Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, as you know, the continuing resolution expires at midnight tomorrow. As you also know, the other body is still in the process of considering the omnibus appropriation that we sent to them some days ago.

They are currently in the process of voting on five amendments. That will take probably another half hour. At the conclusion of that, they will be discussing whether or not they can get to two more votes to conclude their consideration of the omnibus appropriation.

There have been no amendments adopted in the Senate to the omnibus appropriation. As a result, if there are no amendments adopted and the Senate can come to a vote sometime this evening and that is assured, then it will not be necessary for us to return tomorrow. But I cannot tell you at this point in time. I'm hopeful that by 8:30 I will be able to give you a pretty definitive word on whether or not we will need to be here tomorrow.

So I wanted to bring you up to date. We will try to have it, as I say, by 8:30. If we get it earlier, we will give you that notice earlier. But I'm hopeful that by 8:30 we will be able to inform you.

We have one more vote now; but, again, if they proceed, as has been the case, and they can get an agreement on voting tonight, then it would not be necessary for us to be here tomorrow. If not, obviously we will have to be here tomorrow to assure that we do not shut down the government.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, no votes are expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is usual.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. We also possibly will consider H.R. 157, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.

With respect to the card-check bill, as the gentleman knows, we have already passed that bill with a very handy vote. We believe that that is an appropriate bill to be passed and are supportive of it. However, we have passed that bill. The Senate has indicated that they are going to consider that bill, and my expectation is that they will be doing so in the relatively near future and we will see what action they take.

I want to make it clear, if the gentleman will yield, that it is our intention to move this bill, but we are expecting the Senate to move and we will see what they have done and we will take that up in good time.

As you know, there is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle on this bill and very significant interest in the Senate to see this bill completed and sent to the President. We will continue to work together with the Republican leadership and the Senate leadership to get this bill to the President's desk as soon as possible. I have discussed this, as you know, with you and the leader, so we are hoping to bring this forward soon, possibly next week.

If the gentleman will yield, as you have stated, the President announced a plan last Friday at a meeting in the White House and then announced it publicly down at Camp Lejeune. It calls for withdrawal of our troops, to be out of Iraq in terms of a military role within 18 months. This is, I think personally, a responsible plan.

The gentleman asked me whether or not I think there will be a resolution of disapproval. I don't think there will be a resolution of disapproval. Clearly, as the gentleman well knows, there will be an authorizing bill that will come forward later this spring, there will be an appropriations bill appropriating money for the Defense Department, and obviously those two opportunities will present themselves to Members who may want to express themselves on this issue.

But as to the gentleman's question, do I expect a resolution of disapproval, I do not.

If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for his question and I understand his concern. As he says, I have expressed a concern with respect to that issue. However, having said that, I am not going to anticipate at this point in time what the Budget Committee is going to do. Clearly the Budget Committee is having hearings and the Budget Committee will be, some weeks from now, marking up a budget and bringing it to the floor.

As you know, we are very committed on this side of the aisle to PAYGO, paying our bills and trying to reduce our deficit. Clearly we have added very substantially to the deficit because of the economic crisis that confronts us, but we still feel a great responsibility to move ahead on making sure that we move towards reducing that deficit in the long term.

Clearly the President has proposed from our perspective one of the most honest budgets that we have received in the sense that it includes costs of the war, it includes costs for adjusting the alternative minimum tax, it includes the costs within its budget contemplation of fixing the doctors payments for Medicare. So in all those ways and more, this budget sets forth a responsible alternative for us to pursue. In addition, as the gentleman knows, it provides for the continuation of a tax cut for 95 percent of American families and individuals. So we think those are all very important proposals. We know that the Budget Committee will be considering that.

As the gentleman knows, both your side of the aisle and my side of the aisle will be discussing and debating that and we will be adopting a budget. I do not want to at this point in time anticipate each and every item that they may or may not include in that budget, however.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

Let me first observe that, quite obviously, we are going to provide for tax relief, as the President said in his campaign, as he's reiterated in his speech to the joint session, tax relief for 95 percent of taxpayers. We have every intention of pursuing that.

We also have every intention of having a fiscally responsible budget. We also, as the President also indicated in his speech to the joint session, will pursue vigorously energy independence and the issue of global warming.

The gentleman speaks of one of the alternatives, an alternative proposed by the President to deal with that issue in terms of cap-and- trade. The Energy and Commerce Committee will be considering that, as the gentleman knows, and I'm not going to anticipate their specific action. But I am going to say that we are committed on this side of the aisle, as I hope your side of the aisle will be as well, to very, very substantially reducing the carbon footprint that we are making in this country, and indeed, that's being made around the world, which we believe that science is pretty clear on this. And very frankly, the previous administration, which did not express that view early in its tenure, during its last year, changed somewhat its view. In any event, we want to deal with that.

And the gentleman has mentioned an alternative the President has proposed. It's an alternative supported by a large number of people, and that is before the committee. And we'll see what the committee does with it.

I thank the gentleman for his question. Of course, at the center of that question is the crisis that we confront in the economy. As the gentleman knows, he talked about, in a bipartisan way, supporting the President's policy on Iraq. As the gentleman knows, in a bipartisan way, we supported the Bush administration's request, both in January of 2008, in September of 2008, and again in December of 2008, when the President made a request for the second tranche of the TARP. I think every Member of this Congress believes that the first tranche did not work as well as we had hoped it would work.

We also, in these past 2 weeks, have passed extraordinarily quickly and robustly, consistent with the advice of the last administration and this administration, an attempt to do what the gentleman says we want to do, create jobs.

