Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, before this week is over, we will vote to create jobs

in America. We will do this by discouraging the outsourcing of American jobs and supporting our nation's workforce and small businesses.

For too long, large corporations have exploited tax loopholes by slipping between foreign and U.S. tax codes. This system permits big businesses to evade their responsibilities and shifts the tax burden onto everyone else. It also encourages big businesses to move jobs from the U.S. to other countries. This begs the question: Why would we perpetuate a system that encourages the outsourcing of American jobs?

This Democratic-led Congress is saying no more. Big businesses have to pay their fair share just like the rest of us. This Congress is lifting the tax burden off the middle class still struggling from the Bush recession. We are leading a recovery of shared prosperity. We are bringing jobs to America through targeted tax cuts and smart investments: this includes tax credits for research and development, support for 250,000 summer jobs, and tax incentives for small businesses in low-income communities and in the hard-hit construction sector.

We should, hopefully with the support of the Republicans, pass H.R. 4213, close harmful corporate tax loopholes, and create jobs right here, in America, right now.

Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues' information, before this week is over, we will be voting on jobs for America and cutting corporate tax loopholes that are sending jobs offshore.

In the final days of the Bush administration, they asked for $700 billion to bail out the financial industry; 81 percent of that money went to the large Wall Street banks who managed, in the next year, to reduce their loans to small businesses, while just a small percentage of it went to local community banks who actually increased their loans to small businesses.

There's something to be learned here. The act that we'll be voting on, H.R. 4213, closes those tax loopholes, taxes the Wall Street barons that have ripped off our money, and brings jobs to America through several different programs; 250,000 summer jobs, R&D tax credits, other programs to encourage small businesses.

We should, with the support of the Republicans, pass H.R. 4213, the American jobs and tax loophole closing programs.

I will, and thank you very much for this discussion of what is one of the most important national security issues facing this Nation, which is our energy policy. It is a situation in which we are finding about $1 billion a day of our money is being transferred offshore to people and countries who are really not our friends at all. So the American energy policy is crucial to national security. We need to break our addiction to oil. And you are bringing out not only the necessity of breaking that addiction to oil and reducing the amount of money we are sending to very dangerous places in the world, but you are talking about creating the jobs of the future.

Now, I represented California. I was the lieutenant Governor there, and throughout the State of California we are looking to the green economy as being the next great opportunity.

We talk about Silicon Valley, and certainly 30 or 40 years ago the move to computers and silicone chips and all of those things did create a huge industry. Now, what is the next step? Everyone in Silicon Valley says the next step is the green economy, and the venture capital community, the scientific community, the research is all moving to the green economy.

We see it in my own district. The biggest wind farms in California are in my district, in the Montezuma Hills and Solano County and the Altamont Pass. Those are the industries of the future, and as we move to those green economies, we free ourselves from oil.

It is a huge issue. You so correctly pointed out that the stimulus program, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, pushed us in that direction by providing research dollars. The biggest increase in research in the last 12 years has occurred as a result of that stimulus program.

We have another piece of legislation that was on this floor last week, and it was the COMPETES Act, which is the next step in giving us the opportunity in America and in California to compete internationally with science, research, and the educational system that we need to have those engineers and scientists and technicians educated.

Unfortunately, right here on this floor last week the Republicans put forth a motion to reconsider that gutted that legislation, took away half of the potential money and stopped it cold in its tracks. It was one of the worst situations I have seen. Every other business group, the American chamber of commerce, all said we have to have that piece of legislation, yet the Republican Party, for pure political reasons, stalled that legislation, derailed it.

We are working hard to put it back on, because this is the future of America. We cannot any longer be held hostage by those countries that control our oil supply in the Middle East, in Venezuela, and even in the Gulf of Mexico. We now know how risky it is even in our own Gulf to rely upon oil. We need these new sources of energy.

The next step is going to occur this week when we vote on the American Jobs and Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes legislation. That bill is going to be up on the floor of this House this week. What it does is to provide a very significant amount of funding for small businesses, increasing the Small Business Administration loan potential. It provides funding for research for green technologies. It provides tax credits and subsidies so we can advance the green industries, so that future jobs of this Nation are going to be advanced.

I know what is going to happen. The Republican Party on that side of the room is going to do everything they can to stop this critical piece of legislation, 250,000 summer jobs for youth that are otherwise going to be on the street causing trouble.

It's very, very clear, Mr. Tonko, and thank you so very much for pointing out that there's a dichotomy. There are two different views about what America needs to do. The Republican view, as articulated by Mr. Driehaus, is one of hands off, let the big boys do whatever they're going to do. We saw the result of that, the deepest recession since the Great Depression occurred because of a lack of regulation and the notion that somehow the marketplace would take care of itself. Well, it took care of the economy of the world.

We need that regulatory system in place, and we're going to see it in the next week to two weeks, whether the Republicans are going to stand for reining in Wall Street or letting it rip once more.

We know where we came from. We did pass a bill in December. I was fortunate enough to be here. The Senate has now acted with just a couple of Republican votes in support. Now it's going to be back. We'll see.

In this week, however, we have another opportunity to see where we stand, where the Republicans stand. This is the American jobs and closing corporate tax loopholes and bringing jobs back home. I want to go to Wal-Mart some day and see ``Made in America'' on the things I buy. I've seen enough ``Made in China.'' I want to see ``Made in America.'' And we can do that.

And this piece of legislation that we're going to be voting on this week, the American jobs and ending corporate tax loopholes for those corporations that have sent the jobs overseas, right now those corporations have a tax break when they send American jobs offshore. Enough of that. We're going to bring that back.

And we're going to get some of our money back from Wall Street because we're going to raise the taxes on those Wall Street barons that have ripped this country off to a fare-thee-well.

You take a look--one more little fact before I turn it back to you, Mr. Tonko, is that in the last days of the Bush administration, in the very last days of the Bush administration, when it was obvious that the entire financial institution of this Nation and the world was collapsing, Bush came forward with what became known as the TARP program, Troubled Asset Relief Program. That turned over some $700 billion to the financial industry. About $400 billion of that went directly to Wall Street. What did they do with that money?

I can tell you one thing they did not do. With all that money they received, they reduced the number of loans and the amount of loans that they made to small businesses on Main Street.

Now, the business banks on Main Street, the community banks, actually increased their loans, even though they got less than 18 percent of the money; 81 percent of the money went to the big banks. They reduced their lending to small businesses; 18 percent went to the small banks. They increased.

So what we're doing in this bill is shifting the direction. We're shifting the support to the small banks, and we're going to build up small businesses.

Now that's in the bill, the consumer protection.

Ever.

The gentleman from Ohio just touched on something that is really a serious issue, and I want to just drive home, because you said something that I want to take back to California. As I said earlier, we have some of the biggest wind farms in the Nation. Texas has done some that are a little bit bigger, but I was out touring there with a couple of the companies that are building those things.

I said, ``Well, this is interesting. Where is it made?'' It turns out that the tower, steel tower, was made in Korea. Yet just across the river 20 miles away is a Korean company's steel mill that could have been made in California, but instead they shipped it in from Korea. The big blades and the gears in the wind turbines all have been made overseas. And I told the company, ``Enough. You will have no more support from me for one more wind turbine in this area until you start buying America.'' They said, They don't make it in America.

Mr. Driehaus, you and I need to get together and I need to know where those gears are, because I'm going to go back to California and tell them, I know where you can get a gear. That may be one one-hundredth of this machine, but by God you are going to make it in America and you are going to build it in America because, one more thing, our tax dollars are subsidizing that industry. And if our tax dollars are going to be used to subsidize any industry, they are going to be made in America. And we are going to help out Ohio by making that happen.

I've had enough of these jobs being shipped offshore by corporations that get a tax break, get a subsidy from the American taxpayers so that they can send our jobs overseas. Enough. And this week we are going to see the kind of division that you talked about, Mr. Tonko, because the Republicans are going to be held accountable. Are they going to stand with the corporations that have been shifting jobs overseas and continuing that tax loophole? Or are they going to stand with the American public and bring the jobs back to America and close those loopholes?

I do, and I'd just like to run through a list.

You've been very, very forthright in pointing out the differences between the Republican agenda and the Democratic agenda. I'll put my reading glasses on here. I'm going to go through this very, very quickly because I know we only have a few moments.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Jobs. We talked about it. All House Republicans voted ``no.'' The Worker Homeownership and Business Assistance Act; 93 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.'' Health insurance reform; all House Republicans voted ``no.'' Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act; all House Republicans voted ``no.'' Cash for Clunkers; 55 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.'' Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment, the HIRE Act; 97 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.'' We passed every one of those. Many of those are now law.

The Wall Street reform passed this House. Every Republican in this House voted ``no.'' American Workers, State, Business Relief Act; 93 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.'' Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act; 98 percent voted ``no.''

