Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Campbell

Amendment No. 106: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Campbell

Amendment No. 107: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Campbell

Amendment No. 108: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, as of April 1, 2009, the Department of Transportation subsidized air service to 108 communities in 48 the continental United States, Hawaii and Puerto Rico and 45 communities in Alaska. One of those subsidized airports is the John Murtha Johnstown- Cambria County Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

This airport handles six commercial flights a week--six a week--to one place, Washington, D.C., a location all of 3 hours' drive from Johnstown, Pennsylvania. But for those six commercial flights a week, less than one a day to a place only 3 hours' drive away, the Federal taxpayer has spent $150 million in improvements since 1990. Included in that $150 million is $20 million for a runway extension, making the runway large enough to accommodate any aircraft in North America, $800,000 in the most recent stimulus package for runway rehabilitation, $6 million for a radar surveillance system, $5 million for a new air traffic control tower, and over $1 million every year for improvements since 2004. And that's just for the capital improvements.

In addition, the Federal taxpayer spends $1,394,000 every year in subsidies to the single air carrier making, remember, less than one flight a day out of this airport. That, by the way, computes to nearly $5,000 in subsidy per flight, which takes less than 45 minutes since it's only 3 hours' drive away.

The defenders of this airport say that it has military use in addition; and in fact, it does. The defenders of this airport point out that there were 28 military deployments out of this airport over the last decade. That would be three deployments per year. So six flights a day, three deployments per year. We all know about the bridge to nowhere. Mr. Speaker, there was a bridge to nowhere, and this is surely the airport for no one.

To say that this is wasteful understates how bad it is. I wish we could get all our money back, but we can't. But what we can do is pass this motion to recommit, which simply says that no money in this bill is going to be used to further subsidize or improve the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.

Mr. Speaker, we have debts and deficits as far as the eye can see. If we can't stop wasting the taxpayers' money on boondoggles as obvious as this one, why should the public trust us at all with any of their money?

Please support this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, from February 3, 2009, to March 4, 2009, I missed Roll Call votes 47-96. Unfortunately, I underwent a surgical procedure and was in California recuperating. Had I been here, I would have voted the following:

Roll Call Vote 47: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 82, raising awareness and encouraging prevention of stalking by establishing January 2009 as National Stalking Awareness Month;

Roll Call Vote 48: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 103, supporting the goals and ideals of National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week;

Roll Call Vote 49: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 559, The Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely (FAST) Redress Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 50: No on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 51: Yes on the motion to commit with instructions S. 352, the DTV Delay Act;

Roll Call Vote 52: No on passage of S. 352, the DTV Delay Act;

Roll Call Vote 53: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 738, the Death in Custody Reporting Act;

Roll Call Vote 54: Yes on the motion to instruct conferees on H. R. 1, Making Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending 2009;

Roll Call Vote 55: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 114, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Girls and Women in Sports Day;

Roll Call Vote 56: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 60, Recognizing and commending University of Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford for winning the 2008 Heisman Trophy and for his academic and athletic accomplishments;

Roll Call Vote 57: No on the motion to table H. Res. 143, Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House;

Roll Call Vote 58: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 128, Honoring Miami University for its 200 years of commitment to extraordinary higher education;

Roll Call Vote 59: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 134, Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to India and the positive influence that the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi had on Dr. King's work during the Civil Rights Movement;

Roll Call Vote 60: No on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 47, Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses;

Roll Call Vote 61: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 154, Honoring John D. Dingell for holding the record as the longest serving member of the House of Representatives;

Roll Call Vote 62: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act;

Roll Call Vote 63: No on the motion to agree to H. Res. 157, providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes;

Roll Call Vote 64: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 117, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week;

Roll Call Vote 65: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 35, Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 100th anniversary;

Roll Call Vote 66: No on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 168, providing for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 67: No on H. Res. 168, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 68: No on the question of consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 69: Yes on the motion to recommit the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 70: No on agreeing to the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 71: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules agree to H. Res. 139, Commemorating the life and legacy of President Abraham Lincoln on the bicentennial of his birth;

Roll Call Vote 72: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 911, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act;

Roll Call Vote 73: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act;

Roll Call Vote 74: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 601, the Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act;

Roll Call Vote 75: No on approving the journal;

Roll Call Vote 76: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act;

Roll Call Vote 77: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 637, the South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act;