The gentleman also knows that we passed a recovery and reinvestment bill that had over $250 billion of tax relief, some for individuals and some for small businesses, some for businesses generally. About 35 percent of that bill was tax relief for our citizens. The other percentage of that bill was for investment, was for dealing with those who have been put at deepest risk by the economic crisis, in terms of losing jobs, in terms of not being able to feed their families and not having health care available to them.

So I say to my friend that, as we move forward on the budget, and as we look to the administration for the clarification that the gentleman seeks, appropriately, in my opinion, and in our opinion, a more specific outline of how the administration's going to proceed, we will have that in consideration when we produce a budget. And as I say, we intend to produce a responsible budget that looks towards deficit reduction. That obviously won't be until some time from now. We've got to turn this economy around, start creating jobs which, hopefully, will have the effect of the stock market going up, not down, which is to the interest of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago--and I know one of the Members said can we do this after votes--but some people, like Mike Sheehy we talked about the other day, have put in extraordinary weeks and months and years serving this institution and every one of us. They make this institution run in a way that accommodates not only the contention but the compromise and the action. They do so as well with a spirit that makes this a better place in which to work. As surely as each of us who are elected, they serve our country and serve it well.

I have particular honor to rise on behalf of all of us, not just the majority party. I will yield to my friend, the minority leader, the Republican leader in just a minute, but I am particularly pleased to rise because this particular person lives in my district. I've known her for a long period of time.

She has served the House of Representatives for 32 years. She must have started at 9 or 10 years of age, I think. She is the retiring clerk to the Parliamentarian. She will retire tomorrow. It will be her last day. All of you have seen her, if you don't know her. If you've seen her and talked to her, you know that she is a warm and gracious person who greets all of us of whatever party, whether we're first-year Members or, in my case, a 29th-year Member.

She will be retiring tomorrow. She lives in Upper Marlboro, and she graduated from Frederick Douglass High School, which is in my county and the county represented by my colleagues Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen.

She started working in the House of Representatives in 1977 as an official reporter where she worked until 1986. She began working for the Office of the Parliamentarian in 1987 and has worked there for 22 years.

The Office of the Parliamentarian is an absolutely critical office, nonpartisan, knowledgeable, focused on assuring that the business of the American people is done in a way that reflects fairness and reflects well on the

House as an institution. And each and every one of those who work with our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, make it a better service organization, not just for the House of Representatives but, as I said, for the American people.

Before I close, I want to yield to my friend, the Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio.

I now want to yield to a Member, senior to me, very good friend from Michigan who has served this institution so well, Congressman Kildee.

I yield to my friend.

Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. Speaker, I will close on behalf of the Speaker and myself; and I know that the Speaker, on behalf of all the House, irrespective of party, Gay, wants to thank you for the service you have given to us, the friend you have been to us, the fairness you have displayed throughout 32 years of your career, and wish you Godspeed.

Thank you very much.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, today, the House can complete its work on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. The omnibus bill we bring to the floor today is the result of collaboration between Democrats and Republicans, and today, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can vote to fund some of America's most important priorities.

We are at this point today because President Bush's last budget ignored critical investments in our country's future. It shortchanged our military families; it shortchanged police departments across America; it shortchanged our schools and teachers by $3.3 billion; and it shortchanged American workers by cutting job training and worker protections--an especially irresponsible step in a deep recession that was already underway when that budget was submitted.

This bill corrects those oversights. This is legislation designed to confront an economic crisis and geared to mesh with the job-creating recovery legislation we passed this month. It funds worthy programs including research on energy technology and efficiency; investments in healthcare access and K-12 education; new training for Americans who have lost their jobs; and more.

Mr. Speaker, it would be shameful if the families and public servants and scientists and workers on the other side of this bill are shortchanged because of a phony pet issue--a pet issue like earmarks. Railing against earmarks may be a popular partisan crusade here in Washington--but I challenge any Member of this House to go to his or her district and ask the people there if the issue of earmarks is more important than a good-paying job, more important than quality schools, more important than safe communities.

The truth is that it's Democrats, not Republicans, who have reformed the earmark process. We imposed strict accountability and disclosure rules on ourselves--so that the public can see how every dime is spent. We cut earmarks by more than 40 percent last year, and we've cut them again this year. In this bill, we have taken them down to less than 1 percent of the budget. But if someone wants to stand in the way of better schools and healthcare and jobs because they have a problem with less than 1 percent--they can be my guest, and then they can explain it to their voters.

The truth is that getting our fiscal house in order--after years of Republican neglect--is not about earmarks at all. It is going to take hard decisions and hard work. It's the work that began when President Obama called a fiscal responsibility summit at the White House, and when he spoke to us last night in this chamber, as an adult speaking to adults. That is the hard work our country demands, work without partisanship or posturing. And for that job, everyone in this chamber is needed, and welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Will the Speaker yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I have risen before to note how well this country is served by those who work for this institution and with all of us. They are not elected; they are selected. They are selected by those of us who have been given the honor and privilege of serving in this body. They are, however, equally important. They don't have a vote, but they have extraordinary influence, and their influence in many respects is in direct relation to the substance of their advice and counsel.

By that yardstick, I think there is no staff person with whom I have worked through the years that surpasses Mike Sheehy in terms of the value added to the considerations of the critical issues that confront our country.

In particular, Mr. Sheehy has been involved in some of the information most vital to protecting our people and our Nation. He has done so with great intellect, with great integrity, with great insight, with great thoughtfulness.

Mike, America does not know the name Mike Sheehy, doesn't see you on C-SPAN, but they have been extraordinarily well-served by you. Well, they may have seen him from time to time perhaps on C-SPAN. But they have been extraordinarily well-served by you. Your country has been well-served by you in the Navy and in this institution, and each and every one of us have been well-served by you. But in particular I know, as I said as we were walking to the Chamber, the Speaker of our House will uniquely miss your quiet presence, your extraordinarily good advice and counsel, and your steady hand.