Bottom line here is that every effort that has been made to advance the economy has been done by the Democratic Party, and it is working, as you so carefully pointed out.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention and giving us the opportunity to point out the extraordinary contrast here. Our efforts to move the economy, to take action, to do what must be done to move the economy forward, we have done it. The Republicans have consistently and every time either voted ``no'' or tried to block it.

Thank you so very much for leading us in this discussion, Representative Tonko.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my mother-in-law, Edna Merle Wilkinson, who passed away May 19th, 2010. I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the many outstanding achievements of Merle during her lifetime.

Merle Wilkinson touched the lives of many with dedication and grace. Evidenced since her early childhood, Merle's driven and compassionate nature laid the foundation for a legacy of inspiration to all who knew her.

Merle's drive led her to be awarded the American Legion Award for leadership, courage and academic excellence at her high school in Watsonville, CA. There she was also elected Student Body Secretary, served as the captain of the field hockey team, and was a competitive ice skater. After high school, Merle attended business college and was a legal assistant to the Superior Court Judge in Salinas, CA before marrying her life partner, John E. Wilkinson, the son of the founder of Granite Construction Company Walter J. Wilkinson. Together, Merle and John built the highway and road construction firm into one of the largest companies in its field today.

With great compassion and a heart of service, Merle became known for her community involvement. She was active in the Eastern Star and the Johnny Appleseed Auxiliary where she hosted fundraisers for local charities. Merle was a founder of the Lady Bugs Auxiliary in Stockton, an organization that supports the developmentally disabled, as well as an avid supporter of the American Diabetes Association. Her desire to brighten the lives of others was so strong that, if there was ever a time when Merle could not be found, she was most likely taking casseroles to the families of cancer patients, as she often liked to do.

Merle's greatest source of pride and happiness, though, was her family--her three daughters Susan, Patti and Nancy, and her 12 grandchildren and 21 great-grandchildren that survive her today. Merle always put family first, and I am forever grateful for her gift of a mother's eternal love.

Madam Speaker, while it is with great sadness, I am truly honored to recognize and pay tribute to a woman who has had such a positively profound impact on my life and the lives of so many others. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Merle Wilkinson's lifetime of achievements.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 277 taken May 19, 2010, H.R. 5325, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, had I not had a family emergency which required my immediate return to California, I would have proudly voted ``yes''.

With increasing global competition, it is critically important that we boost our country's research potential and expand our commitment to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. Economic growth requires innovation; innovation requires robust research; and effective research requires a broadly educated workforce. I am deeply saddened that COMPETES fell victim to shortsighted Republican political gamesmanship, and I look forward to working with House Science and Technology Chair Bart Gordon to get COMPETES reauthorized through another legislative vehicle.

Madam Speaker, as a former Deputy Secretary of the Interior under President Bill Clinton, I witnessed firsthand the lasting legacy of Stewart Lee Udall, who served as Secretary of the Interior from 1961 to 1969 under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. He left a legacy committed to environmental stewardship, preservation, and wildlife protection. His leadership helped greatly expand America's natural parks and advanced landmark policies to improve air and water protections. Redwood National Park in my home State of California exists because of Udall's leadership.

Naming the Interior Department Building after Udall is the least we can do to honor his legacy. An even greater honor to his towering legacy would be to continue pursuing policies that protect our fragile planet. As he once said, ``Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife are in fact plans to protect man.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 290 taken today, H.R. 5128, to designate the Department of the Interior Building in Washington, DC, as the ``Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building'', had I not had a family emergency which required my return to California, I would have proudly voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in enthusiastic support of House Concurrent Resolution 211, which honors the board members, general managers, and staff of the East Bay Regional Park District. For 75 years, these public servants and their predecessors have admirably preserved the great outdoors for the Bay Area's communities and millions of visitors.

The East Bay Regional Park District has grown to the largest regional park agency in the United States, covering nearly 100,000 acres. District employees have admirably protected the land and native wildlife while providing invaluable recreational opportunities. This harmonious interaction is demonstrated all over the park system. The stewardship of fisheries allows anglers to catch striped bass, rainbow trout, and sturgeon. The management of livestock grazing reduces the threat of fires and preserves diversity of vegetation. The conservation of water resources permits swimmers to enjoy our lakes and lagoons. The East Bay Regional Park District also provides opportunities for archeologists, hikers, scientists, and other recreationalists and students.

Bay Area residents recognize that the Park System has contributed greatly to their living environment and helped make the region one of the best places in the country to live. In 1934, 1988, and most recently in 2008, Bay Area voters extended its funding, maintaining this natural treasure for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman George Miller for introducing this Resolution and Chairman Nick Rahall for his outstanding leadership of the Natural Resources Committee. From the East Bay to the East Steps of the Capitol, they have been good stewards to this country's natural wonders.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so very much.

What we intended to talk about was the Wall Street meltdown and the necessity of the reform of Wall Street. However, having listened to our colleagues on the Republican side carry on for the last hour, there are some things that need to be said about their discussion.

Health Care

First of all, they started off with this issue of health care, with the government takeover of health care. That is absolutely not true. We have passed major health care reform, and it is not a government takeover. In fact, it builds on the present American system. There is some government--some very, very good government programs.

You tell me what senior in America wants to have Medicare done away with. None of whom I know. There is always room for improvement. In every program, there will be problems from time to time, but no senior of whom I am aware anywhere in America wants to do away with that government program.

What this bill really does is to help organize the American health care system so that it will be more effective and efficient and so that it will build on the private insurance system, which is much a part of America.

I know this business because I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, and I regulated the insurance company. In this legislation, there is heavy-duty regulation of the insurance industry because there was a lot of talk--a lot of talk from our Republican colleagues--about a death panel. I'll tell you what the ``death panel'' is. It is the private insurance company that has heretofore denied coverage for people who have been seriously ill. When people would have illnesses, they would just dump them from the rolls. They would not insure people who had preexisting conditions.

I will tell my Republican colleagues and the American people that those days of insurance excesses and that those days of insurance discrimination are over. They are over. For men and women who are working their 8-, 10- and 12-hour shifts every day, they will be able to have their own doctors. That is what this reform does. It is not a government takeover. In fact, it builds upon the American system, which is unique here, and that is a fact.

Taxation

They also talked about taxation. Well, let's understand that more than 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of wealthy people in America. They got the tax break, and the other Americans got the shaft. That is not the way we see tax cuts on our side. In fact, my colleague from Minnesota, who will join me in just a moment, was there to vote for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That is the largest middle class tax cut in America's history.

The issue here is that Democrats will cut taxes for the working men and women--for middle class America. As for the wealthy, that's where the Republicans are. They will cut the taxes of the wealthy every single time.

If you listened carefully to the previous discussion from our Republican colleagues, they said it very clearly. They were talking about taxes for those who have limited liability companies. You tell me. Do small businesses out there in my community--the painting contractors, the plumbing contractors--have limited liability companies? No. No. They are sole proprietors. Their taxes were cut by Democrats, and Republicans cut the taxes for Wall Street.

My good colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), you had some thoughts about this as you were sitting there, listening to them talk about the things that are going on. Please share with us your thoughts.

The Reform of Wall Street

Mr. Ellison, thank you so very, very much for pointing out what was the history of the great 2008 collapse.

You saw those enormous job losses that were occurring during the Bush period and then the slow but steady improvement in the number of jobs that were lost so that now we are in a situation where we are actually seeing jobs added. We don't see the unemployment rate coming down as we would like to, but we are on the correct road, and we are making great progress on that.

I would like to ask my colleague to join us in carrying on this discussion, if you would.

You have raised a very, very important point, and it's the history of how all of this came to pass, about a mortgage industry that had run amok, that had engaged in predatory pricing and predatory mortgages and selling products, mortgages and loans, that they knew the homeowner could not possibly afford, maybe during the teaser rate period, but when that teaser rate was over in a year or two and the rate readjusted and reset, it was all over. That's the history of what was going on. It was Wall Street and its minions out there throughout the United States, the mortgage companies, that were all playing a part of this game.

It comes down to basic American values that were not honored. The basic American value. You know, you work hard, you get a wage, you can get a home. But in this case, they were selling people products and mortgages that no way could they possibly afford, and they had no skin in the game. They had no ongoing obligations. You explained it so well, Mr. Driehaus, how that was going on.

It comes back to certain values. Wall Street's value was greed is good. That's not an American value. That's a unique Wall Street value. Greed is not good. Greed leads to some real serious problems. You go back through all of the writings in the Bible and other religious writings down through the millennium, and it comes down to the same thing. Greed's not good, folks. Yet Wall Street was engaged in that very un-American practice of extraordinary greed, unbridled greed that led to the creation of these bogus and unsubstantiated mortgage instruments that were--by their own admission 2 weeks ago or a week ago when Goldman Sachs testified here, the guy that created them used some extraordinary language, that these were monsters, these were things that were unintelligible, that couldn't be understood and couldn't be priced, and yet that was Wall Street. Why did they do it? They did it because they wanted the money and they played the games.

