Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, our Federal Government has taken drastic measures in the past 6 months, mainly in the form of taxpayer-funded bailouts, in an attempt to put a stop to the complete deterioration of our financial system. Trillions have been spent and companies such as AIG have been deemed ``too big to fail.'' But the Wall Street bailouts have proven to not be a sustainable cure to our financial ills. These bailouts constitute an assault on American capitalism and have introduced a large degree of financial hazard into our economic system.

The nationalization of private assets is inherently un-American. With all the money we have spent thus far, we should have been able to stem much of the economic collapse--but we haven't. We have failed to grasp the root of the problem--the unregulated, out-of-control derivatives market.

The recent disclosure that AIG will pay out $165 million in bonuses to employees of their Financial Products division--the very unit that made bad bets on toxic mortgages and credit default swaps--is wrong. The Federal Government owns 80 percent of AIG and the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has infused more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money trying to rescue this company. As these recent events demonstrate, the administration's plan of recovery by bailout is not working. Bailout after bailout is not a strategy. It's a formula for waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds.

The Federal Government has spent an exorbitant amount of money trying to rescue the economy but it appears to have had little effect. Beyond the $700 billion for TARP funds, the government has made commitments of more than $9 trillion and has spent $2.2 trillion. And there is very little oversight of this money as the case of the AIG bonuses makes clear. This begs the question: What are we getting for our money?

Clearly the real cause of the financial crisis is more than just the bursting of the housing bubble, since over 90 percent of all homeowners are current on their mortgages. A closer look at the root causes of the crisis reveals flawed incentive structures and an inadequate regulatory system that allowed the derivatives market to spiral out of control.

Specifically, the credit default swap market is completely unregulated and it helped spread the risks generated by subprime mortgages to investors and financial institutions around the world. In the U.S. alone, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reported the amount of outstanding credit derivatives from reporting banks to be $16.4 trillion just a year ago. Among the G10 countries--the United States, the U.K., Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden plus Switzerland--the amount of outstanding credit default swaps is about $57 trillion.

Many have called credit default swaps and the larger derivatives market the true culprit in the global financial crisis. Derivatives trading also helped to contribute to AIG's near collapse and it seems as if no amount of money can save AIG at the moment, yet the company has been deemed ``too big to fail.'' However, no one has defined what ``too big to fail'' means in the real world.

Beyond just credit default swaps, the Bank for International Settlements--the world's oldest international financial organization headquartered in Basel, Switzerland--reports the total outstanding amount of over-the-counter derivatives to be $684 trillion. This large amount of outstanding derivatives demonstrates the world financial system could be in a huge amount of additional trouble during this worldwide economic crisis. Since over-the-counter derivatives are negotiated between parties and not on an exchange, the risk of the contract falls on both of the parties. So if one of the parties is not able to meet the terms of the contract, the first party stands to lose as well. With $684 trillion of outstanding money, we are playing with very hot fire.

As these statistics show, this is a problem not just in the United States but around the globe.

So what is the solution? Let's break up these firms and sell the pieces off or separate the toxic loans and let the free market correct the economy as it was designed. The viable portion of these massive financial institutions can still be salvaged. However, we need to examine their asset sheets to determine how deeply involved each company is in the derivatives market.

There are better options than endless bailouts and the nationalization of private assets in this country. We must put an end to throwing trillions at the wrong source of the problem.

My colleagues, here are some facts. Last month, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment that would stop these bonuses. It was an amendment by Olympia Snowe of Maine and, of course, Ron Wyden from Oregon.

They had that in the bill. They went to the conference. The conference stripped out that amendment, bipartisan amendment, by Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut. All of you know that.

Now Mr. Rangel is here on the floor saying he knew nothing about this conference report. Yet the amendment by Senators Snowe and Wyden was stripped out by Senator Dodd. And I find it very difficult, Mr. Rangel, that you knew nothing about this amendment that was stripped out, explicitly exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.

How in the world can you say you knew nothing about it? I've got the exact language from Senator Dodd talking about his amendment which stripped out the amendment of Senator Snowe and Senator Wyden.

The fact is Republicans have a plan to include 100 percent of these bonuses. I ask Mr. Rangel: Why didn't you take 100 percent of these bonuses?