Roll Call Vote 78: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 83, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month;

Roll Call Vote 79: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 234, the Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building;

Roll Call Vote 80: Yes on approving the journal;

Roll Call Vote 81: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 47, Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day;

Roll Call Vote 82: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 180, Supporting the goals and ideals of the third annual America Saves Week;

Roll Call Vote 83: No on the consideration of H. Res. 184, providing for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations for 2009;

Roll Call Vote 84: Yes on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 184, providing for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations for 2009;

Roll Call Vote 85: Yes on H. Res. 184, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 86: No on passage of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 87: No on the motion to table H. Res. 189, raising a question of the privileges of the House;

Roll Call Vote 88: No on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 190, providing for consideration of H.R. 1106 to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability;

Roll Call Vote 89: No on H. Res. 190, Providing for consideration of H.R. 1106 to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability;

Roll Call Vote 90: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 183, expressing condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims of the crash of Continental Connection flight 3407;

Roll Call Vote 91: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 146, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act;

Roll Call Vote 92: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 548, the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act;

Roll Call Vote 93: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 77, congratulating the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, VA for more than 100 years of service and leadership to the United States;

Roll Call Vote 94: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201, recognizing Beverly Eckerts service to the nation and particularly to the survivors and families of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Roll Call Vote 95: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 195, recognizing and honoring the employees of the Department of Homeland Security on its sixth anniversary for their continuous efforts to keep the nation safe; and

Roll Call Vote 96: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 45, raising awareness and promoting education on the criminal justice system by establishing March as National Criminal Justice Month.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I have heard a long parade of Members come up here and talk about how somehow the fact that the financial markets did not collapse in October is somehow prima facie evidence that the rescue program was not needed. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. These financial markets would have collapsed in October or November were it not for the rescue program, or the TARP program as we know it today, in conjunction with very aggressive action by the Federal Reserve.

I believe we are beyond the collapse scenario now. But the banking sector is far from healthy. In fact, it's considerably less healthy than perhaps we thought it was even a couple of months ago. You've seen the news with Citibank. You've seen the news with Bank of America. Many of my colleagues are criticizing the original TARP that it hasn't resulted in more bank lending. I would like to suggest that in many cases the money from the TARP merely gave banks enough capital to sustain the lending they already had because their capital was in such jeopardy.

No matter what side of the aisle you sit on here, everyone wants this economy to recover. Everyone wants us to come back and create jobs and businesses and keep people in their homes. But, Mr. Speaker, we will not do that without a healthy banking sector because until we can have regular lending again to people who want to buy homes and cars, who want to finance their businesses, we will not recover and we will not get healthy. We need a healthy banking sector, and we cannot do that without additional capital and help from the Federal Government. But, in fact, I hope that the Treasury Department uses this money to leverage in private capital because, in fact, the $350 billion is probably not enough, and we should have more private capital in these banks. And I hope that there is leverage used, that the Treasury says if you want some Federal money, you have to raise some private money to get it, so we, in fact, double the effect on their capital.

So, Mr. Speaker, we need this to recover. And in a very strange double negative, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rejection of the additional money for the TARP program.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk these days about rescue plans and bailouts and TARP and stimulus packages. Let's take a minute to reflect on what has happened. Back in October we passed, and the President signed, a rescue plan which created the Troubled Asset Recovery Plan, so-called TARP.

There are those here on both sides of the aisle who believe that that didn't help, that that didn't do anything. Well, you know, you never get credit for bad things that don't happen.

Let me assure you, Madam Speaker, that the financial system of this country was on the verge of collapse, and we averted that collapse because of two things, because of the unprecedented and aggressive monetary action of the Federal Reserve, but also because of the rescue plan and the TARP that we passed and deployed back last October.

Now, you say, however, you averted financial collapse, but what's going on now? Look at unemployment, look at the economy.

What we were trying to avoid then was literally the collapse or the lack of function of our financial system and our financial structure. It was about to implode and to stop working at all.

It is still working, not as well as it should, not normally, but it is still working, and it gets a little better every day.

But we knew at the time, and said at the time, that the damage that had been inflicted at that point was going to start to affect employment and start to affect economic growth, and, in fact, it has.

We now know that millions of people have lost their jobs, lost their homes, or lost their businesses. More people are losing their jobs, their homes and their businesses every day.

The economy continues to sink and we don't know where the bottom will be. We can't see it at this point.

