Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Sacramento, my Rules Committee colleague, has just said, this resolution will allow the Judiciary Committee to continue its very important oversight work by reauthorizing an investigation of G. Thomas Porteous.

The committee's ongoing inquiry into his conduct and the question of whether to pursue impeachment by the House should continue in this 111th Congress. This is a bipartisan ongoing effort. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is so utterly bipartisan and noncontroversial that our colleagues could very reasonably expect that this measure would have been considered by unanimous

consent. Such widely supported procedural matters usually do not demand a formal debate.

I certainly do hope that today's consideration of this resolution under suspension of the rules is not an indication that the Democratic leadership needs filler time for the schedule. I mean, it would be a little disconcerting to think that they have nothing more important to do in the House, just 1 week before this very, very important inauguration. So whatever the motivation of today's procedure, I do strongly support this measure.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this debate on this resolution that we're considering under suspension of the rules that, as I said, could be considered by unanimous consent, we know that the pressing issue for the American people right now is our effort to get our economy back on track. That's what so much of the talk is going on right here in Washington, and we know that virtually everyone across this country and, frankly, around the world, as we deal with this global economic downturn, virtually everyone is talking about what steps can be taken for us to get our economy back on track.

And it would seem to me that, rather than taking time on a resolution such as this, which could have been considered by unanimous consent, that we should be moving ahead as expeditiously as possible with legislation that will, in fact, get our economy back on track.

That's why I, on opening day, just a week ago today, in fact, I was proud to introduce a trio of bills that I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, will play a key role in getting our economy back on track.

The first bill is known as the Fair and Simple Tax Plan. We all know about the complexity of the Internal Revenue code, and we regularly hear from our constituents about the level of frustration. And we all know that it is very time consuming and costly to deal with this complex code.

The Fair and Simple Tax Plan is a package that I was privileged to work with the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani; former nominee for Governor in California, Bill Simon; former economic adviser to President George H.W. Bush, Michael Boskin at Stanford University, and several others. It is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that would take the six tax rates that we have today and compress them down to three rates. The top rate, Mr. Speaker, would be 10 percent on the first $40,000 in income, 15 percent on income between $40 and $150,000, and a top rate of 30 percent on all income above $150,000.

Now, I believe that that kind of rate reduction would increase compliance and stimulate very important economic growth that the American people know is desperately needed as we deal with these tough economic times.

This measure also has some other very important components that would take the complex Internal Revenue code and bring it down to a single page, one page. It does maintain, Mr. Speaker, some important provisions, like the ability for the American taxpayer to deduct the interest on their home mortgage; the ability, and we talked about the resolution earlier, encouraging volunteerism; the ability to continue to deduct the charitable contributions that people make as we encourage this level of volunteerism. Very important.

It also maintains the important child credit and the provisions that have existed. And it expands incentives for retirement, and it includes a $15,000 exclusion to deal with the challenge that we have with health care. And that $15,000 could be utilized for the purchase of health insurance or direct health care costs, because we know what a pressing need that is that exists today.

It also is important, if we're going to get our economy back on track, Mr. Speaker, and I wish that we were having a full debate on this issue right now, for us to, I believe, completely eliminate the inheritance tax, the so-called death tax.

When you see people having to sell businesses, to sell homes, simply to comply with the Internal Revenue code, and I know that with that death tax, I believe that completely repealing that, nailing the coffin on the death tax is something that is very important.

We also know, and today we got the news about the fact that we've seen an actual narrowing of the trade imbalance, we also know that one of the important things for us to do is to deal with the challenge of jobs leaving the United States and going overseas. And so that's why the Fair and Simple Tax Plan also reduces the top tax rate on job creators from 35 percent to 25 percent, and economists across the board have recognized that that would go a long way towards creating good jobs right here in the United States of America.

We also know that the tax on capital has been very, very high and people are living with the threat of it possibly going up. And so the Fair and Simple Tax Plan brings about a reduction to 15 percent of that tax on capital gains. And not many people are witnessing capital gains at this point, but as we seek to get our economy back on track, I believe it's very important and that would be a key to helping us in our effort to do that.

