Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the first session of the 111th Congress:

(1) on legislative days of Monday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 10, the House shall convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise established by the resolution solely for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate; and

(2) on legislative days of Tuesday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 10:

(A) before May 18, 2009, the House will convene for morning-hour debate 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise established by that resolution; and

(B) after May 18, 2009, the House shall convene for morning-hour debate 1 hour earlier than the time otherwise established by that resolution; and

(3) on legislative days of Monday or Tuesday, when the House convenes for morning-hour debate pursuant to an order other than House Resolution 10, the House shall resume its session 90 minutes after the time otherwise established by that order;

(4) the time for morning-hour debate shall be limited to the 30 minutes allocated to each party, except that on Tuesdays after May 18, 2009, the time shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party and may not continue beyond 10 minutes before the hour appointed for the resumption of the session of the House; and

(5) the form of proceeding for morning-hour debate shall be as follows:

(a) the prayer by the Chaplain, the approval of the Journal and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag shall be postponed until resumption of the session of the House;

(b) initial and subsequent recognitions for debate shall alternate between the parties;

(c) recognition shall be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant to lists submitted by the majority leader and by the minority leader;

(d) no Member may address the House for longer than 5 minutes, except the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip; and

(e) following morning-hour debate, the Chair shall declare a recess pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I until the time appointed for the resumption of the session of the House.

Madam Speaker, your committee appointed on the part of the House to join a like committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each House has been assembled and is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make has performed that duty.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Democrats were elected to the majority with a pledge that under our leadership the House would dedicate itself to integrity and accountability. We believe we kept that promise.

Today, gifts from lobbyists are banned, the use of corporate jets is prohibited, the earmark process is transparent, all House employees are trained in ethics, and an independent Office of Congressional Ethics has been established.

But we also understand that holding this House to high standards is not simply the work of one session or one resolution or, indeed, one Congress. It is a project for all of us to renew year after year. I would like to touch on some of the most important new standards for the 111th Congress: a new rules package that will ensure that the House does the people's work ethically and efficiently.

First, we understand that ``revolving door'' between the public and private sectors can compromise the independence of judgment that voters want and deserve. That is why these new rules will prevent ``lame duck'' Members from negotiating employment contracts in secret before their terms expire.

Secondly, the rules will no longer set term limits for committee Chairs. I understand that our Republican colleagues once wrote term limits into the rules in an effort against the entrenched power. But it is now clear that that effort fell victim to what conservatives like to call the law of unintended consequences.

With chairmanships up for grabs so frequently, fundraising ability became one of the most important for job qualification, and legislative skill was sacrificed to political considerations.

Third, these rules limit the abuse of motions to recommit. We invite good-faith efforts to improve legislation. And in these hard times, we need the Republican Party to be constructive partners in policy making. We welcome it. But we all understand which motions are not offered in good faith. Those are the motions that attempt to kill bills through parliamentary tricks and waste our constituents' time on ``gotcha'' politics.

Fourth, we are continuing our work to reform earmarks, removing loopholes that allow Members to make some earmarks in secret.

Fifth and finally, these rules confirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

A binge of borrowing has weakened our economy, tied our hands in a financial crisis, and saddled our children and grandchildren with $9 trillion in foreign-owned debt. That recklessness must end, and these rules will help end it.

Mr. Speaker, these rules embody our vision for the House as an institution: a place that debates constructively, spends wisely, and lives in the actions of all its Members and all its staff by a standard we can be proud of.

That is our vision for this House, and I urge my colleagues to adopt these rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be controlled by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman Slaughter.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of chairing a subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee many years ago, and Rob Nabors was my staff director, so I had an opportunity to work with him firsthand. And I want to echo the comments of Mr. Obey and, I know, the comments that Mr. Lewis will make.

Mr. Nabors is an individual of great intellect, great integrity, and great insight. And I want to frankly express on behalf of the House our appreciation to the President-elect for having the wisdom to choose somebody who knows the House so well and I think we will be able to work with very closely, although my impression is that his relationship with Mr. Obey may be modified just slightly.

Rob, congratulations to you.

In this time of economic crisis--as America is challenged, as economists tell us that we are facing the worst recession since the Great Depression--I want to say to Barney Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, that nobody has worked harder over the last 12 months with Secretary Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Chris Dodd, Spencer Bachus, and with others in the Senate and in the House to try to address this issue in a responsible, effective way.

There is nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, who wants to see this economy go down further. There is nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, who wants to see people losing jobs. There is nobody in this body who wants to see the 401(k) plans of our senior citizens who are relying on those plans for their retirement to have it eroded by further reduction in its value.

Lyndon Johnson once said, ``It's not difficult to do the right thing. It's difficult to know what the right thing is.'' And that is, of course, what this debate is about, what is the right thing.

I think it would be a fair statement that there will be really nobody who votes on this bill who will say this is absolutely right or this is absolutely wrong. There will be many of us who will vote, however, in a belief that this is a further effort to try to staunch the extraordinarily rapid fall that this economy has seen over the last 12 months.

This bill is designed to give the automakers the time and space they need to become a competitive job-creating industry once again. Why? Because we need them. We need their industrial capacity; we need them, frankly, psychologically; and we need them in terms of the employment they give, the profits they make, and the quality of product they provide.

It is designed, this bill, to do so while protecting taxpayer dollars. Does it do so absolutely? No, it does not. But it has made very substantial efforts to put us in the best position possible. Reconciling the goals of saving these companies for the welfare of our country and protecting our taxpayers has taken long negotiations and compromise on both sides, but I'm convinced we've come to a sound solution.

