Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Georgia National Guard's 48th Infantry Brigade Bravo Company Second Battalion, which will soon deploy for a yearlong mission to train and mentor members of the Afghan National Army.

The Bravo Company Second Battalion, based out of Newnan in Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, has trained intensely at Fort Gordon in Augusta, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Stewart in southeast Georgia leading up to its deployment.

These 130 U.S. soldiers will do a great job serving their nation and assisting the Afghans in building their own proud military. They bring with them to Afghanistan a wealth of expertise and battle-tested experience.

Half of the soldiers deployed to Iraq in 2005-2006, a time of intense fighting with insurgents, and the unit suffered heavy losses. As today's unit carries on the fight, they remember and honor their fallen comrades.

On April 13, the unit will ship off to Camp Shelby, MS, before heading to their overseas destination. I look forward to taking part in community events to see them off and give them the honor and gratitude they and their families so richly deserve.

Georgians in the 3rd District are proud to have these patriots as neighbors. The soldiers of the 48th Infantry Brigade put themselves on the front lines to defend our nation and protect our freedom. The families they leave behind sacrifice just as much. We pray that God blesses their mission and watches over them until their safe return to Georgia and their loving families.

I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Judge, I think what we have to look at is connecting the dots. We see in a lot of these children's puzzle books and stuff, you connect the dots to see the big picture. I think if we could see the picture of all of these dots connected, it would be hypocrisy that has come down from the Democratic leadership and we could go back to even when they first became the majority in January of 2007, because prior to that they talked about they had a way of lowering gas prices. Judge, you will remember gas prices went to over $4 a gallon in some areas. They never told us how they were going to get that down. The only way that came down was what we did in August of that year, and really exposed the energy situation for what it was. And I think the speculators finally realized that we were serious about doing something for our own energy policy.

Then if you look at the problems that Mr. Rangel has had. Just to list a few, the loan-subsidized apartments that he had, the fact that he was using letterhead to solicit some of these campaign contributions, the fact that he received the money from AIG and the other people who received some of this bailout, the fact that he didn't pay his taxes, if you look at that, that is not anything in itself, but if you connect the dots with all of the other things that are going on, I think that shows a picture that they did what it took to get elected.

We can look at that with what President Obama's campaign promise was, that he would drive the lobbyists out of the White House. And now he is writing waivers. It seems like every time he does an appointment, he has to write a waiver because they are a lobbyist. We have Mr. Geithner who was approved by the Senate as the Treasury Secretary who has similar tax problems. So you connect all of the dots, and what seems to be happening is we see a chain of events that may seem separate, but they are really kind of all tied together.

And then if you look at what President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, and I can't remember the exact words, but he said never let a crisis pass without taking advantage of it.

And so if you look at this financial crisis and what has happened and what has taken place, look at how they are taking advantage of it with this $3.6 trillion budget that they are proposing, with a cap-and- trade, which is another tax that is going to be on the 95 percent that he promised would never have a tax.

If you look at the bonuses for AIG, well, the reason that they are getting the bonuses is because the government intervened into that business. If the government had not intervened and saved AIG, I don't know what kind of financial calamity would have been out there, but I promise you these guys wouldn't have gotten a bonus. So we enabled them to do that. So now what's the government going to do? Everybody is in an uproar over these bonuses being paid to these executives, as well they should. But now is the government going to say we have a crisis, we need to step in and intervene in contracts between employers and employees? And so this is another one of these crises, for the government to take one more step into our lives and into our businesses.

So this is a connect-the-dot picture that we have got to keep in mind. This is a lot bigger than what we ever anticipated or that the American people would think that they were getting.

Mr. Daschle was another one. Ron Kirk. We could go on. Ms. Waters, and others.

Judge, has the Ethics Committee met, because if I remember correctly back in November, Speaker Pelosi said that she was going to have this Rangel problem resolved by the end of December of 2008. I guess she did that for the elections, but it is not resolved yet, and I have not even heard of them having a hearing.

Can I interrupt the gentleman? It's not the last 60 days, this is his first 60 days.

I thank my friend from Texas.

You were talking about Wall Street, the large banks that got the bulk of this TARP money. Our local community banks and some of the smaller banks did not get this. And the whole reason that this Congress--and I didn't vote for it, but I think a reason that the people that did were sold a bill of goods by then Secretary Paulson that this was going to unfreeze the credit market, but it has not done that.

And what has happened to the FDIC--and I'm not sure if the gentleman has heard this yet, but I had some of my local bankers call me, going from $100,000 to $250,000, their premiums are going up. That is the way the FDIC is funded is through premiums on this deposit guarantee. And so they are going up on the premium. And so now they are not only having to pay a high premium on $100,000, but the high premium on $250,000. But here's the kicker; they are going to be charged a one- time fee from the FDIC on their deposits--I think it is, or their assets.

