Sanctuary City Prevention Act of 2010

I will yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, who's done a great deal to help small banks in this bill.

I yield the gentleman another minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself 15 seconds to say I wish we had the Consumer Financial Protection Agency already in place, because then the gentleman could get a refund on his dictionary because someone sold him a bum dictionary.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I believe there is an imbalance of time, so I will reserve.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy), who I understand wants to engage in a colloquy.

The gentlewoman is correct. She has been very diligent in trying to protect this very important type of financing. Financing companies are not depository institutions. They provide financing for the sale of that particular product in that company.

It is again inconceivable to me that somehow they would rise to the level of risk that would justify the Systemic Risk Council stepping in.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I will give him a minute because they're listening in Norton.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman stated the exact opposite of what I said. He's quoting another Member.

I said, in fact, that on 13(3) our bills are very similar. So the gentleman has just put words in my mouth that was the exact opposite of what I said. It was another Member who talked about 13(3). I talked about the similarity of our approach as you had offered it in committee and ours on 13(3).

Another Member said that, yes.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a leading member of the committee who has done a great deal on this bill.

I have only one speaker left.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I have to deal with some of the misstatements that we've heard. There is nothing in here that rations credit. There isn't even anything to refute because there is nothing here they could even misinterpret, Madam Chair, about the rationing of credit. Now, some are particularly upset because we establish a Consumer Protection Agency. In the first place, as far as the banks are concerned, that entity gets no new powers; it takes powers that are already there in the bank's regulators that haven't been used very well.

If my friends on the other side want to go to the American people and say, oh, great, here's one of the differences between the parties, we think you consumers have been very adequately protected, and you don't need to improve that manner of administration, then I will take that debate to the American public.

They tell us that this is bad for small business. The Independent Community Bankers Association supports this bill.

They will be unhappy if bankruptcy is added, I understand that, but as far as the bill now stands, before we get to the bankruptcy clause of the Judiciary Committee amendment--which I'm going to vote for, but insofar as the accusation that it restricts credit, the Independent Community Bankers don't think so, just as when we did the credit card bill and the Republicans said--some of them, some of them voted for it--this is bad for small business and the National Federation of Independent Business said no.

What we say here is--and this is a big difference--we do say that we want to prevent the granting of those kinds of mortgages that get people in trouble because it's not just the individual who gets in trouble; the whole economy suffers. And we do want to ban the kind of practices in the mortgage area--so it's true, it's an expansion of government power. I will say, by the way, that was a constant debate. For much of the past, oh, 15 years, until recently, many Democrats tried to get restrictions on irresponsible subprime mortgages. The Republicans resisted them.

From 1995 to 2007, my Republican friends controlled this House; not a piece of legislation passed to stop mortgages, not a piece of legislation passed to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We did, in 2007, pass such legislation, but the damage had been done.

So, yeah, there is a difference. We want to expand the regulatory power to stop the kind of mortgages from being granted that were a major problem in the crisis. One Member said, Well, we would do nothing to stop the AIG crisis. No, we do many things to stop the AIG crisis. First of all, we do not allow, under the legislation we are putting forward, an entity like AIG to get so overextended by issuing credit default swaps that they can't pay off. They would be restricted because derivatives would be better regulated. They would be restricted because they would not be allowed to be so leveraged because we would give regulators the power to hold them in.

The notion that it's socialism when you have bank regulation is quite odd. We heard Members say this is socialism. There is nothing in here about the ownership of the means of production. There is nothing in here about the government taking over any ongoing institution. Yes, we have bank regulation, and that's the deal. These are people who think that regulation is socialism. We are for regulation. We do believe that the absence of regulation over the last 20 years contributed greatly to this problem.

Now, I know there are people who say, when you start regulating the innovation aspects of the economy, you get into trouble. They said it about Franklin Roosevelt and the Securities Exchange Commission, they said it about Theodore Roosevelt and antitrust. I urge people to go back and read the same old arguments.

Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) said the Federal Reserve will decide that you are too big to fail and you will be advantaged; wrong, wrong, wrong. In the first place, the designation that an entity, a financial entity--by the way, we heard some comments about Dell and American Airlines, which are not covered under this bill. They are not financial holding companies and could not be made financial holding companies. So Dell and American Airlines are total red herrings.

What we have here is the ability of a group of the existing regulators--not the Federal Reserve--to decide that a particular institution is so big and so overleveraged that it's a danger. But they don't get designated and then carried around; coordinated with that is a restriction on what they do. They are not told you're too big to fail, go out and make more money. They are told, you are so big that if you fail because of problems, raise your capital, cut back on your activity, and if you're AIG, stop selling the credit default swaps.

There is this very real difference between the bills. Their bill is very small because it does nothing to retard the kind of activity that got us in trouble. It does not stop over-leveraging, it does not stop unregulated derivative trading, it does not stop credit default swaps without anything to back them up, it does not stop any subprime lending abuses. So yes, that's their view, and they're very clear: Leave it to the private market. We say the private market always does better with sensible regulation.

When Roosevelt and Wilson put antitrust into place, I think they did a good thing. When Franklin Roosevelt did the SEC and the Investment Company Act, those were good things. So, yes, a lack of regulation we believe did cause this great problem.

Now, we get into the bailout issue because the Judiciary Committee, frankly, copied the Republican bill by saying you should use chapter 11. The Republican bill talks about chapter 14--the equivalent of chapter 11 here. Here's what, however, the Judiciary language is subject to. It is subject to--we are talking about now the fund. Yes, somebody could be put into chapter 11, but none of the money could be spent that's in the fund. It's raised not by taxpayers, but by an assessment.