Mr. Speaker, I express my gratitude to Michael Sheehy, a true public servant of the finest caliber--who leaves us at the end of the week.

Mike has spent 30 years on Capitol Hill, following five years in the Navy. That makes a grand total of 35 years in public service to the people of this great Nation.

I have known Mike personally for several years. He is a studied and cautious professional, with extremely sound judgment and an almost unparalleled depth of policy knowledge on national security issues.

Most recently, I had the pleasure of working with Mike on renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Mike proved critical to the arduous negotiations, and went above the call of duty--spending several late nights with me, in my office, poring over bill text.

He has been an asset and a loyal friend to me and my staff, certainly to Speaker Pelosi, and to the Members he served before her. He is irreplaceable and will be missed tremendously, although we wish him well in all that lies ahead.

Godspeed. Good luck. Well done.

We are coming close to the end of this debate. America and Americans are in trouble. They're hurting. Millions of our constituents are in great pain. They've lost their homes, they've lost their jobs. Their salaries are not keeping up with the costs that confront them.

And so we come here, 435 of us, and five representing the territories and the District of Columbia. We come here to act, to act on their behalf, to try to make a difference, to try to ease the pain that this economy has visited upon them.

Those of us who have been here for many years have heard this debate very often. And I tell my friends, I'm sure that had I been here in 1929 and 1930, I would have heard much the same representation.

And we were told, frankly, in the last of the 1980s, stick with us on this economic program. And it didn't work. And we were told in 2001 and 2003, stick with us on this economic program, and it didn't work.

And like the failed program of the 1920s that brought our economy so low, the failed policies of the early part of this century have brought this economy to the lowest point it has been since the policies of the late 1920s.

And so we hear the debate. We hear the debate about investing in our people. We hear the debate about trying to build up our economy, create jobs. And we hear one argument, do it our way, do it our way and you'll create those jobs. Well, my friends, we did it your way. In 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, in 2005, 2006, 2007 and in 2008. And we had the worst job performance of any administration since the late 1920s and early 1930s.

I would hope that every Member on this floor, of whatever party, of whatever ideological persuasion, would pray that this bill works; not for political purposes, because if this bill works, we will create those 3\1/2\ million jobs. Am I absolutely assured that it will? I am not. I regret that I'm not.

But the best advice and counsel that I have received over the last 5 months that we've been working on this bill, September, October, November, December, January, as we hemorrhaged jobs in this greatest economy on the face of the earth, as a million people lost their jobs over the last 60 days, as 65,000 Americans lost their jobs in 1 day 2 weeks ago. And so America expects us to act.

And none of us can guarantee that we have all the answers. But economist after economist after economist, including one of John McCain's economic advisers, says that we have to act, we have to act with speed, and we have to act substantively, and we have to act with large investment.

On the tax side, in cutting taxes, millions and millions and millions of Americans will receive a tax cut when we pass this bill and President Obama signs it. Millions and millions and millions of people will be helped as they've lost their jobs and can't put food on the table of their families, will be helped by this bill. Millions of families who know that their children are going to have to compete in a global marketplace will be able to send their children to college because of this bill. And in addition to that, we will invest billions of dollars in making sure that we are no longer subject to being held hostage by the oil barons who wish us no good will.

And so, my friends, we come pretty close to the end of this debate. And we ought to vote, not as Republicans, not as Democrats. We ought to vote recognizing the policies that we've been pursuing have not worked, demonstrably, statistically, obviously. There's no argument on that. Millions of people unemployed. Millions lost their jobs under the economic policies we've been pursuing.

And so, yes, President Obama said to the American public, we need to change. This is our moment. We need to move in a new direction. And that's what this bill does.

Some would like to stay on the same path, pursuing the same failed policies. The sign of a good person and a good legislator is to say, I moved in this direction and it didn't work, and so I'll change directions. That's what this bill does.

Every American prays that this bill will work. I think all of us pray that this bill will work. I hope that we come together, not because this bill is perfect, but because it is a substantial investment of America's money in resuscitating its economy that is causing it such great pain.

My friends, it is time for us to act. Vote for this bill to restore, to recover, to invest in a better future for all those who sent us here, hoping that we would act in their best interests and the best interest of their children, their family and their country. I believe voting ``yes'' is doing just that. And I urge my colleagues to do just that.

I thank the two gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Peters and my good friend Mr. Upton.

There is no partisanship on this floor today. There is a universal expression of respect, affection, admiration, sometimes fear, always awe. I rise to note the service of a great American, a good man, who has advantaged this House, his State, and the American people by his service.

Today, we honor a man who has sat in this Chamber for nearly a quarter of its existence. Think about it. He and his father have served longer than a quarter of the existence of this House. In so many ways, the history of this House is the history of John Dingell and his family.

His father helped create Social Security. John presided over the House, as has been noted, when we passed Medicare. In his time here, John has had his hand in everything from the Clean Air Act to the Endangered Species Act, to the just recently passed Children's Health Insurance Program.

And John Dingell sat to the right of the President of the United States as the President signed that bill, and President Obama took that first pen with which he signed that bill and turned to Chairman Dingell and gave it to him. How appropriate it was for President Obama, a young and vigorous President, whose tenure in public office is relatively short, to turn and give that pen to an individual whose term in office has exceeded now that of every other American in history.

John was here when we passed the first civil rights bill. John was here when we put a man on the Moon. He was here when the Berlin Wall and the Twin Towers fell.