To my friend from Texas, I was told today by somebody in our Georgia banking community that if you took all the profits of all the banks in Georgia and added it together, the fees that these banks were going to be charged would be more than the money that they made all last year. Now, that is a double whammy on the small community banks that have been basically responsible for funding our small businesses in our communities that have not had access to this TARP money.

So what has happened is the big banks and the FDIC and the others who have let this situation get way out of hand are here again sticking their money down and getting the investors and the shareholders from these local banks their money. And these banks are owned by local people.

I know we're getting short on time, but I want to thank you for doing this. And I think we need to remember that we need to continue not only with some of these ethics that you brought up, but we need to connect all these dots and get the clear picture of where this new administration and this larger majority is trying to take this country.

I want to thank my friend from Louisiana for hosting this hour tonight and giving us a time to come talk to each other and the American people to give them an idea and maybe be able to connect some of the dots of what has been going on in this Chamber for the last 50-plus days of the new administration that we have.

What we have seen in the gentleman's chart where it talks about small business and investors, $636 billion in tax increases on small business. And with that, a small business, a Subchapter S, if they make over $250,000--and if you're in business, you need to make that so you can reinvest in your company--they are taxed as individuals. So, this is a big tax increase. And the interesting part is that yesterday, President Obama came out with a $15 billion small business loan program which, if my figures are correct, is about 2.5 percent of the amount that he is going to increase the taxes on small business. Then the other startling thing when we started looking at this $15 billion--and I want to commend the President for doing the $15 billion and trying to help small businesses after he is burying them in this additional tax burden--but only 5 percent of the small businesses, only 5 percent of the small businesses get their loans from the SBA. So it means the other 95 percent get their loans from their community banks, their local banks.

As the gentleman from Louisiana might remember, one of the reasons that this huge stimulus package or bank bailout bill, there has been so many of them I get confused, but one of the reasons the bank bailout bill was done was to unfreeze the credit market. Well, within 2 days after the bill passed in both Chambers, then-Secretary Paulson took a different track and decided to bail out some of these investment houses on Wall Street. And we can see how that has turned out. But credit was never unfrozen. And so these small businesses are hurting because their community banks can't loan them the money that it takes to make their payroll or do new investment or really just keep their business running.

So what we see is that now, all of a sudden, the government is saying, well, we will make this loan available to you through the SBA. What that does is, it says, we will decide who gets the loans.

In other words, it gives the government the ability to pick the winners and losers of who is going to be able to get these government- backed small business loans. It takes the ability away from these community banks. They don't have the money to lend as a result of the mark-to-market rules and the other rules that have come down because of the catastrophe that we have had on Wall Street. Their assets, their loanable product and their cash reserves have gone down because of the mark-to-market rules. And so they don't have the money to loan to these small businesses in their own community.

If you have a nail shop or a barber shop or an auto repair facility, that community banker knows that community and your ability to repay that loan better than anybody else. But now you're going to have to jump through all the hoops and the red tape that the government has in trying to get an SBA loan. And they will be the ones to pick the winners and losers, rather than the people in the community itself.

So I think you have to look at the big picture of what all of this means. We look at the charitable contributions. If you make over $250,000 a year, which these small business guys will, you can only deduct your charitable contributions or your home mortgage up to 28 percent of your taxable income. Well, what does that mean? Well, the government said, well, the reason we are doing that is because we had money for the charities in the stimulus bill. So what happens? Now, the government is picking the winners and the losers in the charity business. They are not wanting us to be able to take our money and do the things that we normally did with it. We gave to the United Way or to our church or to an overseas ministry or wherever it was, where we wanted our money to go. Now the government is saying, ``no, we are going to limit your ability to do that. We will take care of that for you. We will take your tax dollars and we will reward and give to the charities that we want to give to.''

So you can see the gentleman from Louisiana has greatly explained the cap-and-trade which is going to be a tax on everybody that uses energy. I don't think the American people are going to continue to buy that 95 percent of the people are not going to have a tax increase. That is a misrepresentation. Because if we do the cap-and-trade, everybody that uses energy--and as far as I know, everybody in this country uses some sort of energy--is going to pay more for that energy. That is a direct tax increase.

So I want to thank the gentleman for hosting this Special Order. And I will sit down now and let some of your other friends and my friends get up and talk and continue the conversation.

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a rule on the Water Quality Investment Act, a rule sent to the floor by a committee the Speaker of the House controls, a Speaker who speaks often about the need for climate change legislation.

