Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I heard one of my Democratic colleagues say that today is a historic day, that there is a historic opportunity. And yes, history is being made today because never in the history of America has the debt limit been increased to $14.294 trillion. Here we are again, just a few months later, enacting yet another increase in the debt limit. The new debt limit, again, $14.3 trillion, costing every American household over $120,000.

What do I hear from my Democratic colleagues? Well, we hear the old blame game. That's the first thing that we hear. We hear a lot of names from the past. Well, facts are pesky things, Madam Speaker. Listen, there is blame to go around. My party spent too much money. I have a chart right here. It's Congress that controls the purse strings, as we all know. And when the Republicans controlled Congress--this is the blue--these were our deficits. They averaged about $104 billion a year. I'm embarrassed about that. It's much too high. Now in their 3 years of control by the Democrats, we have deficits that are averaging over $1 trillion, $1.1 trillion. That's the difference. What was once our annual deficits have become their monthly deficits, Madam Speaker. That's totally unacceptable.

More history was made earlier this week when the President submitted his proposed budget that so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to embrace. It made history. It is breathtaking in its red ink. It spends $3.8 trillion. The largest budget in American history is being proposed. It proposes a $1.6 trillion deficit, the highest deficit in the history of our Nation, over 10 percent of our economy. We haven't seen debt-to-economy ratios like this since World War II. It triples the national debt in just 10 years. Yes, this is a historic day because, once again, we are here to accommodate the spending agenda of the Democrats with a historic new increase in the debt limit.

Madam Speaker, I will just ask this question: Where are the jobs? We were told that if we went off and if we passed this government stimulus plan, that somehow unemployment would never go above 8 percent. What do we have? We have an extra $1 trillion in debt from that act, and we are still mired in double-digit unemployment. You cannot spend, borrow and bail out your way to prosperity.

I thank the gentleman. Again, we have seen it. It's almost a year later, and yet the Democrats continue to try more of the same. Borrow, spend, bail out your way into prosperity. And what do we have? Again, an additional $1.2 trillion in debt, and over 3 million more of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs.

Small businesses are wondering who's going to pay for all this? They're concerned about the $2 trillion takeover of health care. Who's going to pay for that? They're concerned about the threatened $800 billion carbon tax, the energy tax. Who is going to pay for that? The omnibuses. Is it any wonder that jobs are not being created in America?

I speak, Madam Speaker, to small businessmen and investors every week, and they tell me, We're too scared to create jobs in this environment. Are we going to have rapid inflation? Are there going to be huge tax increases? Are Congress and the President going to vilify us once again? And my colleagues wonder where, where are the jobs.

You cannot borrow and spend and bail out your way to prosperity.

Madam Speaker, already in just 2 years, an 84 percent increase in enacted spending, 84 percent, a $1.2 trillion stimulus bill that has us mired in 10 percent unemployment, a $450 billion omnibus bill, another $400 billion omnibus bill. The explosion of spending is unprecedented in our Nation's history. And that leads us to the vote that is before us today. Increase the debt limit for the third time in 12 months; increase it another $1.9 trillion, our Democratic colleagues say, so that we can increase the burden per household $16,214. Where will it all end?

And now, just this week, we hear from the President of the United States: we haven't spent enough. Let's spend some more. Let's propose a budget that will simply triple--triple--the national debt over 10 years.

Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of the spending, tired of the debt, tired of the deficits, and certainly tired of the bailouts.

And don't take my word for it, Madam Speaker. Let's hear what CNBC had to say about the matter of the President's budget: ``part of a record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in the Nation's history.''

The New York Times: ``The budget projects that the deficit will peak at nearly $1.6 trillion.'' It goes on to say: ``and remain at economically troublesome levels over the remainder of the decade.''

Wall Street Journal: ``All of this spending must be financed, and so deficits and taxes are both scheduled to rise to record levels.''

And so what do we hear? We hear from our Democratic friends, well, let's have PAYGO.

Well, what did we learn about PAYGO? Number one, they have already had a House rule for 2 years. And at least as practiced in the last fiscal year, 98 percent, Madam Speaker, 98 percent of all spending was either waived or it was exempt. PAYGO is a budget fig leaf.

Well, what does the President suggest? He says let's freeze spending. But what we discover when we run the numbers is that he doesn't turn on the freezer for a year. He turns it off quite soon after that. And when you plug in the numbers, it is a difference between growing government 49.27 percent versus 49.01. They are bankrupting America. Reject this vote and reject this debt limit.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly appreciate his leadership tonight on an issue that is of great concern to every American. Every American who has children, every American who has grandchildren and are wondering, What is Washington doing drowning them in a sea of red ink? Again, when you say, How much is enough, we are already there. So I think it's been somewhat of a surreal experience for the American people as of late to see Washington go mad.