So this is, again, a very simple plan that I believe could dramatically stimulate economic growth and get to the kind of permanence that we need.

I will say that I heard some remarks being made by our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Conrad, in which he was referring to some of the concerns that he's had with this massive economic stimulus bill that is about to come before us. And one of the concerns that he raised as he talked about it being timely and targeted, that we--and temporary, those three Ts--that we do everything we can to ensure that. And he pointed to the fact that the notion of dramatically extending and making permanent the unemployment insurance would not be temporary. Making permanent COBRA provisions would not be temporary. Those are two issues that our colleague, Mr. Conrad, has raised as concerns.

So I think that there's a lot of controversy swirling around this so- called economic stimulus package, and I think that if we want it to be timely and temporary, these government spending programs, we need to spend time and effort focused on how we can permanently, permanently get our economy back on track.

I mentioned the first of the trio of bills that I introduced a week ago today, Mr. Speaker. The second one is dealing with an important sector of our economy which we all know has played a key role in the downturn through which we're now going, and that is the housing industry. And we've seen huge sums of money pushed toward the housing industry right now, and I believe that one of the things that we need to do is to reward responsible behavior.

Now, unfortunately, government policy has encouraged people to purchase homes with zero down, and have interest rates that are extraordinarily low; basically turning the home ownership, something that we very much want to encourage, into little more than homes into little more than rental units, creating incentive for people to walk away from them.

So the second bill that I introduced, Mr. Speaker, is designed to incentivize people to responsibly have equity in their homes. One of the problems that we found is that as we see this credit crunch, it's been difficult for people to have what is now necessary for a down payment for those homes. And so the measure that I introduced, which, again, will encourage people not to walk away from their home and have equity in it, provides a $2,000 credit if one provides a, establishes a 5 percent down payment, a $5,000 credit if they have a 10 percent down payment, and a $10,000 tax credit if they will put 15 percent down.

Now, let's think about that. I mean, if someone puts 10 percent down on a $200,000 home, they automatically have $20,000 in equity and would be much less inclined to abandon that home as we've dealt with the challenges that we face out there.

There is an inventory that needs to be addressed, of housing, that has yet to be purchased. We have neighborhoods that have been emptied, and I believe that this kind of incentive could again take this industry, which has played a role in the economic downturn, and actually, as has historically been the case, play a role in leading us back to economic strength.

And the third measure deals with the other industry, Mr. Speaker, that, as you know very well, we've spent a great deal of time talking about here; the administration has recently taken action on it, and it has to do with the automobile industry.

Now, I will say that I'm not personally one who believes that we should be using the Tax Code to encourage the selection of winners over losers, but we know that both the housing industry and the auto industry have historically been very critical when it comes to moving back to economic strength. And so, having worked with a number of automobile dealers who, frankly, were here in December when we were having the debate in the 110th Congress on this issue, one of the things that was said to me was that we need to make sure that people are encouraged to get off the couch and into the showrooms to look at the purchase of automobiles.

Now, we know, one dealer, a fellow called John Symes, about whom I've spoken here, a 60-year dealership in Southern California in the Pasadena area, a number of dealerships, has said that historically the ability to deduct the interest on automobile loans has been very, very helpful. Well, I don't know that we should go back to that. So, instead, the third bill that I introduced on this, Mr. Speaker, would do the following:

We basically are saying that today we know that the sales tax, both State and local sales tax in States has been very high, and so we called for a credit that would allow an offset for the State and local sales tax to encourage people, again, to get into the showrooms to purchase automobiles, regardless of where those automobiles are from.

I regularly like to say when people say, well, what about American- made cars? And I ask the question somewhat rhetorically, what is an American-made car, Mr. Speaker? Is it a Ford manufactured in Canada with Mexican-made parts, or is it a BMW manufactured in South Carolina with American-made parts?

And so I believe it is important for us to ensure that any automobile, any automobile would, in fact, qualify for this provision. So if someone's buying a $20,000 automobile and the sales tax is 8 percent, that would be $1,600 right off the top. And we set that at the sales tax rate for January 1 of 2009.

Both the housing and the automobile provisions, Mr. Speaker, apply for a 2-year period of time during which I'm convinced we can, in fact, see our economy grow.