So much of our institutional memory is embodied in this one giant of a man, the longest-serving Member in the history of the House--a walking, talking, Library of Congress.

One way to last this long is to keep your head down, to stay quiet and unobtrusive, to hope that no one notices you year after year. That may be one way. It was not John Dingell's way. But the other way is to make yourself so instrumental that your constituents and this body could hardly imagine life and legislation without your input, without your advice, without your counsel, without your prodding, without your expressing a vision for a better America. Everyone here knows that that is the path that our friend John Dingell took.

For more than half a century--it's been mentioned, 19,420 days--John came here, to this Chamber, every day, asking what he could do to bring a little more security, a little more dignity, a little more prosperity, to his constituents and to my constituents, and to all of our constituents, to his fellow citizens.

And he came here to this Chamber, every day, asking what he could do to advance the ideals that he has held so tenaciously and so ably and defended so passionately throughout his life and throughout his career in this body.

As Michael Barone wrote a few years ago, and I quote, ``Whether you agree or disagree, the social Democratic tradition is one of the great traditions in our history, and John Dingell has fought for it for a very long time.''

The good news for my great granddaughter is that John Dingell is still fighting for that tradition. Still fighting for her and the millions of her cohorts, very small. They will not know John Dingell personally, but all of them will benefit by John Dingell's service and passion and caring and effectiveness as a giant among the legislators of our history. He is still fighting. And he will go on fighting.

We know how much more John has to contribute to the life of this House and this Nation as he adds to his record every 24 hours, from here on out. I want to join my friend Joe Barton, who's John Dingell's friend, as is Fred Upton, his friends and his admirers join Joe Barton in saying that we look forward to John Dingell's leading us as we confront the issue of the passion of his life and of his father's life. And that is ensuring that every American has the availability of quality health care.

John Dingell will be the principal sponsor of that health bill, and our principal leader on that effort. He has much to do. As Ulysses once said, ``Tho' much is taken, much abides.''

I understand that President Clinton quoted that famous Ulysses poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson. That poem ends by saying that, ``Tho' we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.''

Tennyson did not know John Dingell, but Tennyson spoke of the character and courage and commitment of our friend, of our historic colleague, our chairman, John Dingell of Michigan.

Congratulations, and thank you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. But much more than that, I thank him for the work he does as our chairman of the Budget Committee and for the work he has done over the years as ranking member, the minority member of the Budget Committee, for being consistent and, in my opinion, accurate in his observations as to what we would reap from the fiscal policies we have sowed over the last 8 years.

We are here today, in my opinion, to be honest with the American people. They need to know that this economic crisis will not end overnight. I think the chairman has made that pretty clear. And they need to know the reasons for the deep, deep, deep fiscal hole we have inherited after 8 years of fiscal recklessness. In fact, the projected deficit for fiscal year 2009 is $1.2 trillion. That is a figure difficult to comprehend. It's a figure particularly difficult to comprehend when President Bush and his economic advisers opined that they were worried about paying off the debt too early under the Clinton policies.

One point two trillion dollars of deficits. Two factors have helped create that record-shattering number, the consistent irresponsibility of the past administration and our efforts to dig out of the economic mess he left us. It was not that long ago that you could hear on this floor heated debates about how to spend a projected $5.6 trillion, 10- year surplus created under the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Who would have thought, who would have thought then that our surplus would be wiped out by one President's borrow-and-spend foolishness by five record-setting budget deficits in 7 years?

I would remind my colleagues, who undoubtedly need no reminding, that there has been a hegemony of power, a monopoly of power, a singular control of policy over the last 8 years. Now I understand some of my Republican friends would say, well, the Democrats were installed because of the obvious need for change recognized by the American voters in 2006. They put you in charge in 2006 and 2008. That is true. But as I also point out, the President was not on the ballot, and two- thirds of the United States Senate was not on the ballot, and therefore, it was impossible to make the change that America knew was needed. They have done that now. But they have done it after a very deep hole has been dug.

While Democratic budgets were on pace to eliminate all of our public debt, today we are more indebted than ever. The national debt is now over $10 trillion from that projected $5.6 trillion of surplus. Who projected that? Not Bill Clinton. George Bush. President Bush's OMB projected that. Who told us that? President George Bush in 2001, speaking in this Chamber, told us that is the surplus that we could expect.

Tragically, that was dissipated. That $10 trillion of debt now has replaced that $5.6 trillion of anticipated surplus.

We will be paying hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on that debt that we have incurred. That's just one more way in which the Bush legacy means large structural deficits for years to come.

So what does that mean for our economy and for American families? It's easy to see a budget as nothing more than numbers on a page and it's just a short step from there to agreement with former Vice President Cheney's nostrum that deficits don't matter. In fact, he said that Ronald Reagan taught us that, that deficits didn't matter.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government pursued that policy. Unfortunately, business pursued that policy, and unfortunately, and tragically, to their harm, too many consumers followed that policy. But deficits do matter. Mr. Speaker, they matter profoundly.

Deficits and debt tie up huge amounts of capital, and when it comes to mitigating a financial emergency in the early stages, they tie our hands too.

Republican fiscal policies have also made massive borrowing seem normal and acceptable, as I said, the five largest deficits in history over the last 8 years. They've set the disastrous example that it's just as acceptable for a household as for a government to live far beyond its means. And just as surely as unchecked borrowing can pay for unsustainable luxury today, the bill will come due.

In 2006 Comptroller General David Walker told us that American irresponsibility, public and private, will gradually, and this is a quote, ``will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our standard of living and ultimately our national security.'' How true his words were.