This was a chart that was used last night by Congresswoman Jackie Speier as she explained one of the things you talked about, Mr. Driehaus, how Goldman Sachs would create a mortgage-backed security. In fact, this one didn't even have mortgages backing it. It was totally ephemeral. It was a figment of the imagination of Wall Street bankers. They created this thing.

Then down here at the bottom, these were the less risky portions of it. Each one of these are what they called tranches. They would sell it off, saying this was an A-rated. That's relatively good strength. Then down here at the very bottom, which was pure junk, they managed to get the rating houses, Standard and Poor's and other rating houses, to say, well, maybe this piece of junk is actually of some value if we go back and look not at the ability of the homeowner to pay but rather at the FICO score. Well, they did, and they rated it as an A, and then they sold it to unsuspecting investors, and the result was, at the end of the day, junk is junk and the thing collapsed. So we had the great collapse of 2008. So what do we do about it now?

And, by the way, you mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act. I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, and I watched the banks use the Community Reinvestment Act to bring bank offices and branches into the underserved communities. It ended the redlining. It's a very, very good law. If only the insurance industry had a similar law so that they would provide insurance products in those communities, but it doesn't. The Community Reinvestment Act isn't to blame here. Greed, unbridled greed is the problem.

And to our Republican friends that ranted for the previous hour about government regulation, we need it, serious government regulation of Wall Street.

Let's talk about where we go from here. Mr. Driehaus.

That's in the bill that you and the other members of the Financial Services Committee put together. It was voted on here on this floor in December, as I recall. I had the pleasure of being elected in November, and I was here for that vote. Very, very important.

I am going to just put this up here, and maybe the three of us together can refer to this as we go on. Right there, number one, consumer protection, watchdog with teeth.

I know, Mr. Ellison, you were talking to me earlier about some of these things.

Mr. Driehaus.

Please.

It's really very, very important that we do focus on the community banks. This is Main Street. This is where the small businessman--the men and women that own the local grocery store, the shop, the person who is the carpenter, the painter, this is where they will get the money that they need, the loan that they need to carry on their business. It's the community banks. But what has happened in America over the last decade is a concentration of economic strength in the hands of just a few.

A very, very few of the large banks, Wall Street banks now, control 80 percent or more of the American financial strength. We need to take that into account, not only because it will give the community banks an opportunity to compete and to have capital available to them so that they can make those loans, but also because of this problem of too big to fail. Too big to fail. That's what happened over the course from 2000--maybe beginning in the nineties--until 2008, when the great collapse occurred. The banks grew bigger and bigger and fewer and fewer so that at one point just a handful controlled most of the financial assets of America. And they grossly mismanaged those assets. AIG, a famous name. Lehman Brothers, another bankrupt company. All of the games that they played, those roosters came home to roost and the droppings were on American homeowners and the hardworking men and women of America that lost their jobs as a result of Wall Street excesses.

So now what are we going to do about too big to fail? The Senate, which is now moving a piece of legislation that would accompany the House bill, which we passed 4 months ago, that piece of legislation may be amended to say that no financial institution in America can control more than 10 percent of the financial strength of this Nation. That is something I really like. Back in college, I learned about the need for competition. I took an economics class. You have to have competition. You've got to have a lot of players. You've got to have a robust free market. Well, we don't really have that in the financial institutions anymore because they've grown too big. Well, if we just make them a little smaller: You get to 10 percent, I'm sorry, you're going to have to shed some business. We'll have to have others pick up the rest of it. But this too big to fail is part of the reform bill. Exactly how it's going to come out of the Senate, we don't know for sure. But it is certainly going to deal with this issue.

Mr. Ellison, I know that you worked on this.

Well, now that's an interesting question. Clearly, we have institutions that are too big to fail. That's where the TARP legislation that was the last act--one of the last acts of the Bush administration--came into being. The Treasury Secretary, Mr. Paulson, who actually was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, as I recall, came to this House, came to the Senate, and said, Oh, my. Oh my. The world is going to collapse unless you immediately cough up a trillion dollars to the banks to stabilize the banks. Fortunately, this House said, Wait a minute. Let's see what we're doing here. Instead of a 1-page bill giving the Treasury Department a trillion dollars, the TARP program was put in place. And it did stabilize the financial institutions but it was a clear sign that Wall Street banks had become too big. AIG. How much have they taken? Twenty-three billion dollars of our money. Are we going to get it back? We don't know.

Mr. Driehaus, if you will carry on here. I know that you were involved in that TARP legislation. Share with us.

That's a very, very important point about how things will move forward. It's also extraordinarily difficult for me to understand the Republican Party in this matter. On the Senate side, at the moment it looks as though they want to maintain the status quo. They want to maintain business as usual. That business as usual took this economy and nearly the entire world's economy into the tank. We need change. We need to put in place the reforms so that these kinds of financial meltdowns don't occur again. And for too big to fail, the use of wise processes within the government to unwind those companies that are too big, bring them back to size; when they're in financial trouble, unwind it and to bring us back to some sane situation.

There are a couple of other things that are in this thing that are really important. This number three of the kinds of reforms that the Democrats want to put forward: Stop Wall Street firms from betting against their customers. Also, Wall Street is not a gambling house. Wall Street isn't the shore of New Jersey or Las Vegas. Wall Street is where the financial strength of this Nation and indeed the world should be, based on fundamental American values of fair play, of honesty, of no games, straightforwardness, of visibility, of what is going on.

We have seen far too much of Wall Street hiding the ball, of gambling as though they were some casino in Las Vegas, and creating products and selling products that they know are detrimental to their customers' well-being--their financial well-being. So this is part of the reform that's going to go into place when the Republicans in the Senate finally allow the Senate to move forward with its reform.

I know you were involved here in the House as you took up this issue, Mr. Driehaus. Share with us, if you would, some of the things that took place that are in the House reform.

It's one of those basic American values that Wall Street seems to have forgotten and the Republican Party seems to want to be absent from Wall Street, and that is honesty, transparency. That is, explain what this product is all about, and also, the requirement that when you're selling something in a financial institution, you have the obligation of good faith to your customer; that you're being honest--a fundamental American value that was largely forgotten by Wall Street. As this reform goes into place, I think we will see it returned, because it will be the law. Sometimes you simply have to say you have to change because the law now requires you to be honest, to be straightforward, to be transparent; that is, to explain your product.

I notice that we have now been joined by your colleague from Ohio, the gentlewoman, Ms. Kaptur. She has a chart up there that I think goes right to the heart of this. If you would, please, share with us.

Thank you very much. That history is not a good chapter in America, and these men that were involved in all of this, to whom did they owe their allegiance?

I've said many times, it's about the fundamental American values. I know that in my community, a small community in California of farmers and hardworking men and women, that they go to work every day and they expect to be paid a fair wage, but they don't expect to make that wage by cheating somebody, by playing a financial game. They expect to make it by working hard and carrying on for their family.

Mr. Driehaus, if you would share with us some of the additional experiences that you had on the Financial Services Committee.

Back in December.

Let's be very clear that those closed-door meetings were the leadership of the Republican Party sitting down with Wall Street and talking about how to preserve the present system that led to this great collapse.

You said something that just ticked me off--not at you, but at the situation--and it's the Wall Street bonuses. At a time when hardworking men and women, more than 8 million Americans were losing their jobs as a result of the financial games of Wall Street, 8 million--in my district, tens of thousands of men and women that worked hard every single day to put bread on their table for their family, to keep their roof over their head lost their jobs because Wall Street was playing financial games, thinking of the financial market as some sort of gambling casino while my constituents were losing their houses, losing their jobs, forced to go on unemployment, losing their health insurance.

What was going on, on Wall Street? Well, here it is: Wall Street was paying some of the highest salaries and bonuses ever in America's history. In 2007, before the collapse, look at that, $137 billion, $137 billion in pay and bonuses. During the great collapse in 2008, when 750,000 people were losing their job every month, Wall Street was paying its fat cats $123 billion. And then in 2009, using the recovery money, using our taxpayer money, what did Wall Street do? They paid themselves $145 billion.

There ought to be a law--in fact, there ought to be a tax law that says when you get a fat-cat bonus and you've taken your company into virtual bankruptcy, we're going to tax that bonus and we're going to bring it back. We're going to bring it back to the local bank so that they can make a real loan to real businesses and put aside the financial gains. There ought to be a tax on those kinds of unconscionable bonuses and pays that are going to these Wall Street fat cats that nearly brought down the world's financial economy. There ought to be a law, and that law is being held up now by the Republican Party. We need Wall Street reform right now.