The American people have a right to know what the administration knew, and when they knew it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at the AIG taxpayer- funded executive bonus giveaway and Senator Dodd's and the Obama Administration's potential implication in ensuring AIG would be able to hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to executives who ran AIG into the ground contributing to a global economic crisis.

Insurance company AIG--which has been deemed ``too big too fail''-- has received $170 billion in federal bailout money, yet this money has done little to stabilize the company. And now, millions of Americans awoke to news yesterday that their taxpayer dollars intended to prevent AIG from collapse are being funneled to AIG executives in the form of ``bonuses.''

The most unfortunate part of this story is that a senior member of the Senate Democratic party offered an amendment allowing this to happen. The utter abuse of taxpayer dollars that we have seen through the TARP program due to lack of transparency and Democrat legislative neglect is staggering. But to know that these bonus payments could have been easily prevented is beyond disheartening. This atrocious abuse of taxpayer dollars must stop now.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned the outrage about the bonuses to AIG. That's not the real outrage. The real outrage is that taxpayers have given AIG $173 billion, and this amount of money was then used to funnel out to other financial institutions.

After months of government stonewalling, on Sunday night AIG officially acknowledged where most of the taxpayer funds had been going. Since September 16, AIG has spent $120 billion in cash, collateral, and other payments to banks, municipal governments, and other derivative counterparties around the world. This also includes $20 billion to European banks. We never intended for this money to go overseas; the taxpayers thought it was going to AIG.

This list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs,

which received $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman Sachs themselves that they did not need the money. Then why take it?

Mr. Speaker, that's the real AIG outrage.

I'm here to support the Fair Tax. The current U.S. Tax Code is too big, too complicated, and benefits too many special interests, and must be replaced with a code that is fair and encourages savings and investment.

This code has been amended tens of thousands of times, my colleagues, and it's grown to over 60,000 pages, possibly more. For this, and many other reasons, I rise in support of the Fair Tax and urge my colleagues to consider this new tax simplification program.

The Fair Tax will eliminate Federal income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, the alternative minimum tax, and the death tax, and replace it with a flat, simple and efficient consumption tax.

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan hit the nail on the head when he described the government's basic view of the economy as: ``If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this burdensome view taken by our government has resulted in the current problem we face today, where citizens and business owners across this country devote billions of hours and billions of tax dollars just to navigate the process of paying their Federal income tax.

A simpler Tax Code may have prevented former Senator Daschle or current Secretary of the Treasury Geithner the embarrassment of having to explain their failure to properly pay the taxes due to the complicated IRS tax system.

I know many of my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District are aware of how this simple tax reform will work when implemented. They have written numerous letters to me and voiced their support at many town meetings.

I thought I'd take a moment this afternoon to lay out the basic principles of this legislation for those who are not familiar with the Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax will do away with all Federal taxes such as income tax, the death tax, as I mentioned, all the way down to the estate tax. Basically, many Americans with low incomes will receive a check at the beginning of each month from the Federal Government that will cover the cost of the consumption tax on necessary goods, thus increasing the purchasing power of low-income individuals and completely avoiding any unintended tax increase on their purchasing power.

Furthermore, a study conducted by Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson illustrates that roughly 22 percent of the retail price of an item is the direct result of the cost our current Tax Code places on a product through payroll taxes, business taxes, business taxes, compliance costs, and other taxes.

Therefore, by paying an additional consumption tax, we will be able to fund our entire government, and the taxpayer can keep 100 percent of his hard-earned paycheck. This would lead to increased savings, increased investment, and Americans, not the Federal Government, would decide how to best utilize their wealth.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Fair Tax, through its simplicity, will provide transparency to the Federal budget and Federal spending here in Congress. Each time the government claims a needed tax increase to fund runaway spending, as we do, and government expansion, or special district funding requests, the American citizen would be directly affected by this irresponsibility and would be aware of it immediately through the transparency of the Fair Tax system instead of hidden tax increases and budget gimmicks that our government institutes today.

So now, my colleagues, it is time to get rid of this complicated, inefficient, and unfair tax. Now is the time to institute transparency, efficiency, and, finally, fairness in our Tax Code.

Now, for those of us in Congress and perhaps throughout the Nation who are skeptical, I have a suggestion for them, an approach that I think would be possible. Why not take Washington, D.C. as a demonstration project to see if it would work here in Washington, D.C.; allow all residents of this city to pay no Federal taxes, and institute a fair consumption tax, and this consumption tax would be collected by the city and then sent to the Federal Government. Then we could see how it would work and discern its advantages and disadvantages.