These rescue loans are necessary--not to reward bad decision making in Detroit, but to protect 3 million American jobs, 3 million livelihoods, 3 million families who depend on the automakers; not only their direct employees, but the workers, their suppliers, the small businesses--as the gentleman from Texas referenced--that serve those workers and entire communities.

Are we really willing to put those workers at risk in this deep recession? 533,000 jobs lost this year last month, 533,000 last month. Let me give you a comparison. During the last year of the last administration in 2000, we gained over 1\1/2\ million jobs. This year, we've lost over 1\1/2\ million jobs. That's a 3 million job turnaround in the two 8-year interfacing periods.

That's why people in America are hurting. We cannot take the risk of

having a million-month lost jobs. We're not willing to put those workers at risk in this deep recession.

As John Judis put it recently in the New Republic, without public loans, ``the industry will disappear the way the American television manufacturing industry disappeared. American workers and engineers will lose their ability to compete in a major durable goods industry.'' We cannot afford to have that happen.

The gentleman from Texas said that we don't want that to happen. The gentleman from Massachusetts says we don't want that to happen. We are trying to figure out how we ensure the objective that both of those gentlemen believe is appropriate.

That is the motive behind the $15 billion in emergency bridge loans for the car companies. But it is equally important to ensure that those loans lead to real reform to ensure that we do not find ourselves right back in this same emergency in just a few months' time. All 435 agree that that is not an objective or a result we want to see.

Congress has insisted that the automakers develop detailed plans for long-term viability. I'm pleased that we were able to work with the administration. It has been criticized, but the administration and the President, others in the administration with whom I have talked, believe that making sure that this industry has the ability to continue is critical to the welfare of this Nation--not just to this industry but of this Nation.

The viability plans that we are requiring were presented to Congress on December 2, and we've examined them in detail. Now, this bill will hold the automakers to their promises. They will be accountable to Congress and the administration as well as an administration-appointed ``car czar'' who will oversee the efforts of the industry and its stakeholders to cut costs, restructure debt, and renegotiate labor contracts. They will not be running the car companies, as they should not be, but they will be overseeing and ensuring that the car companies carry out the promises that they have made to us and to the taxpayers.

Just like any other lender, the Federal Government is insisting that the recipients of its loans be on a plausible path to profitability. If the automakers stick to their plans for viability, more assistance, of course, may be possible. But if the administration-appointed official finds that they have not made adequate progress on restructuring by March 31, the loans will be called, and the automakers will be a step closer to bankruptcy.

The automakers and most of the people with whom I've talked, liberal economists, conservative economists, Republicans and Democrats, believe that bankruptcy is not the option. There are some who believe that's the option, but most I have talked to do not.

This bill, of course, also includes safeguards for the taxpayers, as I said. It lets the American people profit if and when the value of the car companies recovers, as surely all of us hope it will. And it guarantees that taxpayer money will not fund lavish executive bonuses or golden parachutes.

Mr. Speaker, if we act today, we can seize the chance for an American auto industry that is leaner, greener, and once more competitive.

But ladies and gentlemen of this House, if we do nothing, we face the risk that sometime soon there will be no American auto industry. That will not be good for our national security, it will not be good for our economic security, it will not be good for the psychology of our country.

So Mr. Speaker, I urge us, as I urged before when we acted to try to free up credit to prop up the financial industries--so critical to the success of every industry, of every consumer, of every household--to act not as Democrats, not as Republicans. I believe this will be a bipartisan bill. There will be Republicans who vote for this bill and Democrats who will vote for this bill.

The administration has worked hard with us. We've worked hard with them to come to agreement. There may be some items that are still not in agreement. But the overwhelming objective of this bill and the result of this bill is agreed to between the administration and ourselves.

This bill has the power to protect innumerable American jobs, and its strong safeguards will ensure that we are authorizing anything but a bridge loan to nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this legislation, and in closing, again thank Barney Frank, Spencer Bachus, and all of the others in the House on both sides, proponents and opponents, who have worked on this bill conscientiously to try to respond to a crisis that confronts our country and that the American public is asking us to help them solve to make their lives better, to bring our country back.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker and Members of this House, I said that last Monday would be a day of consequence. It was a day of consequence. We have been criticized as a body for not deciding affirmatively on Monday. What we did decide, however, was that initial failure should not stand because the crisis confronting our country was too great. And Republicans and Democrats together, administration and Congress, chairman and ranking member, each individual Member decided that failure was not an option.

On Monday, the dividing line in this House was not between parties-- it was between those who believed the dangers of doing nothing outweighed their

reservation about Monday's bill and those who had yet to be convinced.

Since then, I believe that the number of the convinced that this action is essential has grown. Some were convinced when a vote in the Chamber led to the evaporation of $1.2 trillion of wealth in about 120 seconds; some were convinced when they heard that America lost another 159,00 jobs last month making a total of lost jobs this year of 760,000 jobs. In a similar period 8 years ago, we had gained 1.5 million jobs-- a net turnaround of over 2.2 million jobs.

Americans are in trouble. They're expecting us to act.

Some were convinced by the stories like this one from a small town car dealer in Utah. He said this: ``I'm not going to be able to pay my employees next week. I can't get the kind of credit line from the bank that I have had through my entire career unless you do something.''

This bill outreaches not only to minorities but to small businesses as well. And I thank the gentlelady from California for her focus on that issue and Mr. Bachus for his focus on that issue.

What happens on Wall Street is bound up with the jobs of millions on Main Street, and the retirement of millions on Main Street, and the homes of millions in hometown America, and dreams of millions of our fellow Americans.

If disaster strikes those few square miles in Manhattan, it will surely spread until every one of those jobs and retirements and homes and dreams are put at great risk.