I would be delighted to yield.

More like tyrannosaurus rexes.

Did you say at the beginning of this crisis in 2007 they had something like one-third of the financial assets----

And today the largest five have over 60 percent?

Sixty-six percent. Now we really have a serious problem called ``too big to fail.'' Now we're in a very, very serious problem.

I want to refer back to this chart that we were using before. The legislation does deal with this issue of too big to fail.

Now, we passed a good bill out of here in December that dealt with this, but on the Senate side there are some Senators who are progressive and thinking about this and they're saying, Wait a minute. Maybe we should limit to 10 percent, no company can have more than 10 percent of the total assets. When you get that big, that's it. You're going to have to shed assets. Someone else is going to have to pick it up.

But now we have seen even more concentration in Wall Street. We can't wait any longer for the reforms. We can't wait any longer. America can't wait any longer. How many more hardworking men and women are going to lose their job as Wall Street continually declines to provide loans to Main Street?

Let's take a look at some of the facts about that.

I heard you, in one of our discussions, talk about this and the effect in your community in Ohio, the men and women, the small businesses, their inability to get loans. Why don't you pick that up and share some of the stories.

Well, just before we took the floor here for this discussion, I was listening to our Republican colleagues say that government regulation is wrong. Well, no, not in the case of Wall Street. The statistics you just gave us, did you say the FBI had 75 agents for all of the United States to deal with Wall Street?

At a time when the Wall Street behemoths were going from 33 percent of their total financial wealth in the Nation to 66 percent? And 30-something people for the Securities and Exchange Commission?

I hope your bill passes. We need watchdogs. We need watchdogs with teeth that are willing to bite into the arrogance and the greed of Wall Street. We need those people there to watch and to make sure that the kind of financial rip-offs that occurred that nearly took down this Nation's economy--and the world's economy with it--and put hardworking men and women that were out there on the production lines in your community, that were building the homes in my community, the farmers, they're out of work. They are unemployed. Why? Because of the extraordinary greed, arrogance, and mismanagement of Wall Street thinking that the financial institutions of America are nothing more than a Las Vegas casino, where a bet is placed on a product that they could not even describe. Enough already. Enough already.

The Republican Party has got to come to its senses and give us the opportunity to pass a strong financial reform of Wall Street. The people in my district, my homeowners, my small businesses are trying to get a loan at a time when we're seeing more and more concentration of power on Wall Street.

I would be delighted to share with you.

Well, the big fix is available. The big fix is to reform Wall Street, to stop the kind of greed that has nearly destroyed this Nation's economy and the world economy along with it.

The bill that was passed by the House of Representatives in December is a good, strong bill. We beg our Republican colleagues over in the Senate to stand aside. If you don't want to work towards a decent reform, then get out of the way and let the Democratic Party put in place a strong reform that will bring Wall Street to its senses, that will once again make Wall Street a legitimate, honest, transparent place where the financial inner workings of this Nation can take place. That's our plea, and we need to have it done, not next month. We need to have it done this week.

Thank you so very much.

I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, tonight, it is really important that America comes to understand how the great collapse of 2008 occurred and what its impact has been. I think they have a pretty good idea as to what the impact is. We see it back home. We see it from our constituents and from our own families as they face layoffs and as they face losing their homes and their mortgages that they are no longer able to afford.

How did all of this happen?

We want to discuss this tonight, and we want to discuss the effect that it is having on our constituents. At the same time, we want to talk about what we are going to do about it. How are we going to set straight the financial institutions of America?

We know that the collapse was largely caused by some extraordinary shenanigans on Wall Street. Shenanigans never should have been allowed to be played, but they were due to a lack of regulation on the part of the SEC and of others and due to an attitude that occurred during the 2000-2008 period of ``anything goes.'' The free market would somehow regulate itself. Well, it didn't. It actually put this Nation and the entire world on the edge of total collapse.

Joining me tonight are my colleagues from California and from Ohio. I would like to start with Congresswoman Speier. I was going to introduce Congresswoman Speier as the senate chairman of the California legislature's committee on banking and financial matters where she has gained extraordinary knowledge about the banking industry. She is going to share with us tonight her new position on the House Financial Services Committee.

Congresswoman Speier.

Is that the creativity that Goldman Sachs so prided itself on, creating something that was unpriceable, that nobody could figure out what it was and, therefore, it could not price it? But what did they do with this Frankenstein that was created?

So, this was the packaging of the mortgages that were being sold to people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgages?

By lying? By defrauding somebody?

So what Goldman Sachs was doing was essentially a very dishonest, disreputable, and quite possibly fraudulent scheme to rip off some investors somewhere. They may have been sophisticated, they may not have. But they were told that this was not a B-rated product but rather an A-rated product because Standard and Poor's, perhaps playing a game, and part of the game with Goldman, had reevaluated that particular tranche, that package of mortgages, and said now they are an A because we've taken a look at the FICO score of some of the underlying mortgage people who had taken out the loan.

So from the whole thing, where is the honesty in the business? Where is the element of good faith to the customer? Was Paulson the customer on one side of the deal, or was it the investor on the other side of the deal? And where is the good faith obligation that Goldman surely must have had?

AIG. Now, they received almost $200 billion of taxpayer money?

Now, when AIG got that money from the taxpayers in the TARP bailout, the Wall Street bailout, what did they do with that money? Did they give it to the homeowner that was going to lose their home, or did they give it to Goldman?

I think that book is misnamed, ``The Great Short.'' I think probably ``The Great Fraud'' would be a better name for the whole thing.

Well, there certainly ought to be a law. And we're going to spend a few moments talking about the law. But first I would like to turn to our colleague from the great State of Ohio.

Please.

I know that the two of you both on the Financial Services Committee spent most of last year, 2009, working on a major reform that actually passed the House in December. Now, I had the good fortune of being elected in November, arriving here just in time to vote for the health care bill and to take some credit by voting for the reform that the two of you and the other members of the committee brought to the House floor. It was a very, very significant reform and dealt with many of the underlying issues that both of you have discussed.

Let's spend just a few moments talking about some of the critical elements of that reform bill. As I recall, there was a Consumer Protection Agency in the reform bill, and there were also some definitions about the kinds of things that the banks could engage in. And in most recent days, we've seen the Senate wrestling with this issue. We saw the Republicans trying to stop the Senate from enacting a reform bill by Senator Dodd. Well, they tried for a few days, for a couple of weeks, and ultimately the American public following the Goldman Sachs hearing in the Senate said enough, and the Republican effort to stop the bill collapsed, and now that's moving along. So we're in the final stages, I believe, of passing a very significant reform of Wall Street so that we can focus on Main Street rather than on the excesses of Wall Street, bringing the money back to Main Street, to local banks making loans, and Wall Street getting its comeuppance.

So would you share with us some of your thoughts about the reforms.

The three of us will not take credit for that bill.

We were not in Congress when they passed that terrible piece of legislation.

Well----

And part of that Consumer Protection Agency focuses directly on the mortgage market out there and deals with those mortgage companies that were selling subprime mortgage opportunities to people that had really no ability to pay it back. So those people may have invested whatever money they had in a home, and when it came time for the resetting of the interest rates, they couldn't afford it. They lost their investment. They lost their home. They may have also lost their job because of the collapse of the mortgage industry and the housing industry, and so 8 million Americans were out of work. And as both of you have very, very well described, the situation in which those Americans that may still have their job may very well have lost a good portion of their pension either directly through Lehman Brothers' collapse or through the crash of the stock market.

The combination wiped out 401(k)s. The word around was they no longer were 401(k)s, they had become 201(k)s.

So we really need to have that consumer protection agency in place to monitor Wall Street, to monitor the mortgage lending markets out there, to make sure those products are appropriate for individuals. Without it, we are going to go right back into the same kind of problem that nearly took down this country's economy and the world economy.

Ms. Speier, it looks as though you want to add another element to this discussion about what the law should be.

So ultimately we wound up with a situation in which the financial industry had set up a scheme to sell mortgages to people who couldn't possibly pay those mortgages over time. They were often sold with teaser rates, low interest rates for a year or two, and then it reset to a much higher rate so the payments would be impossible to make at that point.

Then they took those products, those individual mortgages, put them all together and repackaged them into this magnificent tower of----

We have to find a good adjective, but the tower of shame. Then they took individual pieces of those products, took them out and repackaged them----

So on the buy side, they would be giving information that was inaccurate, that Standard & Poor's, the rating industries of the world would go out and use some, I don't know, gimmick to re-rate this tranche, this piece of that tower, re-rate it as though it was more valuable and more secure than it really was. So we really had a cabal here, and that is why the regulation of Wall Street is so critically important to us as individuals, in our homes, in our ordinary life, in our ability to keep a job.