On page 399, ``The Fund shall be available to the corporation for use with respect to the dissolution of a covered financial company to cover the costs incurred by the corporation. The Fund shall not be used in any manner to benefit any officer or director of such company.''

It also then says, on page 397, here is the fund, this is the purpose of the fund, ``to facilitate and provide for the orderly and complete dissolution of any failed financial company or companies that pose a systemic threat to the financial markets or economy as determined under 1603(b).'' The language about Judiciary does not alter that in any respect. It says that the Fund can only be used for dissolution.

Now, it is true, they said, well, what about AIG when they paid off all these people? This is precisely to prevent the repetition. That was done, by the way, as Members will know, under section 13(3). It can no longer be done. We have changed section 13(3), so that should not happen again.

What they did was to say--and this was in the Bush administration-- they said, look, we don't have the discretion to pick and choose, so we are doing exactly the opposite of AIG. With AIG, it was the ruling of the Bush administration's top officials, concurred in by President Bush without any congressional input, that they had to pay off every creditor of AIG because they got the legal authority to pick and choose. They said, we can put them all into bankruptcy, we have Lehman Brothers, and the markets will end--Secretary Paulsen said--or we can pay everybody.

We give them the authority precisely to avoid that dilemma. And by the way, AIG was not being put out of business. It is not AIG. AIG was not put under dissolution; they are being kept going. That could not happen. What we say is, in the future, if you think an entity like AIG has gotten too big and owes too many people too much money, you take it over and you spend money only to wind it down and to dissolve it. If there was some notion that it could be kept going, then none of these monies could be used for it.

Let me read it again: ``To facilitate and provide for the orderly and complete dissolution of any failed financial company.'' That is a restriction on the use of the fund--it's not a taxpayer fund, but even of the other funds.

And then on page 288 it says, ``The Corporation is authorized to take the stabilization actions''--including the bankruptcy--``only if the Secretary and the Corporation determine that it is necessary for the purpose of financial stability and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company.'' And it then says, ``The Corporation ensures that any funds from taxpayers shall be repaid as part of the resolution process before payments are made to creditors.'' Funds will be repaid if there is a borrowing. Funds go to the taxpayer before a nickel goes to the creditors.

These are the inaccuracies that we have heard. There is no Dell or American Airlines in here. Oh, by the way, there is no permanent bailout fund either because that fund and the borrowing authority the gentleman from New Jersey talks about sunsets in 2013. The borrowing authority is sunsetted at 2013. So permanent is true if you believe that the world is ending on January 1, 2014. Now, I know the Republicans believe the world began on January 21, 2009, and all the bad things that happened never happened under Bush--they didn't fail to vote for them. They all happened in 2009.

Again, as my partner said to me, that was also the day of a terrible, terrible disease outbreak, mass Republican amnesia on January 21, 2009, when they forgot what all these--We've heard talk about job losses. Isn't it interesting that the gentleman from Texas cannot remember that a single job was lost before January 20. He talks about the job losses since the stimulus bill was passed. In fact, this recession, the worst since the Depression, began in 2007, in December; and there was enormous job loss under President Bush. Job loss has diminished recently.

So, yes, I will acknowledge that the Obama recovery from the Bush recession has been slower than we would have liked. But every sensible economist understands that the question is not whether there were any job losses at all, or whether you have affected the rate. And clearly the economic recovery plan has affected the rate. And further things will affect it further.

I yield to my friend from North Carolina.

No, I did not, and I did read the whole bill. And by the way, I also would object, there was some reference to steamroll, or not having the opportunity to read it. We have had complaints from the minority about too many markups and too many hearings and people on the staffs of both sides, and there was a magnificent group of staffers on both sides who have given the American people the best bargain they've ever gotten with the amount of work both sides have done on this. So, yeah, this has been very thoroughly vetted and discussed and debated and all the deadlines have been met.

But here's the fundamental difference: we do not have a bailout fund. We have a fund that will come from the financial institutions that can only be used, as I said, for dissolution, that will sunset in terms of borrowing authority in 2013, in terms of borrowing authority. It is used so you don't just say, okay, you're out of business; we end you tomorrow. It is to avoid what Secretary Paulsen and Ben Bernanke and George Bush told us was the dilemma of a year and half ago, all or nothing. We've got to use these funds to wind it down in an orderly way.

But here's the bigger difference: the Republican bill doesn't even try to stop the situation from arising. That's the difference. We analyzed the various things, too much leverage, unregulated derivatives, subprime loans, executive bonuses that encourage people to take too many risks. Their bill says, no, they're none of the government's business. It is true, every time you try to prevent a bad practice by regulation, you're expanding government power. That's true. An unregulated derivative market versus a regulated derivative market, that's more government power.

Restrictions on irresponsible subprime loans, that's government power. Telling an institution they can't be overleveraged, that's government power. In terms of breaking up companies, no one's breaking up Dell or American Airlines. That is fantasy. What we say is we first try to stop an institution from being so overleveraged and so big that it causes a problem. So, yes, we do say that the regulators should be able to step in if the Systemic Risk Council says so and restrain them from doing things. And, yes, the Federal Reserve is the agent, so the Federal Reserve gets more powers under the Systemic Risk Council.

We, by the way, take away more power in our bill with the Consumer Protection Agency from the Federal Reserve than any other agency. We limit section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve very severely. We do empower them as the agent of the Systemic Risk Council to do what the Republicans say you should never do: tell a company you've gotten too big and owe too much money and need to slow down. Break them up because their parts have begun to pull apart.

AIG should not have been allowed to be an insurance company and a credit default swap handler. And, yes, under the amendments we've adopted someone could have come in and said, okay guys, stay in the insurance business, but don't put us all at risk by doing all of these other things.