The reason that I have raised these issues, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe, as we deal with a resolution like this one that could be brought up under unanimous consent, we should, instead, be debating and voting on measures like these three bills that were introduced last week. I know there are a wide range of other creative ideas that have come from Democrats and Republicans as well as to how we can deal with this.

So I hope very much that we can take on this challenge and that we can ensure that whatever we provide in this economic stimulus package that it is, in fact, going to be a package that will get our economy back on track.

I am very concerned at the reports that we have gotten of massive, massive spending, and I, again, congratulate our colleague Senator Conrad for pointing to the deficit as being an issue with which we are going to have to contend. If we want to have sustained and not temporary economic growth, I believe the best way that we can do that is to take steps to encourage greater and greater and greater private- sector growth in our economy.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in support of this resolution. I hope very much that we can move ahead with it so that we will be able to deal with the pressing challenges that the American people have sent us here to address.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1448.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1448 is a structured rule, providing for further consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act. It provides for the consideration of two amendments which were initially cleared as PAYGO-compliant but which were subsequently deemed to violate PAYGO after the first rule was adopted. These amendments have been revised to comply with PAYGO rules, and this rule treats them as part of yesterday's rule.

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, after years of lax regulation and Wall Street roulette, our Nation's economy fell off a cliff. Within a matter of months, many Wall Street giants fell, and they took the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses with them. Since that time, we have taken bold action to stabilize the economy, to invest in economic growth, and we are in the process of putting in place new rules to protect against the casino-like atmosphere that existed on Wall Street.

Yet for small businesses, they are still feeling the pinch. Accessing capital to build, to grow, to diversify, and to hire new employees remains a pressing challenge. In September of 2008, there was an earthquake on Wall Street, and the aftershocks are still being felt on Main Street. The purpose of this bill is to help those small businesses deal with the aftershocks of that credit crunch from a year and a half ago.

The underlying bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, establishes a process for community banks to lend responsibly to small businesses. Because of a mistake, two of my colleagues, Representative Schrader and

Representative Miller, were precluded from offering their amendments as reported in yesterday's rule. This rule merely allows for the consideration of their modified amendments so we can perfect this legislation and get our Nation's small businesses back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the whip, but I think what we've got to do is to just talk about reality here.

The reality is, when George Bush left office in January of 2009, this country was losing 780,000 jobs per month. Last month, we gained 400,000 jobs. That's a swing of over 1.1 million jobs per month. Yet, on top of that, not only did the Bush administration leave this country in a terrible lurch with jobs; it left this country with a terrible lurch and with a terrible deficit of $1.3 trillion.

The Republicans would have America have mass amnesia, to forget where we were. In 2007, we spent $141 billion in Iraq. Today, they're telling us, Hey, let's sell off part of the country to pay our debts. We were spending $141 billion in Iraq and not paying for it. This year, we're going to draw that down to $65 billion. Republicans would have us forget.

Let's talk real money. I agree: we should never be wasting money in this country. Every dollar should be worthwhile and real, but we're going to spend $77 billion less in Iraq than under George Bush and at the end of the Republican rule of Congress.

So here we've improved employment by some 1.1 million jobs per month. We were left with a terrible deficit by President Bush of $1.3 trillion. We are drawing down Iraq and are saving real money. Then they come up with an advertising program of YouCut to sell assets of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would remind the Speaker and others that we're here on the small business lending bill, not on Mr. Chaffetz's proposal or any proposal like that. It may have merit at another time when that bill, itself, is brought forward, but we're here to talk about the small business lending bill, which provides community banks, smaller banks with funds to make credit available to the small businesses on Main Street that were hurt by the crash on Wall Street. So I would just remind the Speaker as to what this bill, the underlying bill, is.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just quote from a letter we received from the Independent Community Bankers of America: On behalf of the 5,000 members of the Independent Community Bankers of America, we strongly support passage of the proposed Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010.

We're here on the rule to allow for that bill to go forward, and I would

like to remind the Speaker and others that that's the purpose of the hearing today.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I remind my friend from Kansas that when you cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America, you prosecute two wars without paying for them, and you fail to police Wall Street so that it becomes a big casino and results in a crash leaving this country in terrible debt, and you turn a budget upside down, those are the policies that bring a country and bring small businesses to their knees. The country, because of various steps taken, has come out of the terrible dip of the last months of the Bush administration to where we're adding jobs.