It is also important for the financial system of America. Banking is crucial to the economy, and when you get a banking industry that is playing financial games rather than simply making loans, we are going to find ourselves in trouble. The creativity of Goldman Sachs, we now know from the hearings. We also know that other major banks and mortgage lending companies were playing similar games.

So that is what we are trying to do as Democrats, is to rein in Wall Street, to set new rules in place that will force the banks to be banks; not to play risky financial games, but rather to do the everyday lending, taking deposits, making a loan that is sound, and making those loans on Wall Street.

What is happening in Ohio? What do you see from your constituents in Ohio about Main Street? Is Main Street a place where the banks are making loans?

The statistics are really frightening in what has happened with Wall Street. If you take a look, what is really happening is Wall Street is not making loans, and many of the small banks, the community banks, don't have the capital to make the loans, so the capital is being tied up in these huge banks. So what we are really looking to do as part of this reform is to push the capital down to the local banks, down to the Main Street banks, so that they can make loans to people.

However, if you take a look at the large banks, the leading United States banks in 2009, they reduced the number of loans that they made by 7.4 percent. It was the steepest drop in lending by the large banks since 1942, and that was the beginning of World War II.

The 22 firms that received the most bailout money, this is the Wall Street bailout money, cut small business loans by $12 billion in 2009. Meanwhile, and this was the point you were making a moment ago, the top 38 largest financial firms gave out $145 billion in record pay to their employees in 2009. That was an 18 percent increase from 2008, which was also a very high year.

So what is happening here is that Wall Street's philosophy seems to be all about greed for them and poverty for the rest of the Nation. That has got to end. What we need is this reform of Wall Street. We need to put in place very clear rules: No more games with derivatives. If you are a banker, you are a banker. You are not a loan shark on the street selling a bad loan. You are a banker. You are to take deposits. You are to make loans that are sound and secure, and make those loans on Main Street, not to another Wall Street shark.

So what we want to do is take the derivatives out of the banking business. If somebody wants to play the games of a gambler, they are not going to gamble with taxpayers money. They are not going to gamble with depositors money. They are going to have to do that separate and apart from banking.

Fortunately, the Senate bill seems to be moving in that direction. So when it passes the Senate and comes back to the House in a conference committee, I really want to see derivatives out of the banking business. Let them be handled by Wall Street firms that are not banks. If they want to play the game, let them play the game there. I think that will make a difference back in Main Street, back in Concord and Walnut Creek in my district.

You mentioned the issue of Wall Street pay. The numbers are really astounding. In 2007, before the collapse, Wall Street paid out $137 billion to its employees. In 2008, in the midst of the great collapse, they actually reduced it. They went down to $123 billion. But in 2009, while unemployment in America was hovering well over 10 percent, and in California 12 percent, in 2009, the Wall Street fat cats paid themselves $145 billion.

I believe a lot of that money was our taxpayer money that we put in Wall Street to shore up the banks, and instead of making loans to Main Street, to the contractor, to the fellow that wanted to manufacture more ladders, that wanted to improve his business and hire people, instead of making loans to them, it appears to me that they took the money that was used to bail out Wall Street, to stabilize the economy and stabilize the banks, they took that money and they put it in their own pockets. That is reprehensible.

There was a bill here circulating, it hasn't passed, but I think it ought to pass, where these Wall Street bonuses, of which this $145 billion is part of, I think it ought to be taxed. I think about an 80 or 90 percent tax on those bonuses in which they used our taxpayer money, that we ought to get that money back, and we ought to take that money back and put it into the local banks so that their financial situation is shored up so that they can make loans to the businesses in our communities, and tell Wall Street, folks, the big ripoff is over. The big short is over. The big fraud is over. There is going to be a law. There is going to be a tough law regulating Wall Street, reining in the excesses of those fat cats on Wall Street who came to the U.S. Senate with such arrogance that somehow they were the kings of the world, that they were the financial managers of the world and they could create out of nothing.

Wasn't there an Aesop's fable about spinning gold from wool? Maybe that is what those characters were doing. They were creating something that had the appearance of value, but actually had no value, and it nearly cost us the American and the world economy. It also cost some 10 percent, almost 11 percent of every working man and woman in this country, their job.

That is reprehensible. And it is time for Congress, it is time for the Senate--excuse me, Congress did its thing back in December--it is time for the Senate to pass a strong bill, send it back, let's get this thing done, and let's rein in Wall Street.

There is something I learned long ago at the University of California when I was taking an economics class, and that was the American private system of the economy was dependent upon competition, and that laws were put in place more than a century ago to eliminate concentration so that there are many, many players in the marketplace.

It seems as though we have forgotten, or at least the Republican administration in 2000 to 2008, forgot that one of the key ingredients in a free market system is many, many competitors.

But what happened during the decade of the nineties and 2000-2008 was a concentration in the banking industry so that now just a handful of companies, huge megabanks, control an enormous proportion of the American economy. And there's a proposal that has now been made by the Senator from, I believe, Delaware to limit all financial institutions to no more than 10 percent of the financial market, so that when they get to 10 percent, they can no longer grow. They would have to shed the business and, in that way, keep many, many players in the business. So there would be good competition and, simultaneously, create a situation in which no one bank would be too big to fail, thereby eliminating the need for a taxpayer bailout.

I kind of like that idea. It goes back to something I learned many, many years ago in an economics class about the role of competition and the need for many, many players in the marketplace. We'll see what happens with that, but financial regulation law in its final form has to deal with this issue of too big to fail. I don't want, you don't want, I don't believe the American public want to see another financial bailout with our taxpayer money going to Wall Street so they can fatten their wallets on our hard-earned money. So we'll see what happens here. We know things are coming back.

But let's not end this discussion in a down mood. If we take a look at where the American economy is going, these lines here in the red are the Bush years, and this is the unemployment rate actually growing during the final years of the Bush period so that we were losing about 800,000 jobs a quarter in the final quarter of the Bush period. Now, when Obama came in, we see the beginning of the turnaround with the unemployment--monthly unemployment statistics changing so that, yes, the first month of the Obama administration, in January, February, it was the same as the last month of the Bush administration. But now we see a steady decrease in the number of people losing their jobs.

This is a result of three things happening. The first is the Wall Street turnaround, the Obama administration getting control of Wall Street in the early months of 2009, followed by a very courageous action taken by Congress, which was called the American Recovery Act. The stimulus bill. That began to put people back to work or keep people employed. I know that in California it was an extremely important piece of the puzzle of keeping our schools open, keeping teachers in place, and then preventing further erosion of the economy. So as that began to take hold, we began to see the number of people losing their jobs on a month-to-month basis declining so that now, in the last month, we are actually seeing the number of people employed rising--getting jobs, rising.

We still have an extraordinarily high unemployment rate. We are not even close to being home yet. So we've got a lot of work to do. Part of that work is to make sure that Wall Street doesn't ever again put at risk the job of a family, put at risk home mortgages, put at risk the American economy and, indeed, the international economy. So that's where we are headed. We've got some more work to do.

If you would like to wrap this up from the perspective of Ohio, one of the States hardest hit for many, many years now, but a State that's coming back with leadership such as yours.

Well, there's been some very good work done, but the job is not finished. We're seeing a stabilization of the American economy. We've got a long, long way to go. One major piece of that is the work that is now going on in the U.S. Senate. I beg them to send us back here to Congress a very strong regulatory bill on Wall Street. Rein in the excesses. Provide the transparency so that everyone can see exactly what the product is and how the game is being played. Push the derivatives out of the bank business so that that's all separate; the collateralized debt obligations, transparent. Regulate it. Regulate the derivatives, and make sure that we never get back into this again.

Maybe in the next month or so we will finish this critical piece of work. It's, hopefully, going to be done with the support of the Republicans. We know that for a long time they tried to stall it here in Congress, but, fortunately, the Democrats were able to put our bill out, send it over to the Senate. Now, with the Republicans in the Senate backing away from their support of Wall Street, hopefully, we'll get that bill over here; we'll finish this job and do what is absolutely necessary for the American economy and, indeed, for the world's economy.

So, with that, let's let this night pass and we'll get back to work tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker, I think we just heard something that is only a half truth. I was meeting with the realtors in my district a week or 2 weeks ago, and they had read all of this propaganda from the Republican Party. They said, ``Well, we cannot afford to buy insurance.''

I asked, ``Are you buying it now?''

``Yes, we are.''

I said, ``Are you aware there is up to a 50 percent tax credit for every insurance policy that you buy?''

``No, we didn't know that.''

``Are you also aware that if you have a child who is 23 who would drop off your insurance, they will be able to stay on your insurance until they are 26?''

``No, we didn't know that.''

``How about the cap on the yearly expenditures and the lifetime cap, do you realize that there will be no cap, whatever you need, you will be able to have it paid for by insurance?''