This week I've heard from the Prime Ministers of Australia and Japan who are telling us that their people are bracing themselves, worried that America will not rise to the occasion. I am proud to be a Member of this House, and when challenged, I believe this House rises to its responsibilities and I believe it will do so today.

We sing the praises of American leadership, and today, I think we will deserve that praise. This is the responsibility that comes with our duty as Representatives in the people's House. For all of those reasons, this bill is essential.

So many of us have improved the administration's plan, Republicans and Democrats, working together, which came to us as a mere three-page bill, giving essentially a $700 billion blank check to the administration. Republicans and Democrats knew as one that that could not stand.

The heart of the bill remains a plan for the government to buy up bad financial assets, restoring the flow of credit so essential to the growth and maintenance of our economy.

But we fought to ensure that taxpayers will be the first to profit if and when those assets rise again in value, making the true price tag of this bill far, far less than $700 billion.

In fact, Warren Buffett, one of the most successful investors in the history of America, has said this, ``If they do it right, and I think they'll do it reasonably right''--his expectation is that we will do it reasonably right--he said, if we do that, we'll make a lot of money, we being the taxpayers of America.

So we have the opportunity not only to save our economy, to save those dreams of our fellow citizens, but also to make some profit.

In addition, we made sure the financial community will be obligated to pay the taxpayers back for their loan.

We restricted executive compensation because CEOs whose recklessness helped bring on this crisis should not receive taxpayer-subsidized golden parachutes or extraordinary salaries.

We are subjecting the Treasury Secretary's decisions to strong oversight. Republicans and Democrats together agreed that that should be done.

Finally, we will help homeowners renegotiate their mortgages to prevent a further flood of 2 million projected foreclosures. That's what this bill is about. That is the action we are asked to take today.

On Wednesday, the Senate raised Federal insurance of bank accounts from $100,000 to $250,000, and also chose to add several tax cuts. I personally believe that raising the FDIC can be argued on both sides of the question, but certainly, it ought to stabilize our local banks. However, as all of you know, I strongly disagree with adding those tax provisions because the Senate has chosen to finance them with debt.

This crisis is making it painfully clear the dangers of fiscal recklessness and that debt does indeed matter. A lesson, in my opinion, the Senate has ignored.

But an emergency like this calls for the courage to compromise. On Monday, Chairman Frank said, ``If we aren't prepared to accept some of the things we don't like, we will not have the power to deliver for the people we care about.'' The chairman was absolutely right. For me, those people are families unable to take out a loan to buy an appliance or pay for college. They are Americans who have worked their whole lives only to see their retirement accounts threatened. They are the millions of workers fearing a pink slip they did nothing to earn. For their sake, for their sake, we must act.

I urge all of us to pass this legislation. I urge all of us to vote for this legislation. I know there will be some who will not vote for this legislation. I want them to know that I respect their judgment. We have a difference of opinion.

On Monday, America was deeply divided, and their representative body, not surprisingly, was deeply divided. In the last 4 days, Americans in small towns, on farms, in urban areas and suburban areas have reflected upon the consequences of inaction, and while they have not come to the universal thought that we ought to pass this bill, they have told us in the strongest terms we expect the people's House to act in a way that they think best to save our economy, to protect our dreams, to make America whole again.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we swore an oath to protect this country, to protect our Constitution, and protect our people.

Most days in the House of Representatives, we make judgments. Those judgments are between what we think are good and better and perhaps bad. Most days are not like today. This is a day of consequence for the American people. This is a day of consequence to our country. This is a day when the Democratic leader, myself, rises to follow the Republican leader, and they speak with one voice as America faces crisis. That's what Americans want us to do.

I congratulate Mr. Boehner for his courage and for his leadership. And I congratulate my good friend Roy Blunt, with whom I have worked on issue after issue to try to bring us together, not on behalf of Republicans or Democrats but on behalf of our people.

Why should taxpayers lend out their own money to solve a crisis brought on by someone else's greed? Because when it comes to our economy, none of us, none of us is an island. We are all bound together in boom or bust, in growth or collapse, from the bankers on Wall Street to the smallest rural community that we represent.

Imagine, my colleagues, that we do nothing. A million 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 means families unable to take out a loan to buy an appliance when their washing machine or refrigerator breaks, or send a child to college. It means retirement savings devastated. It means businesses shrinking all over America unable to meet their payrolls, and jobs lost and families at risk. That's what Mr. Boehner said and that's what I say. That's what Mr. Paulson has said. That's what Mr. McCain has said. That's what Mr. Obama has said. America faces a crisis, and Americans call out for us to come together to confront that crisis on their behalf.

It means workers losing their jobs on top of the more than 600,000 that we have lost this year. The meltdown would begin, it is true, in a few square miles in Manhattan. But before it was over, all of us know no city or town in America would be untouched.

With this bipartisan rescue plan, I am hopeful, every one of us in this body is hopeful, the President of the United States is hopeful, and I know that every American that we have the honor and privilege of representing hopes that we will prevent the worst-case scenario.

Under a plan put forward by President Bush, the government would purchase the bad assets clogging up our financial system, with the goal of restoring the flow of necessary lending and credit.

The original plan gave unchecked power to the Secretary of the Treasury to spend $700 billion as he saw fit. We, who represent the American public, who will be at risk, we hope they will not lose and we think they may not, but we said, no, we cannot do that. Our responsibility is to ensure transparency and oversight so that we know how their money is being spent and can ensure to the extent possible that it is spent in as honest and as effective fashion as we can effect. We made clear that this Congress does not write blank checks.

Both Chambers and both parties negotiated around the clock. I especially want to thank my colleague, as I have before, my friend Minority Whip Roy Blunt. Roy Blunt came to the table, and everybody that has been at that table has said Roy Blunt represented the American public at that table, as Barney Frank represented the American public at that table.