We have a long way to go. We lost millions of jobs, and many small businesses were hurt in the process. The purpose of the bill that is to be voted on today is about providing funding to smaller banks so that small business will have credit, and people will get back to work. Providing a platform for small business to really get back on its feet and put the people back to work, so many of whom lost their jobs in this recession that was caused by the tax cuts, the two wars without payment, and failing to police Wall Street.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

I would ask my friend from North Carolina how many more speakers she may have.

I just would say, again, reading from the letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America. The Act, which is the Small Business Lending Fund Act, the Act would offer capital to interested community banks to increase small business credit. We urge the House to pass this legislation. The Nation's 8,000-strong community banks are well positioned to leverage this fund and have established relationships with small businesses in their communities to get credit flowing. On down it says, Notably, leveraging the $30 billion funds with community banks would potentially support many times that amount in loan volume to small businesses, as much as $300 billion in additional lending.

By reducing the dividend costs on the capital investment as lending increases, this program helps to ensure more community banks have both the incentive and greater capacity to increase total loans to small businesses. That's the purpose of this rule, to pass the underlying bill, which is to increase credit to small businesses and get them back on their feet and help continue to add jobs, as we have over the course of the last 14 or 15 months. When we were at the very depth of the recession, in January 2009, the last month of the Bush administration, losing 780,000 jobs; in April, where we gained 290,000 jobs; in May, 400,000 jobs. That's what this is about, putting people back to work, getting this country back on a strong financial footing.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I, again, remind everyone that the rule and the bill are about small business lending. Again, I would refer to the letter from the independent community bankers. ICBA believes the proposed Small Business Lending Fund Act supports their recommendations, and this fresh program approach will attract a broader spectrum of community banks to boost small business lending and job growth. We applaud the new program focused on getting funds to Main Street's small businesses using Main Street community banks.

We're here to try to get money to small businesses throughout the country using the smaller community banks, regional banks. The purpose is to get them back on their feet, get them growing. We're not here to talk

about selling off assets of America. We're here to talk about getting small businesses back on their feet.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would remind my friend, at the height of the Iraq war we spend $141 billion, as we draw troops down to $65 billion, a savings of $76 billion a year. That is money. These things we can find other places to save where there is wasteful spending, $76 billion in Iraq. That is what this Congress is finding. That is what this President has found. Instead of going into war and not paying for it, $76 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I want to make sure that the record is clear that the amendments that are presented in today's rule are in full compliance with the PAYGO rule, and that is why we are proceeding with this second rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses cannot grow if credit is not available to them. Over the course of the last year and a half, credit has tightened substantially. This bill provides for a loan fund to small community banks and regional banks so that they can work with their small businesses throughout the country. This is not focused on Wall Street, but is focused on Main Street so we can get small businesses really back strong and prosperous and hiring people back so that this country is on a full and vibrant financial footing.

I would just remind the Speaker, we have strong support from a whole variety of organizations with respect to the bill: the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Majority, the National Association of Realtors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association, and a number of other organizations.

Our Nation's small businesses have waited long enough for much-needed capital, so we won't make them wait any longer. This credit crunch has taken its toll, but now it is time to focus on Main Street.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago, I came before this body in opposition to a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5297, a bill affectionately known as ``TARP III.'' At that time, I expressed concern over the cost of this bill and over the ruling Democrats' lack of ability to run this House in an orderly fashion. My presence here today is testament to these concerns.

If the process for considering this legislation and accompanying amendments had been more thoroughly vetted, we could have avoided meeting today altogether, but apparently, in their zeal to add to the budget-busting TARP III legislation, some flawed amendments were found to violate the Democrats' cherished PAYGO rules.

Yesterday, it was discovered that two amendments--Miller No. 46 and Schrader No. 14--were not PAYGO-compliant. H.R. 5297 is being paid for with the savings in H.R. 5486, but due to the timetables used for those savings, the amendments failed to meet the first 5-year window of PAYGO. The rule did not contain any PAYGO waivers. Therefore, the amendments now need to either be redrafted or they need to have the PAYGO rules waived.

