Floor Statements

I very much appreciate our chairman yielding. I, too, want to express our deepest gratitude to Dale Oak and his family for the years and years of work and sacrifice they have put in on our behalf.

As the chairman indicated, Dale has worked on both sides of the aisle in the front office, was very helpful to Bill Young, I know, and to myself, and now to David Obey.

The people who really deserve our recognition and thanks, however, involve first and foremost Dale's wife, Janet, and their children, Eric and Anna.

Thank you all for your great service. Godspeed.

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

It was less than 2 weeks ago that we debated the House version of the economic stimulus package. When we began this process, I was hopeful that the House and the Senate would heed the President's call for bipartisanship. Madam Speaker, clearly, that has not occurred. The House and Senate have now cleared their respective versions of the same legislation. To date, eleven Democrats have opposed the stimulus package in the House, and only three Republicans--that is three Republicans--have supported it in the Senate.

The manner in which this package was developed is the clearest demonstration to date that, while the President expresses his sincere interest in bipartisan collaboration, his own leadership in the House stubbornly clings to a top-down approach to governing. That top-down approach to governing that has dominated our politics

in the House these last 2 years is the single greatest impediment to bipartisanship and is the greatest threat to this institution that most of us love so much.

I am absolutely convinced that, given the opportunity, the chairmen and ranking members of each of the twelve appropriations subcommittees could have and would have worked together responsibly to develop a bipartisan piece of legislation that would stimulate the economy and would create millions and millions of American jobs. Given the opportunity, Republicans and Democrats would have produced a package that would have garnered the support of the House majority on both sides of the aisle. That, however, did not occur with this package.

The chairmen and ranking members of our Appropriations subcommittees were never given an opportunity to work in such a fashion. Not only were subcommittee chairmen and ranking members prevented from working constructively, but the majority staff of the Appropriations Committee was instructed on more than one occasion not to engage or to share information with their minority counterparts. Think about that, Madam Speaker. At the subcommittee level, we have very fine staff, very fine members who spend time concentrating in areas of expertise, and they were told by the top of the committee, ``do not communicate at the staff level within the subcommittees,'' cutting off any sensible form or chance for compromise.

Bipartisanship is a pragmatic and constructive willingness on the part of both parties to engage in a beneficial give-and-take on various areas of disagreement to form consensus. Given this definition and approach and the manner in which critical legislation is now written, bipartisanship in this House really is no longer possible. It certainly does not even appear to be desired by the leadership.

I have said publicly and sincerely on several occasions that I want to see our President be successful. The urgency of the present economic situation demands that we work together in a constructive fashion, but that cannot occur when decisions are made solely by a handful of powerful leaders while the voices of other Members, who have much to contribute, are routinely disregarded and are summarily dismissed.

Spoken during our floor debate when he was discussing this process just 11 years ago, the words of Chairman Obey ring particularly true when we consider my frustration at this moment. I quote my chairman, Mr. Obey.

He said, ``This is no way to establish bipartisan consensus. This is no way to establish a decent working relationship between the executive and legislative branches. We need to try to find common ground between the two parties.''

We are proceeding with a motion to go to conference, but let us not for one moment believe this stimulus package is an example of bipartisan legislation, because it is not now nor was it intended to be from the very beginning.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. May I inquire of the chairman if he has any additional speakers. I'm going to reserve and yield back my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

The debate over the Pelosi-Obey nonstimulus package has often focused on the nearly $1 trillion it will spend, much of it in ways that will not stimulate our economy or create badly needed jobs. It will, however, stimulate tremendous growth in the size and scope of the Federal Government and our national debt.

Well-meaning people can disagree about this legislation, but the simple truth is that nearly 2 weeks after it passed the House, we are still discovering every day what exactly is in this package. The Senate just passed its own version this afternoon and I'm certain that Senators, too, will discover aspects of this bill in the coming days that they were simply unaware of when it came to a vote.

What is most troubling is how some of the Federal agencies will distribute the massive amounts of funding provided for in this bill. For instance, agencies will use funding in the House-passed bill for these endeavors: $30 million for salt marsh harvest mouse habitation restoration in the San Francisco bay; $8 to $10 million for oyster restoration in the Gulf of Mexico; $600 million for the acquisition of plug-in vehicles, which are not made or currently available in the United States. Sadly, the list goes on and on.

While these may be worthy endeavors, they certainly do not meet the test of being ``timely, targeted, and temporary.'' And they certainly do not belong in an economic stimulus bill.

I had hoped when this process began that the House and Senate would embark on a bold new experiment--building a bipartisan consensus--to reflect not only the tone set forth by the President, but to live up to the expectations of the American people.