We've made significant improvement to the President's plan. First, we fought to add provisions ensuring that if and when financial institutions helped by this rescue begin to grow again, taxpayers will be the first to share in their profits; so even though this bill authorizes a total of $700 billion, as Mr. Spratt pointed out earlier today, the Congressional Budget Office does not believe that it will be anywhere near that price tag.

Some of you have heard me say that I was sworn in to the Maryland State Senate in January of 1967. On that same day in my State, Spiro T. Agnew was sworn in as Governor of the State of Maryland. And in his inaugural address, he said to all of us that the cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress. I think that is what is at stake here today, that the cost of our failure will far exceed the price of the progress we try to effect in this bill.

Secondly, we added a repayment clause originally championed by Congressman Tanner. And after 5 years the administration will have to tell us the true net cost to taxpayers and submit a plan laying out how Wall Street and financial institutions will pay back the taxpayer. While the final provision we negotiated with Republicans is not as strong as either of us would have liked, it is a step in the direction that both of us sought.

Thirdly, this bill restricts the compensation of executives. We ought not ask taxpayers to take a risk and advantage people who are making millions either as they work or as they leave successful or failed institutions.

Fourth, the Treasury Secretary's decisions will be subject to oversight and judicial review.

Finally, we will help homeowners change the terms of their mortgages to forestall the 2 million projected foreclosures that could further cripple our economy and devastate our neighborhoods. I know that it is not as good as some would like, but the alternative is nothing, and that is not acceptable.

We have ensured that this bill will not reward Wall Street for bad risks. Instead, it will keep local banks open. It will protect retirement accounts. It will help families get the credit they need. It will help small businesses stay alive and hiring.

But we must also reform our financial sector to safeguard against another collapse like this, and we will do so. Fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory neglect were at the core of this crisis. We must and we will investigate just how that failure occurred. And we will strengthen regulation and put economic referees back on the field. Responsible oversight must return to Wall Street.

Today, though, today, we are doing our best to forestall what Secretary

Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke are predicting would be a disaster.

I opened by saying America was in crisis and that this was a day of consequence for our country. They have sent us here to respond. Today, this is not a Republican House or a Democratic House. It is the People's House. And the people, by an overwhelming majority, have asked us to act. They have not said act on this bill in this way because, like us, they're not sure. But what they do know is that inaction is not an option, that inaction will result in greater pain for our people and for our country.

So I rise with my friend John Boehner and my friend Roy Blunt and with Speaker Pelosi and with President Bush and with John McCain and with Barak Obama and say this day of consequence, let us meet the challenge, let us act, let us confront this crisis, let us be the best of the people's House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent and good friend Mayor Gerald Donovan who will soon be retiring after 32 dedicated years in elected in elected office in the Town of Chesapeake Beach, MD.

Gerald Donovan comes from a long line of public servants and the importance of serving one's community was instilled in him at a young age. His grandfather, Wesley Stinnett was mayor of Chesapeake Beach from 1956 to 1963. After his grandfather passed away, Donovan's father served out his term. In 1976, Gerald was elected to the town council and, after 7 years of service, Donovan followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather and became mayor in 1983.

Under Mayor Donovan's leadership, Chesapeake Beach has thrived-- becoming a vibrant small town that has witnessed an improved quality of life and an increased sense of community. Mayor Donovan has worked to make the small town a great place to stay and visit. His tenure has seen the addition of a water park, beach trolleys, new housing, and a beautification initiative, all of which have won him grateful neighbors and constituents. New development has been matched with an updated infrastructure with everything from a boardwalk and new sidewalks to a new, clean wastewater treatment system.

Given the town's location on the Chesapeake Bay, it is unfortunately often in the path of potentially destructive weather events. In recent years it has been impacted by several hurricanes and a tornado. In every case, Mayor Donovan has stood ready to tackle cleanup and lend a hand to neighbors and businesses touched by disaster.

Mayor Donovan has managed to carry through initiatives that have a tangible positive effect on the daily lives of his constituents, raising overall revenue for the town. He has demonstrated what is possible with ingenuity, managing to leave a town surplus of over 50 percent of the town's overall annual budget.

Despite announcing his retirement, Mayor Donovan continues to look to the future, recently announcing that he is moving forward in an attempt to remove Chesapeake Beach from dependence on the grid and tap into wind and solar power as renewable, money-saving energy sources for the town.

Madam Speaker, Gerald Donovan's service to the Chesapeake Beach community goes beyond his duties as its mayor. He also contributed to the development of Chesapeake Beach through charity and enterprise.

With his brother Fred, Mayor Donovan co-owns the Rod 'N' Reel Restaurant, a popular meeting place and a great place to have a seafood dinner. For over 25 years, the restaurant has hosted the Celebration of Life Cancer Gala, an event created to honor the life of Gerald's father. The annual gala attracts an average of 1,500 people, raises more money for the American Cancer Society than any other event in all the State of Maryland. Not only that, but in his true devotion to the State, 60 percent of the funds raised goes to support research initiatives taking place in Maryland.

Madam Speaker, Mayor Gerald Donovan has made a tremendous mark on the community of Chesapeake Beach and the State of Maryland. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding him on his many accomplishments and wishing him the best as he ends his career as an elected official.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as for the schedule for the balance of the day, I have had discussions with the minority. Mr. Arcuri will be offering the rule on the energy extender bill. We will not vote on the rule tonight. There will be no further votes tonight. After discussion with the Republican side of the aisle, we have agreed, and we will do a unanimous consent, but we will be coming in at 8 a.m. tomorrow.

