Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for the time.

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

``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the precedents and traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

Mr. Speaker, I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take credit for them, because I did not write them. My staff did not write them nor did the Republican staff of the Rules Committee. In fact, so far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in this House of Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat-run Rules Committee, Mr. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

He spoke these exact words on the floor over 2 years ago regarding what he eloquently and accurately called a ``martial law rule,'' which is what we're being asked to consider here today. We're being asked to consider this outrageous process on the House floor today, yet the Democratic Party knows it's not the right thing to do. It was not right then and it's not right now. My friends on the other side of the aisle know it's not right, and that's why they spoke up at the time, and I agree with them.

Last month, the Democrat majority barreled a 2,037-page health care bill through Congress forcing government-run health care on every single American. Today, in similar form, they are considering a 1,300- page Federal takeover of the financial services industry, 1,300 pages. This is simply another example of the government overstepping its boundary into the private market courtesy of the Democratic Party.

This monstrous financial reform package includes provisions to extend TARP, make Federal bailout authority permanent, and allow bureaucrats to determine the types of financial products that will be made available to consumers and set the salaries of private sector employees.

This bill does nothing to help create private sector jobs or to provide financial relief to Americans in these tough times, which should be Congress's number one priority. But not this majority.

Over the past 3 years, America has witnessed a reckless multitrillion dollar spending binge by this Democrat-controlled Congress with more borrowing, more taxing, and more spending. The Treasury Department has reported the total deficit for fiscal year 2009 reached a record $1.4 trillion. This is nine times the size of the deficit when the Democrats first took control of Congress.

Despite the Obama administration and congressional Democrats' promise that their trillion dollar ``stimulus'' plan would create jobs and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, the Department of Labor once again reported an unemployment level of 10 percent. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, the number of unemployed persons has doubled to 15.4 million people, and this is only what is being reported.

It's time to stop the bailouts. It's time to get the government out of business industry takeovers, and it's time to stop killing jobs. Unfortunately, this bill we are considering today puts the American people on the hook once again for one of the greatest expansions of Federal Government in the history of United States while doing nothing to create jobs.

The first major provision of this bill was best summarized by a Democratic Congressman, Brad Sherman from California, as ``TARP on steroids.'' It

creates a permanent bailout authority for the Federal Government by assessing $150 billion in new taxes on American businesses that will ultimately result in higher interest rates and higher fees for consumers.

Most disastrous, however, is that this tax, according to the minority on the Financial Services Committee will shrink available credit by as much as $55 billion and result in the loss of as many as 450,000 more American jobs in the financial services area.

Congress should be focusing on doing things to create jobs, not to tax investors, the financial services, and destroy jobs. This is the core difference between my Republican colleagues and our friends the Democrats in Congress.

Republicans believe it's time to allow business to pay back TARP funds, knock down TARP authority, and pay down the debt with returning the money to the taxpayer. Our friends the Democrats want to create a perpetual TARP-like fund, a bottomless treasure chest to continue their happy spending ways.

In an effort to thwart this trend and to protect American workers from job-killing provisions in this bill, I introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee last night which would eliminate this legislation if the Government Accounting Office finds that the provisions of this bill would kill 1 million or more jobs. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my friends that are Democrats, were really serious about this, they would have made this amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, on a party-line basis, even when the facts of the case said if this bill is going to destroy a million or more jobs, every single Democrat said don't include that as a provision in this bill because politics are more important than policy in this House.

I think we can all agree that protecting consumers is an essential role for Congress. Ensuring consumer safety is absolutely necessary for a successful, prosperous economy. Yet one of the most far-reaching provisions of this bill is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This CFPA is a classic example of the government's overstepping its authority into the free enterprise system simply to make government bigger and to further control the free enterprise system and free market.

This massive new agency will be led by a credit czar, yet another czar, who will have unprecedented, unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers, impose fees on consumer products, and rule over financial transactions. The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers, reduce the number and type of products available to them, increase the micromanagement of financial services firms, greatly increase the confusion caused by conflicting consumer laws, and ensure the demise of American competitiveness around the world.

In addition to the CFPA, this bill provides for the greatest Federal expansion of the Federal Reserve since the central bank's creation almost a hundred years ago.

Mr. Speaker, Americans pride themselves on the free enterprise system, the free market, and choices. Yet Congress once again today will pass legislation that increases government control and interference in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choice, and dictates wages and projects as well as prices involved.

In a time of economic recession, with record unemployment and record deficits, I think--and the Republican Party thinks--Congress should be enacting legislation to grow our economy and to help with the creation of jobs, not to destroy jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear; our Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system once again.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation because Republicans K-N-O-W what our Democrat colleagues are trying to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very interesting that my Democrat colleagues are saying that Republicans handed them this big mess, which they couldn't wait to get, and they have made it worse. They're acting like they made it better. They have diminished the employment in this country, they have raised spending 85 percent in the last 2 years, and they are making this problem even worse. They begged for a chance to get their hands on this. They're doing it the way they wanted, and it's making matters worse for this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Topeka, Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

How much time is the gentleman willing to give me, 1 minute?