Let's face it--my voters and your voters are sick and tired of the typical Washington finger pointing and want us to work together. The House leadership had a tremendous opportunity to use this legislation as a vehicle for bipartisanship. Much to my disappointment, the decision was made to forego bipartisanship in the name of expediency. I believe this expediency will prove costly over the long run.

As the House and Senate prepare to conference separate versions of the stimulus package, it is absolutely essential that House Members and Senators know exactly what is included in the final conference agreement.

It is for this reason that I am making this motion to instruct House conferees not to sign the final conference agreement unless the text of such agreement has been available to the conferees in an electronic, searchable, and downloadable form at least 48 hours prior to their approval.

If the House is about to cast its approval of the largest spending bill in history, the least we can do is to ensure that Members have 48 hours to review what is in it. That is not an unreasonable request. To the contrary, it is the reasonable and responsible thing to do.

While this motion limits public availability to conferees, I think any final agreement should, in practice, be available to the public in advance as well. Members have an obligation to their constituents to know the contents of the conference report before they cast their vote in what certainly will be one of the most important votes they will ever cast in this body. They should know--have a chance to know--what is in it. We ought not act in haste when spending almost $1 trillion of our taxpayers' money.

I urge Democrats and Republicans alike to join me in supporting this motion to instruct conferees and provide that 48 hours I mentioned.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not. I have no additional speakers, however and it's my intention to inquire of the chairman if he's got three or four speakers.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am.

The motion that I have is a very simple motion to invest an additional $36 billion in highways and an additional $24 billion in the Army Corps of Engineers construction, and reduce the overall costs of the bill by almost $104 billion.

My friends, the more that people learn about this bill, the more they are questioning the price tag and its effectiveness. Not just our political leaders, but our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, our newspapers, and our constituents.

This motion funds high-priority, immediate job-producing activities like highway construction and the Army Corps of Engineers water projects. These are absolutely ``shovel-ready'' infrastructure investments that will put Americans back to work now.

The Corps of Engineers projects have been vetted, authorized, studied, planned and, in many cases, started. The added $24 billion in that motion will put people to work right away and will result in much needed improvement to our Nation's ports, levees, dams, and flood control measures. The same can be said for the additional $34 billion in highway funds in this motion.

Our objective, Madam Speaker, is to put people to work right away. The additional $34 billion in highway funds in this motion begin to play that role. We are not pulling a number out of the sky, but responding to our States.

About 6 months ago, our States were asked, and I quote, ``What can you do in 180 days if you had the funds? Our States responded, We can do at least $64 billion worth of work that will yield greater safety, plus additional economic opportunity for our communities.

In addition to redirecting $60 billion into immediate job-creating programs, this motion will save taxpayers by reducing the overall cost of the bill by almost $104 billion.

This motion does not strike all funds in the bill, but only strikes the untested, newly authorized or newly funded programs, but all funding that will not be available until fiscal year 2010, and later. It will also strike the most questionable job-creating programs in the underlying bill.

This is our chance to make a wise decision to step back and give a hard look and make sure that the package we want to send to the President is really going to make a positive impact on the economy and not do more harm to the American people. This is our chance to send a more balanced bill forward, a bill with tax cuts, with relief for States, and with some purposeful, targeted spending guaranteed to put Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the T&I ranking member and the coauthor of this motion, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the remaining time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most respected public servants in my district, San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod, who is stepping down this month after nearly 40 years protecting our citizens.

A Southern California native, Gary Stephen Penrod graduated from Redlands Schools, worked as a U.S. Forest Service firefighter and is a U.S. Army veteran. But his life has been in law enforcement, and he has served in the sheriff's department since being deputized in 1971.

Sheriff Penrod spent time on patrol in most of the vast desert and mountain reaches of San Bernardino County, and received regular promotions over the years. When the city of Hesperia incorporated in 1988, the sheriff's department contracted to provide police services, and Gary Penrod became the first Hesperia Police Chief.

By the time our former sheriff retired in 1994, Gary Penrod had been promoted to Deputy Chief. He easily defeated six other candidates and was sworn in as sheriff on Jan. 3, 1995. He has been reelected to three more four-year terms.

When he first took office in 1994, San Bernardino County had a population of 774,000 people. Today, more than 2 million people live in the sheriff's jurisdiction. Deputies responded to 617,000 calls in 1994, last year they had more than 1.2 million.

Mr. Speaker, San Bernardino County was known in the past for having some colorful characters as our top law enforcer. Sheriff Penrod has had a reputation for quiet leadership, for helping the department achieve high recognition for professionalism, and for encouraging his deputies to stay on the cutting edge as law enforcement has modernized.