The reason for coming in at 8 a.m. tomorrow, as I think all of you know, is that the Jewish holidays start at sundown tomorrow night. To accommodate, therefore, our Members getting to their homes to be with their families, it is necessary for us to complete our business by, hopefully, no later than 12:30. Therefore, we will be coming in an hour early. We haven't discussed this, but hopefully, perhaps, we could dispense with 1-minutes as well so we can get right to the business at hand if that's possible. We will try to get all Members out of here by 12:30 so that we can observe the holidays for our Jewish colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we hear these debates and they sound so simple on both sides. The public must be very confused. They want low taxes. And the gentleman from Texas talks about putting taxes down. The problem the gentleman from Texas has is he is a member of a party that has controlled this country's government at the Federal level for almost a decade. The President has a veto pen, and he has not allowed any spending that he didn't like.

The problem, of course, is for a decade their premise has been that they can spend money, and they spent money at twice the rate that was spent under the Clinton administration for 8 years. Spending. But they didn't pay for what they bought, because they call that taxes. And they are correct. If you buy things and you pay for them at the Federal level, you pay for them with tax revenues. Now we have a very simple solution, you can stop buying things. But they didn't stop buying things, they doubled the rate of growth of spending from about 3\1/2\ to 7 percent. And they cut revenues.

Now you don't have to be much of a mathematician or an accountant to know what happens: Budgets, deficits, spiraled.

Now, of course, they didn't worry about that because the Vice President of the United States, the Republican Vice President, said debt doesn't matter. That's what he said. And you could see that they really meant it because they have added $1.6 trillion, and that is with a ``T,'' to the debt, deficit, spending.

And by the end of this year, they will have doubled the national debt, and they have been in control of everything and could stop spending in its track with a Bush veto.

And they said if we did that, the economy would blossom and of course their candidate for President says the underpinnings of our economy are sound.

I will tell you, my neighbors don't think that is the case. They are paying more for groceries and they are paying more for gasoline. They are losing jobs. They are having a tough time.

My constituents are better off than most. But this country is having a tough time. And all of the things that they said their tax cuts would produce and their economic program would produce, just like Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, proved to be dead flat wrong.

Employment, we were going to spur employment, spur growth. Under Bill Clinton, the average monthly addition of jobs was 216,000 per month. Under this President, under your economic program, I don't know whether any of you know how many jobs you have produced over the last 90 months, but I will tell you, 38,000 per month. What is the problem with that? The problem with that is you need 100,000 jobs per month to stay even.

Bill Clinton in the first 8 months of his last year, which is analogous to this year, added 1.4 million jobs in the job market.

Under your economic program, President Bush has lost 600,000. That's a net turnaround of 2 million jobs lost in this economy; not producing 1.4 and losing 6.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're here on Sunday, at a quarter of 10 at night. Why? For the worst financial disaster that we've seen in this country since the Depression, or the Coolidge and Hoover years. Debt didn't matter then either under Mr. Coolidge or Mr. Hoover. Debt doesn't matter, said the Vice President of the United States.

We're here on this rule because we believe debt does matter. And I understand what the gentleman from California said. We have a philosophical disagreement. That philosophical difference of agreement is we want mental health parity, but we know it's got to be paid for. We want energy independence and alternative energy research and wind and solar, but we know somebody's got to pay for it. The average American family knows that. They want solar heating in their home they know somebody's got to pay for it.

Now we're here, because right now, as a result of failure of this economic program, they can't get a loan because we've incurred so much debt that people have locked up because they're not sure loaning money is a safe thing for them to do. That's why we're here tonight, because of the failure of an economic program that was fiscally irresponsible and was, from a regulatory perspective, neglectful. No oversight. No fiscal responsibility.

I will yield for a brief minute.

If I could reclaim my time, are you disputing any of the facts that I have recited?

I yield to my friend.

What facts are you disputing that I have articulated?

I understand. Reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman, I'm sure he knows this, April 20, 2007, 4 months, actually 3\1/2\ months after, as a result of the election of 2006, the American public gave us the responsibility of leading, we passed regulatory legislation through this House 4 months into our term, after 6 years.

Very frankly, as you recall, Mike Oxley, the chairman of the Banking Committee under the Republican leadership, we passed regulatory legislation then. It was opposed by the administration. And Mike Oxley said, and I won't say what he said, but essentially he said, in a different way, that the administration gave them the back of his hand.

Let me just make one continuing point. So we have acted on the regulatory field; but very frankly, what has happened is this administration said they didn't believe regulation was helpful to growing the economy, and Senator McCain, their candidate for President, has said he's the biggest deregulator in town and doesn't believe in regulation.

So I tell my friend that, from a regulatory standpoint, the articulation of policy by the present President and your candidate for President has been that they do not believe in keeping the referee on the field.

I will yield one more time, and then I want to conclude.

Reclaiming my time for just a minute, because what I asked him, and he said yes, what I asked him was is there a statistic that I have stated today, either on the amount of spending, on the amount of debt incurred under your economic policies, the failure to create employment necessary to stay even with the growth in

the employment market, and the loss of jobs for 8 months in a row of 600,000-plus, as opposed to Bill Clinton's, in the same comparable time frame, creating 1.4 million jobs.

I ask the gentleman again, do you believe that any of those statistics are inaccurate?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, because I want to end and don't want to have a full debate on this. I've given the gentleman some time.

Let me say this: If the American public who is listening to this debate believes the economy is in good shape, so be it. They ought to act on that premise.