So what are we doing now? What is the purpose of all this economic discussion we are having now? Just one thing, we can't stop the recession, it has already happened, we are already in it. We can't retroactively go back and get the homes and the jobs in the businesses that have already been lost.

But what we do want to do is to make this recession as short and as shallow as we can. If we do nothing, the recession will end at some point, as all recessions do.

But if we can have it end sooner and save millions of people their jobs, their homes or their businesses, then we should do so.

So I believe we should act, and the first thing we should do is to continue the successful TARP program.

Now, some people say, well, it wasn't successful, because, look, we invested all this money in banks and they haven't started lending. In fact, much of the reason that they haven't started lending is because the financial condition of the banks is much worse than we all thought they were back last October. The money the banks got from the Federal Government merely enabled many of them to keep their current functions, but not to expand lending.

The additional money, which I think should be leveraged with private capital, in other words, a bank should only get future Federal Government TARP money if they go out and raise a matching amount of private capital so that we get more and more money in the financial system, such that they can have the capital from which they can begin to lend again.

And then there is the talk of a stimulus package, and I think we should have one. Again, I think the consequences of inaction are going to be very severe on this economy.

But there is one thing that the stimulus package should do. It should actually stimulate the economy, and do it quickly. If we wait a year or 18 months, the economy will probably find its own bottom. It will be a bad one, but it will find its own. What we need to do is things, stuff, that will take effect and have an impact in the next 6 months, largely, 1 year at the most, so we can prevent the loss of as many jobs and homes and businesses as we can.

Now, many people on both sides of the aisle are bringing up the same things and priorities that we all do, and that is great. I am a Republican. There is lots of tax cuts I like as a Republican. I know there is a lot of spending that Democrats like, and there is good arguments to do some of both. But we have a patient who has pneumonia, and if you say you should eat right and exercise, yes, you should. Eating right and exercise is always good. But if you have pneumonia, you need antibiotics, and telling the patient to eat right and exercise won't cure their pneumonia, and we need to cure the pneumonia first before we can eat right and exercise.

So we need things that are directly targeted towards the next 6 months in creating jobs, and one of the things I think we should do is look at the demand side of things. People are scared. People are afraid. Even people with jobs, with plenty of security. We should be stimulating people to buy homes and cars, and doing it quickly.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy with the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was intended to apply to financial institutions, I believe, without regard to their form of ownership: public, private, mutual associations. Is that your understanding? Is that correct?

But yet many mutual, bank, and insurance holding companies have been unable to even apply for TARP funds because of the Treasury's not coming out with a term sheet that would enable them to apply, even those that can issue nonpublic preferred stock. Would you agree that the Treasury should be encouraged to come out with those term sheets?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On one other point, there are people who say that a financial collapse didn't happen, and, in fact, it didn't. You don't get credit for bad things that don't happen. I would argue that the financial collapse was imminent were it not for this bill and also for the extraordinary monetary actions of the Fed. But as we go forward with the additional $350 billion, I would think that we should be leveraging. My concern is not that it's too much, that it's too little, and leveraging private funds by----

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll get a lot more benefit for this if it's more like matching funds and we encourage private capital to go in and the public capital comes with it.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this bill and its provisions.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday afternoon after this House rejected and defeated the economic recovery bill, Americans lost over $1 trillion in the stock market. They lost over $1 trillion in their savings and in their investment and in their retirement accounts. If we do not act, that will be just the beginning. Why, they would have been better off if we had taken the $700 billion in that bill and thrown it in the Potomac. But that is not what this bill will do.

This bill takes that $700 billion and buys assets which have three different backstops to make sure that the taxpayers not only get all of their money back, but could perhaps actually make a profit.

Mr. Speaker, American jobs are at risk, the economy is at risk, their retirements are at risk. We must act. I hope we follow the Senate's lead tomorrow and pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I have heard it said that this bill is a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street. It is none of those things.

The $700 billion is not being spent. It will be used to buy assets. Those assets will have value. And there are three mechanisms built into the bill that are very likely to recover all of that $700 billion for the taxpayer and, perhaps, even earn a profit over time. It's said to be a bailout, but the people whose assets will be bought will probably get 30 cents or 20 cents or 40 or 50 cents on the dollar that they paid maybe just a year or so ago.