To that end, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, went before the American people in February of 2007 and repeatedly disputed a report that her office requested a larger, fossil fuel burning military plane than has ever been used by a Speaker before. The type of plane which she denied requesting is exactly the type of plane that most certainly has a negative impact on our environment and the quality of water, the bill that is before us today under this structured rule. In fact, the Speaker went so far as to say in her rebuttal, ``We didn't ask for a larger plane, period.''

However, earlier this week, prior to the consideration of this rule we have before us now, new e-mail evidence was revealed that contradicts the Speaker's public statements from 2 years ago. These e- mails between the Speaker's staff and the Department of Defense show that it was the Speaker's office that requested the larger plane, not once but repeatedly.

While we are considering legislation today to provide quality water to the American people, I think we should also note for the American people that spending their taxpayer dollars on a luxurious plane for Speaker Pelosi could negatively impact the environment and our quality of water. But even if you disagree with me on that, you should be troubled by these new facts. These newly reported facts contradict the Speaker's prior statement, possibly jeopardizing the faith of the American people, who we are here today representing and trying to help with this water quality bill.

Most alarmingly, a member of the Speaker's staff threatened a wartime budget of the Defense Department, implying that unless the Speaker's demands for personal luxuries were met, the defense budget itself would be placed in jeopardy. This is a department that has spent many resources developing and promoting clean water technology, like this bill before us today purports to do.

What did the Speaker know and when did she know it? The American people deserve the truth, something that this uncovered e-mail evidence shows the Speaker has not been telling them.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it the Chair's responsibility to call the vote?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

So it is not your responsibility to call for a vote, an electronic vote or a voice vote, but you call for the vote of the bill that is on the calendar; is that correct?

I want to thank the ranking member for recognizing me.

And I want to just say, you know, as I spent time at home this weekend, I would see the polls were 38 percent of the American people in favor of this stimulus bill. Evidently those 38 percent don't understand that this is a government-expansion spending bill and not really a stimulus bill. But I don't know who the 38 percent of those people were because everybody I talked to in my district was upset that we were trying to create new government spending programs and claim it to be a stimulus.

There are 20 new programs in this stimulus bill that have never been in the government before, 20 new programs. There needs to be some programs that we find that are inefficient. I can't believe that every program in our government is working to where it services the citizens.

But let me say this: The things that we are spending money on, such as car credits--a lot of people say, ``Good. Car credits are great,'' but they're for two-wheel, three-wheel electric plug-ins; not for the cars that are sitting on these lots today that these dealers need to get rid of.

So we need to look at what the Republican plan did and actually give people money to keep in their own pocket. In fact, they wouldn't even have to give it. They could just keep it from what they're paying right now in their Federal taxes. This is a way to stimulate the economy. Spending other people's money does not stimulate. Spending other people's money does not stimulate. We are spending people's money that are the taxpayers. They need to spend that money. We're borrowing money from foreign countries to be able to do this. We're printing money at a very rapid rate.

What we need to be doing, Madam Speaker, is looking at ways to create the jobs that the average person that's standing in the unemployment line can have right now, not create more government and create more government jobs, but create more jobs in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as to the public lands omnibus bill, I want to note for the gentleman: The bill that he has announced for next week, the public lands omnibus bill, is a bill that actually contains 130 separate bills, and it authorizes $10 billion in taxpayer spending. Given our current economy, I would think that Congress should engage in the same belt-tightening that so many Americans, our constituents, are having to do every day.

Next week, we'll consider an almost $1 trillion stimulus and a $10 billion massive lands bill, and at some point in the near future, we're going to have to understand that we are going to have to streamline the amount of spending that we're doing.

I'd like to ask the gentleman, will there be a bill on the floor next week to offset at least some of the massive spending the Congress is considering? And I'd yield to the gentleman for the response.

Thank you. And reclaiming my time, I'd like to remind the gentleman that is a history lesson, and I think the people of our country and our constituents right now are looking to the future and what we're going to be doing in the future. And in particular, the history that you're talking about about the past administration and the past Congresses, let me just remind my friend that we're spending about $100 million a minute in this Congress, and so I'm glad to hear that the gentleman from Florida, my friend, is aware of the amount of money and the amount of deficit and the amount of debt that we're piling up.

And I'd like to remind the gentleman, also, that just down the road we will be considering a $410 billion omnibus spending bill and likely another supplemental of the amount of work that was not done in the last Congress about coming up with these appropriation bills, and we're having to do it in one bundle, and I think the American people certainly have a concern about that spending.

