Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is a sad day for the United States Congress. People are hurting throughout this entire economy. And instead of bringing a bill that would stimulate our economy, what we see before us is a bill that will simply stimulate big government.

You know, most Americans, Mr. Chairman, believe that the reason that we are in the problem economy that we have is because as a Nation we borrowed and spent too much. And, instead, we have a bill theoretically to solve our problem that borrows and spends too much. You cannot borrow and spend your way into prosperity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if we were all Keynesians, and I assure you I am not, but if we were, all government spending is not created equal. The Keynesians would tell you. You look at this bill, 4 percent of this is spent on what most economists would call infrastructure, our roads and bridges.

We need tax relief for small businesses. We need tax relief for American families. And we need to do it in a way that doesn't send the bill to future generations. The tax relief for small businesses is as miniscule, less than 2 percent.

Instead, what we have is over half of this bill is to inflate big government. We have $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $726 million for an after-school snack program, office furniture for the Public Health Service, $1 billion for the Census.

Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on and on. And what we have is a bill that when you add the debt service is $1.2 trillion.

I thank the gentleman. I listened to the gentleman from Virginia carefully, and I'm curious. I would be happy to yield time to him.

When he talks about provisions that make economic sense, could he explain how $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts makes economic sense for his congressional district? I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

The gentleman from Virginia was the one who spoke. So I'm happy to yield time to him. I see the gentleman is not interested in answering the question.

Well, I appreciate the offer of the chairman. But I have plenty of opportunities to speak with him.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle who for weeks, if not months, have come to condemn the TARP program, to tell us all of its woes and shortcomings only to come now and say I'm going to vote for the next $350 billion.

And it's clear to me, listening to the debate, that my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, must be number one on the list of Members of Congress who will miss President George W. Bush. Everything that has happened in our land apparently is the responsibility of the former President, from the TARP program to bad breath and everything in between. But if every press account in the Western World is correct, it would appear that the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee was largely responsible for writing the legislation. Now, again, I know him to be an honorable man, I know him to be a principled man, but this is legislation that I believe was written in haste. Maybe the circumstances caused it to be written in haste.

But since then we have something different, Mr. Chairman. We have the Federal Reserve now has committed almost--between the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Treasury and FHA under the HOPE for Homeowners program, we are now looking at almost $8 trillion of potential taxpayer liability. I'm curious, number one, what is it that's going to be achieved with this extra $350 billion where there is no plan--no plan has been presented by the administration. I mean, you know, he just took the oath of office, we were all there; there is no plan that has been presented.

And what is it on an emergency situation that the Federal Reserve cannot do with their various and sundry auction facilities that are already set up? And if this money is needed on a very urgent basis, what is it that prevents this body from coming and acting upon a specific request of the administration? And the answer is: Nothing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is, this is an extra $350 billion that's going to be added on top of the single largest federal deficit that we've ever seen. Since my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken control of this House, we have seen the Federal deficit go from less than $200 billion to something 800 percent higher, I mean, $1.2 trillion. And sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, somebody has to pay for that.

We need an economic growth plan that will preserve jobs and grow jobs. We need an economic growth plan that will expand family's paychecks so they can pay their mortgage payments--our version of foreclosure mitigation. And we need a plan that doesn't send unconscionable, immoral debt to our children and grandchildren. Granting an arbitrary number of $350 billion to an incoming administration without a plan does not meet that test.

Madam Speaker, as a Member of Congress it is a high honor to cast my vote in the people's House. In my career, I have exercised that privilege over 4,200 times. While my record is not perfect, I am proud that last year I participated in 99 percent of all votes.

That is all the more reason why I am filled with regret that I unintentionally missed my opportunity to cast a vote last Friday on Rollcall No. 10, the resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend herself against attacks from Gaza. As a longtime supporter of Israel and her right to exist, I want to inform the House that were I present for the vote, I would have voted in favor of this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I offer my strong support of Israel and H. Res. 34. Since the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has continually launched thousands of rockets into southern Israel, killing innocent civilians, destroying vital infrastructure and private property, and holding hostage virtually all southern Israel's residents.

Though the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire of June 2008 reduced the number of rocket attacks from Gaza, the attacks never fully ended. Instead, Hamas and its foreign allies used this opportunity to smuggle more weapons into the region. Once the ceasefire expired on December 19, 2008, Hamas resumed its daily attacks on Israel with increased ferocity using its new and improved longer range Iranian-made rockets smuggled in during the ceasefire. Israel was left with little choice but to retaliate against these attacks by targeting Hamas' military forces and weapons stockpiles.

While any loss of life is deplorable, the fact remains that it was Hamas who forced Israel to resort to a military solution. Thus, I offer Israel my full support in the efforts to protect her citizens. If America fell under the same daily barrage of rocket attacks, we would not hesitate to strike back with military force, nor would we seek permission to take the necessary steps to protect our citizens.

Madam Speaker, Israel has a legal, moral, and historical right to exist in peace with secure and defensible borders. While it is my earnest prayer that this current conflict may be resolved shortly through a durable and sustainable ceasefire, Israel cannot put at risk the security of her people by allowing Hamas to continue to export violence from Gaza.

