Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I want to close.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. My expectation is it will be Wednesday.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. That is correct.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct. In the legislation which was passed pursuant to the request of President Bush and Secretary Paulson authorizing the TARP, they had asked for, as you know, $700 billion in one lump sum. We believe, the majority on both sides of the aisle believe, that that ought to be at least in two tranches, two segments of $350 billion. The legislation provided that for the second tranche to go forward, the President would have to ask for it. President Bush has now asked for that $350 billion, and that the Congress would have immediately before it within 3 days the introduction of a resolution of disapproval of the request and that that would have to be considered. Any Member 6 days thereafter could ask that that resolution be brought to the floor. Now, in this case 6 days thereafter would have been Sunday; so that would have been not appropriate or practical; so we put, as you know, in the rule the ability of the majority leader to call it up next week. The legislation does not provide for the issue becoming moot. Now, what I mean by that is I don't know whether the Senate has voted--they may vote tomorrow. They obviously began procedurally on their resolution of disapproval today. If that resolution is not passed, then our action would be essentially without meaning but not necessarily without importance to the Members who want to vote on it, so that sometime next week, Wednesday or Thursday, my expectation is that we have Members who will want to vote on it. I will be discussing it with your side. I will discuss it with you and discuss it with our side bringing that to a vote, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate may make such a vote not a meaningful act in that President Bush's request would have already been sanctioned because both Houses need to disapprove and if the Senate didn't disapprove, our action will not effect a disapproval.