action.''

That's what we will see in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It's about jobs, maintaining and creating 3.5 million jobs. It isn't the end. There will be a series of measures taken, and it will take time to get this Nation back on track. It took time to get into this ditch. It's going to take time to get out. But we're acting about it. It's going to be done.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment and the bill. We're in a position where $350 billion, without any conditions, is likely to be passed, or it's been requested and likely will go out the door.

These conditions are important, and the conditions that are added through the manager's amendment are particularly important. One of the things we talked about with the original TARP bill was that money would, 1, buy mortgage portfolios, 2, recapitalize banks and 3, pass through various agencies to small businesses through the Federal home loan banks and through the farm credit administration.

This manager's amendment assures that money passes directly to people on Main Street, including the home builders that Mr. Burton was just talking about, commercial realtors, commercial real estate, farmers, municipal bond dealers, so that credit all across the board is available to people and gets this economy back on track and loosens up credit across the United States.

And I support the manager's amendment and ask for an ``aye'' vote.