Never in the history of our Nation, do I believe, have I seen such an explosion of spending of deficits and debt. As a lot of the public know, the President of the United States on Friday came and spoke to the Republicans in the House, and I give the President credit for doing it. I think it speaks well of his character that he would come and speak to us, something that our own Speaker I don't believe has ever done.

I had the opportunity to speak to the President at that exchange, and I asked our President, I said, Mr. President, your last budget that you submitted tripled the national debt over 10 years and took the cost of government

from its historic level of roughly 20 percent of our economy up to 25 percent. I mean, we haven't seen such levels of government since World War II, the cost of government relative to the economy. I asked the President that question, and the President didn't answer. The President declined to answer the question on Friday. But you know what, he answered the question on Monday, and he answered the question with this document because on Monday, the President submitted his proposed budget for the United States of America for the next fiscal year and for the 9 years following.

Guess what we found out in this document? What we found out was that the answer to the question is a resounding ``yes.'' President Obama has now said to the American people loud and clear, Yes, I will triple the national debt over 10 years. I will triple the national debt. Yes, I will take the level of government to levels we haven't seen since World War II, up to 25 percent of our economy. This is a breathtaking document. The levels of debt, the levels of deficit, the levels of spending are simply breathtaking. The largest budget in the American history, $3.8 trillion.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it's an important point to make. Simply because, as opposed to leading, too often, frankly, we see the President, we see the Speaker, we see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, Well, the truth is, you Republicans spent too much money.

Well, guess what? I agree. But only Congress, only Congress can spend money. Congress has the power of the purse. The only money the President can spend are those monies that are authorized by Congress. Now, the President can propose. The President may be given pots of money by Congress that he can allocate. But, ultimately, it is Congress that controls the power of the purse under our Constitution.

Now, we had 12 years where Republicans controlled Congress, wrote the budgets, wrote the spending bills. And I wasn't proud of the deficits that occurred in those years, but they averaged about $104 billion a year.

Well, if the gentleman would yield, I think the most important point here--and we shouldn't spend, obviously, a lot of time on the blame game. The American people want solutions. But what we typically hear from our friends on the other side who aren't offering a solution to the fiscal crisis is that it's your fault.

Here's what I would say. I'm sorry that Republicans spent as much as they did, but our average deficit when we controlled spending was $104 billion. We've now had 3 years for Democrats to control spending, and the average deficit is $1.1 trillion.

And so, what I would tell the gentleman and the American people is that what was an annual deficit under Republicans has turned into a monthly deficit under Democrats. And again, I'm not proud of the spending. Many of us on this floor fought our own party leaders for more fiscal restraint. But as far as an order of magnitude, I mean, you can't even compare the two. When it comes to spending and deficits, Republicans are rank amateurs compared to Democrats.

Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Now, this covers the last several years of when Republicans controlled the budget. It's in the blue, and you can see declining budget deficits until the Democrats took control of Congress.

Correct.

And so, again, I'm not proud of the fact that there were deficits under Republican control, but look at the 3 years once the Democrats came into control. Look at what happened in 2007. Look at what happened in 2008. Look at what happened in 2009. And again, it just goes to show that what was an average annual deficit under Republicans has now become an average monthly deficit over Democrats.

Now, I know the President, again, is fond of saying, well, it's not my fault. I inherited a mess. Well, I have two observations. You know what I would say to the President? Yes, Mr. President, you're right. You inherited a mess. I agree. But guess what? When it comes to trillion dollar deficits, you inherited it from a Democratic Congress. And also, Mr. President, if I recall properly, you were a Member of that Democratic Congress. You were a United States Senator and your voting record was about as pro-spending as there was. So to some extent, if I had the opportunity to speak to the President again, I'd say, Mr. President, you kind of inherited the problem from yourself to some extent. But even if you didn't--let's just say that the administration is absolutely blameless--then why, Mr. President, are you making it worse?

I thank the gentleman for yielding one more time.

Again, the President, that budget that the President has submitted to the American people is simply breathtaking; breathtaking in its spending, breathtaking in its deficits, breathtaking in its debt.

This is a budget that will ultimately put us on the road to bankruptcy.

There is no other way around it. And I am not exaggerating these points. But look at the trajectory of the spending under the President's proposed budget. And as we continue to run deficits, the red ink is there for a purpose. We have never seen spending at these levels.

Now the gentleman asked a question earlier. At what point do we reach the point where that red light is blinking? We're there. Most economists believe that you cannot sustain a debt to the economy or GDP ratio of over 3 percent, that anything over that long term is unsustainable. The President is proposing a $1.6 trillion deficit, the largest in American history for this budget, which would weigh in at 10.6 percent of our economy, largest debt to the economy ratio since World War II. The deficit never falls below $700 billion under his proposed budget plan. They average a trillion.

The deficits under this proposed budget will average a trillion dollars a year. And so the gentleman asks, is this sustainable? And the answer is no.

And what I really don't understand is we had Dr. Peter Orszag, who is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who writes this budget for the President. Had him before the Budget Committee yesterday. And in open committee, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget who wrote this said, Yes, it is unsustainable. He himself admits that long term this spending plan of the President of the United States is unsustainable for the American people, which begs the question, well, then, Mr. President, why don't you put a plan on the table to solve the problem? Where's the leadership?

This is a man who was elected to be President of the United States of America. His own director of Office of Management and Budget says this is fiscally unsustainable.

So what do they bring to the American people? They bring a ``commission.'' I am happy to look at a commission if it's fair, if it's real; if it's not just a political figleaf. But it begs the question again. What the administration is counting on is we're going to have some commission, and they're going to propose something and maybe Congress will enact it and we will save money that way.

Again, I would say to the President, With all due respect, Mr. President, where is your plan? If you know that you're on the road to bankruptcy, why don't you put a plan on the table that solves it?

What else does the President suggest? They talk about a vaunted freeze. Well, unfortunately there is no freeze in the budget. After the $1.2 trillion stimulus plan, after several hundred billion of omnibus spending plans, another omnibus spending plan, after the proposed almost $2 trillion takeover of our health care system, after a proposed $800 billion carbon tax, after increasing spending on what we call nondefense discretionary--basically the nondefense component of what Congress votes on every year--that has increased 84 percent in the last 2 years.

And my point is to the gentleman of Missouri is that after this explosion of spending, what we hear is the rhetoric of where we have a spending freeze. But guess what? When you look at it, 87 percent of the budget is not subject to the so-called freeze.

Second of all, the President decides, I am not even going to turn on the freezer for a full year. I am going to wait a full year before I turn on the freezer, and then I am going to turn it right back on after just a few years on 13 percent of the budget.

So when you crunch the numbers, what you discover is what the President's bold plan is to provide fiscal responsibility at a time of fiscal insanity is that he proposes to grow government by 49 percent over the next 10 years instead of 49.3 percent. Now, if that's a freeze, I would hate to see a spring thaw.

I will yield back.

If the gentleman would yield one more time.

Not only has there been this explosion of debt and deficit, there is nothing to show for it but the deficit and debt. Where are the jobs? We're told that if we have this massive stimulus program that jobs would be created, unemployment would never go past 8 percent--and we are still mired in double-digit unemployment.

I want to make it very clear. This isn't just us saying it. Listen to this. The Wall Street Journal yesterday, ``All of this spending must be financed, so deficits and taxes are both scheduled to rise to record levels.''

CNBC, ``The deficit for this year would be 10.6 percent of the total economy, a figure unmatched since the country was emerging from World War II.''

The New York Times, ``The budget projects that the deficit will peak at nearly $1.6 trillion in the current fiscal year, a post-World War II record. It would then decline but remain at economically troublesome levels in the remainder of the decade.''

CNBC, ``Part of a record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in the Nation's history.''

It is unacceptable. We have better alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Ambassador Nancy Brinker for her continued leadership and advocacy in breast cancer research and congratulate her on receiving America's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Ambassador Brinker's commitment to defeating breast cancer began 28 years ago after she lost her sister to the disease. Since that time, Ambassador Brinker has dedicated her life to increasing public awareness and developing a grassroots network of individuals affected by breast cancer.

As the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Ambassador Brinker has campaigned tirelessly to help those affected by breast cancer and has raised over $1.3 billion for research and education purposes since it was founded.

Now serving as the Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control for the United Nations' World Health Organization, Ambassador Brinker's dedication and leadership are felt throughout the world as she promotes awareness and continues the global fight against breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a devastating disease that has touched many lives. As a former volunteer and board member of the American Cancer Society of Dallas, I have seen how cancer impacts a family. As a husband and father, I share a deep commitment to the fight against cancer.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I applaud Ambassador Brinker for her longstanding dedication, leadership and selfless spirit and congratulate her on receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Madam Speaker, I need not tell you that tomorrow millions of Americans will reflect upon the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. Some Americans will celebrate. Many others will mourn. I will mourn that decision.

I know this question represents one of the great political fault lines in America today and that many of my countrymen and women feel quite differently than I do. But I believe in my heart and in my head that there is no more fundamental right that we have than the right to life. It is enshrined in our founding documents. Our Creator brought us into this world with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life.

I can come to no other conclusion in my heart and in my head that life begins at conception. I cannot understand my countrymen who come to different conclusions. I do not hate these people, nor do I disparage them, but I have great sadness about what has occurred because of their beliefs: that millions of our countrymen are not here today to take that first breath, to take that first walk, to go into that first dance recital, to hit that first baseball, to put together that first ``Two plus two equals four. I did it, daddy.'' Millions and millions of our fellow countrymen will never experience that moment because of what I believe to be a very wrongheaded and a very unconstitutional decision made many, many years ago.

And so, a battle continues in this great body as a battle continues all across our land. It's not just a battle to change laws. It is a battle to change the hearts and minds of our countrymen. It is something that I take as an article of faith. But, if there is any parent in this body who has seen that sonogram when your baby is just weeks old, to see that beating heart, to see those little fingers, to see those little toes, and know that you have this great privilege that God Almighty has entrusted you with this gift to nurture this life, how you see that and turn your back on it is beyond me, it is absolutely beyond me.

I wish I knew what I could say to reach out to my fellow citizens and try to convince them to treasure human life and to understand how precious it is. And often when we hear in the debate in this institution that we ought to do something for the least of these, truly unborn life is the least of these. Let us recognize it. Let us hold it precious. Let us live up to our constitutional responsibilities and let us live up to our responsibilities from the Creator and grant our fellow citizens that precious right to life.

There is much work to be done. I see a day, which may not be in my life, but maybe in the life of my children and maybe in the life of my grandchildren, should I be blessed with any, that one day all Americans will somehow lock arms and lock hearts and decide that they will protect and defend that unalienable right to life.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, apparently the House is due to adjourn for the year today. Before it does, the House will apparently present the American people with a number of Christmas gifts wrapped up in one nice neat little package represented by this rule.

The first Christmas gift that the majority is giving the American people is the fifth, fifth increase in the debt ceiling since they took control of Congress, raising the debt ceiling an additional $290 billion, more debt to be placed upon the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The second gift for the American people at Christmas time is, guess what, yet another stimulus bill, this one weighing in at $150 billion. I lose track, Madam Speaker. I don't know if this is stimulus 4, stimulus 5. It's a little bit like those old ``Friday the 13th'' movies: it just doesn't go away.

The next gift, Madam Speaker, is kind of a recycled gift, one that they have given the American people all year and that is unemployment, double-digit unemployment under the economic policies of this administration, under this Democratic controlled Congress. They continue to give the American people double-digit unemployment.

The rule that is before us, Madam Speaker, allows for more of the same. I would hope, I would hope that one day, for the sake of the country, that my friends on the other side of the aisle will realize that you cannot spend your way into more jobs, you cannot borrow your way into more jobs, you cannot bail out your way into more jobs. That is not the recipe.

We suffer from double-digit unemployment, not through a lack of bailouts in spending and debt, which is the hallmark of this Congress. If we truly want to create jobs, Madam Speaker, the first thing we have to do is show the American people that we are serious about this sea of red ink. Nobody wants to launch a new business enterprise in an economy that is going to be socked with debt and taxes, impossible double-digit inflation as the debt has to be monetized.

The uncertainty and cost of a nationalized health care system, which is going to cost the American people their freedom, their opportunities--not to mention a trillion dollars. There is a $600 billion energy tax passed by the majority. Last week we just passed the Perpetual Wall Street Bailout and Credit Contraction Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, where does it all end? If we want jobs, we have to reject the failed policies. This rule brings more of the same. Let's vote against the spending, against the debt, against the bailouts.

Madam Speaker, never in history have so few acted so fast to indebt so many. Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, this is the fifth time that they have come here to raise the debt ceiling--today, $290 billion more.

Under their watch, the national debt has increased $3.4 trillion, or almost $30,000 for every household in America. Under their fiscal policies, we now have a $1.4 trillion deficit, our Nation's first. They passed a budget that will triple the national debt in just 10 years, and they are causing us to borrow 40 cents on the dollar from the Chinese and send the bill to our children and grandchildren.

Now, when Republicans controlled this body and the deficit was $300 billion and falling, the now-majority leader said, ``That's fiscal child abuse,'' and the now-Speaker called it ``immoral.'' And now under their watch it's five times greater, and all we hear is a chorus of ``que sera, sera.''

It's Christmastime, and the Democrats give us $290 billion more of debt. Merry Christmas.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, repeating failure over and over might be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that so many of our countrymen are suffering.

I heard the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee share with us his history lesson, but also I might add if we look at press reports, clearly Democrats have had trouble counting jobs in America.

What we do know is that the Department of Labor says that we still have double-digit unemployment under this President and this Democratic Congress. What we know is that the Department of Labor says that since the first stimulus bill was passed, to add an

extra trillion dollars of spending and debt for future generations to pick up, that 3.6 million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs.

The history lesson that I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would learn is that you cannot spend your way into more jobs. You cannot borrow your way into more jobs. And you cannot bail out your way into more jobs. And, Madam Speaker, the legislation they bring before us does exactly that. It's more of the same. It is ``son of stimulus.''

Spend another $150 billion of taxpayer money. How many more jobs have to be lost? It wasn't an hour ago that this body just voted for $290 billion more of debt ceiling, borrowing the money from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. How many more jobs have to be lost? Bailout funds, bailout funds for the States, bailout funds for the municipalities. How many more bailouts, how many more jobs have to be lost?

In this economy, small business, they want to create the jobs, but take away your trillion-dollar takeover of health care, take away your $600 billion national energy tax, take away your perpetual Wall Street bailout bill, and jobs will come back to America.

Those are the policies that we need, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Given the state of Iran's nuclear ambitions and its poor record at transparency, it continues to be clear that the United States must lead the world in pressuring Iran to give up these ambitions. There is no option.

Iran's energy sector is the backbone of its economy and provides the majority of its government's revenue. Iran's energy infrastructure is deteriorating badly. It is in need of modernization. Without this modernization, its energy

sector very well may deteriorate and, along with it, consequently, its economy and possibly even its regime.

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act gives the President an important tool to help persuade the Iranian regime to peacefully give up its nuclear ambitions. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. It could provide rogue nations and terrorists with nuclear technology. It constitutes the looming threat to the national security of the United States.

Iran's behavior not only jeopardizes the stability of the region but threatens the very existence of many of our allies in the Mideast, particularly the state of Israel.

I enthusiastically encourage all of my colleagues to support the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

I rise to claim time in opposition.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

If this body really cares about protecting the taxpayer against losses in TARP, they will have an opportunity to show it later today, and that is, vote to end the TARP program. Now we could have a debate about what TARP was, but the more relevant debate is what TARP is. And today, TARP is nothing more than $700 billion of walking-around money for the administration. It's a $700 billion revolving bailout fund to advance the administration's political, social and economic agenda.

And if you're concerned about protecting the taxpayer, why would you have a provision that further raids TARP for yet more taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation programs which have proven to be abject failures? You spend more taxpayer money on these programs, and foreclosure rates continue to climb and climb and climb. So if you're really serious about protecting taxpayers, put your vote where your sentiment is and vote later today to simply end the TARP program and end the bailouts. But given that the whole reason for being for this bill is a perpetual Wall Street bailout, I suspect, unfortunately, that will not occur.

The second point I would make, Madam Chair, is some of the companies that received funds under the capital purchase program have now repaid them back with interest. So now we are in the position to tax companies that have proven successful and paid back their funds, tax them for failing companies that didn't pay back theirs. Chrysler and GM received funds under TARP and Ford didn't. So under this, I suppose that we could assess Ford a tax to pay for losses the taxpayers will incur on GM and Chrysler. And we know that GM and Chrysler were defined as ``financial institutions'' under the TARP statute; therefore, Ford could be taxed under the gentleman's amendment. Is that smart? Is that fair? The answer is no.

This is yet another tax to go on capital. You can't have capitalism without capital. And so we have a $150 billion tax for the revolving bailout fund; we have an unlimited tax by the new czar to ban and ration consumer credit products that could touch small businesses throughout our Nation. Every time you increase the cost of taxes on capital, you get less lending, you get less credit, more expensive credit. And less credit is fewer jobs.

I would think at a time when our Nation has the highest unemployment rate in a generation that this is an institution that would be trying to create more jobs, trying to create more capital, trying to have small businesses access pools of capital, and all we do is see more legislation and more amendments to make capital less available and more expensive to our small businesses.

This amendment must be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Chair, what is common sense is to terminate TARP--stop it before it can spend again. And I hear all this wonderful rhetoric about, well, somehow we are going to tax Wall Street for all of this. But look at the TARP program. Look at the taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation plans, all of which have been abject failures, where the taxpayer receives zero--zero--of his money back.

And so this, again, is just one more way to assess a greater tax, a greater cost on capital when small businesses have seen their credit lines shrunk, withdrawn. Jobs are being lost all over the Nation. And so here is one more idea to, frankly, keep TARP going. And, again, if people want to put their vote where their sentiment is, they will have an opportunity to do it later today. It's a fundamental difference between the two approaches; and that is, our friends on the other side of the aisle still want a perpetual bailout.

As I have said earlier, if there was truth in advertising, the bill before us would be named the ``Permanent Wall Street Bailout and Increase Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009.''

The best way to protect the taxpayer is to end TARP and stop the grab for other programs, not to increase taxes, yet again, on capital that is vitally needed for our small businesses in order to create more jobs.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Simply because you are a senior, you shouldn't have to give up your freedom. You shouldn't have to give up your economic liberty.

There are so many reasons to oppose the underlying legislation. It creates a permanent Wall Street bailout authority. At a time where the economic policies of this Congress, of this administration have produced the highest unemployment rate in a generation, they propose legislation that will make credit more expensive, less available, and crush jobs. But now we have an amendment that goes to increase the power of the unelected czar to ban, to ban and ration credit.

You know, ultimately, the American people in the land of the free ought to be able to be free to choose the financial products that they think are best for them. The way to best protect American citizens is with competitive markets that are vigorously enforced for force and fraud but not to take away their essential freedom.

Quit protecting Americans from themselves. Quit assaulting the economic liberties of Americans, especially seniors, in tough economic times who need the money to survive.

We should reject this amendment, reject the job loss, reject the bailout, reject the assault on liberty.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I was very heartened to hear the gentlewoman from Ohio say, quote, ``no more TARP.'' She'll have an opportunity to vote that way later this afternoon. I hope that many of her colleagues on that side of the aisle will follow her example and put their votes where their sentiment is because, indeed, the motion to recommit today will be to end the TARP program. So I look forward to having great support on the other side of the aisle for that motion to recommit.

The particular amendment before us, though, is one that continues to try to perpetuate the myth that somehow taxpayers will not be called upon for a bailout.

Why do you have a bailout fund? You have a bailout fund to bail somebody out. And if for some reason you actually thought that taxpayers were not going to be on the hook, well, $150 billion imposed upon those who form capital, capital intermediaries, are going to make capital more expensive, less available, choke off more credit to small businesses, and increase the double-digit unemployment rate that the Nation now has under this administration in this Congress's economic policies.

How many more jobs have to be lost? We need to open up credit, not close credit.

Second of all, the people who are telling us, oh, don't worry Mr. Taxpayer, Mrs. Taxpayer, you're never going to be called upon to come and bail out these institutions yet again; we've solved that problem.

Madam Chair, these are the very same people who told us that the taxpayer would never be called upon to bail out the government- sponsored enterprises. Yet a trillion dollars of taxpayer exposure liability later, they were wrong. They've told us that about Social Security--going bankrupt; Medicare--going bankrupt; National Flood Insurance Program, never going to need taxpayer money--insolvent. And the list goes on and on and on.

Now, Madam Chair, I know they mean well. I know they believe it when they say it. But with history as my guide, it is not a credible statement for those on the other side of the aisle to make.

So what are we left with? We are left with a perpetual Wall Street bailout bill. We are left with a bill that will crush job creation at a time when our Nation needs to be creating jobs. We have a bill that assaults the fundamental economic liberties of every American citizen, who now has to receive the permission of their government before they can put a credit card in their wallet or get a mortgage for their home.

The best way to end TARP is to end TARP. And every Member of this body will have the opportunity to do it later this afternoon.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, well, if mass amnesia has affected this side of the aisle, apparently it infected that side of the aisle, too.

I might kindly remind the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, since he points out 2007 is the year that the financial crisis started, it happens to coincide with the year that the Democrats took control of the United States Congress as well.

I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I'm simply pointing out if the gentleman is trying to make associations, there may be an association to be made there as well.

What I am asserting is that the economic policies either enacted or threatened by this Congress and this administration are keeping a recovery from happening. This is an economy that, through any historic standard whatsoever, should have already recovered.

But first we have the stimulus program, which we were told would keep us at 8 percent unemployment. Now we know we have double-digit unemployment, 3.6 million jobs lost since the stimulus program was passed.

We have the $600 billion energy tax passed in the House hanging over the economy. We have the over $1 trillion nationalization of our health care system hanging over the economy. And now this is the fourth leg of the stool, and that is a perpetual Wall Street bailout and a further job loss through credit contraction act of 2009. It is the fourth leg of the economic policies that are preventing jobs from being created.

What do we have to show for the economic policies of this administration? That is the first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history. We have an economic plan that will triple the national debt. Nothing would do more to create jobs than to defeat this bill, let TARP expire, and show the Nation that we will pay off this unconscionable debt.

Madam Chair, the American people want more jobs and fewer bailouts. The Democratic majority will bring them fewer jobs and more bailouts. Their bill creates a permanent Wall Street bailout fund. The only reason to have a bailout fund is to bail people out.

The Republican bill says we're tired of the bailouts. No more bailouts. You cannot have a system where you privatize your profits and socialize your losses. That's what ``bailout nation'' is all about. The big get bigger, the small get smaller, the taxpayer gets poorer, and the economy becomes more political.

Jobs. The Democratic bill still believes that if we have an unelected czar who can ban credit products, who can ration credit products, that somehow we will have bliss in our economy. If you raise the price of capital, you get less capital. You cannot have capitalism without capital. Our small businesses are starving. We need more capital. This will simply cost the economy more jobs.

The Democratic bill fundamentally assaults the economic liberty of the American citizen. It says now you have to go on bended knee to Washington before you can put a credit card in your wallet or get a mortgage for your home. The Republican bill respects the liberties of the American citizen. It says we want to make sure that you have open and transparent information, but we respect your freedom, we respect your choices. We respect the freedom that this Nation represents.

Let's have more jobs, fewer bailouts. Let's respect the freedom of every American citizen. Reject the Democrats' bailout bill and support the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, TARP was passed as emergency legislation to bring about financial stability. TARP has morphed into a $700 billion revolving bailout fund to advance the administration's political, social and economic agenda. TARP has helped bring about our Nation's first trillion-dollar deficit, the highest unemployment rate in a generation, and helped turn us into a bailout nation. The American people want more jobs, not more bailouts and, oh, they want their money back, and they want their nation back.

It's time to terminate TARP.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I guess at 5'6'' inches I am doing well simply to look over the 2,500-page bill that spends yet another half a trillion dollars of money we do not have. Since the Democrats have come to power, they have increased the deficit tenfold.

We have our first trillion-dollar deficit, a budget plan to triple-- triple--the national debt in the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, every page of this behemoth spending bill represents an IOU to the Chinese to be paid for by our children and grandchildren. Every single page of this 2,500-page, half-a-trillion-dollar bill crushes yet another job in America.

Nobody is going to launch new jobs in America when they have to pay for this, Mr. Speaker. Our highest levels of spending, our highest levels of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats don't get it.

Madam Chair, regardless of any particular inquiries, the inquiry the American people want to know is: Where are the jobs? Now, what we have seen from the Democrats, our friends on the other side of the aisle, is an attempt to spend our way into jobs, an attempt to borrow our way into jobs and now an attempt to bail out our way into jobs. And what is the result? The result is the highest unemployment rate in a generation, the first trillion dollar deficit in our Nation's history, and a tripling of the national debt in the next 10 years.

Bailouts do not work. The Democratic bill enshrines us as a bailout Nation. It still allows people to privatize their profits and socialize their losses.

Section 1609(n) of the underlying bill creates a permanent bailout fund. Now, maybe some aspect of it is sunset, but nowhere else do you find a permanent bailout fund is going to be sunset. I assume you create the bailout fund for bailouts. This is what will happen.

If the American people believe that we can bail out our way into more jobs and that somehow we will have less systemic risk, they ought to support it. If they are tired of the bailouts, they need to support the Republican bill that ends the bailout. Ultimately, under their plan, you will have more taxpayer bailouts.

Now, they told us, the Speaker told us, if we would pass TARP, that she would make sure the taxpayers were repaid. What do we have? We have another TARP grab here by the chairman of the committee for yet another taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation plan, when every single other taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation plan has failed. The only one that will work is a job. That's what we need--jobs, not bailouts.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I could not agree more with the speakers whom I heard or with the intention of the gentlewoman who offered the amendment that we certainly need greater transparency in these taxpayer-funded housing programs.

I would also like to see that we include, maybe, HOPE for Homeowners, for which $300 billion has been authorized, but on the last date that it's available, which is dating back to July, only 1,000 applications and 50 loans closed. Yet $300 billion was authorized.

In the HAMP program, there was $75 billion of taxpayer money for 650,000, apparently, temporary loan modifications on a program that was supposed to help 4 million homeowners.

HARP, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, was supposedly going to help 4 to 5 million, and instead, there were only 116,000 loans.

Now let's look at what those who actually own the loans have done. There have been 4.7 million workouts that have happened in the competitive marketplace without any interference by government with no taxpayer money expended.

I mean, Madam Chair, this is the kind of transparency that we need. All of these taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation programs of this administration and of this Congress have been absolute abject failures. The only loan modification program, foreclosure mitigation program, that is going to work is a job, and we know what the record of this administration and of this Congress is: the highest unemployment rate in a generation and a double-digit unemployment rate.

Until you get rid of the looming storm clouds of Obamanomics, the debt, the spending, and the bailouts, you won't get the jobs. If you don't get the jobs, people can't keep their homes. So I am happy that we will shine a little bit more transparency into this.

As I listen carefully to this debate, I'm struck by the fact that this United States Congress doesn't seem to get it. The number one job of this Congress ought to be jobs. Again, I know some on the other side of the aisle take umbrage at the facts, and the facts are, we have double-digit unemployment, the highest unemployment in a generation. 3.6 million have lost their jobs since President Obama became President.

Now, I was informed by the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee that perhaps some, like myself, on this side of the aisle have amnesia because the problem really started in 2007, which conveniently coincides with the year that the Democrats took control of Congress. So apparently, amnesia does not know partisan bounds, Madam Chairman.

So what we have here in front of us is an amendment to put even greater burdens on small business, the job engine of America. How many more regulations, how much more cost do you have to put on small businesses as they're struggling to meet their payrolls, as they're struggling to try to keep their businesses afloat? How many more jobs have to be lost, Madam Chairman? I hope no more. And we should reject this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

This, in some respects, may be one of the few areas of agreement on both sides of the aisle that the rating agencies played a critical role in the economic turmoil that has been foisted upon our economy. We may differ on the remedy, though.

What is needed here is more competition, not more lawsuits. And what happens is when you lower the bar for a lawsuit, you raise the bar, barriers to entry, and make it more difficult. We know that for all intents and purposes that the government created a rating agency oligopoly that prevented the market from enjoying more competition, and we had all of this AAA-rated paper, and we know what has happened.

In many respects, Madam Chair, what we have seen now is the Democrats have tried to spin their way into more jobs than we have--our Nation's first trillion-dollar deficit; they have tried to borrow their way into more jobs--we're now borrowing 43 cents on the dollar and sending the IOUs to our children and grandchildren.

The bill that is brought to the floor today creates a permanent bailout authority for Wall Street. They have tried to bail out their way to more jobs, and this particular amendment says maybe we can sue our way into more jobs. That is not the way it is done, Madam Chair. We need more competition, not more lawsuits.

I urge the adoption of the amendment from the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I've listened to my friend from Colorado say that under their plan, they are done with the bailouts. Well, Mr. Speaker, it kind of begs the question: Why do they have a bailout fund? Why do you have a bailout fund if you're not going to bail people out? My wife and I started a college fund for our children, and the reason we are having a college fund is because we intend to send our children to college.

Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Democrats have a bailout fund, but now they expect us to suspend disbelief that they won't use it? If I can paraphrase a line from the famous Kevin Costner film, ``Field of Dreams,'' ``if you build it, they will come.'' If you create a bailout fund, people will come for bailouts. That's what this is. This is the TARP bill in perpetuity.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the American people like bailouts, our friends on the other side of the aisle certainly have the bill for them.

But as I talk to my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, they are tired of the bailouts. The school teacher in Mesquite, the fireman in Malakoff, the farmer in Henderson County--they are tired of the bailouts. They are tired of paying for this. And yet they create a $200 billion bailout fund.

Worse than that, Mr. Speaker, this is a job-killing bill. It is a bill that creates a huge Federal bureaucracy to ban and ration credit. I mean this is the group of people who have brought us double-digit unemployment, the worst unemployment in a generation. I would just ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, how many more jobs have to be lost under your plan? Small business needs credit. You're going to crush it.

Reject the rule. Reject the bill.