I don't think anybody here would consider getting 30 cents on the dollar for something you invested in a year ago or 2 years ago as a bailout. I think that's taking a bath, as well they should.

They made an investment. They took a risk. It didn't turn out well.

They say it's for Wall Street. Let there be no denying this. The impact of this financial crisis will extend to every American with a job, with a bank account and with a pension plan. We cannot allow that to happen.

I have come down to this floor many times talking about the benefits of Republican ideas and the problems with Democratic ideas. This is not a time for that. We cannot and should not be Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives today. This issue is too grave. The consequences are too dire.

We have two choices in front of us. One is to do nothing. If there is consensus amongst everyone who has spoken today, it is that to do nothing will result in unconscionable consequences to this economy that will cause people to lose their jobs, lose their retirement, lose their savings. We do not want that to happen.

The other option is to take the bill that is before us, which has been working for 9 days, which has things in it which, it's not everything any of us want, but it is the product of extensive negotiations from all concerned parties. We can take that bill today, and we can give it a chance to work and save this economy.

I desperately hope and pray that we as a body, Republicans and Democrats alike, have the courage today to do the right thing and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives voted on legislation (H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009) to fund government operations through March 6th of next year. The legislation contained a provision to provide up to $25 billion in loan guarantees to companies that engage in the manufacturing and distribution of automobiles and trucks. Although I was advised by the House Committee on Ethics and Standards that I had no ethical conflict under the rules relative to this provision, I believe that I do have a conflict. A company which I control derives substantial income through real property leases to one of the auto companies that may receive loan guarantees under this bill. Therefore, I felt it would be improper for me to vote on or to engage in any debate or discussion on this bill. Accordingly, I voted ``Present'' on H.R. 2638.

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

There is already existing law on this subject. This is clearly a critical subject. There has been discussion about unfair and deceptive practices, and I don't think there is any disagreement that unfair and deceptive practices exist in the credit card industry. The question is, how do we deal with it and what do we do with it?

Right now there is existing law. The existing law says that the Federal Reserve is supposed to crack down through regulation on ``unfair and deceptive acts or practices.''

To that end, the Federal Reserve in May issued proposed regulations to do exactly that, to try to stop those things that they determined were, at that time, unfair and deceptive. As the lady from New York correctly pointed out, there have been tens of thousands of responses and input to the Federal Reserve on their proposed regulations. The Federal Reserve has said that they will make those regulations final prior to the end of the year, which by the way, is more likely to be sooner than this legislation could possibly pass both Houses and perhaps be signed by the President.

I don't know why at this point we would want to interfere with this process, which appears to be working well. Clearly it is working well because the proposed bill is pretty much identical to the proposed regulations that the Fed put out in May.

Now the Fed may make some changes to those regulations based on the tens of thousands of responses that they got, which is how that process works. For us to come in and intercede in that process and overrule that process is, first of all, wrong; and, second of all, sets a bad precedent.

The reason that we often, in this situation and other situations in Congress, allow the definitions of these sorts of things to be done by regulators is that things change quickly. Congress doesn't act quickly.

Next year, there could be new deceptive practices. There could be some things out there this year that are in the proposed regulations that have been determined to actually not be deceptive or perhaps to interfere with the marketplace. By doing this, we are stepping in, and we are defining what these things are, and that is not something I believe we should be doing when the existing law is in process and appears to be functioning correctly.

Second of all, it is well known the major issue that we will be dealing with this week is the financial crisis in which the country finds itself gripped. This is clearly a very, very serious financial crisis and a very serious issue.

What are the ramifications? What are the manifestations of this financial crisis? Right now, credit is contracting. Currently, it is happening in the corporate and business markets, but it is also already extending, and has been, to home loans, car loans and, yes, credit cards.

We are in a financial crisis in which the availability of credit to Americans everywhere, in all forms, is becoming more difficult to get and more expensive. Clearly, the solutions to this crisis go way beyond the scope of this bill that we have before us today. But one thing we don't want to do is to further constrict credit markets that are already constricting and further increase the interest rates to consumers that are already going up.

This bill, by stepping in directly in this way and interfering with the process that the Federal Reserve has in place, has the potential to do that. I would say that before people vote on this bill, I think they need to consider carefully that if it becomes more difficult for people to get credit in the future, if in the next weeks or months it becomes harder to even get a credit card or the interest rates thereon go up, do you want to be a part of pushing that credit out and pushing those rates up, or do you want to be a part of looking at the solution to those issues?

Let's remember that many of the credit card issuing companies are those companies that are on Wall Street and that are in trouble. They are not making any money right now.

Now we are not here, and the purpose of credit cards is not to ensure that they make money through their credit cards, that is not where I am going. That is the market at work. That is their problem; that is their issue. But the fact is that when companies don't make money on something, they do less of it or they charge more for it, and that is where we appear to be headed now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and suggest that you consider that if this bill does not pass, that still unfair and deceptive practices will be reined in by the Federal Reserve's regulations before the end of the year in a rational manner and hopefully we will then proceed to deal with, later this week, the issue of trying to make sure that credit and credit cards will be available.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would say, if the Fed is so unable to deal with this problem, then why does this bill basically parrot exactly what the Fed did in May?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, and a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

How much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I would argue that this bill already defers to the Federal Reserve because it basically parroted the proposed regulations that the Federal Reserve put out in May. So this bill basically says okay, we are going to take what you guys proposed and we are going to make it law, not regulation which can be changed, not making any changes based on the 50,000 or 40,000, we are going to make it law.

Second, on this side we are not deferring to the Federal Reserve; we are deferring to existing law. And the will of the people based on existing law was that it is best that these sorts of determinations and definitions, which is what is unfair and what is deceptive, be handled on a regulatory basis, than that it is that Congress come back every year or 2 years or 6 years or whatever and try and determine what is new out there in the marketplace that is now determined to be unfair.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just for a brief response.

In listening to the arguments on the other side, it sounds as though they are debating for changing certain things in credit cards as though we are debating against that. We are not.

What we are here saying is simply that this kind of thing is better done by regulation than it is by proscriptive statute, which is what this bill would do. And actually, it would be more effective in protecting the consumers if there is a regular regulatory process and review and so forth, not just this year but ongoing forward, than if Congress keeps stepping in and interfering with and, in fact, probably slowing down that particular regulatory review and process.

That is what we are talking about here, in addition to the fact that the other very important thing to keep in mind is that we have the availability of this credit going forward given the current crisis in which we find ourselves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes. What I said was that they may. And it would not be a retaliatory basis. It would be because the credit markets are currently in great turmoil. And because they are in great turmoil already, credit is restricting and the rates are going up. That is happening not just with credit card debt, but with car loan debt.

No. What I am saying is that we should, as I've said----

Madam Speaker, I yield myself a minute just to respond to that, that what we have here is that the unfair and deceptive practices should stop. The Federal Reserve is probably going to do that. But by stepping in now, they will be considering all of the responses they got, and by the way, the lady from New York mentioned about the credit card companies are against the Federal Reserve proposal. I'm sure they are. But the Federal Reserve will make the decision they believe is right based on the statute which says they are supposed to crack down on those unfair and deceptive practices. And they will do that.

But what we don't want to do is send more messages to the marketplace now that we are stepping in to do things that may include some things that aren't unfair and deceptive, or that may mess with the financial markets because they are very, very fragile at the moment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that Fed Governor Randy Kroszner, in testimony, said that he did believe that the regulations promulgated by the Fed would, in fact, raise interest rates for some and restrict credit for some, talking about his own proposed regulations. So there is at least some authoritative belief that that will happen.

I would now like to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I would like to yield the lady 1 more minute.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

I have one more speaker, a repeat speaker, and then I am prepared to close after that.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Madam Speaker, for the reasons we have articulated, this is not the way to do this, nor is it the time to do it. This bill is very well intentioned, and I applaud my colleague from New York for her commitment to this issue and, frankly, for her tenacity with this issue.

But this bill, make no mistake, will not help consumers. It will hurt consumers. Unfair and deceptive practices will be dealt with on a regulatory basis as they should be by the Federal Reserve. And then hopefully this Congress will act this week in a bipartisan and reasoned manner to try and deal with the financial crisis so that credit availability for people is continued and assured. And then we can deal with this continuing issue, and it will be a continuing issue without the current environment of the potential shutdown of credit to availability. It is not the way. It is not the time to do this.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding.

There are no Civil War battlefield sites in California. There was one place where shots were fired near the Arizona border, but I do admit to having more than a passing interest in the study of and learning about the Civil War. I stand today strongly in favor of this bill. I can't tell you how many times I invoke the quotes or the deeds or the actions of politicians and generals and citizens from the Civil War and the Civil War era in giving us guidance and perspective on how we deal with some of our problems today.