The loss of innocent civilian life is tragic and it is deplorable that Hamas complicates Israel's attempts to avoid civilian casualties by stockpiling weapons in homes and in mosques and using public places like schools to launch their sinister attacks on Israel. The Palestinian people deserve better.

Peace can never be achieved so long as terrorist groups like Hamas continue to operate. Israel has been our staunchest ally in the Middle East and a full partner in the global war against radical jihadists-- individuals who would destroy our Nation, our children, our values, and the very existence of Western civilization. We must continue to support Israel's right to defend herself against those who seek to destroy her and continue to support efforts to bring a lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors.

Madam Speaker, I support H. Res. 34 and Israel's right to defend herself from attack.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as I look at this amendment, I think the amendment is probably a good one, adding to the transparency and accountability, to the underlying legislation, but I still believe that I have a number of concerns.

And to the extent that this facilitates passage of the underlying bill, again, what I perceive that we have here is buyers' remorse for many with respect to the underlying TARP Program. And what many Members, I believe, saw was, either, one, they didn't see a plan, or, number 2, the plan they thought they saw was not the plan that they saw implemented, and whatever they saw implemented they didn't see too clearly because of the transparency and accountability that most Members would want was not present. I feel that because of the exigent circumstances the legislation was, perhaps, drafted in haste.

Now, the underlying legislation to which the gentleman's amendment would apply continues to have a number of underlying problems. Now, I do

want to compliment the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who I think has added some very important accountability and transparency provisions to the underlying legislation.

I think almost all Members agree that it's absolutely insane to be investing taxpayer money in these companies with no reporting requirement whatsoever, and I compliment the chairman for including that in the underlying legislation. The reporting requirement on new lending attributable to TARP is another good provision.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have three major concerns dealing with the underlying legislation.

Number one, if legislation still puts us on the road to picking winners and losers in our economy, express language dealing with the auto bailout, it doesn't do anything for the arts and crafts supplier in Athens, Texas, that I represent. I don't see language in the bill that's going to help them.

It doesn't do anything for the aluminum and zinc die caster in Jacksonville, Texas, in my district. I don't see any express language in the legislation that helps them.

On this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, we want to help everybody in the economy. Again, name me three industries that aren't hurting in this economy.

Why, again, Mr. Chairman, does the bill pick winners and losers?

Second of all, Mr. Chairman, it specifies a rather questionable foreclosure mitigation plan, one that apparently will take at least $40 billion of taxpayer funds, roughly patterned after the FDIC plan, if you read the language, one that even the FDIC admits may cost $25 billion.

Mr. Chairman, people on this side of the aisle support foreclosure mitigation, too. It's called preservation of your job, expand your job opportunities, and expand your paycheck through middle-income tax relief. That's the foreclosure mitigation plan that we need to see.

Then finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about a provision that would permit the Secretary of the Treasury to put, quote-unquote, observers into assisted institutions.

Again, I think this may speak to the haste in which the underlying legislation has been drafted. It didn't go through any markup. We didn't have any formal hearing on it, but on page 11 of the base bill, it states that the Secretary may require the attendance of an observer at, quote-unquote, any assisted institution.

Well, on page 8 of the bill it defines an assisted institution as any such institution that receives directly or indirectly assistance or benefit that derives from the funds that are available.

My concern, Mr. Chairman--and I don't believe it was the intent of the author of the legislation--but seemingly you could be giving the Secretary of the Treasury power to put an observer in any small business that does business with a community bank and gets a loan.

We may be on the precipice of having a Secretary of Treasury, who admittedly doesn't pay his own taxes, and yet he will have the right to put an observer into small businesses to make sure they pay theirs.

Again, I doubt it was the intent of the drafter of the underlying bill for that to happen, but it concerns me, Mr. Chairman, that we would have that in the base bill. And I hope Members would clearly take a look at that before approving the underlying legislation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I have similar concerns I had with one of the earlier amendments. I think, frankly, the gentleman from New York has a very good amendment. I will support it. I do, again, believe that there needs to be increased transparency and accountability for how these funds are used.

But, again, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns, and I agree with our distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee that this is an important vote that we will take on the underlying legislation. But I continue to have concerns that I feel have not been addressed.

Number one, although the underlying legislation--and the gentleman from New York is certainly adding more accountability and transparency to the process--although my friends on that side of the aisle take a few steps forward, they unfortunately take a number of steps backwards as well. As I look at the underlying legislation, particularly with respect to the HOPE for Homeowners program which, by the way, the Congressional Budget Office estimates is a 15 percent subsidy cost, and that could cost $675 million over 10 years, that the legislation, the underlying legislation actually eliminates borrower certifications. That a borrower has not intentionally defaulted on the mortgage or any other debt, has not knowingly or willfully and with actual knowledge furnished material information known to be false for the purpose of attaining an eligible mortgage. I mean, Mr. Chairman, that is clearly a step backwards when it comes to adding accountability and transparency to the process.

In addition, the underlying legislation eliminates the requirement that an individual receiving assistance under that program verify their income by providing tax return information.