Despite the pledge made in a document entitled, ``A New Direction for America,'' when then-Minority Leader Pelosi promised ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives,'' it's worth mentioning that there were 57 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for H.R. 5297. Of those, 37 were Democrat; 17 were Republican, and three were bipartisan. Of those 57 submitted, there were 17 amendments made in order, only one of which was Republican.

Therefore, I recommend voting against this rule, not only in opposition to the underlying legislation, but also in protest of the partisan process for which it is being considered.

Mr. Speaker, while the ruling Democrats claim the underlying TARP III bill is about helping small businesses, it is really just another bank bailout. The bill is intended to give the appearance that they're doing something. It appears the ruling liberal Democrat regime has completely given up on even trying to pretend they are capable of budgeting or of even governing this country. Certainly, the ruling Democrats would be better served on focusing on passing a budget than on considering the bill before us today.

So what is the next step for the Democrats?

In an apparent effort to help shield their vulnerable Members from having to endure their unconscionable approach to budgeting during an election year, the ruling Democrats are now planning to forgo the annual congressional budget process altogether, this during a time when voters are looking for real solutions and accountability. How is that for leadership?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the Republican whip, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues from across the aisle always fail to mention that, in the last 2 years of the Bush administration, Democrats were in charge of Congress. The President can't spend any money. Only the Congress can spend money. So they conveniently leave out the fact that, when they took over Congress, our economy was doing great, absolutely great. From the moment they took over Congress in January of 2007, things started going downhill. The $1.3 trillion deficit came about as a result of the spending, spending, spending by our colleagues from across the aisle. They've lost touch with the real world.

The other thing my colleague points out is 400,000 jobs were created last month. He fails to mention that almost all of those jobs were created by the census hiring temporary people who will no longer be employed after the end of this year. So they're government jobs.

The American people are seeing through these tales they're being told by our colleagues across the aisle of how wonderful they have made the economy. They know that we have a 9.7 percent unemployment rate. They know that the deficit for the Republican-led Congress from 1996 to 2007 was only $1.2 trillion in 12 years. This Democrat Congress racked up in 2 years a $3.2 trillion deficit. My goodness. The American people, again, can see through this, Mr. Speaker. They're not going to be fooled by this rhetoric.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my colleague across the aisle needs to be reminded we're actually here to debate because of two amendments that violate their vaunted PAYGO, which means we are talking about the deficit and we are talking about the sorry economy that the Democrats have brought to this country.

Now I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the gentleman from Colorado reminds us to stay on the topic, but then he yields to someone who spends most of his time blaming a person who is not even any longer in office. That is the theme of our colleagues across the aisle. No sense of responsibility or accountability on their part.

They passed the disastrous stimulus, which all it did was put us deeper into debt. It hasn't done anything to help the economy. They talk about more government control. Well, what about the MMS department? They were the ones who were supposed to be checking out whether what BP was doing was okay. They signed off on all the permits and let them drill. That's what growing the government does for us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, every time my colleague wants to blame the economy on the former President, I'm going to remind him that the Democrats were in control of this Congress the last 2 years that President Bush was in office. You can talk all you want to about what the job numbers were in the last month of the Bush administration. The Democrats were in control of Congress, and they caused the problem.

I now yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, my eloquent colleague, from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

We have at least two more speakers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Georgia, Dr. Price.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, my colleagues across the aisle talk about trying to create jobs. I will point out to my colleague that trying isn't doing it. What happens is you pass the stimulus to create jobs, omnibus appropriations to create jobs, auto bailouts to create jobs, health care, cap-and- trade, all of those things to create jobs. You are trying, but you are not doing. What you are doing is you are creating government jobs.

This is the chart that the American people want to look at: how many government jobs you are creating. You have also created a deficit in 2 years three times the size of the deficit that Republicans created in 12 years. You are so selective in how you talk about history. Clinton was President for part of that time. You say he had a surplus at the end of his term; but you never give Republicans credit for that. But then you talk about our being in charge of the Congress. You know, you are very selective with your statistics. But you have tried and you've failed. You have not created jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote to cut spending. Republican Whip Eric Cantor really launched the YouCut initiative which gives people an opportunity to vote for Federal spending they would like to see Congress cut. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have cast their votes, and this week they have directed their Representatives in Congress to consider H.R. 5535.