The Fair Tax I think ultimately would prove to be very useful, and I urge my colleagues to stand for real change and support this fair solution.

Mr. Speaker, the omnibus spending bill is not an example of change here in Congress and continues the Democrat's spending spree in the first 2 months of the 111th Congress. Even a record $1.4 trillion budget deficit has not stopped Congress' culture of spending on special projects. While families and business owners are cutting back and bringing their budgets under control, Congress, under Democrat leadership, is spending and earmarking as if nothing has changed.

Here are a few highlights of the bill that is being debated in the Senate right now. There is an 8 percent discretionary spending hike. After passing an unprecedented massive spending bill that is the largest this country has ever seen, the Democrat leadership ushered through this House an omnibus bill that will give a staggering 80 percent increase to discretionary programs when coupled with a $1 trillion stimulus package. This bill will contribute to a permanent $2,000 per household tax hike for every household. It contains 9,300 special funding requests, projects that cost nearly $13 billion. Now, the argument is made that Members have a right to make these special district funding requests, but I, for one, would gladly place a moratorium on all district funding requests until the economy is corrected.

Let me say again, this omnibus spending bill increases discretionary spending by 8 percent when less than 3 weeks ago Congress and the President, under Democratic leadership, ran through a massive stimulus package where the same discretionary programs received much of the unprecedented $1.1 trillion in government spending.

Now, counting those funds, this omnibus spending bill will institute an 80 percent spending increase for those programs in 2009 from $378 billion to $680 billion. This spending increase by the Democratic Party is unprecedented in American history.

The domestic spending programs which the omnibus focuses on have not been cut in the past decade; in fact, they have only increased from 2001 through 2008. These programs grew 23 percent faster than inflation, including increases for education at 35 percent, health research at 37 percent, and veterans benefits at 54 percent. It is apparent that during these fiscally challenging times these programs could have survived without some of these large increases.

Regrettably, the omnibus bill does not offset this new spending. It does not attempt to cut spending or institute reductions in inefficient or duplicate or worthless government programs. And let me just give you further example, Mr. Speaker, where some savings could be made; $55 billion in annual program overpayments, $60 billion for corporate welfare, $123 billion for programs for which government auditors can find no evidence of success; $140 billion in potential budget savings identified in the CBO Budget Options document.

Program duplication: There are 342 economic development programs; 134 programs serving the disabled, they're all duplicate; 130 programs serving at-risk youth, these are duplicate; and there's 90 duplicate early childhood development programs.

While some of these programs may be important, I find it hard to believe that each of the 342 economic development programs paid for by the American taxpayer, each and every one is vital to the American people. This has been identified, all these programs that duplicate.

Unfortunately, taxpayers should not expect change in the future. The administration and the Democrat party have already signed into law a large expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, putting middle class children who already have private health insurance on taxpayer-funded, government-run health care programs; weakened the 1996 welfare reforms in the $1.1 trillion stimulus package; and instituted permanent government growth in the areas of education, infrastructure and Medicaid.

Last year, President Bush signed an executive order stating that Federal agencies must ignore earmarks that appear in nonbinding conference reports and instead implement only those in the bill text itself. That executive order currently remains in effect. President Obama, who campaigned on ending politics as usual in Washington, could strike a blow to the earmark culture in Congress by simply leaving this executive order in place. Doing so would eliminate all earmarks that Congress has not incorporated by reference

into the omnibus bill text. He should go one step further and veto any omnibus bill that explicitly has earmarks.

In the past six months, Congress has enacted a $700 billion financial bailout and a $1.1 trillion stimulus. I say it is time to end the culture of pork, and stop spending money that our children will have to pay back in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in determining his pick for the new head of the SEC, President Obama called for a ``shift in ethics on Wall Street'' and then subsequently announced his selection of Mary Schapiro for the SEC chairmanship. The irony of this selection is hard to miss, especially given Schapiro's reputation for favoring brokers and the securities industry over investors.

As head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Ms. Schapiro completely missed both the mortgage crisis and the Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme defrauding hundreds of unknowing investors. Furthermore, Ms. Schapiro's record as a regulator demonstrates she has seldomly pursued tough action against big Wall Street firms who, we all know, have atrociously abused our regulatory processes.