So that's the fundamental difference. The Republican position is, business knows best. Do not have any rules, do not prevent--and literally, nothing in their bill would retard any of the irresponsible, reckless, overleveraging that happened and led to the crisis.

And then they said, if there is a crisis, just let them go bankrupt. We say, first of all, let's try to prevent the crisis. Let's try to step in and slow it down.

And if that's socialism, I guess the antitrust laws are socialism by that definition, and the Republican equivalents of today's Republicans called Theodore Roosevelt a socialist. They turned against him. They called Franklin Roosevelt a socialist because he created the Securities and Exchange Commission. They call people socialists when they want to do regulation. The Independent Community Bankers don't think so. And the consumers of America do not believe that being protected from abuses is socialism. I look forward to tomorrow when we debate the amendments.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, December 2, 2009.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Financial Services Committee, 2129 Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 2609, the

``Federal Insurance Office Act of 2009.'' As you know, the

Committee on Ways and Means had jurisdictional and other

concerns with provisions of this bill. I note that in 2008,

we exchanged letters on similar legislation (H.R. 5840)

introduced in the 110th Congress.

Earlier today, the bill was amended during markup by your

Committee to address the concerns my staff and I have raised.

For example, the bill was amended: to preserve USTR's

authorities, including over development and coordination of

U.S. international trade policy and the administration of the

U.S. trade agreements program; to modify the types of

agreements that are covered by the bill and to provide for

their joint negotiation by USTR and the U.S. Department of

the Treasury; to require that annual reports by the Federal

Insurance Office be provided to the Committee on Ways and

Means; and to modify the standards and process for preempting

State law. I appreciate your willingness, and the willingness

of your staff, to work with me and my staff on this important

legislation.

To expedite this legislation for Floor consideration, the

Committee on Ways and Means will forgo action on this bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this bill or similar legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 2609, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the committee report on the bill and in the

Congressional Record during House Floor consideration of this

bill.

Once again, thank you for your work and cooperation on this

legislation.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Chair, can you advise the time remaining on both sides.

I now yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is leading the fight against this bill, which perpetuates taxpayer- funded bailouts and the loss of millions of jobs, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Chair, I now yield 3 minutes to another leader in the fight against this bill which perpetuates the idea of continued taxpayer-funded bailouts, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) who recognizes that Glass-Steagall had absolutely nothing to do with the bailout of Bear Sterns and Lehman and the S and L crisis, and the gentleman who also recognizes that the American public is tired of the bailout mentality which would be sustained by this bill.

May I inquire of the Chair the amount of time remaining on both sides?

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chairman, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who has been probably one of the most outspoken leaders in our committee to try to end the continuation of taxpayer-funded bailouts.

I will yield the gentleman another 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

You know, the American public has spoken. They are opposed to more taxpayer-funded bailouts, they are opposed to more loss of jobs in this country, and they are opposed to bigger and larger and more expensive government. The American public has spoken. Obviously, the majority has failed to listen to them, because we've come to the floor tonight with a major 1,300-page piece of legislation which goes in the exact opposite direction that the American public has asked for.

The bill before us has in it taxpayer-funded bailouts. The bill before us has in it the loss of additional millions of jobs, and of course, with the 1,300 pages that we see here before us, the bill before us has in it an expansive growth of the Federal Government and cost that we have never seen the likes of which during our 200-plus history.

You know, at the beginning of this 2- or 3-hour debate that we've had here on the floor, the chairman of the committee began his remarks by saying that we will have--we will be hearing fantasy tonight, and then he proceeded to give us some of that fantasy, for much of what we've heard from the other side of the aisle is fantasy, whether it's describing their legislation that we're about to vote on later tomorrow or whether describing legislation that we have offered as an alternative to it.

You know, I've heard the chairman say there is nothing in this bill, in the Republican's alternative, dealing with 13(3) and the Federal Reserve powers. I guess the chairman has never taken a look at the Republican substitute.

I will.

I remember in committee that we had similarity, but I remember, because I wrote it down, that there was nothing in our bill with regard to this.

I thought I heard it from you, just as I thought I heard it from you saying that there was nothing in our bill with regard to executive compensation, and I know that we do have language in our bill which also was discussed in committee with regard to executive compensation. So at least in that area I know I heard this from the chairman, and it is in our bill. I thought I heard the chairman say that there's nothing in here with regard to Federal powers.

Regardless, if it's just one issue or two, I would just ask the chairman to refer back to my earlier comments, the reason we're concerned with the extensive nature of the largeness of the bill is because when it gets so large, 1,300 pages, your side of the aisle is not familiar with what's in your bill, and even our bill, which pales in comparison by size, you fail to know exactly what's in ours as well.

The American public has spoken out and says they're opposed to more taxpayer-funded bailouts. This was one point where we were in discussion just a moment ago, an hour ago, where I did have to point out to the chairman that in your bill, in the Judiciary Committee self- executing amendment, there is language in there which basically perpetuates what has occurred already in this year that the American people are opposed to is taxpayer-funded bailouts.

Let me explain it very quickly.

What happens is the Federal Government is able to set up a taxing mechanism on businesses in this country to the tune of $150 or $200 billion, and until we establish that, you can--the Treasury Secretary can draw on the taxpayer dollar to help fund this mechanism. And even after that is set up, under this provision on page 3, the corporation may, as I said before, convert what is called a receivership--which basically would be putting the business out of business, which is something that the chairman says would occur--but then would allow it to proceed to a chapter 7 or a chapter 11 bankruptcy, and, of course, that basically means that the business is reorganized.

So what's occurring here is we are allowing the Treasury Secretary, a political appointee, to make the decision, the life-and-death decisions of businesses of this country.