According to the Republican whip YouCut Web site: ``The Office of Management and Budget estimated in 2007 that the Federal Government is holding $18 billion in real property it does not need. Rather than selling this property, however, Federal law usually requires that it first be offered, often at no cost, to other government agencies, to State and local governments, to nonprofits, and others. The Federal Government has conveyed at no cost: a building in Las Vegas that is intended to house the mob museum; land in Massachusetts for a private high school where tuition is over $29,000 a year; and a building in Florida that the Federal Government now leases back at a cost of over $100,000 a year. This proposal would amend Federal law to require an expedited process for selling unneeded Federal property with 80 percent of the proceeds used to reduce the deficit.''

In order to provide for consideration of this commonsense legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.

I remember back in the movie, ``The American President,'' there's one scene where Michael Douglas' character is being criticized by one of his staff members, and he says, Is the view pretty good from the cheap seats?

I have to sit here and say, my colleagues, the view is pretty good from the cheap seats. Because if you think back upon what we inherited, those of us who are now trying to pull that car out of the ditch, which is also the economy, and try to improve things for the American people, how deep in that ditch it was. And we're talking about 700,000 jobs lost per month. We're talking about an inherited projected deficit of $10 trillion. That's what the Obama administration and this Congress has been trying to repair.

Now, what has been the response from our colleagues on the other side? It has been solely, Well, this isn't a good idea; this isn't a good idea; this isn't a good idea. We're spending too much money. Blah, blah, blah. Let's cut taxes. Well, we tried that. Been there, done that, and that's what brought us to the ditch.

Now what have we done in this Congress? What have we done to take that car out of the ditch and get it back on the road? We have taken, by every measure possible. We passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We put $300 billion back in the hands of the American taxpayers. That's something that our colleagues on the other side neglect to mention, that that money--most of that money, or 40 percent of the so-called stimulus package, went back to the American taxpayers to spend.

I have the privilege of cochairing the Congressional Task Force on American Competitiveness. Two days ago, we had a forum here. We have had people from companies as large as General Electric and Ford to very small startups. Without an exception, every one of those businesspeople said that we would be in such worse shape were it not for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You can imagine all of the progress or much of the progress they had made in sustaining or growing their businesses was attributable to support given through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and that the government has to continue to play a role.

One reason they said was very interesting. In the global economy, we are not necessarily competing in a free market atmosphere. We're competing with a lot of State-supported industry. So, for instance, when General Electric, which is bringing back 400 jobs from China to my district to build an energy-efficient hybrid water heater, they did it because support through the Recovery Act enabled them to make that difference that they were trying to balance--the economics--because of a State-supported system in China. The support they got through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act made up that difference and now they are bringing 400 jobs back.

They are bringing back 400 jobs. They are planning to bring back more jobs, again, because of the government's help. Now, as I said at the outset, there are two ways to approach this decline. We can say the government has no role. We can say all the government should do is get out of the way and the private forces will recover the economy. As I said, been there, done that. It hasn't worked.

The steps that we have taken, the steps that we propose to take in this Small Business Act, the subject of this rule, are steps that we believe are worth trying, that will be an affirmative effort to grow jobs in the small business segment of the economy to make capital available, to provide tax incentives--yes, to my friends on the other side, tax incentives--to motivate small business operators to grow their businesses, to start new businesses. These are the steps that this Congress and this administration are taking to grow the economy. It is better than sitting in the cheap seats and saying we want to go back to the agenda that put us in the ditch.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

I know the American people who are watching this must have their heads spinning because all we have heard for a year and a half now from our colleagues on the other side was TARP was a disastrous program; TARP is a disastrous program. They are running ads against us in our districts about how horrible TARP was: so and so voted for TARP. And yet here we have someone who is advocating that we take money from TARP and give it to small businesses. I actually think that is a good idea. I am for that.