So I have heard all of the wonderful words about our accountability and transparency increases within the legislation, but I haven't heard a whole lot though about the steps the underlying legislation has taken in the wrong direction.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I still am concerned about this provision that I hope that perhaps the distinguished chairman will address, the provision in the underlying bill allowing the Secretary to place board observers into ``assisted institutions.'' I mean assisted institution is defined on page eight of the base bill and it includes any institution that receives directly or indirectly, or indirectly, any assistance or benefit.

I still question, again, whether or not a small business in a rural community who does business with a small community bank receiving TARP funds, all of a sudden are they going to end up having a Federal observer in their small business? Now maybe some Members would like to go down that road. Maybe they think that is a good thing. I, for one, do not. I don't believe that was probably the intention of the author of the bill. But, again, I am reading the definition in the legislation.

I think it's a great concern, and Members need to pay very careful attention before they vote on the underlying legislation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for his amendment. I think it certainly improves the underlying bill. My main concerns remain with the underlying bill; and I am still fearful that this institution is about to, essentially, commit the same error that many feel was committed a few months ago.

I myself did not vote for the underlying TARP legislation; I voted against it twice. I supported an alternative plan. Now, these continue to be very serious challenging, serious economic times that need thoughtful plans. But we are essentially saying to the incoming administration: Here is a $350 billion bank account. Well, I say, where is the plan? And Congress isn't going away. Congress can come, and when the need is presented and the plan is presented, can vote for this money.

There is the Federal Reserve. We are already up to $7 trillion to $8 trillion of taxpayer liability exposure that includes their various lending facilities. It is not like, if Congress goes to bed at night, that no one is there to aid in an emergency situation.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I understand that, to the distinguished chairman; but I also understand, as I believe you said, to paraphrase, this sends an important signal. I don't want to send the signal that the vote on the underlying legislation would provide that, here is $350 billion, without a plan.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I again question why we are even here today. I observe again that those who have risen to be the largest critics of the TARP bill were the ones who wrote the TARP bill. So, number one, why weren't the standards, the accountability, the provisions that some are seeking today, why weren't they there originally? That is question number one.

Question number two is: Why are we having to have a vote that turns off the spigot of an extra $350 billion of taxpayer money, as opposed to turn it on?

So why are we even having to have this vote, Mr. Chairman, I think is an interesting question that the American people want to know the answer to.

Now, already if you look at the actions of the Federal Reserve, if you look at the actions of Treasury, Mr. Chairman, we are already up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 trillion to $8 trillion of potential liability taxpayer exposure. I don't necessarily believe the taxpayer will have to pay it all. I hope and pray that the taxpayer will get some return on his investment.

But to sit here and say that unless Congress somehow authorizes the incoming President to spend an extra $350 billion that we could spend ourselves, and to give him this authority, without any plan being presented whatsoever, I mean, Mr. Chairman, that's just something I don't understand. It's not something that the constituents that I represent in the Fifth District of Texas understand.

Now, I do believe that the chairman is right on a couple of instances, that, yes, we need to know how institutions who are receiving TARP funds actually spend it. That's important. We need to have some kind of measurement of success to know what's actually happening here.

But I look at the provisions of the strings that he's attempting to attach after the fact, when, if this was a horse leaving the barn, I don't think we've seen much left but his tail. But when I look at the strings that are being attached here, I mean, Number 1, we have explicit language here that most of us have concluded is picking winners and losers in our economy, express language dealing with the auto companies.

Now, I don't want to see the auto companies fail. Nobody in America does. But name me an industry in America that isn't struggling. Is Congress so wise that they can decide which industries are deserving the taxpayer bailout and which aren't?

It's one thing for the Federal Government to try to monitor the money supply, ensure that the money supply is proper, that would hopefully lift all industries, help all families, help all job creators and those who have the jobs.

But it's another to start saying, well, here's the explicit plan for the auto industry. And if it's the auto industry today, is it the airlines industry tomorrow? Who is it next week?

Again, how can everybody who's struggling bail out everybody else who's struggling?

And what has become of all of this money?

Again, it's not like this is the only $350 billion lying around. The Federal Reserve already has a number of credit facilities that are set up. We don't even know the full impact of the first $350 billion.

And so now we have a plan that, as I understand, and I believe I've heard the chairman say that the Senate does not intend to vote on this, which is another reason I question the use of the House's time on this matter. But trying to have a provision that picks winners and losers in our economy and, specifically, in our housing industry as well.

We know about the tragic circumstances in our housing industry. But what's going to make it even more tragic, Mr. Chairman, is to take money away from people who are current on their mortgages, or who rent, or who own their homes outright, to give the money to people who aren't current in their mortgage.

Now, there's a couple of reasons people aren't current in their mortgages. Number 1, maybe it's through no fault of their own. Maybe they were duped by a predatory lender. Maybe they had a serious illness. Maybe they had a loss of job. I mean, these are serious setbacks, and I would hope that we could help these people.

But, Mr. Chairman, there's a huge universe of people who engaged in predatory borrowing, out-and-out mortgage fraud. There's a universe of people who decided they would turn their homes into an ATM machine, and now they expect their neighbor to bail them out. There's a whole group who didn't really buy a home, they bought an investment and they decided to live in it, and now they expect their neighbor to bail them out.

When you're struggling to pay your mortgage, Mr. Chairman, you shouldn't be compelled to have to pay your neighbors' as well.

For all these reasons, this amendment should be defeated.

I was listening carefully to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee when he introduced the previous speaker. He said the gentleman cared passionately about the foreclosure mitigation, and apparently, other Members don't. I'm not sure who the chairman was alluding to. We certainly care about foreclosure mitigation on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, there is no better foreclosure mitigation plan than keeping your job, number 1, having expanded opportunities for a better job in the future, and number 3, having a growing paycheck. That's why Republicans on this side of the aisle have supported a tax relief plan to make sure that people keep their jobs and to help small businesses. It's why people on this side of the aisle--why Republicans, Mr. Chairman--have supported a plan that would reduce the tax on future job creation--the capital gains tax, the tax on investment. It's why we have supported tax reductions for middle-income families so they can pay these mortgages.

I see, unfortunately, that the chairman has left the floor, but I would also observe that over 2 million mortgages have been refinanced between the borrowers and lenders.

Listen, a great tragedy has occurred in our housing market. Now the question is: With all of these losses, who is going to realize it? Is it going to be the borrowers and the lenders or is it going to be the taxpayers?

So, if some believe there are other Members who don't care about foreclosure mitigation, I would say, Mr. Chairman, it appears that some Members don't care about the debt that they are placing on future generations, constraining their homeownership opportunities. They don't care about the fact that we are now looking, under this Congress, at the single largest deficit in America's history, that we are seeing red ink as far as the eye can see and that we are possibly planting the seeds for an even worse recession 5, 6, 7, 8 years from now because bad public policy decisions, Mr. Chairman, after 9/11 and after the dot-com bubble have led us to where we are today.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I've listened carefully to the previous speaker and comments from our distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee. It's quite clear to me that, come early next week, they're certainly going to miss President Bush. I don't know who they're going to start to blame every problem in the universe on come next week.

I didn't come here to engage in the blame game, but I certainly can't let the chairman's comment pass as he said something to the effect that President Obama is inheriting a problem created by President Bush. Well, as the chairman knows, there's a lot of underlying causes to the predicament we find ourselves in and I'm happy to debate them at a later time, but I would also note that the economic policy of America is determined substantially by this Congress, and the economy was doing just fine until the Democrats took over Congress.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as I look at the bill that is before us, again, there are certain areas where I agree with our distinguished chairman, more accountability and more transparency tends to be a good thing. But Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in here though that says the ``Secretary may require an observer in the board rooms for institutions that receive TARP money.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, I've been around here for a few years and although I have no doubt that everybody is well-meaning in the legislation that they bring to the floor, my fear is that today's ``may'' shall turn out to be tomorrow's ``shall.'' And my fear is that today's ``observer'' will become tomorrow's ``suggester'' and next week will become ``the mandator.'' I think this is a terrible, terrible precedent. I think it bespeaks of industrial policy run by the government. I think it puts, again, one more of those slippery stones on that slippery slope to socialism.

And Mr. Chairman, what are they observing? I mean, what specific policies have they been given to undertake by this United States Congress? What are they observing? And what I observe, Mr. Chairman, is that my reading of the legislation says that any ``assisted institution'' as defined by any institution that receives ``any direct or indirect recipient of assistance or benefit from TARP.'' And so I hope that the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, on his time, will enlighten us on his interpretation of how he wrote the underlying bill. Because does this mean that any business borrowing money from a bank under TARP will now be subject to an observer of the Federal Government? Does this mean anyone who has an insurance policy with AIG is now subject to an observer from the Federal Government?

Since we have express language in here dealing with the auto industry, I hope the chairman will answer the question, does this mean that the Secretary of the Treasury can place an observer in every UAW union hall across the Nation if they receive monies under TARP?

Now, again, I have no doubt that, although I disagree with the chairman on a number of issues, I know that his purpose is a noble one. But I also know, Mr. Chairman, that when things begin in Washington, they don't always end the way that they started. And so I would question, number one--you know, we were told at one time Social Security would be solvent forever; well, it's not. We were told that TRIA was a temporary program; well, it's not. We were told Fannie and Freddie would never be bailed out. And I'm sure those who said it meant it at the time, but circumstances change, they were bailed out. We were told that once House Democrats took over control, that they would rein in spending and balance the budget, and now we have the largest deficit in American history.

So I'm fearful that this provision will grow into something that maybe it's

not intended, not something that I would appreciate. And I'm also very curious why so many other accountability provisions dealing with home borrowers have seemingly fallen out of the bill, including one that the chairman agreed to earlier--I believe it was in April in the markup of the Hope for Homeowners program--when he accepted the amendment now, but seemingly is taking it out of the bill at this point.

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

Perhaps the chairman did not hear all of my remarks-- --

I do not.

Again, perhaps the chairman of the committee missed some of my remarks. My concern is the way that this is drafted is we are giving the Secretary of Treasury the power to put an observer into every small business in America who borrows money from a community bank that gets TARP funds. That isn't what might happen, that is what does happen. And when the chairman says he's concerned about accountability, I wonder why doesn't that go to the borrower side. Why is he striking that portion of the bill that has borrower certification that they did not intentionally default on their mortgage? Why does this bill strike the fine or imprisonment for borrowers who make willful, false statements? Why does he strike the requirement of those who are found to have committed mortgage fraud, that they have to expunge any direct financial benefit? So it's kind of selective concern, I would say.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I find it somewhat ironic that the biggest critics of the bailout legislation are the very people who wrote the bailout legislation. Many are shocked at the lack of transparency and what they would view as the apparent lack of effectiveness. Again, these are the people who wrote the bill.

I think the bill that is before us is a tacit admission that they didn't get it right in the first place. You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't say that in trying to assess blame. There were Members on both sides of the aisle who supported that legislation in good faith. I was not among them. I supported an alternative piece.

But I do say this to make the point that here is another piece of legislation being rushed to the floor. Haste makes waste. The first TARP bill was fraught with unintended consequences, and now we are here, perhaps with Son of TARP--I believe the previous speaker said-- maybe it's fraught with unintended consequences as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would also ask a few questions and make a few observations.

You know, if government spending money could solve the problem, we're up to about $7 or $8 trillion of potential taxpayer exposure already. Now, I don't believe the taxpayers will have to pay the entirety of the bill, but if they did, we're looking at almost $100,000 per American family. And here is another $350 billion on top of that, Mr. Chairman.

And I have the question, where is the plan? Where is the incoming administration's plan for the $350 billion?

And last I looked, Mr. Chairman, Congress doesn't have any extended recess scheduled until April, and certainly the majority has proven their ability to ram through legislation in 24-, 48-hour's notice. Why do we have to hand over an additional $350 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money to an administration that hasn't taken office, who hasn't even presented us a plan? Why is Congress yielding, yielding their spending prerogatives at this time? I simply don't understand it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it appears that we are given three different choices here: number one, we can vote to disallow the second $350 billion without receiving a plan. That's simply what I advocate. Some may, once again, want to give the $350 billion check to the administration.

And then there's Chairman Frank's plan. We will give them the $350 billion, but we will attach certain strings to it. Now, I agree with the chairman when it comes to accountability. There are certain strings of his that I would agree with. I don't understand why you would hand over money and not at least set up some provision for knowing how it's spent or be able to measure whether or not the plan is succeeding. And I compliment the chairman for that.

Outside of that, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I agree with his other extremes.

Number one, I believe that he has a string that has the Federal Government picking winners and losers. Now, he and the previous speaker had a colloquy regarding the auto industry. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what industry isn't suffering in this economy. If it's the auto industry today, is it the airline industry tomorrow? Is it the tourist industry on Thursday? And when does Starbucks get in line? We're not helping the entire economy.

This TARP legislation I believe implicitly picks winners and losers.

Second of all, we start going down this road of putting government observers in the boardrooms. I mean, the government agent who observes today will suggest tomorrow, and he, I assure you, will mandate on Thursday. I've seen this before. I don't want to go down this road, Mr. Chairman.

And then last but not least, taking money away from people who are current on their mortgage and giving it to people who aren't current on their mortgage is no way to work our way out of the economic peril that we find ourselves in.

We need tax relief for families. We need tax relief for small businesses. We need to grow our way out of this economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a dear friend, a great protector of our Constitution, one of the great champions of the taxpayer, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Dr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes.

No one in this Chamber wants to see the Big 3 automakers fail. No one. The loss of these automakers would be a tragic circumstance for our economy. There is no doubt. Mr. Speaker, I ask the question that I asked of the chairman of the Big 3 automakers, and that is:

Name me three industries that are not hurting in this economy that could not be helped, sustained and made more profitable by the infusion of $15 billion?

Stone cold silence at the witness table.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in every industry is hurting in this economy. Why the automakers? Why not the airlines?

Why not the home builders? Why not the restaurants and the hotels? They do not have a monopoly on economic misery. If our purpose here today is to preserve jobs, I'm wondering why the money is not destined for the small businesses of America.

This year, a half a million small businesses that are employing an average of 10 workers will fail. Small business is the job engine of America, not just the small businesses that may be attached to the automakers in the industry but all small businesses.

Jacksonville Industries in my district in Jacksonville, Texas. Kenneth Framing in Athens, Texas. Now, I suspect nobody in this Chamber has heard the names of those businesses, but we've all heard the names of the Big 3 automakers, and we know that they've had the ability to spend $50 million to lobby this Congress this year. I don't deny them their first amendment opportunities to petition the Congress for the redress of their grievances.

But, Mr. Speaker, are they getting the money and small business isn't getting the money merely because we have not heard the names of the small businesses and because they're working hard to put food on their tables to sustain their families and because they don't have $50 million to spend on lobbying expenses?

I think there must be a better way. Indeed, it would be one thing if we knew for a fact that this money somehow would solve the problem, but we don't. Independent analysts in the auto industry tell us, if demand does not pick up for the domestic auto industry, $15 billion, $35 billion, $75 billion, and $105 billion will not solve the problem. It will not solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.

Everybody agrees that the auto industry needs to reorganize, but the question that is before this body is: Is it going to reorganize at the risk of investors or is it going to reorganize at the risk of the poor, beleaguered taxpayer? Is it going to take voluntary capital from investors at risk or involuntary capital from taxpayers that is placed at risk?

The taxpayer can take no more. We are seeing the largest nominal deficit in the history of our Nation. The unfunded obligations of the average American family are over $400,000. Bailout mania has had thousands of dollars of obligations to them. We want the Big 3 to survive, but they've got to get down their labor costs. They've got to convince the American consumer that their products are worthy of their investment. They must reorganize, but another bailout at the taxpayer expense is not the answer, particularly when small business does not enjoy the same benefit.

This bill should be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, may I again inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. I would like to inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee: I don't know if the gentleman has other speakers.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker remaining, so we would reserve at this time.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. on the occasion of his retirement after twelve years of service on the City Council of Athens, Texas, where he has overseen many projects benefiting his community.

After graduating from Athens High School in 1957, Bob joined the United States Navy where he served aboard the USS Coral Sea. Following an Honorable Discharge, he returned to Athens where he opened the Gould Insurance Agency in 1962, which he has owned and operated for over forty years.

Among his many civic activities, Bob has been the Director and Vice- President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce, Co-Founder of the Texas High School Basketball Hall of Fame, and the Charter Director for the Henderson County YMCA. He has also received many awards from his community including the Roadhand Award from the Texas Highway Commission and the Athens Citizen of the Year Award in 1984.

In addition to faithfully serving his community, Bob is a husband to Mrs. Peggy Lorene Lubben Gould, and father of four children: Robert Jr., Joseph, Patricia, and Mary.

I want to recognize Bob for his service and commitment to his community. Due to Bob's leadership in the city and throughout the business community, Athens remains a strong, supportive, and vibrant community.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 5th District of Texas, it is my pleasure to congratulate Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. on his retirement from the City Council and thank him for a job well done.

Madam Speaker, we all understand that without action many of our citizens will find themselves laid off from their jobs. They won't be able to refinance their homes. This crisis is real.

House conservatives know that inaction is not an option, and we have worked tirelessly to put different plans, ideas, and legislation on the table to remedy the crisis. We take some measure of pride in knowing that the underlying legislation has now been improved twice. We believe our efforts help.

But, Madam Speaker, I still have many fears about the legislation before us. No one knows if this plan will truly work. We all hope it does. No one knows the true mount of taxpayer liability. The Secretary of the Treasury can go through $700 billion in no time flat and come right back to Congress for $700 billion more.

I fear that this legislation still remains more of a bailout than a workout. I fear that it undermines the ethic of personal responsibility. I fear that it still rewards bad behavior and punishes good. But my greatest fear, Madam Speaker, is that it fundamentally changes the role of the government in our free enterprise economy and, despite its current problems, this economy remains the envy of the world.

How can we have capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down? If we lose our ability to fail, will we not soon lose our ability to succeed? If Congress bails out some firms and sectors, how can it say no to others?

We must be very careful as we address this financial crisis that we ensure that any short-term gain does not come at the expense of even longer term pain, that being the slippery slope to socialism.

Madam Speaker, the thought of my children growing up in an America with less freedom, less opportunity, and a lower standard of living is a long-term pain I cannot and will not bear. Therefore, I will vote again ``no'' on this legislation. I vote ``no'' with some doubt. But, Madam Speaker, there is a better way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this is clearly one of the most important votes that many of us will cast in our congressional careers. We are all concerned about the state of our economy. We are all concerned about the state of our capital markets. What has infected Wall Street may soon reach Main Street. Inaction has never been an option. But, again, the Paulson plan should never have been our only option. I fear other options, Madam Speaker, have never been considered seriously in the body. Although I certainly want to congratulate our ranking member, Spencer Bachus; our Republican leadership--Eric Cantor of Virginia, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin--for the work they've done to improve this bill, this is clearly a better bill, Madam Speaker, than it was a week ago, but that's not the relevant test. The relevant test is when you look at the good in the bill, when you look at the bad in the bill, does it take America in a direction that you believe America should go? By that test, Madam Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I fear this legislation before us is fraught with unintended consequences. I fear that ultimately it may not work. I fear that it is too much bailout and not enough workout. I fear that taxpayers may end up inheriting the mother of all debts. Now, some have come to the House floor and said, well, the taxpayer's going to make money on this. You know what, Madam Speaker: They may be right. I can tell you this much, Madam Speaker: as history as our guide, the taxpayer lost $200 billion on the S&L bailout. I can raid my neighbor's college fund for his children, go put it on a roulette table in Las Vegas, maybe I'll triple his money for him, but you know what, Madam Speaker, it's not a risk my neighbor voluntarily assumed.

I fear that under this plan, ultimately the Federal Government will become the guarantor of last resort and, Madam Speaker, that does put us on the slippery slope to socialism. If you lose your ability to fail, soon you will lose your ability to succeed. That's why, Madam Speaker, House conservatives have put forth an alternative plan, and we are happy to work on it today and all next week. As important as it is to act quickly, it is more important to act rightly. We would hope this plan would get serious consideration.

And, Madam Speaker, once it does, we hope that we can go on--that we can address the taxpayer crisis, as our fellow citizens are looking at the largest tax increase in American history; the spending crisis of an out-of-control Congress; the energy crisis where we see too many of our fellow citizens struggling to pay their bills.

Madam Speaker, as we look at this legislation, and I respect all regardless of what side they come down on, if in doubt, err on the side of freedom.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership.

I certainly understand the intent and the purpose of the gentlelady's bill, and her intent is good. Unfortunately, I believe the policy is bad.

It is entitled the Credit Card Bill of Rights Act. I fear, if enacted, it will prove to be a ``credit card bill of wrongs'' for credit card holders all over America. I view it as a most decisively anti-consumer piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I believe that this piece of legislation helps turn back the clock to a different era in America where there is little competition for credit cards, where a third fewer Americans had access to credit cards which so many now view as a necessity of everyday economic life. Those people in this previous era who did have credit cards universally paid a high, high interest rate.

I believe this bill also represents another assault on our personal economic freedoms and will exacerbate the credit crunch that we see today. Why would we want to bring a bill to the floor that could make credit even less accessible and more expensive at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills?

This bill ultimately would limit the ability in some instances to charge interest; it would limit the ability in some respects to change terms; limit the ability to impose certain late fees; limit the ability to impose over-the-limit fees. Essentially, it erodes what we call risk-based pricing.

And what has risk-based pricing and competition brought us? Number one, what we have seen is where interest rates used to be in the 20 percent range, they have now fallen below the 15 percent range. We have seen a virtual disappearance in our entire economy of the dreaded annual fees, which typically most cards had charged anywhere from $20 to $50. We have seen a flowering, a myriad of benefits that are now available from product protection to free plane tickets because of the competition, and an unprecedented surge in credit card use from under 300 million a day to almost 700.

Credit cards are just an absolutely vital tool for the small business in America, which is the job engine in our Nation. Madam Speaker, I hear from a lot of hardworking small business people in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I am proud to represent. I hear from the Mayhall family that runs a small business in Athens, Texas. They write, ``Dear Congressman. I run a small business, and I do not have very good credit. I have four credit cards which have very low limits. I try not to use them very often, but sometimes the cash flow isn't there, and I have to have something for my business. Without access to this credit, I would not be able to purchase the items for my business when I need it.

``Please do not make it more difficult for me to run my business. I have enough problems.''

I don't want to tell the Mayhall family of Athens, Texas, that maybe their small business just won't have access to one of those credit cards any more. I don't want to have to tell them that they may have to pay more. That simply isn't right.

Now I don't come here today to defend credit card companies and all of their practices. There is one certain credit card company that my wife and I just refuse to do business with. We don't like them. We've changed our main credit cards several times because we didn't like some of the provisions. But we had that choice, Madam Speaker. We had that choice in a competitive economy.

We should also mention a phrase that is rarely used in the Halls of Congress, and that is ``individual responsibility.'' We all bear some individual responsibility for knowing what is in our credit card bills.

Now listen. If we don't know what the terms are, either, one, we've been misled by a credit card company--and, Madam Speaker, it happens. There are some misleading and fraudulent practices, and they need to be cracked down on. That's why we have the Truth in Lending Act, that's why we have the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, that's why we have the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, and others.

Another reason that we don't know the terms, Madam Speaker, is because we didn't read them, in which case we have ourselves to blame. Another reason that people don't know their terms is because they're incomprehensible. We can't understand them because of too many crazy government mandates that give us voluminous disclosure written in legalese as opposed to effective disclosure written in English.

Madam Speaker, again, don't take my word for it, but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has written that if restrictive proposals like these were to become law, ``credit card issuers could also respond in a variety of ways. They may increase loan rates across the board on all borrowers, making it more expensive for both good and delinquent borrowers to use revolving credit. Issuers may also increase minimum monthly payments, reduce credit limits, or reduce the number of credit cards issued to people with impaired credit.''

Madam Speaker, we have seen a similar piece of legislation across the pond in the U.K. Britain decided that credit card default fees were too high. They ordered credit card issuers to cut them or face legal action, and guess what happened? Two of the three biggest issuers imposed annual fees on their credit card holders, 19 have raised interest rates, and we have seen studies that 60 percent of new credit applicants are being rejected. I don't want to repeat that experience in the United States of America in the midst of a credit crunch.

We should reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of the House, prices at the pump have increased 75 percent, I would say to my friend from New York. Their response, take a 6-week vacation while the American people suffer.

Then they come back and, in the dead of night, present us with a 240- page nonenergy bill, no amendments, no substitutes, no committee hearings. Is this democracy? No. Is there any difference in Nancy Pelosi's America and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? I think not.

This is a sham. This is a fraud. This is a bill designed to ensure Democrats' reelection, not designed to ensure affordable energy in America.

No new refineries in their bill, no clean coal, no ANWR, no nuclear and, if you read it, no Outer Continental Shelf; 85 percent still off limits.

Democrats look at our oil and gas reserves and say these are toxic waste reserves. Republicans look at our oil and gas reserves and say valuable natural resources to ease the pain at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, we need American energy made in America for Americans. We don't need a sham political bill.

Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of Congress the price of gas has increased 75 percent. Mr. Speaker, their first response was to declare a 6-week vacation while the American people suffered. Republicans spoke out. The American people heard. They demanded action.

So now what do we have, Mr. Speaker? In the dark of night, we have produced a 240-page nonenergy energy bill, with no amendments, no substitutes, no committee hearings, supposedly from a Speaker who promised us the most open, democratic, and fair process known to mankind. These are strong-arm tactics that are more befitting of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela than they are the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not produce American energy. It is a sham. It is a fraud. There are no new refineries, no clean coal, no ANWR, no nuclear, and regardless of what they say, Mr. Speaker, no production of our deep sea resources.

And, in fact, this bill makes matters worse. It would permanently ban the development of our oil and gas resources on almost 88 percent of our offshore resources.

You know, it's ironic, Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats would do nothing--and certainly, they've had lots of practice doing nothing-- this moratorium on development would go away in just 2 weeks. Decades and decades of American energy, oil and gas in the ground, ready to be developed, but the Democrats won't let us do it.

In fact, this has called the publication Roll Call to ask, ``Is this just an elaborate exercise to give their Democrat Members a heaping dose of political cover?'' The answer, Mr. Speaker, is ``yes.''

We need all of the above. We need conservation. We need renewables. We need alternative energy. But we need more American energy, too. Democrats view our oil and gas resources as toxic waste sites. Republicans view them as valuable natural resources that can be used to ease pain at the pump.

Vote against that bill. Vote for American energy.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the individuals who sacrificed their lives on September 11, 2001 to protect the safety of our citizens and preserve our great Nation's freedom.

The world was forever changed 7 years ago on the morning of September 11. Nearly 3,000 innocent people were murdered at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on a quiet field in Pennsylvania.

While we think back to the massive destruction of that day and mourn the lives lost, we will also never forget the shared spirit of togetherness that followed our sorrow. The countless acts of heroism and bravery on 9/11 gave birth to a dawn of unity and camaraderie.

We must thank our first responders who go to work each day willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save a complete stranger. We must thank the men and women of our armed forces who defend our freedom and Nation. Because of their sacrifices, our Nation stands tall on the great progress that has been achieved by these brave men and women.

Since September 11, 2001, we have reshaped our homeland's defense and significantly improved our readiness to deal with terrorist attacks. The war on terror is a struggle for freedom unlike any other that our Nation has faced. We must always be as united behind our cause as they are behind theirs.

When America unites to defend the same ideals and virtues that our fathers, grandfathers and generations prior have defended, we know that she will remain a beacon of liberty around the world.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to express my eternal gratitude to the men and women that defended our Nation 7 years ago and to the individuals who continue to protect us at home and abroad.

I thank the gentleman and my dear friend from Texas for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the fiscal mismanagement of the Democrats continues. In just 19 months, our friends on the other side of the aisle have managed to double the Federal deficit. They have given us the single largest 1-year increase in the Federal debt, an extra $600 billion. They've given us the largest unfunded obligation ever of the Nation, $57.3 trillion, that's trillion with a T, Madam Speaker, roughly $400,000 of debt per American family under this Democrat leadership. They've given us the largest Federal budget ever. They've given us the largest tax increase ever. They've given a blank check to Fannie and Freddie drawn on the checking accounts of working men and women all over the Nation.

And today, today, to the best of my knowledge, for the first time in America's history, they are raiding a bankrupt Treasury in order to give money to the highway trust fund.

Now, Madam Speaker, how did we get here? I submit to you it's two reasons.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle love earmarks, but, unfortunately, they don't love American made energy.

In the last highway bill, as my friend, the gentleman from Arizona, pointed out, 6,300 different earmarks, $24 billion worth. We wouldn't be here, Madam Speaker, if it wasn't for this ``earmarkaholism.''

Now, not all these earmarks are bad. But, Madam Speaker, something called the highway trust fund, why do we have Democrat earmarks for landscaping? Why do we have Democrat earmarks for hiking trails in Tennessee? Why do we have Democrat earmarks, a quarter million dollars for boardwalks?

Madam Speaker, why did we end up with $600,000 for horse riding trails in the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia?

Madam Speaker, why did the Democrats bring us earmarks, $8 million for a parking facility in Harlem? And the list goes on and on.

Now, I'll admit, Madam Speaker, there's been a number of earmarks on our side of the aisle. But this side of the aisle woke up. They understand the American people, and the American people want a moratorium, and it's Republicans that have called for a moratorium.

But more importantly, right now, Madam Speaker, one of the reasons there's no money in the trust fund is people can't afford to drive because Democrats view our oil and gas reserves in our Nation as toxic waste sites, and Republicans view them as natural resources to relieve pain at the pump.

And that's why, Madam Speaker, if we would simply enact the American Energy Act, the All-of-the-Above Act, Americans could drive again and we could fill up these coffers, and we wouldn't be here today.

And, finally, to be here today without any offsets is an absolute tragedy for this Nation. And this bill should be rejected.