As we today and this week are facing a financial crisis which is not something that could ever even have been conceived in the Civil War but they certainly dealt with crises of their own. How they dealt with them and how they worked with them and the courage with which they faced them are instructive to all of us today.

These battlefield sites bring that history alive. They remind us of the sacrifices that those who came before us

made to give us what we have today, and they instruct us and teach us of the bravery and the courage and the principles upon which they stood and how we can remember and call upon the same bravery and courage and principles today.

As was said, this bill not only protects private property rights but also leverages a tremendous amount of private funds, largely private funds, that are collected from around the country to preserve these battlefield sites.

Madam Speaker, again I stand in strong support of this bill, both for what the Civil War sites have done for us in the past and what they can continue to do to teach us in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee talk about that the appropriations process is about allocation of resources. Because resources, even in the United States Federal Government, are not unlimited, and so we always have to make choices of where money goes and where money doesn't go. And that's what this discussion and that's what this particular amendment are about.

There are, in the United States, excluding the territories, excluding overseas, there are 4,402 military sites, 4,402. Here we have, in this bill, Member earmarks that picked 103 of these sites--excluding the other, roughly, 4,300--and send those $622 million of taxpayers' money. And the question before us really is, why those 103? Why not the other 4,300?

Now, as much as the speakers before me have criticized the executive branch or the Department of Defense or, in fact, military leaders, Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force have a responsibility for their share of all of these. Department of the Army has 1,768 sites. So they have responsibility for all of those.

When left the construction budget for them, they will, we presume, try and put the money where they believe it is most needed, where they believe it is the greatest warranted use. You might disagree with that, but they have a perspective over the entire country.

We are each elected to represent our individual districts. And although all of us are here and care about the entire country, clearly, our first responsibility is often to our individual districts.

So I would argue that those who have a perspective of the entire country are perhaps in a better position to look at the proper allocation than this. And if these 103 were fairly allocated, then I would ask, why does Mr. Flake's chart come out the way it is? Is that simply coincidence that the greatest need of these facilities happens to be in districts that are represented by appropriators? Is that purely coincidence? I think not.

And when we examine how and where all this money will go, the other thing is, what does the Defense Department think? Well, we didn't call all 103, but we did call a few. We called up the Defense Department and asked them about a few of these; did you request this? Did you think this was a need? Did you think this was important for the military to spend this on this particular site, this particular facility, this particular area? And the answer we got was no in all the cases in which we asked.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is a process that does not work, that is not fair, that is not the best allocation of what are always limited resources. And that is why, Mr. Chairman--I am a cosponsor with Mr. Flake of this amendment--and that is why I hope our colleagues will look at this and remember, as he said, this is likely the only chance anyone in this Chamber is going to have to express their opinion on earmarks. And if you think the earmark process is broken, if you think there are problems with it, if you think there are abuses, if you think we need to reform it, this is your opportunity; this is the opportunity for Members to send a message and vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this bill. Just last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged Optiver Holding BV with manipulation of the oil futures markets. They charged them for using a system called ``banging the close'' and charged that they made $1 million dollars with illegal manipulation of the oil futures markets.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it is already illegal to manipulate the oil futures markets, and the CFTC is already enforcing that. What this bill unfortunately does is move beyond manipulation into what is legitimate trading. When Southwest Airlines, which is a well-known organization that recently bought contracts forward and hedged oil prices going forward, when they buy that, someone else owns the other end of that contract. And when oil prices start to go up, the person who owns the other end of that contract tries to reduce their losses so they go into the market to do that. That is not manipulation. That is legitimate trading.

If you stop that, which this bill will, then a Southwest Airlines may not be able to get this kind of hedge in the future, or if they do, it will be much more expensive.

There's a difference between manipulation and legitimate trading. This bill does not recognize that.

So I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it. Manipulation is already illegal. The bill will impact legitimate trading. It will move a lot of these trades from the United States to London or Dubai. It will hurt American companies.

And in the end, Mr. Speaker, as the CFTC admitted last week, the major cause of oil prices is not speculation or even manipulation but is, in fact, supply-and-demand factors. If we want to bring oil prices down, we will do it when we increase supply dramatically in this country and lower demand.