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing to gain from pointing fingers at the last 8 years, but there is much to learn and a great deal to gain from looking back honestly at the fiscal choices we've made in the past. We learned just how much this painful legacy will complicate our efforts to confront this crisis, and we strengthen our pledge to return this Nation to budgetary sanity.

With your leadership, and with the courage on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of Capitol Hill, hopefully, we will accomplish that.

While economists agree that getting out of this recession will require deficit spending, that spending would be deeply irresponsible without a long-term plan to restore fiscal health.

I know, Mr. Chairman, you're focused on that objective. I am as well, and all the Congress needs to be, as well as the American people. Getting the budget under control is going to require hard choices, choices we're going to see reflected in President Obama's first budget, in my opinion. It will be a serious document for serious times because getting back on a sustainable fiscal path is going to take sacrifices from every one of us. But we can call confidently for those sacrifices for two reasons. First, because they will be truly shared from Members of Congress to every working family. And secondly, because if we put off our hard choices, they will grow harder and harder by the year, until they're absolutely crippling.

Last month we heard our new President declare, and I quote, ``a new era of responsibility.'' This is what it looks like. This is where we are. Let's meet it with our eyes open and make the best of it together.

Mr. Chairman, there's been much made of bipartisanship. I'm for bipartisanship. But I note, in 1990, there were really three reasons we created that $5.6 billion surplus. We made an agreement with President Bush I in 1990. In 1993 we passed a bill that set us on a fiscally responsible course, and in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we confirmed that course. Unfortunately, history shows us that we haven't had bipartisan support.

In the 1990 Budget Act, one of the key three steps that got us to that $5.6 trillion budget surplus, when we passed it through the House, there were only 10 Republican yeses, only 10. That was one of the key steps in getting us to fiscal surplus. Not one of those 10 serves in the House of Representatives today.

In 1993, of course, no Republicans voted for that bill. And in 1997, it was a bipartisan bill, which, Mr. Chairman, you and I both voted for. We then came on very hard times and we confronted the TARP bill.

Let me go back to 1993, however, when I said no Republicans voted for that bill. When it came back from conference, excuse me, there were no Republicans that voted for that bill. But in 1990, when it came back from conference there were 47 Republicans ``ayes.'' One of them remains here today.

Now, one could draw the conclusion that, well, they lost because of those votes. That would be the dead wrong conclusion. What they lost as a result of, I think, first of all, retiring, and secondly, feeling that perhaps their party was moving in a direction that they could not agree with. I hope that their party and this party comes together.

On the TARP vote that we had to meet this crisis caused by this fiscal irresponsibility, the Democratic Party stood with President Bush in making very hard votes, and the majority of us did so. The minority of his party chose not to do so.

It is time for the majority of both parties to stand with the American people and future generations to return fiscal responsibility to this Nation and to our people.

I thank the chairman for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor in a timely fashion. I'm pleased that we're going to pass this bill, we're going to send it to the President, and he's going to sign it.

Atul Gawande, a surgeon and writer on health care policy, recently described our medical system like this:

``American health care is an appallingly patched-together ship, with . . . fifteen percent of the passengers thrown over the rails just to keep it afloat.''

If you can afford health care in America, there is no better place in the world to get sick. You will be treated to the best hospitals by the most skilled doctors with the latest technology. However, if you're one of the Americans thrown overboard, if you're one of the 45 million uninsured Americans for whom even a checkup is a luxury, you might be better off in some other places in the world. Every other developed nation has figured out how to cover all of its citizens. Every one but ours.

We're here today to start fixing that. Actually, we've been fixing that in a number of ways--Medicaid, Medicare, other programs that we've adopted--to patch the holes, however, that still exist in the leaking ship to make it into a vessel capable of carrying every passenger, every American.

We can't patch every hole today, but if I could pick just one leak to stop, it would be the hold where we keep our sick children. If you asked me for the most efficient use of a single health care dollar, I would put it towards covering more children.

I don't say that out of a misplaced sentimentality; I say it because it's well-established that childhood is the most medically pivotal time of life. A child who lives through the first years without a doctor's care, without regular checkups, without immunizations, and without booster shots is in for a lifetime of health danger. That child will live sicker and die sooner. In adulthood, he or she will be a less productive worker. And in old age, he or she will help swell the costs of our entitlement programs.

That is the logic behind the final passage of this bill, which brings into the State Children's Health Insurance Program, as has been said already, four million children who are eligible but not yet enrolled.

Very frankly, as a result of the veto of the legislation we passed in the last Congress, four million children went to bed last night with their parents worried if they got sick, what were they going to do, with the alternative being the emergency room: the most expensive, and in some cases least efficient, intervention in the health care system in our country.

It does what President Bush promised to do when he ran for re- election in 2004 accepting the Republican nomination. As I've said before, President Bush said this, ``In a new term''--that meant the 2005 to the 2009 term that just expired--``In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.''

Those millions of children of which President Bush spoke will be added by this bill. President Bush failed to deliver on his promise, but today, we will redeem that commitment. Today, the objective of years of work will be substantially advanced.

With this vote, and with President Obama's immediate signature, this bill will at long last be law.

Backed by overwhelming majorities of Americans, we can pass this bill and help raise a healthier generation of Americans. That's good for our country, it's good for our economy, and it's good for the international community.

And in this recession, we can lend some vital assistance to the millions of family budgets that are stretched, literally stretched, to the breaking point and the point of letting the health care of our children be further at risk.

Madam Speaker, renewing American health care, bringing the best care in the world, which we have right here--as Dr. Gingrey knows, we have right here--bringing it to all of our people is a hugely complex job. That work, of course, does not end today, as Chairman Waxman would emphasize. But this important inclusion of more than four million of our children and the guarantee of access to health care is a victory for America's values and its health care future.