In fact, we know the economy is not in good shape. Notwithstanding the fact that when they offered their budgets, after many of the events that the gentleman referred to, which have been, obviously, troubling to the economy, which were challenges to the economy, but they continued to indicate that they were going to balance the budget. The budget deficit, debt, has doubled in 90 months, borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined, and we have a $1.6 trillion, which may go as much as $2 trillion operating deficit in the 8 years of this Bush administration, may go that high, as opposed to, I tell my friend this, you're at $1.6 trillion now and growing in the national deficits that you've run up in 8 years. Under Bill Clinton, $62.9 billion surplus and four surplus years in a row.

No, I want to conclude my debate, Mr. Dreier. But thank you very much for participating in this.

I want to say we're here tonight saying simply that what we want to do is incredibly important. We want to pass mental health parity. We want to pay for it so our grandchildren don't pay for it. We want to pass energy independence legislation, wind, solar, tax credits. We want to pass tax credits for individuals. We want to pass tax credits for businesses to grow, but not by incurring more debt because, notwithstanding Vice President Cheney, debt does matter, and it matters to our children, it matters to our economy. And that's what's happening with our economy; so much debt that it crunched us down. And finally people said we're not going to loan anymore, and we had that credit crisis. And that's what this is all about.

Not only this bill, but this bill, by the way, is very much related to the bill we're going to consider tomorrow, this $700 billion that the administration has asked us to come up with, and I'm going to vote to do it. I'm going to vote to do it because I think the guy on Main Street, the guy on the farm, the guy in the small business, the guy who wants a job, the guy who wants to pay his kid's college expense, help him with it, the guy who wants to buy a new refrigerator because the old one broke down, he needs to have availability of credit, or his life is going to be very much undermined. That's why we're considering this bill tomorrow. That's why I'm going to vote for this bill tomorrow.

But I don't delude myself that it's the result of an economy that was advantaged by the economic program that we have seen over the last 8 years.

So I say to my friends that this rule, we may ask to withdraw this rule. We were going to call for a vote. We've told people there aren't going to be any votes. We may ask to withdraw this rule at this point in time and bring it back tomorrow, conclude the debate at that point in time for however much longer time that might take. But we have to get to, clearly, the bill to rescue our economy from the fiscal irresponsibility and the regulatory neglect that we have been experiencing for the last 8 years in America.

I hope Americans carefully consider the consequences of the economic program that is being pursued, and frankly, that Senator McCain says he wants to continue to pursue. We think that's not prudent policy, it's not good for our people.

I thank my friend for yielding the time.

Will my friend yield on that?

Will my friend yield?

Is my friend aware that we don't have that bill? He talks a lot about a bill that we don't have. He talks a lot about a bill that the majority leader says in the Senate that he won't consider our bills. Is the gentleman aware that we do not have the Senate bill?

If the gentleman will yield again, I will inform him that we do not have that bill.

Mr. Speaker, you only need to open a newspaper or turn on a TV to see the case for this economic recovery package made far more eloquently than I can make it.

The financial crisis we are facing would have repercussions far beyond Wall Street--it could endanger the economic security of millions. Crisis or not, we are facing an economic downturn that is very real, one that speaks poorly of the President's economic stewardship. This year, America has lost jobs every single month--a total of 605,000 this year. More than a million American families have been foreclosed on, and the housing market has taken its worst dive since the Great Depression. Household income is down under President Bush. 5.7 million more Americans are living in poverty since he took office. And today, 46 million of our fellow Americans are without health insurance.

All of those facts call out, urgently, for this recovery package.

This bill provides immediate assistance to those who are suffering through an economic storm not of their making. And, just as importantly, it gives that assistance in a way that stimulates the economy as a whole. It has five key provisions.

First, it supports efforts to renew America's outdated, worn-down infrastructure--the roads, bridges, pipes, and tracks that are the foundation of our economy. Infrastructure projects are surefire job- creators. And we cannot expect to be a prosperous nation when more than 150,000 of our bridges are in as dangerous a shape as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last year, and when some of our cities depend on century-old water systems. Past infrastructure investments--from canals to electrification to interstate highways--have brought significant economic growth in their wake.

Second, this bill makes a serious investment in several renewable energy and energy independence programs. I am particularly glad that it includes funding for the advanced battery loan guarantee program authorized by last year's energy bill. The program will provide assistance in the construction of domestic facilities to manufacture advanced lithium-ion battery systems, one of the energy innovations we are counting on to break our dependence on foreign oil and revitalize American industry. I was proud to write that provision with Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Inslee's support has been instrumental in making it a priority.

Third, this bill adds resources to the Federal Medical Assistance Program, sending aid to states forced to cut back vital services in this time of shortfall. Surely, even in these hard times, we can set aside money to care for the poor and the sick.

Fourth, this bill includes a temporary increase in food stamp benefits. Food stamps can barely buy a month's food for families in normal times. With the recent spike in food prices, we need an increase in assistance to match. Moreover, economists find that food stamps are one of the best kinds of economic stimulus, injecting money right back into local communities.

Fifth and finally, the recovery package will extend unemployment benefits for seven weeks, or 13 weeks in the hardest-hit states. Like food stamps, unemployment benefits assist families while directly stimulating local economies. And if we do not act, nearly 800,000 workers who had their unemployment benefits extended in July will find themselves out of luck in a week and a half--dumped into the midst of a brewing economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the state of our economy demands a comprehensive response. It should include a 21st-century energy policy, sound regulations to protect investors and taxpayers, and the financial rescue we hope to bring to the floor soon. But right now, for the people of our districts, this bill is the single most meaningful thing we can do. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this rule and strong support of this bill.

I want to say to my friend, I am mindful of the issue he raises. I think that ought to be addressed and I certainly will look forward to working with him and others in addressing this as we move along; and before, hopefully, we leave here because he makes a good point.