I appreciate the opportunity.

The gentleman knows that the surplus was literally trillions of dollars, and that is always a guesstimate in the future of where we exist. The gentleman knows that on 9/11 of 2001 there was a surplus in this country. On 9/11 of 2001, this country was struck by a group of terrorists who intended to harm our financial economy.

Well, this is what I was talking about. The gentleman said he would give me enough----

I will answer the gentleman if he will allow me a full answer.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, the gentleman will be able to vote for Mr. Bachus' amendment, which says exactly the right thing to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

I appreciate the gentleman for asking. In fact, I do have two further speakers who are expected. Neither are here at this time, but I intend to consume that time.

I appreciate the gentleman for providing such information, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On Monday, my colleagues and I sent a more recent letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner, which was a followup to a letter that had been sent by many, many Republican Members of Congress to adhere to the December 31 TARP expiration date and to dedicate all returning funds to reducing the public debt. We had sent Secretary Geithner a letter on December 7, 2009, which spoke about how the original concept of TARP--the Troubled Asset Relief Program, that which we know as TARP--should be implemented and used.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 7, 2009.

Hon. Timothy Geithner,

Secretary of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Geithner: As the December 31, 2009 deadline

for the end of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)

approaches, we urge you to adhere to this expiration date and

decline to use your authority to extend TARP into 2010. As

additional preferred shares are repurchased and dividends and

interest are collected, we also urge you to dedicate all

returned funds and other revenue to reducing the national

debt.

During a recent Congressional hearing you stated that you

were working to ``put the TARP out of its misery.'' We

support your intention and believe putting the program ``out

of its misery'' entails nothing less than ending the

disbursement of any remaining TARP funds on December 31,

2009.

The purpose of TARP was to provide immediate support and

emergency stabilization to the financial system. Regardless

of whether we voted for or against TARP, we believe the

financial system is now significantly stabilized compared

with the situation from a year ago. While there will continue

to be ups and downs as the economy recovers, the federal

government does not need a dedicated support fund for the

financial system. In order for the government to exit from

the unprecedented interventions of the past year and a half,

the government must first stop spending funds on more

interventions.

When TARP was enacted, the public debt limit was increased

to $11.3 trillion. Since January, the national debt has

increased more than $1.4 trillion, and Congress is now set to

consider a debt limit increase of up to $13.2 trillion, the

fourth debt limit increase since July 2008. Not spending the

remaining TARP funds, $246 billion according to the last

SIGTARP quarterly report, will reduce the already staggering

amount our nation is borrowing.

SIGTARP also reported repayments of $72.9 billion, $9.5

billion from dividends and interest and $2.9 billion in

proceeds from sale of warrants, and we understand $45 billion

more in repayment is pending. All of these TARP receipts and

future receipts must be devoted to debt reduction rather than

spent on further government interventions or other programs.

While estimates vary on the final cost to the taxpayers from

TARP, all estimates are that the taxpayers will lose billions

of dollars and that there will be no profit from TARP.

Ensuring every dime of income goes to debt reduction reduces

the taxpayers' ultimate loss.

The first TARP program, the Capital Purchase Program,

offered taxpayers the greatest opportunity to recover their

investment. Additional programs added to TARP, such as

assistance to the automakers and AIG, carry much less

assurance for the taxpayers, and the mortgage modification

program will result in no recoupment for the taxpayers. The

longer the remaining unspent TARP funds and revenue remain on

the table, the more money that will be spent and not

recovered. The emergency has ended, and TARP must end as

well.

The taxpayers understand the difference between ending TARP

on December 31 and setting aside a portion of unspent funds

as some type of reserve. They know the difference between

devoting all repaid funds, dividends and other income to debt

reduction and using just some of these funds for debt

reduction and spending the rest. In the interest of our

nation's fiscal health and the certainty for the financial

system that comes with knowing the government is done with

this intervention, we urge your consideration of our request

and await your response.

Sincerely,

Randy Neugebauer, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Spencer

Bachus, Mike Pence, Adam Putnam, J. Gresham Barrett,

John P. Carter, Tom Price, Kenny Marchant, Pete

Sessions, Wally Herger, Ron Paul, Joe Wilson.

The bottom line is that the money which was debated on this floor, passed on this floor, passed by the United States Senate, and signed by the former President had a very clear understanding about the money that would be spent and about the money that would be returned. I believe that Secretary Geithner should respond to this letter to let this body know and to let these signers of this letter know how he intends to approach this TARP money that is being returned.

There was a report earlier in the week that virtually 90 percent of this money had been repaid. Yet what we see in this bill is some $200 billion more in a permanent fund which would be established. You and I both recognize that $200 billion more going in behalf of and spent would simply extend our deficit. Our deficit in 2007 was $161 billion. The deficit in 2009 is $1.4 trillion. This is a nine-times growth since our friends, the Democrats, have taken control of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this country was not attacked like we were on 9/11. We have

not had another Katrina. We have not had the things which have been natural disasters, which were dealt with by the Republicans in the majority. This is pure and simple spending that has taken place and that has been raised 85 percent in the last 2 years. To say that someone has laid that at the doorstep and has raised the deficit spending from $161 billion in 2007 to $1.4 trillion in 2009, and yet has blamed that on anyone else other than the people who voted for it, which is the Democrat majority, would be a misnomer. That is mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California, Congressman Royce.

I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, coming down to provide us an update on the reality of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here arguing about deficits and who is responsible for what, and who is guilty of acting like a drunk sailor and who is spending money. The bottom line is that it is true, George Bush and Republicans during 8 years had some deficits. The largest was in 2008, some $415 billion. The first year of the Democrats' spending spree, over a $1.4 trillion deficit. Republicans seem to create jobs. Some 5.3 million jobs were created within this deficit that occurred.

Our friends, the Democrats, massive unemployment, massive spending, massive deficits. Those are the facts of the case. This shows where we are headed, the American people know it, and that's why there is an outcry all across this country to stop what is happening, even today, with a bill that will lose 400,000 more jobs.

Look, I get it. I know that the Speaker's political agenda, the three biggest items, health care, cap-and-trade and card check will not lose 10 million more American jobs. I get that, but so do the American people. The Republican Party is saying, let's not lose 400,000 more jobs with the passage of this massive takeover of the financial services industry. We don't have the votes to stop it, but there are a lot of skid marks in the concrete today to say we shouldn't be doing this. We don't have the votes to stop it, but we are saying let's be careful because we know, k-n-o-w, where you are headed.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think while it's important to provide consumer

safety and security in the marketplace, our constituents are more concerned with the economy and the jobs. They see this as a massive government takeover, and the industry knows exactly what it is also.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are simply looking for more problems so they can put their government takeover solutions in place. Week after week, we come to the House floor to debate bills, bills that kill our economy, diminish jobs and put us further into debt, whether it's cap-and-trade or health care. Now today the government takeover of the financial sector with the Barney Frank bill, we are talking about hundreds of thousands and soon to be millions of jobs at a time of record unemployment.

We ask the Democrat majority to please just put a caveat in here that if this bill were going to lose more than 1 million jobs, let's not do it. The Democrats on a party-line basis have said, Look, pal, our agenda is more important than any facts of the case about losing jobs.

The Republican Party is on the floor here today asking that we defeat this rule, defeat this bill, defeat the things which are going on which will encourage more borrowing, more taxing, more spending, record deficits, record unemployment, and, of course, making sure that the government wins every tie. We disagree with the Democrat majority. We disagree with the politics, the policies, and we disagree with the results.

The Republican Party will be voting ``no'' today, Mr. Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 962 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 962.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 962 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule reported through the legislative day of December 10, 2009, that provides for same-day consideration of H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so that we can move quickly to enact this critically important legislation.

Over the past year, the financial crisis has shown that the deregulation or even the lack of regulation over financial firms is not an option anymore. For the first time ever, this legislation provides key provisions that will mandate oversight of certain parts of the United States financial system. It will ensure that mortgage lenders are subject to high national standards so they can no longer give an individual a loan that they cannot afford to pay back. Furthermore, it will provide for a new interagency oversight council that will allow Federal regulators to oversee the entire system and identify activities that pose a risk to our Nation's financial system. It will also require comprehensive regulation of the opaque over-the-counter derivatives marketplace.

In my home State of Florida, we are undoubtedly facing an insurance crisis. Homeowners are burdened by continuously increasing property insurance premiums, or some are losing their coverage altogether while companies are going under or simply leaving the State. This poses a problem not only to property owners who cannot afford increasing costs in this difficult economy but also to the State, which has taken on the responsibility of covering those who cannot get insurance elsewhere, and to the Federal Government, which may be left to deal with the damage when disaster strikes.

H.R. 4173 directs the Federal Insurance Office to conduct a study on the modernization and improvement of the insurance industry in the United States. I introduced an amendment to the underlying legislation asking that they also look at the geographic disparities in cost and access within this study.

Hurricanes, floods, fires, windstorms are factors driving the cost of insurance higher in Florida than in some other areas of the country. Numerous private insurers have recently sought rate hikes, with regulators approving increases as much as 15 percent.

Now, we certainly cannot change the fact that certain regions face higher risks than others. However, the amendment that I filed will help determine what changes to the industry and its regulation can help ensure that these necessary insurance protections are available, accessible, and reasonably affordable for all Americans.

H.R. 4173 will also provide American consumers with long overdue safeguards and reflects the Congress's commitment to putting the needs of the American people before those of Wall Street. I am pleased that Chairman Frank has seen fit to include the amendment that I just spoke to in his manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield myself some time and then yield to the dean of the House. But I would like, previous to yielding to the dean, to address my colleague's immediate concerns regarding the procedure in this measure.

He decries the procedure. I served in the minority with my colleague, who is now in the minority. This is not an unusual procedure, particularly given the importance of this legislation.

I want to point out that in the 109th Congress, the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee; by contrast, this rule is only for this one specific bill and only for today.

Additionally, I would like to address my colleague's concerns regarding where we are. I've been hearing repeatedly on this floor that the Democrats have not done anything. I won't give the litany of everything that we have done, but I do want to clear up, when we are referred to as persons that are happily spending like we are drunk sailors, I want to know what we started out with.

My colleagues seem to forget that we inherited a financial mess, a system on the brink of collapse. I didn't hear the cry when Mr. Paulson came here and said that our financial system was on its knees. We reacted, both Democrat and Republican, and I might add even the TARP did better than most Democrats and Republicans expected.

We inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, two wars that weren't paid for, a broken health care system, and a 1950s energy policy. That was the gift from the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress. So there has been a lot to fix this year, and we've been about that business.

So here we are digging out from the Bush economy. It's time to get this done, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs of the American people.

Simply, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a good basis for the bill we will consider today and deserves to be supported by every single Member in this body.

I am very pleased and privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished gentleman from California, I would like to yield to my friend from Texas and ask him a question.

It appears that my friend and I are like ships passing in the night. Both of us have been here during the period that Democrats have been in the majority, the minority, and the majority gain. When your party gained the majority, does my friend have a recollection of what the surplus was and the fact that there was a surplus?

I will yield the gentleman such time as to answer that question, and then I would like to ask the gentleman another question.

Absolutely. Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time, I have yet another question.

When you lost the majority, what was the deficit? And I understand 9/ 11. I understand all of the things that took place. I also understand that had we never been in the Iraq war in the first place we wouldn't be here in this situation.

So tell me, if you can, my friend, what the deficit was when you lost the majority, and what in fact did President Obama inherit when we gained the majority again?

Well, I will do it rhetorically and allow that you answer on your own time.

The simple fact of the matter is when this administration took office, they had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And to continue along the lines of saying that nothing was done, I want you to know that you don't just create a situation that gives rise to eliminating that with a magic wand. The American public understands this dynamic and will be patient as we go forward to try and remedy this matter.

The gentleman spoke earlier to my colleague, Mr. Sherman. But before turning to him I want to look at some of the numbers. Job growth under the current administration is reversing a long downward spiral that started under the last President. The stimulus plan is working as planned. We are making sound investments in helping Americans find good jobs and getting this economy moving again.

The unemployment rate dropped last month. And the efforts of this Congress are helping people afford a home. And we need to do a lot more to un-seize the frozen dollars in these banks that are not helping small businesses, and that is what some of this financial regulatory reform is referencing.

Even the TARP program is working better than expected, and confidence has been restored to Wall Street, evidenced by the market and everybody's 401(k)s, and more than $200 billion is going to be returned to the government.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire from the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

I am the last speaker for this side, so I am going to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on this measure, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Would you tell me how much time I have, Mr. Speaker?

I shall not use all of that time, Mr. Speaker, but I am very much tempted, because my good friend--and he is my good friend--seems to fail to understand some of the things that we do and have done.

One of the things that I think would help some context and perspective is the subject of jobs, which should be and I believe is the concern of the 435 voting Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the six Delegates and Representatives from the Territories.

Let's not continue down the path of myth. When my mom was alive, she, like many of our mothers, became interested more in what we do in Congress by looking at it on television. At some point, I don't remember the day when I came home and she said, Y'all always talk about what happened before. She said, you know, Ford said Nixon did it, and Carter said Ford did it, and Reagan said Carter did it, and then Bush said Reagan did it. She said if you do that, then George Washington must have done it if you just keep going back all the time.

So let's start with some real numbers, not something that is created, and get one thing straight: When we talk about spending, whether it's Republicans or Democrats that spend on behalf of the American people, we rarely do anything other than talk about cost. We don't talk about benefits.

Toward that end, I would only use two, and I have a considerable list of areas that I could address that the Democrats have spent money on. I would ask any of our colleagues, do they feel that we should not have spent $31 billion in science, technology, innovation, math education, cutting-edge research and advanced manufacturing technologies and workforce training? That was passed by the House of Representatives.

I would ask my friend, is there anything about national security troops and veterans that they would not have spent? The fiscal year supplemental for the rest of 2009 provides our troops with everything they need to wind down the war that we shouldn't have been in in the first place, Iraq, and change the strategy in Afghanistan, requiring a progress report and making retroactive payment to 185,000 plus servicemembers whose enlistments were involuntarily extended since 9/ 11. That was signed into law. Would they not have spent that money?

Would they not have spent the money expanding the new GI Bill benefits to cover the full cost of college education for all children of fallen United States servicemembers? That was signed into law.

Would they not have spent the money on the 3.4 percent raise for our troops, strengthening military readiness, expanding support for military families such as health care and housing, focusing on our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and redeployment from Iraq and military procurement reform? That was signed into law.

Would they not have spent the money on one of our top priorities of veterans groups, authorizing Congress to approve VA medical care appropriations 1 year in advance to ensure reliable and timely funding and prevent politics from ever delaying VA health care funding? That was signed into law.

Would they not have spent the money on strengthening quality health care for more than 5 million veterans by investing 15 percent more than 2009 for medical care, benefits claims processors and facility improvements? That was passed by the House.

I could go on the entire 15 minutes on that, but let me go to where I digressed from. Richard Nixon created during his administration and received credit for--and that's what these Presidents do--the creation of 9.4 million jobs. Under President Ford, under strenuous circumstances, his administration was credited with creating 1.8 million jobs.

Under President Reagan coming in with a near identical in many respects, absent 9/11. And a footnote right there. When my colleague mentioned Katrina, I am sure he knows that we haven't finished what's needed to be done with reference to the people on the gulf coast and specifically in the City of New Orleans. But to President Reagan's credit and during his administration and whatever tax decreases or however else it was achieved, I can assure you of the exact number of 16 million jobs. Under President George H.W. Bush, 2.5 million jobs. Under Bill Clinton, 23.1 million jobs. Under President Bush, and my friend from Texas' majority Congress, that at one point had the House, the Senate and the Presidency, under his administration, taking into consideration everything that he has talked about, 3 million jobs, the worst track record on record.

Now, what's needed here, Mr. Speaker, is some fair and straightforward accounting and not the off-budget stuff that I have heard here during the period of time that I am here and that I heard from my colleague.

What this bill will do and what this rule permits us to discuss is not off-budget kind of accounting. Is it sort of like the same kind of off-budget accounting that Wall Street does that my friends on the other side seem to think that we should do? No, fair and straightforward accounting.

My good friend from California that I served with on the Africa Subcommittee, when he was in the majority, we traveled together, an outstanding person and Congressperson. But when he came in here, he described that accountants say this is a moral hazard. I will tell you what a moral hazard is. A moral hazard is putting wars off-budget and not being prepared to pay for them and not asking the American people to make the necessary sacrifices in order that all of us, rich and poor, black and white, conservative and liberal, will pay our fair share to protect this great country of ours. Enough of all of this doom talking and finger-pointing. What is needed is a great consensus for all of us to be able to go forward to straighten out our Nation, and we can do this. I believe that we will.

One of the primary culprits of this current recession was a regulatory system that looked out for the wealth of Wall Street firms rather than the security of average American consumers. This legislation, however, recognizes that the strength of our financial system is not measured simply by the value of the Dow Jones, it's measured by the prosperity of the American people.

One of my friends, Phil Hare, who is here, says, it ain't the GDP, it's the j-o-b. I believe, Mr. Sessions k-n-o-w-s what I am talking about. Our constituents deserve to know that they are not going to be taken advantage of by the institutions to which they have entrusted their financial security. They deserve to know that our financial regulations will stop those institutions who engage in irresponsible practices

without placing an unnecessary burden on those who are acting in the best interests of their consumers.

They deserve to know that this Congress, Republican and Democrat, should not, and I believe the Democrats will not stand idly by, allowing monstrous financial institutions to put our entire economy at risk, rake in billions and shell out egregious bonuses while everyday Americans lose their life savings and struggle from paycheck to paycheck.

As to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we should give Barney Frank and the Financial Services Committee, Republican and Democrat, every credit for extraordinary work in these extremely difficult times for our country. This act makes reasonable and responsible changes to our financial regulatory system and enacts long- needed consumer protections. After months of debate, countless hearings and votes on this very floor, this rule will finally allow for its complete and timely consideration.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 962 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 964.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 964 provides for consideration of amendments to H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The rules provide for consideration of 36 amendments and authorizes the chairman of the Financial Services Committee to move amendments en bloc. In the case of amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption in the House shall be put en gros and without division of the question. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions and allows the Chair to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting and also authorizes the Clerk to make technical and conforming changes to amendatory instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the past year, our financial system is broken, and we can no longer afford to maintain the status quo. We face a recession. I call it a Republican recession based on the Wild West practices of Wall Street and the Republican Congress and the Bush administration.

As a result of this Republican recession, we are talking about people losing their investments and retirement savings last year when the stock market reacted to the heart attack our banking system suffered and the countless jobs that were lost throughout the recession. This bill makes critical reforms to our financial system to address this Wild West era of lax regulation that the Bush administration encouraged.

When Wall Street operates like the Wild West, Main Street suffers, and that is precisely what we've seen for the last few years. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preserves our economic system, restores confidence and takes reasonable steps to prevent future meltdowns. It establishes a robust regulatory oversight regime creating transparency in areas previously hidden from the public.

In this bill, we address consumer protection, investor protection, regulation of hedge funds, credit rating agencies, insurance, derivatives, executive pay, mortgage reform, and we eliminate ``too big to fail.'' Loopholes are closed, consolidated regulation is improved, and transparency is increased so there is no place to hide.

But, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard repeatedly from the other side that this bill puts the taxpayers on the hook in addressing ``too big to fail.'' Well, taxpayers were put on the hook by the lax regulation of the Bush administration which cost this country and each and every citizen trillions and trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, 4 million jobs during the last year of the Bush administration.

In this bill, with those institutions that are so big that they would create a domino effect such as we saw last year, we liquidate or close those firms at no expense to the taxpayer. And I put in precisely a provision that any moneys get paid to the taxpayer first.

Unlike our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we do not want these firms to reorganize. We want to put them out of their existence, for no one is too big to fail. There is no guarantee for these institutions, and precisely what we do is provide preventive measures before this comes about, divestiture, increasing capital, a whole variety of preventive measures before bringing about a liquidation. But, ultimately, if an institution that affects the financial system grows so large or is so complex, ultimately, it is the liquidation.

This bill is about more than just reforming our financial system, though. It is about people's lives and the jobs lost and restoring confidence to a broken system. None of us wants to ever face anything like we did last year, and this bill will help ensure that the Wild West mentality and lax regulation promoted by the Republican Party, which led to huge frauds and robberies, like those committed by Bernard Madoff, Petters, and Stanford and their various Ponzi schemes, doesn't happen again. It is not a coincidence that those kinds of frauds on a scale unlike anything we had ever seen before occurred under the Bush administration.

We are reforming our regulatory system so it is able to fix problems before they become a threat to our economic system. The changes this bill makes are essential to rebuilding Main Street and getting credit flowing to small businesses, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, first to respond to my good friend from California, he talked about getting the best quality product at the best price. Part of the problem that we had, Madam Speaker, is the fact that you didn't know if you had the best quality product because the way things were done under the Bush administration and the lax regulation that occurred, you didn't know whether there was money in the Bernie Madoff account. The whole approach here is to make sure that these things are scrutinized and that people know what it is that they're getting into when they invest or when they buy a product.

I yield to my good friend.

Reclaiming my time, I would say that my friend is mistaken because the bill proposed by my friends on the Republican side does nothing but protect Wall Street, not make it transparent and to avoid hidden bombs that might go off from time to time.

I would like to yield now 3 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, I would just say to my friend from the Financial Services Committee two things as to his amendments. It was in January of 2009, the last month that George Bush was in office, that we had the highest job loss throughout this whole period. Since that time, it has been shrinking. So under the Bush administration, tremendous job loss in 2008, up to 4 million jobs. And those job losses have been shrinking ever since.

I would also say to my friend from the Financial Services Committee, we had this debate in the committee on the language issue. As he knows, my grandparents are from Ukraine. My grandfather came over here, was a successful businessman, but even over a 40- or 50-year period, he had difficulty with the written language. And where we have seen so much fraud and so much con artistry is with people who have difficulty with the language being taken advantage of. And part of this bill, the consumer protection bill, is so that we avoid that kind of fraud and scheming because of people who can't speak the language.

With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, to my good friend from Texas, I think it is easy to know who to blame, and that is the policies of the Republican Congress and the President, George Bush, because things fell apart, jobs were lost, trillions of dollars lost, and companies fleeing as a result of those policies, which we are trying to repair and correct.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

I would just remind my friend from Minnesota that he has an amendment that was made in order, and he and I cosponsored an amendment in the Financial Services Committee, an amendment which has become part of the manager's amendment.

I would also remind him that we create in this a fund assessed against the banking institutions to deal with their liquidation. There is no bailout. As much as my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to be on message and continue to repeat that, there is no bailout.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have remaining?

I would like to first say to my friend from California--and this does cut both ways--the House of Representatives in 2005 did pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was bipartisan. I am referring to an article from September 9, 2008, in the FinancialTimes.com, which interviewed Mr. Oxley, who was the chairman of the Financial Services Committee at the time. The bill was never acted on.

In that article he fumed about the criticism of his House colleagues. ``All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,'' he says. ``What did we get from the White House?''--remember, George Bush was in the White House--``We got a one-finger salute.''

That was from the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

No, I am going to yield 3 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend from Texas how many more speakers he might have, because we have no other speakers, and I will close.

Yes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

``Just say `no.' '' That is the Republican mantra. ``Just say `no'; we like the status quo.'' We are opposed to any movement to get this country back on track.

They oppose health care. They oppose the Recovery Act. They oppose everything, because they like the way it is. They like it so that their friends on Wall Street can continue to reap billions of dollars and record profits.

This is to look, their opposition is solely to look after their friends so their friends can continue to make money at the expense of average Americans, average Americans who lost jobs last year because of the credit crunch on Wall Street which resulted from the lax regulation and the gambling-type approach taken by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress before that.

The recession that we faced, which is as great as anything we have seen since the 1930s, has got to be pinned on my friends in the Republican Party in this Congress and on President Bush.

Really, in the last fall, we saw millions of jobs lost. We are not out of the woods, but that trend has reversed so that we are losing fewer and fewer jobs each month. But there is no recognition of that, because my friends don't want to take any credit for ruining the economy last year to the tune of trillions of dollars to this country, to its taxpayers, and millions of jobs to the people who work every day.

Now, my friends say that this is a job-killing bill. The only thing killed in this bill are failing financial institutions which would affect the economy, just like that domino effect last fall.

We protect consumers. We protect investors. We look at hedge funds. We deal with credit rating agencies. We look at the derivatives and try to rein them in so that they have to post and there aren't dramatic losses as a result of that. We look at insurance, executive pay, but, most importantly, we take a look at institutions that are so big that they, in a prior administration, couldn't fail. Under this bill, we either take them apart or put them out of their misery. There are no bailouts as we had under George Bush.

We are trying to end this recession, and you do it by restoring confidence in the financial system. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I would urge passage of this bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado yielding me the time, and I will use such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do admit, I know the gentleman was not here back in 2003, but on September 11, 2003, President Bush formally asked the Congress for legislation to regulate Freddie and Fannie, seeing a problem that was ahead. The ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Frank, had a quick response that said there is no problem. There is no problem. That's the last thing we should be doing. Their books are clean. They knew that everything was okay. In 2005, just the next session, legislation did pass and was filibustered in the Senate by Democrats, filibustered by Democrats.

To say that the Wild West exists would be a misnomer in financial services terms. There were people who broke the law. There have always been people who break the law. But the people who broke the law knew that they were breaking the law and did so at the expense of other people's money.

But if you want to talk about recession, let's talk about the recession that we are in right now after 3 years of Democratic control in this House of Representatives. Let's talk about 85 percent increase in spending that this body is going to take up a bill today to spend 85 percent more in the last 2 years by this Democrat-controlled Congress. So, I think that we should be very careful about trying to describe a problem when, in fact, someone else is adding to it and making it worse.

Today we are going to consider a 1,300-page bill which will be a Federal takeover of the financial services industry. That is a heck of an answer. An hour ago, I discussed the flaws of the underlying bill, and now you will hear about a number of amendments that

were shut out by our friends, the Democrats. They shut out Democrats. They shut out Republicans. They shut out bipartisan amendments. And here we have on the floor today this massive bill.

I offered a cautionary amendment that would make this bill ineffective if the Government Accountability Office were to find that this bill would kill more than 1 million free enterprise jobs. I stood before the Rules Committee and said that if this bill kills more than 1 million jobs, let's not do it. Forget it. On a party-line vote, my friends in the Rules Committee, the Democrats, voted ``no.'' That's because we are more concerned about politics than we are about the American people, jobs, and the economy.

Also, I offered two commonsense amendments that simply clarify that this bill would not create a bottomless fund for frivolous lawsuits by trial lawyers. The first amendment deals with giving shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation packages. My amendment clarifies that this new vote creates no new private right of action. Without this amendment, trial lawyers will be able to exploit a brand new opportunity to shake down companies for huge payouts. This is a commonsense amendment, and it was rejected by the Rules Committee on a party-line vote. Once again, the Democrats said no, no.

The second amendment I introduced was to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits and simply clarifies that none of the new registration requirements for investment advisers of private funds shall be construed as creating a private right of action. This is a noncontroversial measure, or it should be, seeking to protect investors from frivolous lawsuits, and this, too, was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care more about creating a trial lawyer bonanza than protecting businesses, consumers, our financial systems and certainly the free enterprise system.

In an effort to clarify the intent of the executive compensation provisions, I introduced an amendment that would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring full SEC disclosure about who is financing that purchase to influence votes on this new, congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution. Put simply, this amendment would provide shareholders with access to information about who is trying to influence a vote. Of course not. We would never want to do that. Trial lawyers would hate that. So the Democrat Party up in the Rules Committee, they got it. They complied. No.

As Federal candidates, we are obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation, and amount given by our donors. We require this because public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. This is important. My amendment asks for the same disclosure so that shareholders know who is trying to influence a vote, what people, what organizations, what groups, what consumer advocates, the amount of money, and who is influencing this. Surprisingly, this amendment was also voted down. So much for transparency and the light of day.

The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy and to sustain economic growth and job creation. This legislation does the opposite. It takes a one-size-fits-all approach to governing, undermining U.S. economic competitiveness and business growth. That's why so many business groups oppose this. This Democratic solution will only increase government intervention in the financial markets, ration resources, limit consumer choice, raise taxes, dictate wages, and kill jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear. My Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system while paving the road for trial lawyers and killing American jobs. I guess this is nothing new. We should get used to this.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is made up of a group of Members here in Congress who have various backgrounds, and one of them who I am getting ready to yield to came as a small businessman from a manufacturing firm that employed people, cared about their community and the families that worked therein.

I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado keeps trying to search and search and search and find who to pin this on, this bad economy and the job loss. Well, I would direct the gentleman to something that we have known for a long, long time in this country. The answer is, pin the tail on the donkey.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Eden Prairie, Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Speaker, without challenging the gentleman's words on the floor, I challenge anyone to think that there would be $600 trillion worth of derivatives business that has taken place in this country.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Good, I appreciate the gentleman. It sounds to me like you would like me to go ahead and take the time to close.

I appreciate the gentleman advising me of such.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rockledge, Florida (Mr. Posey).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, while it's important to provide consumer safety and security in the marketplace, our constituents are more concerned with the economy, the debt and the loss of jobs. When my friends on the other side of the aisle finally

focus on this, I think we are going to start making advances for the American people to reduce our debt and to get back to where we have a growing economy.

Week after week we come to the House floor to debate bills that kill and diminish jobs. It's not what I want to spend my time doing, but, by golly, the Republican Party is going fight the Democrat Party all the way on these job-killing bills, whether it's cap-and-trade, health care, or government takeover of the financial sector. And we are talking about millions of jobs at a time that are coming up for unemployment. The Republican Party will stand up for the American people.