I urge my colleagues, each and every one of us, to vote for this legislation, vote for our children, vote for our families, vote for a healthier America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member, I thank the United States Senate for passing this bill.

I am proud that this is the very first bill that we passed in this House in the 111th Congress. Lilly Ledbetter is a woman of courage, leadership, and my daughters owe her a debt of gratitude.

In passing that bill, we recognized that sexism and discrimination can still cheat women out of equal pay and equal worth, a theft of livelihood and dignity that is especially damaging as families across our country struggle to pay their bills, as if somehow a single mom raising children could do it more cheaply than a single dad raising those same children.

That didn't make any sense then or now. Within my lifetime, sexism in the workplace could be blatant and unashamed, but today it does some of its worst work in secret.

We can take a stand against it by voting for final passage today. It was secret sexism that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of the thousands of dollars for years. And we repeat her story, not because it is unique and shocking, but because it's typical, typical of the experience of so many American women, indeed, women all over the world.

Ms. Ledbetter was a supervisor at a tire plant. For years she was paid less than her male coworkers, but she was paid a differential in secret. Her employer didn't tell her I am going to pay you less than I pay your male counterparts who do exactly the same work. For years, she was left in the dark, and by the time she finally saw the proof, the Supreme Court said it was too late. Ironic.

I will tell you on assault there may be in some States no statute of limitations and others there may be a statute of limitations. Essentially, what happens here, if they keep hitting you, and they keep hitting you month after month after month, it's not the last hit that counted, it's the first hit that counted. And you couldn't sue for that, what we would call, we lawyers, tortious conduct, others would call criminal conduct.

But there was no responsibility that Lilly Ledbetter could get from the employer for wrongdoing, for breaking the law. There was no dispute that the law was broken. It was simply that it was broken in secret. And so Lilly Ledbetter had to suffer in public.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though Ms. Ledbetter had suffered clear discrimination, the law had been broken. She had missed the time in which to raise the issue. How perverse, in a nation of laws, of justice, of equity, that we would say they broke the law in secret, and you didn't know it, and you couldn't find it out and, therefore, we will not redress your recognized grievance.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, not just for Lilly Ledbetter, not just for women, it's the right thing to do because our country believes in fairness, in equity, that we are a nation of laws and treat people equally under those laws. That is why it's so appropriate for us to pass this bill today and send it to the President, who will sign it proudly. All of us who vote for it and see its enactment will be proud as well.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding time, and I rise in opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

I listened to the gentlelady from North Carolina's debate, and it occurs to me that there must be real parallels in 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 and, yes, even in 1933 and 1934 as the government responded, as the American people responded to what had not been responded to during the 4 years of the Hoover administration, to try to staunch the fall of the economy, which led ultimately to 25 to 30 percent unemployment and long food lines.

I am sure we are going to be hearing rhetoric which will blame the Obama administration which has, after all, been in office for some 36 hours, for the problems that confront our country. But, in fact, no President in recent memory has inherited conditions here and around the world more difficult than this President has inherited.

The majority of President Bush's party did not support it in trying to respond to the crisis that confronts us. In fact, less than half voted for the original TARP, and, as the gentlelady from North Carolina has pointed out, she was not one of them. She did not believe that a response was appropriate, or at least that this response is not appropriate. That, I think, is a philosophically defensible position which she defends. I disagreed then and disagree now.

We, in a bipartisan way, supported the Bush administration's request for, not 350, but the $700 billion. We are the ones, however, who put constraints on that and we said you need to come back.

We are the ones who also, notwithstanding the failure of the Bush administration to request it, put, yesterday, in a bipartisan vote, additional constraints for accountability and transparency and for focusing on those folks who are at risk of losing their homes.

The gentlelady, I know, did not vote for that either. Today I think that every Member of the House is thinking back to words we said in a similar debate 4 months ago when the TARP was originally in front of us and wondering whether we can still stand by them.

Mr. Speaker, I know I can stand by mine. Here is what I said first time the TARP came to the floor, and I would remind people this was a proposal by President Bush and by Secretary Paulson, supported by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke appointed by President Bush.

The Democrats listened to the President, a Republican President, but our President of our country, and we responded, and I said this: ``Imagine that we do nothing today. Millions more homes will likely be foreclosed on. Banks would likely be unable to lend. Credit, the lifeblood of any economy, might dry up across America.''

That was my quote. We responded. We responded with a $700 billion bill, half of which has now been allocated and promised in ways different than the Bush administration originally said it was going to do it, because it saw the facts changing.

The vote on TARP was one of the most difficult any of us have taken, certainly one of the largest commitments that this country has taken. I noted that none of us, whichever way we voted, are completely happy with TARP's results so far.

However, a principal adviser to John McCain, Mr. Zandi, has opined both on this and on the stimulus package, this is necessary. It may not be desirable from a voting standpoint, but it is necessary from our country's standpoint, from our economy's standpoint, the worst we have seen since the Hoover administration.

I stand by my words, because I remain convinced that inaction would have been far more dangerous and far more costly. Since the House took that unpopular vote, the flow of necessary lending has begun to resume, not fast enough.

It was not in a way that has staunched the loss of jobs. But every economist that I talked to, from Marty Feldstein, conservative economist, Republican economist; to Larry Summers; Paul Volcker in the current administration, much more work will be needed before our economy has recovered. But restoring credit is an essential step toward that goal. That is why both President Bush and President Obama agreed that this action was necessary.

I don't want to be deluded by the fact, and I don't want any American deluded by the fact, that President Bush would have asked for this simply because President Obama asked for it. After all, he could have easily replied, very frankly, You're going to be in office pretty soon. You can ask for it.