During his tenure, Sheriff Penrod implemented community based policing and many innovative programs and staffing enhancements including: Crime Free Multi-Housing, Operation CleanSWEEP, Public Safety Internship Academy, Marijuana Eradication Team, Methamphetamine Lab Task Force, Narcotics Special Enforcement Teams and Gang Enforcement Units. Sheriff Penrod oversaw the merger with the San Bernardino Marshall's office and in 2005 he became Sheriff-Coroner of San Bernardino County.

A highly respected leader, Sheriff Penrod is a member of San Bernardino County Children's Network, San Bernardino County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association, California Police Officers' Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Sheriffs' Association, Western State Sheriffs' Association, California State Coroners' Association, and the Governor's Corrections Standard Authority. He is a past president of the California State Sheriffs' Association.

Although he is respected for his professionalism and progressive thinking, among his deputies Sheriff Penrod is most known as someone who always cares for the members of his department. Wounded deputies have often told of finding the sheriff by their bedside, personally promising to help them and their families.

Madam Speaker, after 38 years as a law enforcement officer, Sheriff Penrod has decided to retire to spend more time with his wife Nancy and at his hobbies--horseback riding, raising cattle, fishing, camping and snow skiing. Please join me in thanking him for his years of service, and wishing him and Nancy success in all of their future endeavors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement by the Chair

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my chairman's yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to work with the chairmen both when they were in the minority and now running the place.

I must say that very few staff people combine both the intellect and personality kind of warmth that Rob reflects in the everyday work of this fabulous guy. He's a wonderful member of our staff. OMB is going to be very fortunate to have him, and we will miss him. So thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I would like today to pay special tribute to San Bernardino Community College District Trustees Chuck Beeman and Allen Gresham, who over the past several decades have overseen the rapid growth and maturing of the major community colleges in my district in California.

A respected attorney in San Bernardino County, Allen Gresham was first elected as college trustee in 1971 and is now the third-longest- serving in California. Chuck Beeman, a retired pharmacist and owner of Beeman's Pharmacy, was appointed to the board in 1983. The two men are leaving the board this year after a combined 62 years of public service.

While they have been on the board, the district's two campuses have grown significantly--now serving more than 18,000 students with nearly 500 full- and part-time faculty members. Since Allen Gresham joined the board, more than 150,000 students have received degrees and certificates. The two campuses--San Bernardino Valley College and Crafton Hills College--have two of the most diverse student bodies in California.

As the student body has grown, Mr. Gresham and Mr. Beeman have led the board of trustees in meeting their needs through a continuing building program that has expanded and significantly modernized both campuses. With the help of Federal Emergency Management Agency earthquake mitigation funding, Valley College has completely remade its central facilities, building a new library, Health and Human Sciences Building, administration building and a 37,000-square-foot Campus Center. A new art building with a modern gallery--named in honor of Clara and Allen Gresham for their devotion to art--opened last year.

At Crafton Hills College, ground was recently broken for a new library and learning resource center, as well as a new swimming center. The district has also built a new central headquarters at the former Norton Air Force Base and upgraded facilities for its public-access television and radio station, KVCR--which provides the only broadcast local news for San Bernardino County. In addition, the college district has opened a nationally-recognized academy at the former air base to give firefighters hands-on training in dealing with jet fuel and aircraft fires.

Madam Speaker, wary California taxpayers have turned back construction bond measures for many cities and school districts in recent years. But thanks in large part to the leadership of Allen Gresham and Chuck Beeman, San Bernardino County taxpayers gave solid approval to a $190 million bond in 2002 and a $500 million bond just this year to continue the expansion of these fine college campuses.

In addition to academic excellence, the college district has won intercollegiate athletics championships in many sports. These accomplishments have especially delighted Chuck Beeman, who came within a fraction of a second of qualifying for the 1956 U.S. Olympic team and taught track at Valley College for many years. The college's track was named in Mr. Beeman's honor last year.

Madam Speaker, Allen Gresham and Chuck Beeman can look back with pride as they come to the end of their time on the San Bernardino Community College District Board of Trustees. Please join me in saluting them for their decades of service to education and our community and wishing them well in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following project that was included in H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Project Name: Lafayette Escadrille Memorial.

Account: American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Air Force.

Address of Requesting Entity: HQ USAF/CC, 1670 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330.

Description of Request: Provide $500,000.00 to conduct an updated engineering study of the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial to determine the long term recurring costs to preserve and maintain the memorial at ABMC standards.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and longtime leader in my community, San Bernardino County Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, who is leaving office this year after more than 20 years in public service.

While he was a young businessman in 1968, Dennis Hansberger was selected as a field representative and executive assistant by then- County Supervisor Donald Beckford. When his boss decided not to run for re-election, Mr. Hansberger mounted a successful campaign and won election to the county board in 1972.

Dennis Hansberger quickly revealed his strong leadership capabilities, and was chosen as chairman of the board by his fellow supervisors in 1974--becoming the youngest chairman in the state and the youngest in San Bernardino County history. When the legislature created the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Supervisor Hansberger became a founding board member of that ground-breaking agency.

After 2 successful terms, Mr. Hansberger decided to take a hiatus from elected office and went into private business as a well-respected consultant on land management and mining issues. He remained extremely active in public service, however, serving for 3 years as Chairman on the Redlands Community Hospital's Board, as well as on the Board of Counselors of the California State University in California, the Foundation Board of the San Bernardino County Museum, the Inland Empire Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and the Capital Projects Committee of the Girl Scouts of America.

Mr. Hansberger was again elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1996, and has been at the forefront of many of the major issues faced by the county in the past 12 years. Faced with the closure of Norton Air Force Base, Supervisor Hansberger has been a leader in seeking ways to replace the 12,000 jobs lost. He served as chairman of the Inland Valley Development Authority, a joint effort of the county and cities surrounding the base. By working as a team, the communities have brought about a complete makeover of the former base into a new airport, supporting major businesses that have brought thousands of new jobs to the area.

Five years ago, San Bernardino County was confronted with an even more dire problem--millions of trees were dying around mountain communities and creating a grave fire danger for tens of thousands of residents. As the supervisor representing the area, Dennis Hansberger pushed county officials to create the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce and work with residents on an evacuation plan. The plan's effectiveness was demonstrated when nearly 50,000 residents were evacuated with no serious injury during terrible wildfires the following year. Mr. Hansberger has since led the county in cutting down more than a million trees and significantly reducing the fire danger.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, Dennis Hansberger has been a leader in improving the economy and safety for San Bernardino County residents. Please join me in thanking him for his decades of public service, and wishing the best to him and his wife Karen in all of their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us.

Madam Speaker, there is a sense of urgency in the Capitol. We all know that this urgency is real: we have seen the largest U.S. bank failure in history, the demise of century-old Wall Street firms, and a nearly total freeze of our credit system.

Everyone, Republican and Democrat, is keenly aware that our economy is in dire straits. It seems increasingly clear that unless we in Congress allow the Federal Government to take bold steps, we are facing a serious recession or worse.

Treasury Chief Henry Paulson--backed by President Bush--has laid out a plan that would commit up to $700 billion to relieve the pressure on the credit system by buying bad mortgage debts and other ``toxic assets.''

The American people are rightly furious that their tax dollars will go to ``reward'' the businesses and business people who they believe got us into this mess. Most who have called my office forcefully said ``I've paid my bills, I shouldn't have to pay their bills, too.''

Frankly, I'm furious, also. The idea of spending taxpayer dollars to prop up risky investments keeps me awake at night. It goes against all the principles I have lived by--personal responsibility, smaller government, reliance on the free market.

But we cannot afford to simply look at this as angry taxpayers who believe we should just let the greed gamblers fail. The stakes are too great for that.

Uncle Sam has been involved in controversial bailouts before. There was the bailout of Chrysler in the '80s and later of Mexico in the '90s. On the optimistic side, in both instances, the dollars delivered were repaid including interest. Thus, some suggest that as our own marketplace improves, these bailouts could very well be repaid and perhaps even lead to some profits.

Earlier this week Chairman Bernanke reminded us that Wall Street is an abstraction. The internal credit markets that allow banks to borrow money from each other are hard to understand for our constituents--and for most of us, as well. I have heard constituents--and some members-- say we shouldn't worry about the lack of credit between banks.

But the failure of our credit system has broad. implications, not only for the high rollers in Manhattan, but also for the families and small businesses of the Inland Empire.

When local business owners do not have cash today for payroll but know they will in the future, they can turn to their bank and get a short-term loan to pay their employees, stay open and help build the local economy.

When families do not have cash to buy a home or a car, they turn to their bank to get a mortgage, create wealth and help build the local economy.

When high school students do not have cash to pay for college, they turn to their bank to get a student loan. When those students graduate, they enter the workforce and help build the local economy.

When banks stop lending between themselves, they soon stop lending to everyone else and economic expansion at the local level stops. The crisis on Wall Street becomes the crisis on Main Street.