I would like to encourage our friends and Democrats to start listening to the American people. Stop the borrowing, stop the taxing, stop the spending policies, including an 85 percent increase in spending in a 2-year cycle increase, that have led this country to record deficits and record unemployment.

Unfortunately, due to a tragic event that happened back in my home State, I will be unable to be here tomorrow to vote ``no'' on all these bills. I will be attending a funeral tomorrow in Dallas, Texas, of a dear friend. However, if I were here, I would vote ``no''--``no'' on taxing, ``no'' on spending, and ``no'' on bigger government.

So I will encourage my colleagues right now to do the same. Just say ``no.'' We have heard that before. Just say ``no'' to more taxes, more spending, and more unemployment in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to this legislation because, for the first time in history, Washington will be at the center of our financial system. This is not the way our Founders intended this system to work. They didn't intend for the decisions and the political pull to come out of Washington. For the first time in history, we will institutionalize the ``too big to fail'' doctrine that has plagued our economy for too long. For the first time in history, Congress is authorizing perpetual bailout authority by those in Washington.

I have opposed these bailouts, and I have opposed the bailouts put forward over the last 14 months because of the concern I had with the precedent that would be set by using tax dollars to bail out failed institutions. Now we are going to do it far into the future. Unfortunately, it appears that that precedent that was set last fall could become official U.S. policy should this legislation become law.

Our Democratic colleagues have controlled the Congress for the last 3 years. I think, while some will try to portray this resolution fund as something other than taxpayers paying for the mistakes of failed financial firms, I would direct my colleagues to the very language in this bill, to page 406, line 22, Borrowing from Treasury: ``The Corporation may borrow from the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to lend to the Corporation on such terms as may be fixed by the Corporation and the Secretary, such funds as in the judgment of the Board of Directors of the Corporation are required.''

This is saying the resolution fund in every institution that falls under its purview has the support of--who?--the U.S. taxpayer, and that you are going to be on the hook for these loans.

My colleague from California (Mr. Sherman) referred to this authority as ``TARP on steroids.'' Well, considering that the bill fails to even put a cap on potential taxpayer exposure, I think Mr. Sherman is spot on. It is, indeed, TARP on steroids. While some have compared this model to the FDIC insurance fund, folks, that's like comparing apples to oranges. The FDIC fund is backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal Government to protect insured deposits inside the fund. That's what the FDIC fund does.

While there is a level of moral hazard that comes with this support, insured deposits are only a small portion of our financial system. Here it extends far beyond that. This bill gives that type of government support to the vast majority of our capital markets. It is a fundamentally flawed approach. It is what economists call ``moral hazard'' for a reason. It is a hazard. We need to scale back that government safety net under our financial system, not expand it to every possible institution, and we need to signal to markets that the Federal Government is out of the business of bailing out failed firms. That is the only way to officially put an end to the ``too big to fail'' problem. This legislation fails to take that critical step.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the underlying legislation for a second reason as well, which is my concern with the Consumer Protection Agency, also known as the ``credit czar.'' It weakens our regulatory model.

Every one of our banking regulators has come in to testify before the Financial Services Committee on this issue of separating ``safety and soundness'' regulation from consumer protection regulation. Many have raised the comparison between this model and the regulatory model over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which failed and lost $1 trillion, you had the regulator focused on safety and soundness who was saying one thing, but you had HUD enforcing the affordable housing goals that Congress had given HUD. Those housing goals were to have one half of the portfolio in subprime lending, in Alt-A loans, and in zero downpayment loans. This was what Congress was muscling through HUD.

These things made the regulators very, very nervous. We had the Federal Reserve regulators come up and tell us that what is happening here is a systemic risk to the entire financial system. Now the over- leveraging through this arbitrage is over 100 to 1. You had to allow the regulators to deleverage this, but Congress would not.

So, to meet these affordable housing mandates, Fannie and Freddie strayed into the junk mortgage market. They piled up over $1 trillion worth of subprime and Alt-A loans. The affordable housing goals were at odds with the long-term viability of these firms, and they led to 85 percent of their losses.

As this past example has shown us, separating these two responsibilities can lead to unintended consequences--like systemic financial failure down the road. If the ultimate objective of our regulatory reform effort is to ensure a more resilient and stable financial system, creating another agency with broad, unchecked authority is not the right approach.

I brought an amendment to the Rules Committee which would have solved this problem by ensuring that safety and soundness regulators have a say on the rule-writing process at the CFPA. Guess what? It's unfortunate. My amendment was not made in order. It won't even be heard on this floor.

I urge my colleagues to listen to those regulators, every one of whom urges us to adopt that type of approach--the approach that was in my amendment which was not allowed to go forward on this floor today.

The safety and soundness of our financial institutions is critical. Instead, we have undercut that, and we are walking down that same path that Congress took, against the advice of the regulators, with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The result of that, as you all know, was the collapse of our housing market as a consequence of the collapse of those institutions.