And they will say that this company is going to survive, and this company is not going to survive, and this company over here is going to survive on the backs of American taxpayers. This company is going to survive even though it made bad decisions, risky decisions, but for whatever political purposes or otherwise, the Treasury Secretary can sign off and say, take taxpayer dollars, funnel it into that company for a while under the corporations act, under the bridge loans and bridge proposals and what have you, and then under section B on page 3 convert it back into a reorganization and allow it to flourish once again with the blessing of the Treasury Secretary and of this administration and of the American taxpayer as well.

So the bill does have what the American taxpayer does not want to have, which is a continuation of bailouts at their expense.

What else does the bill have that the American public is asking not to have? And that is the loss of jobs. I remember being on this floor, and I do remember this conversation very well standing right over there when the majority leader was standing over here at the beginning of the year, and he was predicting, he was promising that if we only passed the $700 billion or $800 billion stimulus package, as the gentleman from Texas said earlier, that we would see the results immediately, not by the summer, not by the end of the year, not by next year, but we would see immediate job growth in this country. We would never see 8 or 8\1/2\ percent unemployment, and we would see the results immediately.

Well, that tune changed when unemployment went up to 8, then 8\1/2\ percent, then 9, then 9\1/2\, then 10, then 10.2 percent. Then, all of a sudden, their tune changed to say, well, you won't see it immediately. We will see it some time next year. And now, of course,

we're coming to the floor with the majority leader saying that we will see job growth some time next year, but we just need another stimulus package. However many dollars from the American taxpayer pockets that's going to cost, I'm not sure.

Thank you. Actually, you're right. We saw two things immediately. We saw the loss of 3\1/2\ million jobs during that period of time, and, of course, we saw more borrowing from the American taxpayer and also actually from overseas, China and elsewhere, to the tune of $700 billion or $800 billion. So those are the predictions, those are the promises there.

What do we see in this bill? What we see in the bill is the creation of a number of entities, a number of pieces in this bill that will result in losses of even greater numbers of jobs. Just like we saw the studies showing that if we ever passed cap-and-trade we will be seeing millions of jobs lost there, just as we saw the documentation coming out with the health care bill saying we would lose millions of jobs because of that. Here too studies have looked at the CFPA and said that provision alone would raise the interest rates for businesses.

That provision alone will raise interest rates between 1.4 or 1.6, but say 1.5 percentage points, that means that businesses and individuals trying to get loans will see their loans go from 6 percent up to 7\1/2\ percent. That will mean less jobs today and in the future. How many jobs? Well, one study points out roughly over 1 million jobs under that provision alone.

Where else will we be losing jobs? We will be losing jobs due to this whole bailout proposal in this bill. If you put a tax on anything, you're meaning that those businesses can't spend the money here when they have to send it over to the government to be stored over here for some other purposes. So if we are going to ask businesses to spend $150 billion, $200 billion on this new bailout tax, well, some studies have looked at that and said that will result in higher costs for those businesses naturally, less ability for them to invest. If they can't invest it in new plants, materials, and employees, they will be putting it over here. The numbers there we are seeing is around some 450,000 less jobs because of that provision.

You're talking between those two provisions alone in the over millions range of jobs not being created or lost because of this legislation.

So I will leave to later on my last point, which is that this bill obviously also creates bigger government, more expansive growth of government, more expansive takeover of the private sector and private individuals' lives as well, their decisionmaking lives, as Ranking Member Bachus said at the very beginning comments, all things the American taxpayer has spoken out against.

The American taxpayer has spoken out against taxpayer-funded bailouts. They said we want less job destruction. We want less big government. This bill gives us taxpayer-funded bailouts. This bill gives us destruction of more jobs. And this bill gives us a bigger government. All things the American public is opposed to. And that's why I come to the floor tonight and oppose this piece of legislation.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentleman from Texas. Just to go back to a comment--the gentleman from North Carolina made two comments--what is the solution?

Well, the gentleman from Texas said here is our solution, and I leave a copy here in case he has not had an opportunity to read it. It is by size a lot less than what you have before you.

The gentleman from North Carolina also asked about our studies; and where we say this will hurt jobs because you will be raising credit interest rates by 1.4 or 1.6, I average it out to about 1.5 percent. It translates into X number of jobs, millions of jobs lost. The questions are studies before we implement this.

My question to the gentleman is before we pass this legislation today and implement it and impose this burden onto the American business sector and the American public in general, can you tell me which study you are referring to that will not cause a loss of jobs?

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, and there is the point. We have this 1,300-page bill that I would hazard the great guess that the vast majority of this body here tonight has not ever had the opportunity to, nor the inclination to, nor, in fact, did read.

And now we seem to hear that when it comes to what the impact, the vast impact that this will have on our economy, where is there information as to what they inquired that it would do? It is absent.

I spoke before about the point that this bill goes contrary to the American public's claim that they do not want any more bailouts, and I raised reference to one section of the bill which in perpetuity it allows for the creation of switching from receivership into bankruptcy and makes it basically a political decision. Another provision of the bill on page 408 basically says that the Treasury Secretary has unlimited authority to borrow an unlimited

amount of money from the Federal Treasury, which means from the American taxpayer.

How do we see this? Page 408 of the bill, section 3, ``Borrowing authority when fund assets are less than $150 billion.'' Section (B), ``The corporation may borrow, and the Secretary may lend, any amount of funds that, when added to the amount available in the fund on the date the corporation makes a request to borrow funds, would not exceed $150 billion.''

What does that mean? That means today, as we start this program out, there are zero dollars in the fund. The Treasury Secretary can go to the Treasury, meaning the American taxpayer, and ask for $150 billion from the American public, and they could bail out some company, maybe AIG again, as this past administration helped facilitate. And then after that, there's no money in the fund again, so they go back to Treasury and say, We need another $150 billion, because, under the terms of the bill as written right now, there's no money in the fund and they can borrow up to $150 billion. They ask for another $150 billion. And then a company akin to Lehman or something goes under, or another company over here or the auto companies go under, and they pay it all out the next day. How much is in the fund then? Zero. At which point the Treasury Secretary can go back to the American taxpayer a third time and ask for an additional $150 billion.

When does it end? This bill puts absolutely no limit on it whatsoever. It could be $150 billion. It can be $1 trillion. It could be $10 trillion. It's all in the hands of the political appointee, Secretary Geithner, for him to decide where this money goes and how much it goes to, and it can be a political decision because, as we have seen before, he can prop up favorite companies and allow them then to go into receivership and then allow them to come back out of it after he has asked the American public to spend $10 billion, $100 billion, $1 trillion in order to do so. Where is the limitation in this bill? There is absolutely none.

So when the other side of the aisle looks chagrined when we say the American taxpayer is on the hook for bailouts, they need only to look at their own bill, page 408 or page 3 over here in the Judiciary Committee, to see that is an unlimited drain on the American taxpayer, that this will allow perpetual bailouts that are never ending and will be made by political appointees for their favorite companies that they want to prop up to the end of the Earth. That, I think, is reason one why we should be opposed to this bill.

If there's nothing else in this bill besides those few pages, we should all be voting ``no.'' If there's nothing else in this bill, every American listening to this floor debate tonight should be calling up their Member of Congress and saying, Why are you putting us on the hook to bail out bad businesses and bad business decisions? Why are you putting us on the hook to bail out your political favorite companies that you want to bail out, and why do you want to do so without limitation?

Madam Chairman, I rise tonight to oppose the Permanent Wall Street Bailout and Increase Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009. If Congress had to abide by the truth-in- advertising laws that they impose on the rest of the Nation, surely this would be the official title of, indeed, this 1,279-page piece of legislation.

Madam Chairman, it is section 1609(n), for those who may have written the legislation and forgotten it, that creates a permanent $200 billion bailout fund. To paraphrase a line from the famous Kevin Costner movie ``Field of Dreams,'' if you build it, they will come. The only reason to create a Wall Street bailout fund is to bail out Wall Street permanently.

Now, the Democrats claim, Madam Chairman, that the bailout fund will not be paid for by taxpayers; but, Madam Chairman, these are the very same people who told us that the GSEs, the government sponsored enterprises, would never, never receive a dime of taxpayer money. And I guess, in a sense, they were literally correct. Instead, it's $1 trillion, $1 trillion of taxpayer money now committed to the failed government-sponsored enterprises.

These are the very same people who told us that, hey, don't worry about the Social Security trust fund; it'll get paid back. Medicare is financially sound. The National Federal Flood Insurance Program will never need a taxpayer infusion.

Madam Chairman, they were wrong then and they are wrong now. Besides creating a permanent Wall Street bailout fund, Madam Chairman, this bill represents the fourth piece of the Democrats' failing economic agenda. First was the $1 trillion stimulus, next the $600 billion national energy tax. After that, the $1 trillion government takeover of our health care plan.

Now, we all remember the stimulus plan. The President told us if it was enacted that unemployment would never rise above 8 percent. Yet our unemployment rate is at double digits, the worst in a generation; and the legislation before us will cause even more job losses. In sections 4301, 4304, 4308, it will do this by empowering an unelected czar to unilaterally--give the power to unilaterally ban and ration consumer credit products, and then finance itself through hidden taxes on consumer credit and successful American companies.

You heard the study alluded to earlier: interest rates paid by consumers would rise 1\1/2\ percent; new jobs would be reduced by almost 5 percent in our economy. More jobs would be lost, Madam Chairman, under the bailout authority which assesses $150 billion of taxes on large financial firms.

Now, maybe those on the other side of the aisle wish to engage in the myth that somehow that won't be passed on to consumers, that somehow this won't impact credit lines at small businesses; but they are wrong. Increased interest rates. Increased fees, fewer loans to small businesses. Madam Chairman, once again, more jobs will be lost under the Permanent Wall Street Bailout and Increase Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009. The United States Chamber of Commerce has said that if this act is passed, it would have a significant adverse effect on small businesses by restricting their access to credit. Some would lose credit altogether.

Madam Chairman, I talk to a lot of good community bankers in my part of Texas. I have heard the chairman allude to the ICBA, and I certainly respect those who have Washington ZIP codes. Frankly, I respect those who have Texas ZIP codes a little bit more. I talked to a man who helps build Palestine, Texas, Kev Williams, East Texas National Bank. And he said, Congressman, if I have more compliance costs and the Federal Government in going to limit the types of customized credit products I can offer, we will lose jobs in Anderson County, Texas, that I have the privilege of representing in Congress.

I heard from a small businessman in my district, from Jacksonville, Texas, ``As a small businessman the restriction on credit may very well mean the end of my company.'' Madam Chairman, why should we pass any legislation that will harm the ability of small businesses to access credit in the midst of a credit contraction? After 3.6 million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs since President Obama took office, I ask my Democratic colleagues, how many more jobs have to be lost? How many more?

And, Madam Chairman, next the government takeover. Again, after proposing the $600 billion tax on our energy sector, a $1 trillion takeover of our health care system, the Democrats now bring us the next chapter in the narrative, and that is the takeover of huge portions of our consumer credit and finance markets. They will create a huge new, complex government bureaucracy and grant it sweeping draconian powers.

Section 1104 will allow it to break up successful companies like Dell Computer or American Airlines. Section 204 and 4306 will allow it to dictate the pay structure, all the way down to a bank teller in east Texas making $25,000 a year.

Madam Chairman, section 4301 will allow it to decide, again, which credit cards, which home mortgages, and which car loans we are allowed to receive, and the list goes on and on and on. Madam Chairman, what this really leads us to is a bailout and job loss bill where the big get bigger, the small get smaller, the taxpayer gets poorer and the economy gets more political.

Madam Chairman, what does a political economy look like? Well, we've seen it. We've seen it in the government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where we give them these monopoly powers. They're allowed to grow these profits, but then they do a deal with Congress, oh, but you have to have an affordable housing mission. You have to have this political mission. And $1 trillion of taxpayer liability exposure later, we know how that turned out. That's what a political economy is about.

How about GM and Chrysler? When they went bankrupt, all of a sudden, allies of the administration, the United Auto Workers, they end up with a sweetheart deal. And Chrysler, senior secured creditors received 29 cents on the dollars; but the United Auto Workers received 43 cents on the dollar, and they ended up owning the company. How convenient. That's what a political economy looks like.

And look at individual Members of Congress, including the distinguished chairman of this committee. From The Wall Street Journal, dated June 5, 2009, quote, ``The latest self-appointed car czar is Massachusetts' own Barney Frank, who intervened this week to save a GM distribution center in Norton, Massachusetts. The warehouse, which employs some 90 people, was slated for closure by the end of the year under GM's restructuring plan. But Mr. Frank put in a call to GM's CEO, Fritz Henderson, and secured a new lease on life for the facility.'' Now, I respect our chairman. I'm not here to suggest----

I know that the distinguished chairman relishes this. And, again, I'm not here to suggest that the activity is illegal, was immoral, was even fattening. I'm here to suggest it is what a political economy is all about. I would suggest anyone else besides the chairman of the Financial Services Committee making that telephone call, that facility wouldn't be open today. Under this bill, Madam Chairman, Americans' job security will depend less on how well you perform your job at home and more upon who you know in Washington.

That is what the political economy is all about.

This bill represents an assault on the fundamental economic liberties of the American citizen. You want a home mortgage, you now have to get the approval of the Federal Government. You want to offer a credit product? The Federal Government. If you build a successful business, it can be torn down unless you go to the Federal Government on bended knee.

Fewer jobs, more bailouts, more government control, less personal freedom. It is time to reject this bill.

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee and one of the true champions of economic liberty in Congress, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

If the gentleman would just yield on that one point, I would say the results were seen immediately, and that is an additional 3.6 million of our countrymen lost their jobs under this program.

I yield back to the gentleman.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Before yielding to the other gentleman from Texas, I will yield myself 1 minute.

I heard the gentleman from North Carolina in a spate of candor say he didn't know what the solution was. I do know what the solution is. It's the Republican substitute. I would commend the gentleman to read it. It ends bailouts. Your bill will increase bailouts. It reforms the Federal Reserve.

Your bill increases the powers of the Federal Reserve. This bill protects consumer rights. Your bill constricts consumer rights.

Your bill was stone-cold silent with respect to the government- sponsored

enterprises, but now you protect them. Clearly the GSEs are too big to fail.

Our bill goes to the source of the problem. If the gentleman needs to know what the solution is, I would be happy to provide him with a copy of the Republican substitute.

It is now my privilege, Madam Chair, to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chair, might I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, what we have before us is the ``Perpetual Wall Street Bailout and Increased Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009.''

No matter how much our friends on the other side of the aisle wish to deny it, the only reason to create a bailout fund is to bail someone out. The American people are sick and tired of paying for the bailouts.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we're not really going to use this bailout fund, which kind of begs the question: Why are you creating it in the first place? Well, it's just going to be used for wind-down cost. Well, in bankruptcy, typically you use the assets of the bankrupt company to do that. So this $150 billion plus the $50 billion line of credit from the Treasury, what's the $200 billion being used for? Well, ultimately it's going to be used to bail out other Wall Street parties, the creditors, the shareholders, the counterparties, just like what was done in AIG.

Now, again the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee says, Well, our bailout fund is like a death penalty. Well, it may be a death penalty, but the death sentence has been commuted for up to 3 years. And, by the way, as it's commuted, just like in the AIG bailout, Societe Generale could walk away with $16.5 billion, a French concern, like they did in AIG. Goldman Sachs could walk away with $14 billion in the bailout like they did in AIG. Merrill Lynch could walk away with $6.2 billion. Deutsche Bank, a German concern, could walk away with $8.5 billion. UBS, a Swiss concern, could walk away with $3.8 billion. These are the counterparties on credit default swaps to AIG, and their legislation would replicate it, Madam Chair.

There's nothing in their legislation that would prevent the entire AIG fiasco from repeating itself, and, if anything, they would triple it, up to 3 years, up to 3 years of bailout authority there.

So not only is the death sentence commuted in their so-called bailout fund, but not unlike the GM and Chrysler cases, we could have a Lazarus-like resurrection. Not unlike old GM and old Chrysler, well, you flip a switch and all of a sudden you take care of your political allies, the United Auto Workers, and you've got new GM and you've got new Chrysler, and all of a sudden they just keep on trucking along. So it's an interesting metaphor to call this a death penalty. What it is is it is a bailout.

Here we all are, Madam Chair, at a very tough time in our Nation's economy and 3.6 million of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs since the President told us if we passed his plan, his government stimulus plan, we'd only have 8 percent unemployment. Still, we know we have 10 percent unemployment. And yet here we have a piece of legislation that's ultimate impact is to make credit more expensive, less available when small businesses are losing jobs by the tens of thousands and thousands. Why, in the middle of one of the great credit contractions in our Nation's economy, would you want to make credit more expensive and less available? It's beyond me, Madam Chair. It is beyond me.