I support this bill for two reasons. First, because it provides essential tax relief to American families and businesses. And secondly, just as importantly, because it is paid for.

The tax credits extended by this bill, some of the most necessary, are those that support renewable energy and energy efficiency. Business and political leaders agree. This summer, 51 State governors sent us a letter which read in part: ``Extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation will slow the growth of future energy needs, minimize ratepayers' costs, and lessen potential environmental impacts.''

New energy technologies may not end the pain of $4 a gallon gas in the short term, but those technologies which this bill helps to support are the only long-term solutions to our energy crunch. In the meantime, alternative energy tax credits will create tens of thousands of American jobs. We must pass this legislation.

Now, I was proud of the fact that the House passed a bill expanding domestic production of oil just this month. But a country that controls less than 3 percent of the world's oil supply, while using more than a quarter, cannot drill its way out of the fundamental problem. Boone Pickens has made that very clear to all of us.

That is why I am glad to see the House consider farsighted legislation like this. But I don't just support the goals of this bill, I support it because its tax credits are not financed by even more debt. We are going to incur a lot of debt, we are going to incur a lot of debt in this week. We did so yesterday. Almost all of the Members of this House voted to so-called fix the alternative minimum tax. I voted against that. I voted against it because it wasn't paid for.

The means used to pay for this legislation are not controversial. They include a provision to close a loophole that allows hedge fund managers and other high-income corporate executives to defer taxes through offshore tax havens. What does that mean, the rest of us pay more.

A large majority of the business community agrees that we should close that loophole. So do majorities in the House and Senate. Only a Republican minority in the Senate, frankly, is putting high-income tax loopholes above fiscal sanity. They are insisting, instead, that we pay for this bill with borrowed money.

I understand that bind, the bind that presents for principled Senate Democrats. But fiscal responsibility is not something we can compromise on, especially now. We have a crisis. This economy is in the worse shape it has been in half a century, notwithstanding the protestations that were made in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 about how good this economy was, and the fact that the tax and economic policies being pursued by this administration were making our economy grow and expand and create jobs. The fact of the matter is, we have lost jobs this year; 500,000 jobs. Bill Clinton in the same period of time in his administration created 1.4 million new jobs. That is a net turnaround of 2 million jobs.

But fiscal responsibility is not something that we can compromise on, especially now. In crisis, we need to act. But in time of financial crisis brought on, in part, by massive fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory neglect, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we value this extenders bill, it is simply wrong to pay for it by once more whipping out the national credit card. We don't need to do that. We have not done it, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bill. They support the policies. All we are asking is to pay for it, and the pay-fors in this bill are not controversial. That is the kind of thinking that swung the Clinton surplus deep into record debt under President Bush and led to more foreign borrowing by this administration than by the first 42 administrations combined. In other words, we have had to borrow more money from foreign governments during the last 90 months than we borrowed in the previous 219 years.

We helped to create a crisis of confidence in our financial system which we are being asked to pay for, dearly. Charging our children and grandchildren for our priorities is deeply unwise, and I would suggest immoral.

This year, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican, was one of the few Republicans to bravely break with his party and insist that this bill be paid for. He said, and I call my Republican colleagues' attention to what Bob Corker had to say: ``It is the first time in a

long time I thought we had something that was intellectually honest,'' and that is paying for this bill. ``And I have to tell you, my big fear is our tremendous lack of fiscal discipline.'' So said Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee, when calling upon his body to pay for this bill.

That fear of more debt is entirely reasonable. I am glad more and more Members of Congress are coming to share it.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they love our country, they want to see our fiscal ship of state righted, realizing we are in a crisis time, and they have an opportunity to act in a fiscally responsible way today. Take that opportunity. Show America that we have the courage to pay for what we buy while at the same time giving tax relief to people who need it, to businesses who will expand and create jobs, and to an energy independence that is so critical for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask unanimous consent that that vote be vacated?

I ask unanimous consent that the vote that we just took be vacated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There was a mistake made in the notice that was given to the minority. That was not anybody's intention; it was a mistake. We want to give another opportunity to consider the rule with the minority having the proper information in front of them when we do so.

I have discussed this with the minority, and I think this is the appropriate procedure for us to fairly follow. And I've discussed it with your leadership.

I think it was discussed. There was a figure that was incorrectly given in the bill that you had in your possession that was different from the bill that was on the desk.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Frankly, I have not seen it, and I don't know. What I do know is that Mr. Arcuri informed me, and obviously has asked us--Mr. Arcuri feels very badly that a different version than was at the desk was given to the minority inadvertently; and as a result, the minority did not have the document in front of it. It was at the desk, but nobody's gone up to the desk to compare the items. And as a result, we think, in fairness, we ought to have that document in front of you.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Now, frankly, I don't want to get into moving rapidly. The administration, of

course, came here Thursday and wanted us to pass $700 billion, and they want us to pass this very soon. So ``rapidly'' sometimes is in the eye of the beholder.

The point is, you're correct; there was a discrepancy. We think that was not fair. It was not intentional. But Mr. Arcuri, who gave the information to the minority and the information that was on the Web site, was not correct. We think, under those circumstances, in fairness to all, that we ought to redo this, and that's what we intend to do. And we discussed it with your leadership and we all agreed that that was the right thing to do.

Would the gentleman yield?

I told the gentleman from Washington that's exactly what I'm trying to do, which is why I thought it best to obviate the vote so we can do exactly what you've suggested. I've discussed it with your leadership and they've agreed. I hope we can do that, and I hope there's not an objection.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both the vote on the adoption of the rule and the vote on the previous question be vacated.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding.

I rise obviously in very strong support of this continuing resolution and the three full bills that are attached to it and the other nine of course that will be funded at last year's level with certain exceptions that are necessary to act responsibly. Obviously, passing a CR is never an ideal step.