No. President Bush felt that this was a critical item to move forward as quickly as possible. Why? Because Secretary Paulson, his principal financial advisor; Ben Bernanke, his appointment to the Federal Reserve chairmanship, all believed it was necessary to move. That is why we must vote down this disapproval resolution and release the remaining $350 billion.

Now, our American public, our constituents, may be confused because this action will not mean anything. Why will it not mean anything? Because the Senate has already acted. And the Senate has acted in a bipartisan vote to defeat a motion for disapproval because the majority in the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, concluded that it was necessary. Not that it was desirable, but that it was necessary.

None of us want to be in this position, but we owe it to the American public and to our economy and to our families to have the courage of doing that which is not desirable but that which is certainly necessary.

It should strengthen our confidence to know that President Obama has learned from the mistakes that were made during the Bush administration in administering this sum of money. That is not a criticism. Mistakes are made. But we can learn from those mistakes, and we will learn from those mistakes.

As the new President promised, ``We are going to fundamentally change some of the practices in using this next

phase of the program.'' We voted to do that yesterday, as well. That means finally fighting the wave of foreclosures at the source of this crisis. It means tracking how TARP funds are spent and assuring that banks are using them for the intended purposes. It means stronger oversight from Congress and detailed reports from the recipients of taxpayers' money. And it means guaranteeing that taxpayers are not subsidizing million-dollar Park Avenue apartments for CEOs.

The TARP Reform and Accountability Act set all of those conditions, and I congratulate Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing that to the floor, and congratulate my colleagues for passing it. President Obama has made it clear that he will hold to those principles.

I understand before I got on the floor that the gentlelady observed that that bill may not be passed by the Senate. Therefore, why should we have passed it? One could respond with equal, I think, intellectual honesty. The Senate's already acted. Why should we now act? I think the response would be because we have a responsibility to state our opinion on an issue of great importance.

I am almost finished, and I will yield to you as soon as I'm finished.

That is the diligence we would expect from any lender--and how much more so when the source of the funds is the American taxpayer, when the principal runs in 12 digits and when the stakes are so high.

That is why we acted yesterday. I am hopeful the Senate will act as well, but I am even more hopeful that President Obama will follow the principles incorporated in yesterday's legislation.

With TARP funds already beginning to take effect, and with these new safeguards in place, I ask my colleagues to release the remaining funds.

Votes like these are never easy, and I understand we can rationalize that our vote will have no effect, whether we approve or disapprove the resolution of disapproval. But we need to stand with, frankly, President Bush and President Obama, two leaders elected by our country, in different elections, who have both said to us, This program may not be something we want to do, but it is something that we must do.

And, because of that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution of disapproval.

I am pleased to yield to my friend, the gentlelady from North Carolina.

The gentlelady is absolutely correct, and of course that provision was included by Chairman Frank in the original legislation, and it was included by Chairman Frank so that we would have this opportunity to make a second judgment.

My proposition is simply that given the necessity of this action, that our judgment ought to be the same as it was before.

I would be glad to yield to the gentlelady for a second question.

Reclaiming my time, I know the gentlelady voted against yesterday's bill. But in response to the gentlelady's question, it's certainly my intent as the majority leader, dealing with the majority leader in the Senate, to urge him to take up the bill, to pass the bill, and it will be my recommendation to President Obama that he sign the bill, because I believe it is a bill which responds to the concerns of the American public regarding the accountability for their money, transparency in how it is spent, and a focus on some of the issues on Main Street that were, frankly, not addressed by the previous TARP money.

So, for all of those reasons, I am hopeful the Senate will pass it, I am hopeful the President will sign it, I am hopeful that it will be law. But, as I said earlier, the good news from my perspective is that in discussions, as I understand it, with Mr. Frank, and I'll yield to him in just a second, that the administration has indicated that even if the Senate doesn't pass it, they intend to focus on those, I think, very important and salutary requirements in Mr. Frank's bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, and I want to close.

I would be pleased to yield to the gentlelady for one more question, then I want to close, because I know Mr. Pence wants an opportunity to say the majority leader is wrong.

Reclaiming my time, I do, however, tell the gentlelady in the kindest terms possible that I find it somewhat ironic that she is so interested in that bill being signed, so there will be accountability, but yesterday she voted against it. I find that somewhat ironic.

But, in any event, in answer to your question, I think we have learned that we needed greater accountability. Very frankly, we thought the Bush administration would exercise more accountability and oversight. We provided, as I am sure you know, significant oversight. Now you call it after sight, and that may be an apt term to it, but we provided significant oversight, including the GAO, which has said it was not done as well as it should have been done, which led to Mr. Frank's legislation, which was on the floor yesterday. So we think that was very positive.

In closing, I appreciate the gentlelady saying this was the appropriate thing to bring to the floor. We provided legislation that would be brought to the floor. It is here.

I would, in closing, urge all of the Members, notwithstanding the fact that it's on the floor, notwithstanding that their vote will be of no effect. I understand it will be a statement to our constituents where we stand on the issue. And this is an unpopular program. But, across the board, liberal and conservative economists, the Secretary of the Treasury, present and future, President Bush and President Obama, have both concluded that if we are to meet the economic crisis that confronts us, moving forward with the additional second phase of TARP is essential.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion of disapproval.

I thank my friend for yielding. I'm glad I am here for him to yield to.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday and Friday, no votes are expected due to the House Republican Issues Conference.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

We also expect to consider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We anticipate as well the Senate taking action on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And if they do, our hope is to consider the legislation as early as next week.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First let me say I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Clearly we have come into this Congress with an economy in crisis. That economy, very frankly, was not affected by anything the Democrats did over the last 2 years because, on economic policy, of course, we couldn't pass anything either through the Senate or over the President's veto. So the economic crisis that confronts us we believe is the result of 8 years of, in some respects fiscal irresponsibility and economic irresponsibility, and taking the referees off the field and with no regulation I tell my friend.