Again, my fear is that under this type of legislation the big will get bigger. This is again Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, politically favorite firms given a political mission and that blows up. Now, again maybe the Merrill Lynches and the UBSs are taken care of. The school teachers in Mesquite, Texas, they're not taken care of under this legislation. They end up paying for the bailout in this political economy. The big will get bigger and they will be given a political mission. Again, your job will depend not so much on what you do at home but who you know in Washington.

One of the great free market economists of our time, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said, ``Sooner or later, and perhaps sooner than many of us expect, an ever bigger government would destroy prosperity that we owe to the free market and the human freedom proclaimed so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence.''

That moment is here, and we must vote for freedom and against this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Sometimes we think that government's role is to save the world. When I was in small business, there was a joke: People would say, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you. And you know, what I hear from small business men and women all across the country right now is, Please don't help us anymore. Why are they saying that? Because over the years, Congress has amassed a huge amount of regulations, and those regulations have been put on the backs of businesses all across our country.

Today, we are here to put another huge mountain on top of the financial markets, the capital markets, the very markets that our small businesses depend on for capital, in the name of trying to help them. And I will tell you tonight we're going to hurt them. We are going to cause people to lose their jobs because of this bill. In fact, a recent study at the University of Chicago and George Mason University estimated that passing this piece of legislation would reduce job growth by 4.3 percent. And you say, well, how can a consumer protection, how can a regulatory bill hurt small businesses, how can it cause job losses? Well, let's look at some of the predictions in here.

We are going to have this new regulator that is going to determine what kind of financial products banks and people that provide loans can hand out. So if I need a specialized loan that maybe has a little bit different terms than normal, my lender is concerned that the regulator is going to look at that loan and say, you know what, you shouldn't be making those kinds of loans.

At a time when the President of the United States is even trying to look and wait to find some jobs--and we are all looking for all of those jobs that supposedly the stimulus package created, but the truth of the matter is this will kill jobs. It will also hurt small businesses' ability to get capital.

Right now, we already hear that banks across the country are a little reluctant to loan money. Why are they reluctant to loan money? Because the regulators are clamping down on them. And now we're going to say to the regulators, you know what? You didn't clamp down hard enough, you didn't

regulate enough, so we're going to give you some new marching orders and put this new massive legislation in place. And everybody thinks that that is going to free up credit for small businesses to create jobs in America? It's not going to do that.

The concern I have is that if we continue down this road of regulation in the financial markets, we are going to begin to limit the choices for these banks to provide financial products.

The other thing that this bill does is it picks winners and losers again. Now, the distinguished chairman of the committee, who I have great respect for, says the taxpayers' money isn't involved in here. Maybe it's not tax money, but the consumers are going to pay for these bailouts. If you have an assessment, and you assess an entity for bailing out its competitor--and how that makes sense, I don't know--who do you think is going to pay the additional cost that that company is going to have to pay the assessment? The consumer is.

So what is this going to do to small businesses? It's going to raise the cost of capital. In fact, there is an estimate out there that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others, say this will raise borrowing costs almost 1.5 percent for people and small businesses and consumers. Now, how does that help the economy? It doesn't help the economy; in fact, it puts a weight on the economy and, again, is going to cause jobs to be lost in this country.

So the question is, why are we here tonight? Why are we debating this bill? It's got a fancy title that says it's going to protect consumers, and it's going to punish Wall Street. Well, really, the issue is it doesn't punish Wall Street, because if you're a big company, this bill says we've got a way to prop you up because we're going to get the Federal Reserve to imply that you are too big to fail, picking winners and losers. And then that gives an unfair competitive advantage to these banks and other entities that aren't on the ``too big to fail'' list.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

I think I want to go back to what really is at stake here and that's choices for the people that borrow money in this country. Back in the fall of last year and in the spring of this year, we were working on legislation that the other side brought forward for credit cards, and everybody has got a credit card story that they have had a bad experience. We passed this big credit card bill.

When we were talking and debating that bill on this very floor, we told the American people be careful here, because what they are saying is they don't trust you to make your own choices, and they are going to tinker with the credit card industry. We said, you know what's going to happen? Interest rates are going to go up. Credit limits are going to go down, payments are going to go up. And what happened?

Rates went up, credit limits went down, and payments went up. Who did that affect? Well, it affected families. More importantly, we said it's going to hurt small businesses because a number of small businesses across this country use credit cards to help with their cash-flow needs of their company.

Now we are here tonight talking about the rest of the credit market. What's going to happen here, one of the gentlemen, several gentlemen have brought up predatory lending.

Well, let me talk about a predatory loan. How about this young businessman that needs to buy another truck and some tools for his plumbing company, and he goes to his banker and he says, you know what, I need an interest-only loan for 12 months until I get my business up and going and I get my new employee generating the revenue, and then I want to convert over to another payment plan at the end of 12 months.

The banker says, well, I would love to do that; I have done that for you in the past. But you know what, we have got this new czar, or czarina, who is in charge of determining what kinds of financial products I can offer, so I can't do that.

So what happens? That plumber can't expand, can't buy another truck, can't hire another employee. Those are the consequences of this.

Where we are headed in this is that we are going to let the Federal Government tell you, because you are not smart enough, according to my colleagues on the other side, to determine what kind of mortgage is appropriate for your family; that you are not smart enough to determine what kind of car loan is appropriate; what kind of student loan is appropriate for you and your family as you are trying to send your daughter or your son to school; that the overdraft privileges that your bank has been extending to you in the past, but because of these new regulations and the interference of government, you may not be extended those, or those charges may go up.

How about that person that wants to experience the American Dream and wants to go start their own business and needs a specialized financing package to be able to get that business off the ground and so initially has a small amount of capital.

The banker is going to take a larger risk, and so he is going to have to price the cost of that loan higher, and he is reluctant to do that because he might be making a predatory loan according to this new czar, this new agency that's going to determine what kind of financial products the American people get to have access to in the future.

You know what, Madam Chairman, I still have faith in the American people because this Nation wasn't built because of its government. This Nation was built because of its people, people that took risks and chances and worked hard and went out and did different things in different ways and made things happen, and they didn't conform to what was the standard.

You see, when we start standardizing everything, we begin to limit the potential for success, and we limit failure, and there is no reward for those who do the extra and do special. That's not what this Nation was built on.

I just recently over the weekend came back from Afghanistan, where our young men and women are doing remarkable things in the name of security, peace, and liberty for our country. You would have thought they would want to talk about, you know, thank you for the President's commitment to additional troops; but this sergeant came up to me as I was about to walk out and go get on a plane. He said, Congressman, you know what really scares me? It's not these Afghani Taliban people. What really scares me is what you all are doing to our country. Every time I turn around you are spending money we don't have. The government is getting into the car business. The government is buying banks. The government is limiting my choices.

You are leaving a legacy, and I am over here fighting for a country. Quite honestly, I look back home and I am not sure the Congress is not destroying our country by taking away the liberties and the freedoms that I am fighting for.

That's the reason tonight and tomorrow, whenever we vote on this, we need to defeat this so that we can preserve liberty and freedom for this country and trust the American people because the American people are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Madam Chair, today I rise in support of H.R. 4173--``The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.'' I support this legislation because I believe that it is an important step in preventing the conditions that created last year's financial crisis from occurring again.

Last year's financial crisis put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and our economy into turmoil. The White House estimates that 5 trillion dollars worth of American household wealth disappeared in approximately three months. Credit markets froze as bank after bank after bank failed or require government assistance to stay afloat. This weak financial system and credit market impacted businesses large and small throughout the Nation. Furthermore, the weak credit market affected student loans, credit cards, and purchases of automobiles and homes.

In response, Congress, in collaboration with President Obama passed sweeping legislation to help hardworking Americans soften the blow from the worst economy in years.

Although I still believe that our response was necessary to help bring America out of the recession, we must ensure that actors in the financial industry are never again able to behave recklessly as to threaten the economy of not only our Nation, but also the world. I do not believe that the financial industry acts with malice toward people or our economy; however, some firms in the financial industry are prone to taking risks in a manner that threatens our economic structure. As President Obama said in New York on September 15, ``We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of the crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick bills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break the fall.''

This legislation is a response to the dangers and loopholes that persist, and it will serve to protect the American investors, students, home and auto buyers, and business owners. A new Consumer Financial Protection Agency will protect families and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, and credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent.

We have tough rules that keep companies from selling us faulty toasters that burn down our houses, but there is currently no agency that has as its sole mission oversight of potentially harmful financial products sold to consumers. This critical enforcement is necessary to ensure that consumers get information that is clear and concise from banks, mortgage servicers, and credit card companies. It is critical to prevent the financial industry from offering predatory mortgage loans to people who can't afford repayment that marked the subprime lending era. Finally, it will put in place common sense regulations to stop abuses by the financial industry, such as payday lending and exorbitant overdraft fees.

Secondly, this legislation will put an end to ``too big to fail'' financial firms, providing the government with the tools--funded by big banks and financial firms and NOT taxpayers--it needs to manage financial crises so we are not forced to choose between bailouts and financial collapse.

This includes the ability to preemptively dismantle big banks whose risky and irresponsible behavior could bring down the entire economy, as well as an orderly process to wind down failing firms.

This legislation will end taxpayer-funded bailouts and Help ensure American taxpayers are never again on the hook for bailing them out by requiring big banks and other financial institutions (with $50 billion in assets) to foot the bill for any bailouts in the future. These institutions would pay assessments based on a company's potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail.

These new consumer safeguards will require that all financial firms that pose risk to the financial system--not just banks--are subject to strong supervision and regulation, including stronger capital standards and leverage rules.

They will increase transparency at the Federal Reserve, which has played an enormous role in shoring up big banks and other financial institutions in this crisis, subjecting it to scrutiny by Congress's Government Accountability Office with audits of the Fed's lending programs.

This legislation will also stop predatory and irresponsible mortgage loan practices including prepayment penalties, deceptive mortgage documentation, and making extra profits for steering borrowers to higher cost loans that played a major role in the current financial meltdown. Help ensure that the mortgage industry follows basic principles of sound lending and consumer protection.

The legislation also imposes tough new rules on the riskiest financial practices by strengthening enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission to better protect investors and prevent future Bernie Madoff Ponzi schemes.

It creates rules to curtail excess speculation in derivatives and growing use of unregulated credit default swaps that devastated AIG and Bear Stearns.

It provides more transparency and tougher regulation of hedge funds, private equity firms

and credit rating agencies, whose seal of approval gave way to excessively risky practices that led to a financial collapse.

Finally, it requires investment advisors to act for the sole benefit of their client under the law, exercising the highest standard of care.

Finally, this legislation addresses egregious executive pay compensations by putting an end to compensation practices that encourage executives to take excessive risk at the expense of their companies, shareholders, employees, and ultimately the American taxpayer.

It also provides shareholders of public companies with an annual, non-binding vote on executive compensation and golden parachutes for the top five executives, requires independent directors on the compensation committees of public companies, and authorizes the SEC to restrict or prohibit ``inappropriate or imprudently risky compensation practices'' at large financial firms (with at least $1 billion in assets).

In conclusion, this legislation will modernize America's financial regulations as we seek to prevent last year's financial conditions from ever happening again. America is on the road to recovery, and we need this legislation to ensure that the recovery is permanent.