I want to say that as someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, actually 25 years, I guess, I hold that committee in very high regard. And I am pleased that I am following the Representative from Kentucky, the ranking member of this committee, as he spoke not only about the substance of the bill that he has been most intimately involved in, but as well of the respect that he and the chairman have for one another and the ability they have to work together. I think it has been one of the hallmarks of the Appropriations Committee that has been possible.

Regrettably, however, very frankly from my perspective, forces outside of the context of the Appropriations Committee, for whatever reasons, whether they are from the administration or from each of our caucuses, has undermined that ability of the committee to work the way it has worked and wants to work.

No one in this body is more attuned to the needs of this body, loves this institution more, is more a student of this institution, and very frankly is a better legislator than the chairman of this committee, my friend, David Obey. I want to congratulate him for the extraordinary patience, and he is not known as a patient man, which makes his patience even more extraordinary, that he has been working on a bill that has been so frustrating for him, as well as the committee and the Congress.

The CR does contain a number of important funding provisions: an increase

in the Home Energy Assistance Program which the chairman has been involved in all of his congressional career, which spans some 3\1/2\, almost 4 decades. It helps families heat their houses during a winter of high fuel costs.

It includes funding for Pell Grants to ensure that college aid is not cut in the middle of the school year so that our students will have access to college; and nutrition funding for women and children struggling with the economic downturn and food prices that confront them.

Nevertheless, we are debating, frankly, a CR today because we did not complete the appropriations process. I think that is regrettable. I hope we do not repeat that next year. I see Mr. Wamp shaking his head as a ranking member. I think everybody on the Appropriations Committee wants to make sure that we can complete our process next year. And I think we can.

Very frankly, we were confronted, the chairman was confronted with an administration who wanted to limit funding, frankly, far below what was possible in order to meet the responsibilities that we have to this Nation and to our people.

Today's outcome was a direct result, in my opinion, of the White House's unwillingness to come to the table to discuss funding levels for priorities, to determine what those priorities are, whether they be the National Institutes of Health, whether they be vocational education programs, whether they be protecting our environment; or, very frankly, whether they be overseeing in a regulatory way the financial community, the failure of which has led us to a very critical time in our country's history.

There were 20 programs eliminated. Congress did not agree with all of those. The administration would have slashed funds for crumbling infrastructure, law enforcement, for energy research. Those are items which could have been debated and should have been debated and brought to this floor, but because there was no flexibility, that did not occur.

Simply saying, We'll adopt your priorities, Mr. President, is inconsistent with article I of the Constitution which gives to the 435 of us that have been elected by the people of this country to come and to set priorities for our country. We do so in a representative way. The President, very frankly, is elected to make a determination on our product, not to tell us what our product is, but to make a judgment once our product is passed whether or not he will agree. If he does not agree, he vetoes that bill and then we have a determination to make by two-thirds vote that we disagree with his judgment. That is the way that the process should work, not be told that your product is going to be unacceptable unless it is as I tell you.

With his veto threat hovering over the entire appropriations process, stifling debate and compromises, that process simply could not continue.

I want to again congratulate Mr. Obey. If we do not pass this CR, of course, the government runs out of funding authority on the 30th of this month. October 1 is the beginning of our fiscal year. We really don't have an alternative. The only responsible vote, in my opinion, is to pass this bill.

I want to congratulate Mr. Murtha and Mr. Lewis and Mr. Young. I want to thank Mr. Young for the extraordinary leadership he brings to this House. Mr. Young is not of my party, but he is, I think, one of those who has the highest character and care for the people of America. His willingness to work together has been, I think, in large part responsible for us getting a defense product with Mr. Murtha that this House will overwhelmingly support, in my opinion.

I want to thank Mr. Lewis as well for helping to bring this bill to the floor. I want to congratulate those with the Homeland Security and the Military Construction and VA parts of this bill.

They are bills which have been considered, and I think are going to be overwhelmingly supported.

I would urge all of my colleagues, meet our responsibilities, fund our government, come back here in an atmosphere in which open debate as to the priorities of our country is welcomed by all sides, and have a full appropriation process next year.

In closing, let me again congratulate and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership, without which we would not have been able to get this bill as far as it has gotten to its passage and to fund our government in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Ike Skelton and the Armed Services Committee have worked tirelessly to put this bill together, and I want to begin by recognizing that hard work. Chairman Skelton is among this House's most dedicated advocates for our men and women in uniform. And he and his committee have put together a good authorization bill that deserves our support.

The bill authorizes a total of $601.4 billion, including $531.4B in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's national security programs. It also includes significant commitments to new shipbuilding, advanced aircraft, and efforts to protect our troops in the field from improvised explosive devices.

This bill goes a long way to rebuild our military, which is still battered from years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It provides for an increase of 7,000 active-duty Army personnel, 5,000 more Marine Corps personnel, and 1,023 more Navy sailors. It dedicates significant amounts for the reset of worn-down armed forces equipment: $8.6 billion for Army and $1.8 billion for Marine Corps. $800 million is also authorized for the Reserve and National Guard, which have borne a heavy share of the fighting.

But just as importantly, this bill looks out for the needs of our troops at a time when our country has asked so much from them. They deserve all the support we have to give. That's why this bill gives them a much-needed raise of 3.9%, more than the President's request, blocks increases in their healthcare payments, and authorizes $3.2 billion to expand quality family housing.

In sum, this is a bill that strikes a sound balance between the needs of our national defense and the needs of our troops and their families. The road back to full military readiness will be long and hard--but this bill is a big step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation--vital for our troops and vital for our Nation's security.