The liquidity crisis is a linchpin of the broader economic crisis facing our constituents. This crisis has already hit our seniors in retirement and those looking at retirement. Even savvy retirement age constituents who made sound investment choices are not immune to our current market downturn. Should we refuse to act swiftly, those who rely on investment income and do not have the luxury of time to wait for long-term market adjustments will have even less money for food, housing and medical needs.

In my own district and yours, we are seeing clear signs that a downturn in the financial markets impacts city and county investments and puts important public projects at risk. Can we afford to increase that risk to local growth?

There is no question that investing in the market also poses risks, but if we can reduce market uncertainty, those risks are reduced for everyone. That is the only way to protect the investments made by seniors who built our economy's foundation and localities serving our constituents.

Allowing the markets to crash and leaving Wall Street to its own devices does punish the decisionmakers who fueled this crisis. But we all know it won't stop there. Millions of Americans will suffer the consequences, even those who felt they were being careful with their retirement nest egg.

There is no question that we in Congress must move deliberately and do everything we can to reduce or eliminate the risk to taxpayer funds. And whatever action is taken by Congress, we must make certain that those who got us into this mess do not profit further from the solutions we develop.

But we cannot avoid risk. Ultimately, we must face the realization that doing nothing will cause a potential catastrophe, and the suffering won't be felt just on Wall Street. It will be on every Main Street in America.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and say farewell to Chuck Turner, a hard-working, highly valued staff member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. It is a privilege to consider Chuck a part of the extended Lewis family.

Throughout his over 30 years of service to the legislative branch, Chuck represented the highest values we in Congress want to provide: courtesy, commitment, and a dedication to public service. He has distinguished himself as a champion of this great institution, working tirelessly to ensure the Capitol stays the ``people's house'' and that it remains a beacon for motivated and service-minded young people.

Appropriations staffers have a special role in Congress, helping to ensure that our government spending meets the needs of the public and stays within our budget. At the same time, they must help us to win the support of a majority of Congress, since these spending bills must pass every year. New staff members working on Legislative Branch appropriations could always rely on Chuck's expertise, generosity, and insight. He has been an example of the very best of the Appropriations Committee and has been a staffer that colleagues and Members on both sides of the aisle could turn to.

Retirement is something to be celebrated and enjoyed. It is not the end of a career, but rather the beginning of a new adventure. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in sending our best wishes to Chuck in his retirement, and let him know that we will miss him every day and will always be grateful for all he's done for Congress and the Legislative Branch.

Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in wishing a happy 90th birthday to Connie Valanos, who has become a Capitol Hill institution as the owner of the landmark Monocle Restaurant.

Connie and Helen founded the Monocle in 1960 as a young couple. Over the years, leaders from Congress have regularly gathered at this fine restaurant to relax with their friends and colleagues. It has often been the scene of quiet discussions over legislative strategy and resolving differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Many a major problem has been solved over a meal at the Monocle. Many a friendship was made at these sessions. Politics is at its best when people solve problems by way of compromise. Connie has always known that Democrats and Republicans coming together and becoming friends leads to the best of compromise.

Madam Speaker, friends from the House of Representatives and the Senate will be gathering on his birthday October 6 to celebrate the great success of the nearly 50-year-old Capitol Hill restaurant. Please join me in wishing Connie and his entire family a great birthday and many more years of success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor John Tooker, a fine public servant who has dedicated the past 17 years to making the city of Yucaipa, California, a better place to live. After serving as city manager for all but 2 years of Yucaipa's cityhood, Mr. Tooker has announced his retirement.

A native Californian, John Tooker was bitten by the public service bug early in his life, graduating from California State University at Long Beach with a specialty in public administration. He has worked in city and county government continuously since then and, through his hard work, has helped improve many communities in California.

John Tooker came to my congressional district in 1991 as the city manager for Yucaipa, California. Since his arrival, the city of Yucaipa has always passed a balanced budget. In addition to his good fiscal housekeeping, Mr. Tooker has been instrumental in building up the parks and community recreation areas during his tenure. He negotiated the purchase of 32.5 acres for a community park site in 1996 and, in the years following, oversaw the construction of a Community Park, Community Center, City Hall and Fire Station No.3.

In addition, the Teen Center and Senior Center have been enlarged and remodeled and numerous city parks have been renovated. With the local community college, the city purchased an Olympic size swimming pool which will be placed in a beautiful new facility for the entire community. The residents of Yucaipa and their families have these great places to relax in no small part due to John's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, John Tooker and his wife are the proud grandparents of a baby grandson, Luke Jonathan Tooker, who was born last month. He will now be able to spend a lot more time with Luke. Please join me in wishing John Tooker health and happiness in his retirement and thank him for his many years of dedicated service.