Having said that, I continue to believe the gentleman's point is a good point, a point with which I agree. It is my hope that the committee markups will be completed tonight, maybe early this morning. As you know, the Appropriations Committee yesterday had a full markup, adopted six Republican amendments and a number of Democratic amendments. I don't know what the amendment status is in Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means, but I expect all those markups to be completed late tonight. It is my hope that once those markups are complete, that by tomorrow night we will post the results on the Web and that they will be available not 48 hours, but either Friday night or Saturday so that we will have 4 days to review those items.

But I want to reiterate my hope and my expectation, to state it even more strongly, that you and the minority Members, the country, and the majority Members will have 48 hours to review the product that is reported out of the committee after their markups.

Will the gentleman yield?

My expectation is it will be Wednesday.

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, a very large portion of this bill will be tax cuts. Almost half of this bill is going to be tax cuts for working Americans and for business. As the gentleman knows as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, rarely, if ever, I'm not sure that I can remember a Ways and Means tax bill that came to the floor as an open rule, which is what the gentleman suggests. So you would be shocked if I said, yes, that's the way the bill is going to come to the floor because your bills never come to the floor that way, whether they're Democratic Chairs or Republican Chairs.

So my expectation is it will not come as an open rule, but I do not want to prescribe right now exactly--I have not talked to the Chair of the Rules Committee nor have the markups been complete, so I don't want to prejudge what the rule will be. But I certainly understand the gentleman's proposition that you would like alternatives considered, perhaps not to the tax provision. I don't know your particular position. I do know the position of the Republican leadership of the Ways and Means Committee historically and the Democratic leadership of the Ways and Means Committee historically. There has been bipartisan agreement that once a tax bill is forged, amending it on the floor becomes very complicated and very risky.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm not sure that President Obama has requested specifically what you suggest he requested. He did say that he wanted a very significant portion of this bill to be tax cuts for working Americans. He promised that in his campaign. He promised that he was going to give 95 percent of taxpayers in America a tax cut. This bill will do that. And I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I think probably between 30 and 40 percent. You're correct in that approximate range.

I think, as I have said before and maybe being redundant, as you know, and you're a member of the Ways and Means Committee, we appropriators sometimes felt constrained by this rule that your committee had, but, nevertheless, your committee has generally felt that tax provisions are very complicated and need to be worked on carefully and, once proposed, should be voted either up or down.

I don't think that your representation that President Obama's saying that it ought to be amended on the floor is necessarily accurate, I tell my friend. But he does want and we will have and you will have the opportunity and every Member of this House will have an opportunity to vote for a tax cut for 95 percent of the taxpaying public. Not only in terms of individuals but also significant tax cuts for those in business to try to make sure that they can be more successful, that they can have an increased investment tax credit, and that they can have a look-back provision for applying to profits they made in the past, significant losses that are occurring now. The reason for that, obviously, is to try to keep them in business, keep those jobs able to remain with those businesses. So I can tell the gentleman that he's going to have a very significant tax cut for the American taxpaying public to vote for or against.

That is correct.

Essentially, if I might clarify for our Members and their constituents, obviously the vote today was symbolic and everybody knew it was symbolic. Symbolic to the extent that the Senate voted last week, as the gentleman pointed out, to defeat a resolution of disapproval. Under the statute that was passed by this House and Senate and signed by President Bush, the process is that those funds are now available for expenditure because the House and Senate did not pass resolutions of disapproval. Very frankly, President Bush had indicated, if we had done this earlier, he would have probably vetoed such a resolution.

I want to say to my friend that, in a bipartisan way, President Bush sent this request to the Congress. He indicated he sent it to the Congress at the request of President Obama. They both agreed that this request was necessary. So our two leaders, elected in 2000, 2004, and 2008, have said that given the crisis that confronts us, they believe that this money is absolutely essential if they are to have the ability to stabilize the economy. Secretary Paulson believed that was necessary, who was the Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush. Secretary Geithner, who was just confirmed by the Senate, has said he believes that is necessary.

So I say to my friend that the legislation passed, signed by President Bush, provided for a process which said that if either House voted against a motion for disapproval, the money would go forward. And as the gentleman has pointed out, in light of the Senate action, the money will, in fact, be available to President Obama and Secretary Geithner to try to continue to stabilize this economy, which is in such crisis.

I would hope they would. I voted for it. I believe that they were a response to what we have seen is a lack of transparency, a lack of as much accountability as the taxpayer has the right to expect, and also the failure of the TARP funds already approved to help average people around this country who are faced with losing their homes, having their mortgages foreclosed on. The legislation that we passed yesterday, in a bipartisan vote, as you know, was legislation which said we ought to have greater accountability, greater transparency so the American public knows how their money is being spent and also that we need to have a greater focus on Main Street, not exclusively on Wall Street. I think the American public are for that legislation. I would hope the Senate would pass it.

Very frankly, I will tell my friend one of the problems that it has in the Senate is that there is a large number of Members in your party, I believe, who are not for money being diverted to mortgage relief. I disagree with that as a policy, but the issue is whether they can get 60 votes to take it up. I tell the gentleman I'm hopeful that they will.

In addition, as I said on this floor in response to Congresswoman Foxx, it is my understanding that Chairman Frank and President Obama have had discussions and that President Obama believes that conditions and transparency and focus on helping people whose mortgages are at risk is something that his administration is going to follow whether or not that legislation is passed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.