And while President Obama has openly stated that ``the regulators who were assigned to oversee Wall Street dropped the ball,'' he has picked Schapiro, someone who was ``asleep at the switch,'' to steer the reform of the SEC.

Which leaves me with the question: What was he thinking?

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service,

Madam Speaker, with America facing an almost 8 percent unemployment rate, record low consumer confidence, and this country's worst economic downturn since the beginning of World War II, our Nation needs a real economic stimulus package that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long-term sustainable job growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families. What this country does not need is the Federal Government increasing our national debt to record levels, burying our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt.

This Democrat spending plan is simply not stimulative. According to CBO, the plan includes over $600 billion in new spending. There are some tax cuts, but of the $816 billion in the program, the majority is for new spending, from 2009 to 2019. While this plan is aimed at quickly injecting government cash into the economy, only 15 percent of the spending will occur during this fiscal year, and only 37 percent of the spending will occur in fiscal year 2010. This means that over half of the plan's spending will occur starting in the year 2011, hardly a quick injection into the lagging economy as promised by the Democrat authors.

Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance for us today during this difficult time. Particularly, they've looked at the New Deal under President Roosevelt. Unfortunately, what many economists have found is that the New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate into economic stimulus for our economy in the 21st century.

First, the Great Depression began in 1929 and did not end until 1940. And the stock market did not return to the level of September 3, 1929, until 1954. If today's economy were to go through a similar recovery, we would not fully escape the current recession until the year 2018, and the Dow would not reach its high of 2007 until the year 2032.

Secondly, many economists note that during the Great Depression the United States did not actually have much of an expansionary fiscal policy. As Tyler Cowen stated in the New York Times article, The New Deal Didn't Always Work, Either, ``Under President Herbert Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the Federal Government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income tax, holding company taxes and `excess profits' taxes. When all of these tax increases are taken into account, the New Deal fiscal policy didn't do much to promote recovery.''

This legislation is also an unprecedented expansion of the nation's debt burden. The U.S. is projected to have a $1.2 trillion deficit in FY 2009 even without the enactment of any stimulus legislation. As a percentage of GDP, the projected FY 2009 deficit (8.3% of GDP) is considerably larger than any deficit during the Great Depression (the highest was 5.4% of GDP in 1934).

The year 2008 could easily be defined as the year of the bailout. The months have passed in a torrent of troubling government ``rescues'' of private sector financial firms. Those bailouts have come at a great price and have exposed American taxpayers to vast financial risk. And in a financial crisis, such as the one we are now facing, bailout after bailout is quite simply not a good strategy for recovery.

Since October of 2008, the U.S. Treasury has committed $350 billion in public funds to private financial institutions, many of which have utilized reckless investment strategies, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Specifically, insurance giant AIG has received $40 billion, Citigroup--which just tried to spend $50 billion on a luxury corporate jet--has received $20 billion, an additional $20 billion has been given to the Federal Reserve, and $250 billion has gone to large national banks in the form of direct capital injections. Even more troubling is the $23 billion of these TARP funds, which has been allocated to bail out automobile manufacturers such as General Motors and Chrysler. This type of government intervention in the private sector is unprecedented and has put us on a precarious path to socialism.

Given the massive amount of money the Federal Government has spent on bailouts since March of 2008, along with the ever-increasing debt level, it is unconscionable to continue committing good money after bad. This money belongs to the American taxpayer, and now, more than ever, we must rein in this out-of-control government spending for our future generations who will have to pay back this irresponsible debt accumulation.

Madam Speaker, we need to turn off the government spigot of Federal funding into non-stimulative debt spending. It is time for Congress to pass a real economic stimulus package that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long-term sustainable growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this wasteful, unfocused, and massive government-spending bill. It is true that our country is in the middle of a severe economic downturn and economists on both sides of the financial debate agree that the current housing market and lack of available credit are at the root of this problem. Yet, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate decided to strip this legislation of an obviously stimulative $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, in favor of a $5 billion earmark to make federal buildings ``green.'' This is one of many glaring examples that this bill is not about stimulating the economy; it is about expanding the Federal Government in a time of crisis.

I believe White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel characterized this democrat-spending bill best when he said, ``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.'' In a rush to capitalize on our country's economic situation the other side of the aisle has used fear and pronouncements of imminent catastrophe to fulfill their wants and achieve their goals of government expansion, longstanding liberal spending policies, and political payback.

Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance during this difficult time, particularly to the New Deal instituted by President Franklin Roosevelt. Looking to the past we discover that Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR's Treasury Secretary, gave this quote in May of 1939 during the Great Depression.

``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.''

Unfortunately, what many economists have found at present and in the past is that New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate into economic stimulus in the 21st century. To find further confirmation that unfocused infrastructure and public works projects fail to stimulate a recessive economy one need only look to Japan during the 1990s.

Like this country's current situation, Japan in the late 1980s experienced the bursting of a real estate bubble. To combat the economic situation, the Japanese government embarked on a colossal spending spree pouring trillions of taxpayer dollars into wasteful roads, bridges and infrastructure projects. Japan finally came out of its economic tailspin, but many economists contend that it was not infrastructure spending that caused the economy to recover, but rather an intensive cleanup of the banks, and a growing export sector that boosted the country. According to a February 5, 2009, New York Times article, ``Among Japanese citizens, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep the party in power.''

For these, and many other reasons, I regret that I cannot support this unprecedented big government grab for citizen reliance on the federal government. History shows that the best way to encourage an economic turnaround, preserve jobs, and spur widespread economic growth, is to ensure that job-creators face a lower tax burden. It is evident that this country needs to lower its corporate and small business tax rates, and provide tax relief to middle-class families. What this country does not need is a scatter shot approach of federal spending that will only increase the debt burden on future generations and create government dependence, while doing nothing to stimulate or create meaningful long-term job growth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, has now become the longest serving Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. While Mr. Dingell's service to this Congress is worth recognition alone, his many accomplishments ensures that he will go down as one of the most influential members in the history of Congress.

John Dingell's service to this body started all the way back in 1938, when he served as a Page. Later on, he served in the United States Army leaving with the rank of Second Lieutenant. In 1955, Mr. Dingell was sworn into office to succeed his father and began a remarkable and productive career as a Member of the House.

In 1981, Mr. Dingell's tenure as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee began and continued until this very year. I have served with Mr. Dingell on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 16 years. In all that time, he always treated Republicans with respect even when we vociferously disagreed, which was fairly often. He was always fair and willing to work to find common ground. He is a true model for all of us to follow.

Mr. Dingell has received so many awards and so much recognition in his career, that I do not have time to list them all. So I'll highlight a few. He has received recognition from the NAACP for his avid support of civil rights and from the NRA for his support of the Second Amendment. In addition, Mr. Dingell has been Congress' most outspoken and tireless advocate for the American automobile industry, which is a key component of our nation's economy and of particular importance to the district he represents.

In closing, let's all honor John Dingell for his vigorous and unflagging support for this institution and for his long and productive tenure in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the troubling results of a report that was just released last Friday by the Congressional Oversight Panel on the Troubled Asset Relief Program,

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

First, I rise in opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. Let me say to my colleague from New York, we have spent over 2 years planning for this date of February 17, 2009. All the broadcasters, all the engineers, all the people that put up the towers, they are all ready to go. In fact, PBS pointed out that if they delay, it's going to cost them $22 million. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The hearings we've had were to determine how to run the program and give the Department of Commerce the money they need to implement the coupon program. But we never had a hearing on this bill. That's why I submitted six amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday. It would vastly improve the final product. In fact, as Mr. Issa pointed out, with the people that supposedly need the coupons, the $250 million allotment back in January, back in December, would have taken care of this problem. But, for some reason, it was not taken care of.

But we have never had a hearing, not one, on delaying the digital TV transition. We have had hearings, I agree, on how to implement the program, but not delaying and what the implications are. And, incredibly enough, this bill has never gone through any kind of markup where we could air out some of the contentious issues: What is it going to cost the broadcasters, the people implementing the towers, and so forth?

Now, a Member on that side talked about national security and about delaying in reference to 9/11. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police. The National Fraternal Order of Police has come out strongly against this delay. And why would they come out against this delay? That is because this delay could mean that national security, the first responders, would be affected, would not have the information they need, and could not notify citizens in the case of an emergency.

But none of the six amendments I offered on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Barton, were accepted. And so, really, we had no opportunity to make this bill better.

So when we transitioned on February 17, June 12, or whatever it is going to be, and you have no guarantee that this will be the last delay, we have to realize that, to put into perspective, it is going to cost money, it is going to increase our risk for first responders. And, when you think about it, no matter what date you establish, there is always going to be somebody who doesn't get the message. In fact, the demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina in September to see if it would work was 99 percent effective.

So the question I would have for you: If the demonstration project was so effective in September, 5 months later surely it is going to be effective on February 17, 2009. Tens of thousands of people will not lose their television because the coupons would be available. I urge defeat of the rule.

National Fraternal

Order of Police,

Washington, DC, January 23, 2009.

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

I also agree with you. I would like to have had the opportunity to have marked up this bill. Unfortunately, we did not mark up this bill, and I had six amendments--Mr. Barton and I, Mr. Blunt and Mr. Walden--and they were not accepted. It would have made the bill, I think, improved.

I rise in strong opposition to this bill because, for over 2 years, we have been promoting February 17, 2009 as the date of the DTV transition. Industry and government have prepared and have spent billions of dollars. When you look at some of the statistics from Mr. Boucher, he is using the Nielsen rating. Well, that Nielsen rating does show that a large percentage of Americans are ready to go, and most of the statistics he has collected are from a survey that is a month old. So, in this case, it has changed, and another 1 million people have already gotten coupons.

Frankly, a change in the date engenders skepticism among Americans, confusion and a distrust of the government because here they are again delaying something when they said for over 2 years that we are going to have an effective date. So, for that reason, I

think we should move ahead with the date and defeat this bill this afternoon.

There are lots of broadcasters who have spent all of this money preparing, and now they have unbudgeted expenditures from the private sector that are going to have to be used. At this particular point in our economy, which is weak, to have to take these unbudgeted amounts of money and find this new money to make this transition is going to be a hardship for these folks. So a delay is not necessary.

All we need to do is to give the manufacturing distribution cycle any short change of notice that they need, give them a little bit more money, and we can continue. The public is not served by delaying this because, in the end, the analog spectrum that is available could be used for first responders. Many, many carriers have already invested nearly $20 billion in spectrum auctions, and they have been promised the deployment of innovative, new, next-generation, wireless, broadband services. Now, these, our Nation's first responders, direly need and they deserve the spectrum. They paid for it. So why can't we give it to them? Why are we delaying this another 3 or 4 months? It is only because there is a perceived problem when there is really no perceived problem.

As Mr. Barton on the ranking side here has pointed out, there was a demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina, in which 99 percent of the people were happy. There's always going to be a segment that are not happy.

And on that note, we all were involved with the inauguration here. We know we thought that it was going to go perfect; yet a lot of our constituents could not get through to their seats because the metal detectors broke down. Now, the question I have for the Democrats, if we had the inauguration in place and it turned out about 3 or 4 percent of the people could not get through because of metal detectors, would you have shut down the swearing in of the President because of it? No, you would not have.

Any great event will continue, and there's always going to be a small percentage, but you can take care of those, just like they took care of it in Wilmington, North Carolina, in the demonstration which was totally successful.

Mr. Chair, with America facing a 7.2 percent unemployment rate, record low consumer confidence, and country's worst economic downturn since the beginning of World War II, our nation needs a real economic stimulus that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long term sustainable job growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families. What this country does not need is the federal government increasing our national debt to record levels, burying our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt.

This Democrat spending plan is simply not stimulative. According to CBO, the plan includes $604 billion in new spending and $212 billion in tax cuts for a total cost of $816 billion over the 2009 to 2019 period. While this plan is aimed at quickly injecting government cash into the economy, only 15 percent, or $93 billion, of the spending will occur during this fiscal year and only 37 percent of the spending would occur in fiscal year 2010. This means that over half of the plan's spending will occur starting in 2011, hardly a quick injection into the lagging economy as promised by the Democrat authors. What is clearly evident is that much of this money will not be spent in the next two years to stimulate the economy and that billions of dollars in pork barrel spending will go to constituencies important to the Democrat party. This is far too important of an economic time to play political games and return election favors in the form of government funding. Our country needs a real economic stimulus package.

Included in this Democrat spending spree are longstanding liberal spending priorities. What does $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $400 million for climate change research, $650 million for the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program and $1 billion for the Census have to do with creating jobs? The Democrat bill won't stimulate anything but more government and more debt. The slow and wasteful spending in the House Democrat bill is a disservice to millions of Americans who want to see this Congress take immediate action to get this economy moving again.

Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance during this difficult time, particularly to the New Deal instituted by President Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately, what many economists have found is that New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate into economic stimulus in the 21st century.

First, the Great Depression began in 1929 and did not end until 1940. And the stock market did not return to the level of September 3, 1929 until 1954. If today's economy were to go through a similar ``recovery,'' we would not fully escape the current recession until 2018 and the Dow would not reach its high of 2007 until sometime in 2032.

Secondly, many economists note that during the Great Depression the U.S. did not actually have much of an expansionary fiscal policy. As Tyler Cowen stated in the New York Times article, The New Deal Didn't Always Work, Either, ``under President Herbert Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the federal government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and `excess profits' taxes. When all of these tax increases are taken into account, New Deal fiscal policy didn't do much to promote recovery.''

This legislation is also an unprecedented expansion of the nation's debt burden. The U.S. is projected to have a $1.2 trillion deficit in FY 2009 even without the enactment of any stimulus legislation. As a percentage of GDP,

the projected FY 2009 deficit, 8.3 percent of GDP, is considerably larger than any deficit during the Great Depression, the highest was 5.9 percent of GDP in 1934. The federal debt grew by more than $2 trillion in the last two years, and may grow by another $2 trillion in 2009.

The year 2008 could easily be defined as the year of the bailout. The months have passed in a torrent of troubling government ``rescues'' of private sector financial firms. Those bailouts have come at a great price and have exposed American taxpayers to vast financial risk. And in a financial crisis, such as the one we are now facing, bailout after bailout is quite simply not a good strategy for recovery.

The cascade of bailouts began in March of 2008 with the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns. The Federal Reserve stepped in when Bear Stearns lost significant liquidity and lent another large investment firm--JPMorgan--$29 billion to buy up Bear Stearns and its liabilities. This was quickly followed by legislative recognition of the housing and foreclosure crisis and, subsequently, the Treasury's forced rescue of out-of-control GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which has put taxpayers on the hook for trillions worth of risk.

Since October of 2008, the U.S. Treasury has committed $350 billion in public funds to private financial institutions, many of which have utilized reckless investment strategies, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. Specifically, insurance giant MG has received $40 billion, Citigroup--which just tried to spend $50 billion on a luxury corporate jet--has received $20 billion, an additional $20 billion has been given to the Federal Reserve, and $250 billion has gone to large national banks in the form of direct capital injections. Even more troubling is the $23.4 billion of these TARP funds, which has been allocated to bail out automobile manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford. This type of government intervention in the private sector is unprecedented and has put us on a precarious path to socialism.

The new Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is now poised to spend an additional $350 billion as part of a second installment of TARP funds as reports are coming out that executives such as John Thain, have used these funds to hand out $4 billion in bonuses to fellow executives, $1 million to renovate his office, and $1,400 for the purchase a new personal waste basket. Due to the lack of transparency and accountability of how the first $350 billion was spent, and the fact that banks have not made it easier to get loans and the credit markets have not thawed as expected, I voted against the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, H.R. 384, and in favor of a resolution, H.J.RES.3, disapproving of the release of these additional funds.

Given the massive amount of money the federal government has spent on bailouts since March of 2008 along with the ever-rising debt level, it is unconscionable to continue committing good money after bad. This money belongs to the American taxpayer and now, more than ever, we must rein in this out-of-control government spending for our future generations who will have to pay back this irresponsible debt accumulation.

Mr. Chair, enough is enough, turn off the government spigot of federal funding into non-simulative debt spending. It is time for this Congress to pass a real economic stimulus that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long term sustainable job growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families.

Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of the rule.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all points of order against the provisions in the bill and amendments made in order by the rule and, therefore, it is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

I will be using most of my arguments from the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate dated January 26, 2009. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting the provisions in division B would reduce revenues by $76 billion in fiscal year 2009, by $131 billion in fiscal year 2010, and by a net of $212 billion over the 2009-2010 period.

So combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, the CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase the Federal budget deficit by over $170 billion over the remaining months of the fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in the year 2010 and $174 billion in 2011, and it continues on, $816 billion over the period 2009 to 2019.