``We didn't know that.''

``And you're a senior; did you know that there is a $250 immediate tax rebate if you are buying those drugs in that doughnut hole?''

``We didn't know that.''

``And in 3 years it disappears?''

``We didn't know that. Well, then why do Republicans want to repeal all that? We don't understand. Why do the Republicans want to get rid of all that good stuff?''

Mr. Speaker, on this, the 62nd anniversary of the founding of Israel, I want to extend my warmest regards to the people of Israel and all those who made the Middle East's first democracy possible.

In the wake of one of the most horrific crimes against humanity ever perpetrated, Jews from across the globe sought to form their own homeland, one that enshrined in their constitution `freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.'

President Harry Truman was the first international leader to recognize the state of Israel, and we've been proud allies ever since.

In Israel, Americans can see much to be admired, and we share common goals and desires. We are both home to countless innovators, entrepreneurs, scholars, thinkers, activists, immigrants, and democrats. We both strive for peace and a more just and stable world. And we are both familiar with

the hard trials, tribulations, and triumphs that come to define a people and a culture.

Let's continue our strong and hopeful relationship as we work toward peace across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I request permission to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to focus on the great trauma and pain that Americans are suffering from. We could start with it looking like that, but, really, you turn this around and you can see what's happened over the last 2 years. Americans are in a world of hurt.

I recall so clearly in California, the area I represented--actually, the entire State as I would travel around--we would talk to people who were saying that they were in the real estate business; they were buying houses. And my wife and I, as we would drive to work, she would often say, How could it be? They don't have any money? What is going on?

What was going on was the great scam and the great fraud of this century, and the result is seen so clearly on this chart.

Beginning in the year of December of 2007, there was actually a little uptick in jobs during that Bush administration year, and then came the crash and things came down around all America. And we see the falloff in jobs over the years from December 2007 until the change of administrations in 2009. Some 700,000 jobs were lost in December and January of 2008--and January of 2009.

And then we have a new administration, and we begin to turn things around. And joining me tonight are Members of Congress who were here during that period of time, who were engaged in the key pieces of legislation.

The financial institutions literally were on the verge of collapse. And so in November and December of 2008, the Troubled Asset Program, the TARP program, was put in place. The result of that was ultimately a stabilization. Nearly $400 billion was transferred to the banks, the big Wall Street banks. Some $200 billion, or nearly $200 billion, is still there. And to this day, those banks have neglected Main Street. They have taken care of themselves.

But even so, we've seen, as a result of the Democratic Party's legislation and the work of my colleagues, we've seen a gradual and steady improvement. The job losses began to tail off, and ultimately now in 2010 and February and March we've actually seen an increase in the number of jobs and no longer the decline that has so paralyzed this Nation.

Why did it happen? What was it all about, and what can we do about it?

Joining me tonight, as we discuss this issue, are five legislators, Members of Congress who have played key roles in the passage of legislation that has set things straight and has reined in Wall Street.

Let me introduce first my colleague from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Please share with us your experiences and the legislation that you and your colleagues are so much involved in.

Well, the question really is, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of average Americans out there, the middle class, the men and women that are trying to get a job, the men and women that are working, or are you on the side of Wall Street? You raised a very interesting point about loans.

Let's put it this way: the American taxpayer gave to the bank some $400 billion to stabilize that financial industry, and it was necessary. No one is doubting the necessity of it. Every other industrialized country in the world also shored up their financial institutions, and it worked. We want that money back, but it's not coming back to the businesses that are in our communities.

And then we look here, in 2009, the total lending by U.S. banks fell 7.4 percent, the steepest drop since the outset of World War II in 1942. At the same time, there were enormous profits, and we will come to the profits of Wall Street where many of those profits are a direct result of the money that the American people used to stabilize Wall Street.

We want that back, and we want to make it very, very clear: we are on the side of the working men and women out there, the middle class, the small businesses, Main Street. That's where we stand. It's interesting that when the bill came up, and you spoke to this a moment ago, our colleagues on the Republican side voted ``no.'' When it came time to rein in Wall Street, they voted ``no.''

At least that's the American way. If you have an issue, a policy issue, you take it to the legislative body, and it comes up for a vote, yes.

Well, I have seen some of that here recently in Washington. Apparently one person can stop legislation, and I think it's happened some 50 times in a certain legislative body that we are not supposed to--

It's been a great pleasure for me to serve in the House with you, Mr. Andrews, and also to be able to deal with these fundamental issues.

We were just talking a moment ago about the lending to small businesses and the fact that the big U.S. banks have reduced it, but also if we look at the 22 Wall Street firms that got the most of the bailout, they have reduced their small business lending by some $12 billion last year in 2009.

I have now been joined by our colleague from the great State of Vermont, Mr. Peter Welch.

Thank you. It seems to be profit before people, profit before business. And for those of us in the Congress, it's really a question where do you stand. Do you stand with that community bank in Vermont, or do you stand with the big Wall Street banks?

It was very, very clear, I had been here 3 weeks when this House took up the Wall Street reform. And I was really surprised. I thought, well, everybody must understand the necessity to rewrite the reform package, to rewrite the rules of the road so we don't have another collapse. I know that this side of the House, the Democratic side of the House, voted for those reforms, and on the Republican side of the House, very, very few voted for those reforms. So the question was answered to me, where do you stand? We were standing with reform, we were standing with reining in Wall Street, and our Republican colleagues did not want to go there.

So what does it mean for western Pennsylvania? Let me call upon the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dahlkemper). You were here. How did this transpire? What took place?

Thank you very much for that perspective on agriculture. I have been in agriculture all of my life. I run a ranch. I know that the men and women that are in agriculture in California, they need to be able to finance their operations. These are not easy times, they need to extend their credit. They are going to come back, they have in the past, but they really need that credit.

But what we have seen very, very clearly in the last year is that Wall Street is interested in their profits. I put this one up, but here's the one that makes me mad. This is what really upsets me. We're looking at 2007, the $137 billion of bonuses for Wall Street executives. 2008, that was in the midst of the great crash, it came down to zero. After they had caused this crisis, after they had lost trillions of dollars of retirement funds, the value of homes collapsing, they still rewarded themselves with $123 billion of bonuses. And then 2009, as we began to come out of this, instead of lending $145 billion to your farmers, to your dairy men, to the men and women that want to manufacture and create jobs, no, no, they gave it to themselves, $145 billion of bonuses.

How did they manage to do this? Well, they took the Troubled Asset Relief money and turned it around, stabilized the companies--which was all to our benefit--but then, instead of using that money to restart the American economy, instead of using that money to make loans to the small businesses and others across America and to help people who are losing their homes with their mortgages upside down, no, no, they decided that they needed $145 billion of bonuses.

Mr. Welch, who was here a few moments ago, had the right idea; he said tax these bonuses and send that money to Main Street. That is where I'm coming from and I think that's where the America people are. On the other hand, our friends on the other side of the aisle, no, no, they don't want to do that.

The question for Americans is this: Where do you stand? Who are you fighting for? For Main Street, for working men and women of America; or are you fighting for Wall Street? It's very clear since I've been here that the Democratic side of the aisle is fighting for Main Street and for the men and women that are working.

General Leave

I'd like now to ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this subject matter.

Now I'd like to turn to a colleague of mine whom I've had the pleasure of working with for many, many years. She was the chairperson of the California State Senate Banking and Finance Committee and now serves on the Financial Institutions Committee here in the United States Congress, the gentlewoman from the great State of California, Jackie Speier.

Thank you very, very much for that description of the history. If the gentlewoman from California would care to engage in a colloquy with me, I'd like to discuss some of our history.

When you were chairperson of the California Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, I recall that there was legislation. I was then the insurance commissioner. We were trying to hold insurance agents accountable for their actions, that they owed to their customers their best good faith effort and that they would always deal in the interest of their customers, not in their own personal interests--not in the interest of the insurance companies but, rather, in the interest of their customers.

That is one of the fundamental things that you described which was taken away in the mid-2000s. As you were saying, the financial institutions no longer had any obligation to their customers but, rather, to their bottom line. Is that the case?

There ought to be a law.

There ought to be a law that holds these banks to the highest possible standard, which is that they owe to their customers their best knowledge and information and that they don't double deal. It's the double dealing that's going on. That's the current SEC lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. It's about double dealing. On the one hand, they're here; on the other hand, they're there. They're playing both sides. That cannot be allowed.

The cracks that you talked about there, particularly the Glass- Steagall repeal in 1991, really opened the door to not only the kinds of terrible meltdowns in the housing market and in the collateralized mortgage obligations but also in the loss of trillions of dollars of value that people held in their assets--in their portfolios, in their 401(k)s, which we know as 201(k)s, and in their homes. We lost 8 million jobs as a direct result of Wall Street's double dealing, of their excesses, of their extraordinary greed. Eight million jobs were lost, and 2.8 million homes were foreclosed. Pensions fell by $28 billion, and trillions of dollars of assets, of value, that families needed for their retirements and for their ongoing businesses were all blown away.

It is time for us--it is time for America--to reestablish the fundamental rules of the road that we had, as you said, since the 1930s, since the Great Depression. Clear laws were established which said, if you're an investment banker, all right; if you're a banker, all right; and if you're an insurance company, all right, but you cannot be all three. We've got to get back to those kinds of very strict regulations; otherwise, this is going to happen again. We cannot depend on the market to discipline itself.

That's exactly right.

Clearly, the American financial institutions have worked themselves into a situation that will continue the risk that nearly brought down the world's financial institutions and that brought the world into one of its most dangerous economic times since the Great Depression. So we need to move legislation.

I know that you're a member of the Financial Services Committee here and that you worked long and hard throughout the summer and fall of last year to put together comprehensive reform of the financial institutions, reform that would rein in the excesses, reform that would create transparency,

reform that would create a Consumer Protection Agency.

Could you describe some of the work, some of the dealings, some of the things that were going on in the background? Where were, for example, the Wall Street firms? Were they supporting the reregulation of the industry? Where were the consumers in all of this?

From your perspective, give us a little bit of history.

Excuse me.

If I might interrupt, are you telling me that the Wall Street banks, the financial industry, is spending $1.4 million a day lobbying Congress and the Senate to stop financial reform and the reregulation of Wall Street?

Pretty simple, isn't it?

Greed. Greed. Greed. Greed is not good for America. Greed is not good for Wall Street in the long run because it really brought down this Nation to its knees in 2007-2008. Here is the greed. Here is what we are talking about.

We are talking about extraordinary bonuses for Wall Street. This is money that should be going to Main Street, not to Wall Street bonuses. There were $145 billion of bonuses in 2009. People in your district and in my district are losing their homes; foreclosures are going on; banks are not making loans to small businesses; we have 20 percent unemployment in the construction industry; we have 12 percent unemployment in the State of California, and they want these kinds of bonuses. At the same time, they're not making loans to businesses. This has got to stop. That's what this is about.

This is about: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the working men and women, of the small businesses out there, of the local bankers, of the opportunity for this Nation to come back or are you on the side of Wall Street?

I know where you are.

Well, we have got some things to do, don't we? We have some work ahead of us. We hope that we'll get a bill back from the other House shortly and get a conference committee going.

Could you put that thing back up on The Cracks in Wall Street. This is a street that needs a repair. This is a street that needs a serious repair.

We need to go back. I would love to see the Glass-Steagall Act back in place. I was insurance commissioner for 8 years in California, and I know how that industry operates. If they're able to play games, if the banks are able to play games by moving money back and forth from one side to the other, there is going to be another crash coming in the days ahead.

When did that happen? In what years?

If you would yield for a moment, my recollection is that the Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve was saying that the market would regulate itself. Wasn't that what Mr. Greenspan was saying, that the market would regulate itself and that there was no need for government enforcement? Apparently, he was wrong.

I recollect that he came before a congressional committee and said he'd made a mistake. He certainly did. Lehman Brothers was able to cook the books, and that's exactly what it is--cook the books. As the regulator of the insurance industry for 8 years, if a company would have come to me and if I would have seen that they were shifting their liabilities over to the asset column on the last day of the quarter and then shifting them back on the first day of the next quarter, that company should have been in deep trouble and would have been, but apparently, the SEC was a lapdog for Wall Street.

It's hard to believe that the regulatory system for the financial underpinnings of this Nation was completely on the sidelines while Wall Street was playing these games.

In the case of Lehman Brothers, what I would call it is flat out cooking your books. If that wasn't a fraud, I don't know what is a fraud. They should have been slapped down. That should have stopped. It didn't happen because the total regulatory process of this Nation was on the sidelines. There were 24 people looking over this entire industry, and the SEC, under Chairman Cox, who was appointed by George W. Bush, simply didn't do its job.

Now, where are we going to go today?

We passed out of this House--I find it a great privilege and honor to have been here to vote on the financial reform bill that was moved from Congress over to the other House on Democratic votes--very few--and I do not recall really any members of the Republican caucus voting for that financial reform. I know where we stood. We stood for regulating Wall Street, for reining in Wall Street. We want those profits to go to Main Street, not to the bigwigs on Wall Street.

So where do we go from here?

We await the action of the other House, which hopefully will come. I know the President will be speaking on this matter, I think, tomorrow, Thursday, to Wall Street. He is going to go up there and say, Give us the reforms. We need these reforms to set in place the proper guidelines for Wall Street, for the financial industry.

Will it happen? What's your guess?

People talk about the partisanship in Congress and in Washington, D.C., and I really have seen it. I saw it on the financial reform bill--the Democrats voting to rein in Wall Street, Republicans voting ``no.'' We saw it on an issue just raised about kids being able to go to school. Two weeks ago--3 weeks ago now, we voted on a major reform of the educational loans for American students.

I yield.

Not true. I know that we had no votes from the other side of the aisle on taking $60 billion back from the big banks and giving it to students.

We also just a week before that vote we had another vote up on the insurance industry, which you are so familiar with, and I know that I am. The health care reform was a major reform of the health insurance industry practices. No more discrimination against women, no more discrimination against people with preexisting conditions, and the freedom from fear of losing your job, losing your health insurance, and losing your life and your life savings. Those major insurance reforms were voted out of this House without one Republican vote--excuse me, there was one. One Republican voted for those reforms of the insurance practices to end health care discrimination.

It's really interesting, bipartisanship not on the major issues where you are helping Main Street, not on the major issues of helping students, not on the issues of reforming the health insurance practices. On those kinds of things it's very, very clear where we stand on the Democratic side of the aisle. We stand for reform, reining in Wall Street, bringing into play serious restrictions on the ability of insurance companies, health insurance companies to discriminate against women and children and those with preexisting conditions.

I know you have been there for many of these fights. And it's been a great pleasure to work with you on those. Perhaps it's time for us to wrap this up. And if you would like to kind of close, and then we will go on our way.

Thank you so very much for your good work on it. This is a very, very clear dichotomy about where we stand. Our friends in the Republican caucus opposed the job bills that were put forward last year, the stimulus bill. They opposed it. They opposed the unemployment insurance programs that would keep people with enough money to be able to continue to keep their home and provide food for people. They opposed efforts to curtail the excessive Wall Street bonuses; opposed creating a new consumer protection agency to rein in Wall Street; opposed the tax cuts for small businesses and working families; and opposed regulating Wall Street to prevent foreclosures.

On the other side of the aisle, I proudly say that the Democrats in this House supported the jobs bill last year that created thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs. We support the unemployment insurance extensions. We support the efforts to curtail excessive Wall Street bonuses. And we support creating a new consumer protection agency to watch over the excesses of Wall Street. And we supported the tax cuts for small businesses and for working families. And, finally, we support regulating Wall Street and preventing further foreclosures and meltdown of the economy.

It's been a challenge. And it's been a very, very important time in America. We have seen the worst of it. We have seen things getting better. We have also seen greed to the excess. And that greed, unfortunately, is going to continue unless we get a strong financial regulation bill to the President. And I know that my Democratic colleagues and I want to see that happen, and we will do everything we possibly can.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my good friend, Dr. Sol Lizerbram, to honor and recognize the birth of his granddaughter Rachel Esther Laulom in a baby naming ceremony officiated by Rabbi Matthew Earne at Congregation Beth Am on Sunday, April 18, 2010 in San Diego, California.

Rachel Esther Laulom was born on February 3, 2010 to parents Marci and Corey Laulom. She joins her big brother Jacob Laulom; proud grandparents Dr. Sol and Lauren Lizerbram, and paternal grandparents Danny and Carol Laulom.

The baby has been given the name Rachel Esther in honor of her great- grandmothers; maternal great-grandmother, Esther Lizerbram, and her paternal great-grandmother, Rachel Addi.

This centuries-old ceremony is considered to be one of the most important and recognized Jewish rituals. It signifies the importance of the Jewish faith, introduces the baby to the community for their support and commitment to the physical and spiritual well being of baby Rachel. It is a time of dedication and benediction, and will allow Marci and Corey to enlighten the family and community to the significance of her chosen name.

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of asking my colleagues to join me in recognizing the traditions of the Jewish faith and the significance of this ceremony.

Madam Speaker, thank you so very much for the opportunity to address the House on a rather important matter.

I got a call from my accountant, and he said, Are you going to get your tax information in so we can actually get you filed by the 15th? I said, I will do my best.

So we're in the process of doing that. So I suspect most Americans are also thinking seriously about taxes. And what I want to talk about tonight and share with my colleagues from Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York is the tax issues that have come about over these last 15 months.