But I want to clarify something because he is misstating the impact of the underlying bill. This bill does not add anything to the deficit. This bill is paid for, and the $30 billion in loan facilities that we are actually making available to small banks throughout the country actually generates a surplus for the Treasury. That is a profit maker for the Treasury. There is no cost unless the money is actually borrowed. And if it is borrowed and paid back with interest, then the taxpayers actually benefit.

So it is one to thing to talk about deficits and argue about who is responsible and so forth, but to actually misstate the actual facts about the underlying bill here is a little bit disingenuous.

I would like to make one more comment. My friend from North Carolina mentioned earlier, you keep blaming the former President. No, we actually keep blaming the former 12 years of Republican control of the Congress because that is the period of time in which the really disastrous policies for the economy were implemented and were approved: the two tax cuts that mostly went to wealthiest Americans; the $7 trillion projected debt because of the unfunded prescription drug plan; and, of course, the war funding.

I know that the President, President Bush, dealt for 2 years with a Democratic Congress. We did have control of the Congress, but we sure didn't have a veto-proof Congress. And every time we wanted to implement a policy or change the President's budget, he threatened a veto. So, yes, we did have control of the Congress, but we didn't have control of the Nation's economy. But for 12 years, the Republican Congress did. For 6 years of that, they had control of all three branches of government. That is when the true damage was done.

We have an important piece of legislation that will help small businesses create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 15, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary to inquire into the matters concerning Judge Porteous and let it be a signal that this Congress is interested in understanding what truly transpired regarding the Judge in a bipartisan and impartial manner.

Judge Porteous was a United States District Judge for Louisiana, and had been a judge of the Louisiana Judicial District Court from 1984 before being appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.

Judge Porteous is well-known for his stance upholding the Constitution's separation of church and state and his judgments in defense of the first amendment right to free speech. He has controversially ruled in several landmark cases against the State, including one 2002 case in which he ruled that the State of Louisiana was illegally using Federal money to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education programs. He ordered the State to stop giving money to individuals or organizations that ``convey religious messages or otherwise advance religion'' with tax dollars. He said there was ample evidence that many of the groups participating in the Governor's Program on Abstinence were ``furthering religious objectives.''

Also, in 2002, Judge Porteous overturned a Federal ban on rave paraphernalia such as glowsticks, pacifiers, and dust masks, which are used at rave, electronic music concerts, where the use of Ecstasy is common.

In 2001, Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy, which led to revelations in the press about his private life, specifically the fact that he was alleged to have had close ties with local bail bond magnate Louis Marcotte III, at the center of a corruption probe, which has more recently led to his being the subject of investigation himself by Federal investigators. In May 2006, Judge Porteous, beset by the recent loss of his wife and still under investigation by a Federal grand jury, was granted temporary medical leave and began a 6-month furlough from the Federal bench.

On June 18, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted a certificate to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives expressing the Conference's determination that consideration of impeachment of Judge Porteous might be warranted. The certificate stated that there was substantial evidence that Judge Porteous ``repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath which concealed cash and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him. The certificate listed a series of ``abuses'' that constituted an abuse of judicial office in violation of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Late last year, I was selected to be one of the members of the House Judiciary Taskforce that will investigate Judge Porteous. Representatives Adam Schiff and Bob Goodlatte were designated as chair and ranking member to lead the taskforce conducting the inquiry.

H. Res. 15 authorizes and directs the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach Judge Porteous. The resolution provides that the taskorce may, in

connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena.

Moreover, the resolution provides that there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be necessary to assist the committee on the Judiciary in conducting the inquiry under this resolution. The committee is authorized to require by subpoenas or otherwise, the (1) the attendance and testimony of any person and (2) the production of such things as it deems necessary for the inquiry. Lastly, the resolution provides that the Committee may adopt a rule regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the Committee.

By bringing this resolution to the floor, we as Members of Congress demonstrate that we are concerned about taking the moral high ground and are concerned enough to investigate wrongdoing and allegations thereof when it affects anyone in a bipartisan manner--be the accused a Democrat or Republican. This resolution is an important first step to the beginning days of an administration that staked its campaign on change. Let us usher in change. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution