Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved H.R. 5140, the grandly-named Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 It's the $146 billion economic stimulus package worked out by House and administration negotiators last week.

The New York Times wonders why the president believes that a wartime contracting commission and protection for contractor fraud whistleblowers would hinder his constitutional duty to faithfully execute laws. The [national defense authorization] bill included four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only if he wants to. The president said they impinged on his constitutional powers. We asked the White House to explain that claim, but got no answer, so we'll do our best to figure it out.

When President Bush signed into law the National Defence Authorization act on Monday evening, not only did he sign into law the authorization for the Webb-McCaskill wartime contracting commission, but he also issued a signing statement indicating that such a commission may interfere with his constitutional obligations. However, the Senate plans to press ahead with its plans to establish a commission that would investigate waste and fraud related to wartime contracts.

Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times today elevates an important issue that has been swirling under the radar the last few years in Washington and around the country but has not garnered enough attention - lack of infrastructure investment. Herbert highlights the work of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to create a national infrastructure bank that would identify, evaluate, and help finance large-scale, long-term infrastructure projects across the country to rebuild and strengthen roads, bridges, levees, transit systems, water treatment facilities, schools, hospitals, electrical grids, and other key infrastructure sectors. Dodd and Hagel are hoping to create a sense of urgency to address the growing infrastructure problems faced by the U.S., framing this as an economic issue as much as a quality of life concern. The need is certainly clear. From Herbert's column: The need for investment on a large scale — and for the long term — is undeniable. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, in a study that should have gotten much more attention when it was released in 2005, it would take more than a trillion and a half dollars over a five-year period to bring the U.S. infrastructure into reasonably decent shape. ... As things stand now, the American infrastructure is incapable of meeting the competitive demands of the globalized 21st-century economy. Senator Hagel noted that ports are overwhelmed by the ever-expanding volume of international trade. Rail lines are overloaded. Highways are clogged. Herbert's well-reasoned column reminded me of another commentary from the Times editorial board last week entitled "Charity Begins in Washington." This editorial argued there are many aspects of our society - namely social needs - that demand government investment and cannot be left to private philanthropy. Dodd and Hagel have certainly made a strong case that infrastructure projects also warrant considerable and sustained federal investment. Read more about the Dodd-Hagel National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. Bill summary and letters of support