There is a wide range of Federal programs here which increase the benefits payable under the Medicaid unemployment compensation nutrition assistance program, and the legislation would also reduce individual and corporate income tax collections and make a variety of other changes to tax laws. This is basically an unfunded mandate.

CBO anticipates that this bill would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years. Following long- standing congressional budget procedures, this

estimate does not address the potential budget effects of such changes in economic outlook. But the point that the CBO is making is that this is a huge unfunded mandate, particularly in the Medicaid and unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance program.

So with that, Madam Speaker, in light of the provisions in the bill and the amendments made in order by the rule, are, therefore, in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act, I do, Madam Speaker, raise this point of order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, if I may continue, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee has indicated that this point of order would eliminate debate and not offer the opportunity to Members to really discuss the rule at all. But I would like to say to her, and she was in the Rules Committee when I came out to present my amendment, when the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up that portion of the stimulus package, we were in session for 12 hours. During that time we had six amendments accepted on the Republican minority side.

It turns out that all six of these amendments were agreed to unanimously by the majority. When the bill went to print and when I went to the Rules Committee, I found my amendment was not included, and neither was the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy's or Mr. Blunt's. Three of the amendments were not included, and we questioned how could this be that out of a full markup of Energy and Commerce Committee, we passed six amendments and only three were put in. Yet the Speaker's office had a sheet, a fact sheet, which indicated that all six amendments were put in the bill and all six of these amendments show the bipartisan-ness of this stimulus package.

Now I think what happened on the Energy and Commerce Committee happened in the Ways and Means Committee and it happened in Appropriations Committee. So this, in fact, stimulus package is not bipartisan.

Reading from the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her fact sheet of January 27, 2009, she says this is a bipartisan, open and transparent legislative process. It is not, Madam Speaker. The amendments that came out of Energy and Commerce, 50 percent were dropped arbitrarily, capriciously, without any comment from the minority.

Now one of those amendments, which was mine, indicated if you are going to give federal subsidies for COBRA, which is unemployment compensation for individuals in America, why give them to people who have a net worth of $1 million or $100 million?

There was no threshold in this bill. So, I basically said, if you're going to give COBRA subsidies, that is you're asking to have the taxpayers pay 65 percent of the COBRA for anybody unemployed, including a man who, for example, left Lehman Brothers or Bernie Madoff; all those people who, under the Democrats' position in the stimulus package, would be able to apply for COBRA subsidies and have the taxpayers in my home county have to pay for their health benefits.

They are asking the taxpayers to pay 65 percent almost indefinitely. And I basically said this should not apply to people that are making $100 million, $10 million, or have a net worth of that amount. And, Mr. Waxman, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce, was kind enough to say, I agree with you, and that should be part of the bill. So my amendment was agreed to.

Yes, I'll be glad to yield.

I thank the distinguished Member. That is absolutely true. And I think, as he clearly points out, I think we should really ask the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, why were, in this case, three amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce, why were they dropped from the print?

And, perhaps if she can't, then I think really the Speaker, whose office this fact sheet came from, should clearly tell us why she dropped amendments that were passed through the democratic process here in the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Yet, they have a fact sheet saying they are still in here. She uses the word ``bipartisan'' when you can't say it's bipartisan if, in my case, my amendment is not in there. It was agreed upon. And others in the Energy and Commerce, their amendments are not here as well.

So I would be glad to yield time to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee to find out why these amendments, after they were passed overwhelmingly in the Energy and Commerce Committee, are not in the print.

The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, does she wish to answer?

I'd be glad to yield.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, it's clear she has no response to the rhetorical question: Why were amendments that were agreed upon in the Energy

and Commerce dropped capriciously and arbitrarily from the print. And I think we will just let that as a question remain in the House of Representatives and point out to all the Members that when the Speaker puts out a sheet, a fact sheet, in which she says it's a bipartisan bill, it's open and transparent, well, that obviously is not true.

There's no one on the Democrat side here this morning to explain how amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce were dropped, and perhaps the same was true of the Ways and Means, and also the Appropriations Committee.

And, for those Members, like myself, who came up and asked why my amendment that was accepted was not included as an amendment to the stimulus package, and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee cannot even answer the simple question of why were amendments not included, when in fact they were passed overwhelmingly in Energy and Commerce.

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

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