I left California this morning to fly here to Washington, D.C., and this session, and as I picked up the Sacramento Bee, on the front page was a headline that said, Tax refunds the largest ever, 2,600 and some dollars per family in California. I said, Whoa, how did that happen? I thought taxes had gone up. I looked into it and asked my staff to dig out some information, and, in fact, taxes have actually gone down in a very, very serious way here as a result of the stimulus bill that was passed.

Now, one of my, I guess, sad situations is I wasn't here to vote for the stimulus bill. I was just elected in November of 2009, so I didn't have the opportunity to really vote for what turns out to be one of the largest middle class tax cuts in American history. So when I arrived here in Washington, I asked some of my friends and colleagues help me understand and explain how it came to be that these incredible and important tax cuts actually happened.

The first thing they said was, Yes, the stimulus bill did it. We voted for these tax cuts, I think over $300 billion, and not one Republican voted for the tax cuts. I'm going, That is not true. All they talk about is tax cuts. You mean they didn't vote for the tax cuts?

No. Not one Republican voted for the tax cuts.

I asked my colleague, Dr. Kagen from Wisconsin, to share his insights and his perspective on what took place with the stimulus bill, which was 14 months ago.

Dr. Kagen.

Let's do that. We will go through those eight specific tax cuts that really helped American families, middle class families. And I would like to have our colleague from New York, Mr. Paul Tonko, take up and tell us the New York piece of it. And then in a few minutes, our colleague from Ohio, Betty Sutton, will join us.

So, Mr. Tonko.

There's a heads-up for all of the taxpayers, all the working men and women out there that may not have taken advantage of this $400 per person or $800 per family, to make sure that in their tax return they actually reach out and get that benefit. So that's a significant reduction in their taxes.

Thank you, Mr. Tonko.

I know the normal greeting on the floor is ``the gentlewoman from Ohio,'' but I've watched this Representative

work on the floor and on the committees, and while she's extraordinarily polite, I'm not sure that--well, let's just say tenacious and determined.

Thank you for joining us, Representative Sutton from Ohio.

Would that be the Cleveland area?

Now, there's a piece of information I'm going to carry with me the rest of my life, four counties.

I want to come back to you in a few moments and pick up something that really did stimulate the American economy, not directly on tax policy but something that was very, very important. And we'll just let people be curious about what it was that created the highest monthly volume of automobile sales in the most recent years.

Mr. Kagen, we were talking earlier about some of these eight principal things, and I know you wanted to pick up another one. We started to talk about the Making Work Pay, $400 per person and $800 per couple.

Why don't you talk about another one and carry it for a while.

Everybody that I talk to about COBRA says, well, wait a minute, nobody can afford COBRA. They are unemployed. How could they possibly afford COBRA? And you are telling us that in the stimulus bill, in the Recovery Act, that 55 percent of the cost of COBRA--you lose your job, you want to continue your health insurance, that is covered?

Now, that's a very important one. All of the economists that look to the future of this Nation and our ability to compete say that we have to have a well-educated workforce. And so in the stimulus bill there is a $2,500 tax credit for the family or for the student.

This is a very, very important piece of getting ready for the recovery and preparing our students and our workers for the opportunities out ahead.

Mr. Tonko, you wanted to pick up another piece of this, so have at it.

So for somebody that goes into their home and puts in energy efficient windows or a solar system or solar hot water, they can get 30 percent tax credit on that.

It is very interesting that, again, during the recess, the number of new businesses that come about as a direct result of that tax credit, advertising all over the radio about this company or that company going to be putting in new windows or a solar system, so businesses are actually coming about because of the tax credit that's available to homeowners.

So here is a tax credit, part of the stimulus bill, that actually provides up to 30 percent credit on the cost of one of these new energy systems, windows or solar.

And, at the same time, it creates new businesses. That's a win/win in a green economy if there ever was one.

I am looking over here at our representative from those four marvelous counties outside of Cleveland, and I was thinking about the automobile industry and the energy that is, I think, some 80 percent of our oil is actually consumed in automobiles. You have had a great deal to do with the automobile industry, Representative Sutton. Could you share with us some of your experience and some of what was in this tax bill?

Go anywhere you would like.

Whoa, the Cash for Clunkers, I thought you might want to talk about that. You were the author of that piece of legislation.

Well, I am going to interrupt you for a moment. Because I wasn't yet in Congress when this piece of legislation went into law. So I immediately started looking around and seeing about the clunkers that I have on my ranch. And I have this old beat-up Bronco, and I thought, oh, oh, there is my clunker. I am going to trade that thing in for a new efficient model.

And it turned out because it wasn't running, I had it on the not-for- the-highway license, in other words, it was just on storage, and your bill was written in such a way that I couldn't take advantage of this. So I have got a little problem with the way in which you wrote that bill, but for the rest of America it was a great idea.

We want those homes bought in California.

Once again, most of these tax reductions came about through the stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was February of 2009. And I will point out, as I did at the opening, that not one Republican voted for these extraordinarily important tax reductions that are great for individuals, for families, for working men and women, for middle class America, and at the same time, are creating new jobs in the green economy and the automobile industry, and even for those folks that are selling cars in Wisconsin.

Mr. Tonko, you had something you wanted to add here?

I'd call it a boulder that she threw into the pond, and the ripples that came from that actually touched a family that my wife works with. She was at the California State fair, and this lady works with her at the State fair. The lady's husband is a salesman. In the fall, or in August, he was about to lose his job, but then the Cash for Clunkers came along, and sales shot up at his shop. And he was able to sustain his employment and continues to this day to continue to be employed. It got him past that hurdle.

Representative Kagen, surely there are things going on in Wisconsin that you're going to share with us here in the next few moments about these tax cuts and the way in which they work.

That is actually a tax reduction in the early years in allowing those expenses to be spread out.

Maybe we will pass that to Representative Sutton.

Well, it just wasn't running, that was the problem. It was a real clunker.

You said 213,000?

And one. That one was my wife and I.

We couldn't get rid of that old, broken-down Bronco, but we were in the market for a new car and we did buy one.

We've gone through several parts of the tax policy and the stimulus program. And a lot of folks out there think the stimulus program didn't do any good. Well, we know that in terms of the macroeconomics of the Nation, that it actually did. Together with the bank bailout--which I've got a lot of problems about the way that was done, and that was in the previous administration, in the years of the Bush administration-- but together it stopped the collapse. Other nations did their piece of it too, but it stopped the collapse. And just this last month in March we actually saw job growth in America; we actually saw jobs growing, net increase in the number of employed people. Whether that's going to continue month to month in the future, we hope so, but the stimulus program actually has worked. It has reduced the tax burden for American families, for the middle class, the largest middle class tax cut in anybody's memory, and at the same time has created a lot of new jobs.

Mr. Tonko, you talked about the holistic approach, that this wasn't just about tax cuts for this and tax cuts for that, but there was a larger program that was envisioned here.

That's $1,000 per child. That is the child tax credit.

Mr. Kagen, I think you want to have some final words here, and then the remaining two of us, and then we will wrap this up.

You were telling me earlier that you have some 50,000 college students in your district?

So this tax credit for families and students----

And we have seen the advantage of these tax credits in the stimulus bill in the manufacturing heart of America, which is just outside Cleveland, represented by Congresswoman Sutton.

Congresswoman?

Thank you very, very much.

For me, having arrived just 3 months ago in a special election and not being able to vote on this extraordinary stimulus bill as the three of you did, I really want to congratulate you and thank you for the work that you have done here. And to be able to join in the continuing process of growing the American economy, using very wise and targeted tax cuts to help working men and women, working families and middle class, focusing there, which is really the heart of America, and to see what you have done and then the new follow-up legislation that we worked on in December, January, and February and through the rest of this year, it is a great privilege for me to be able to work with you on that.

Then to find that these tax cuts are actually creating new businesses. The green economy, it is actually happening. I hear the advertisements on the radio in California and in the newspaper, new businesses starting up to install the solar panels, to do the caulking, to do the windows, to move us into energy independence. This is really a great moment in which we are transitioning the American economy, and, frankly, it is the Democrats that are doing that.

Most of the work, the heavy lifting this last year was done without any Republican support. It was done by the Democrats. We don't want to be too partisan here, but we also need to point out the real facts of who it is that voted for $300 billion of tax cuts for middle-income Americans. It was the Democrats. We need to understand who it is that's moving forward with the green economy. It was the Democrats that did that. And we have got more to do.

And we are going to come back on the floor in the days ahead and we are going to talk about some of the specific tax cuts that went to businesses to stimulate the small businesses--we covered mostly working families today, but we need to do that--and then the jobs bills that have been passed.

It is a great privilege to work with you, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to share this evening. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.