But let me comment on something that my friend from Florida said, and that was the bipartisanship here. And like our new President, your fellow Democrats in Congress and you have often spoken optimistically about bipartisanship and about including Republican ideas in the stimulus. Well, I'd like to remind my friend that only 4 percent of Republican ideas were even considered on the floor of this House, the people's House, a house for open debate about such issues, especially of the importance of the type of spending that we've been doing. And of the few Republican amendments adopted in committee, the majority of those were either dropped or altered before the bill ever got to the floor, and to me, that's not acting in a spirit of bipartisanship.

And worse yet, the Speaker is yet to meet with the Republicans to hear our ideas. President Obama has had about three meetings with our leadership and listened to our ideas, but yet, the Speaker of this body, the body we're a part of, has not even met with Republicans yet to get some ideas.

So you've announced that we're moving the convening time next week from Tuesday to Monday and this will ensure that negotiations on a $1 trillion spending bill occurs while most Members are not even going to be in town.

I'd like to ask the gentleman, what opportunities will Republicans be given next week or anytime in the future, but especially next week, to increase tax relief in the bill and cut wasteful spending before the stimulus is voted on again? And I'd yield to my friend from Florida to answer.

I reclaim my time, and I'd just like to say to the gentleman, I know that there was over 200 amendments offered.

210 amendments offered, and about 95 of those were Republican, and so if I'm hearing

the gentleman correctly--and I will yield for an answer--only four of those were worth having a vote on the floor?

Reclaiming my time, and I certainly do understand that and the rules process that y'all so patiently sit in. But I also understand the committee process and the part of process that the American people expect us to go through, and these bills did go through Ways and Means and I know the Energy and Commerce.

But I do know that in the Energy and Commerce Committee there were several amendments voted on in Energy and Commerce that were Republican amendments that passed and that the amendments were stripped out of the bill before it ever got to the Rules Committee before it ever got to the floor.

And I'd love to yield to the gentleman to see if he has some type of recollection that that did happen and to find out how these things got taken out of a bill that was passed through that committee.

Well, reclaiming my time, I would hope that my friend would check into that for me so if we have this colloquy again we can do that.

And let me say that I'd like to tell the gentleman, that where the President has set an example, the congressional Democrats have not really followed that as far as acting bipartisan.

And one last question that I'd yield to the gentleman for an answer is you mentioned that there would be a conference on H.R. 1 if it comes back from the Senate this weekend perhaps. I don't know if the other body's going to work this weekend or not, but let's say they do and there's a conference that's set up for Monday on H.R. 1. Are there going to be any Republicans included in that conference committee?

Well, reclaiming my time, could the gentleman just tell me if there will be one Republican on the conference committee?

Well, reclaiming my time, I hope that our leadership in this House would work in a bipartisan manner, and even though we've been shut out of the process so far, if there is a conference committee, that we would at least be included.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Beatrice Elliott from the Third District of Georgia on her 104th birthday, a truly remarkable achievement meriting acknowledgement.

Mrs. Elliott, or ``Mrs. Be'' as she is most commonly known, celebrated this milestone on Jan. 8.

I want to commend Mrs. Be not only on reaching her extraordinary age but also on what she has managed to achieve over the years as an upstanding member of her community. Mrs. Be worked for more than 40 years as a teacher in Carroll and Coweta county school systems. The longevity of her tenure in the school system is a testament to her nurturing and caring attitude toward students and her commitment to the future generations of this country. Mrs. Be has played a significant role in expanding students' horizons and in building the stepping stones to academic and professional success for hundreds if not thousands of students.

Past students, family and friends hold Mrs. Be in high regard and have sincere respect for her character. It is no surprise that, after 104 years, Mrs. Be has amassed a large group of friends and a family that extends across four generations.

Mrs. Be's parents, the late Rev. and Mrs. William Parks, introduced her to the church at a young age. Her religious faith has played a central role throughout her long life. Mrs. Be now worships at Resurrection Baptist Church after spending many years as a member of Mt. Vernon Baptist.

Madam Speaker, I call on the U.S. House of Representatives to join me, Mrs. Be's family and the people of Georgia's Third Congressional District in celebrating Mrs. Be's significant milestone and wishing her a happy birthday. She is an inspiration to those who know her.

Mr. Kissell, I would yield to you. Do you think it's wise for your constituents that you're trying to help to spend $225,000 per job that pays $50,000?

Mr. Kissell, do you think it's worth your constituents saying that your district would pay $2 billion to create the amount of jobs----

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico and I think his sincere effort to try to do what would promote these jobs, and I believe that he had the best intent. But as you will find in this body, sometimes the best intent actually hinders what you're trying to do.

I would just like to ask the gentleman if he has given any concern as to how much bureaucracy and red tape this is going to put on the ability of these Americans that these jobs are creating to go to work.

As Chairman Oberstar stated when he made comments earlier today, these are shovel-ready jobs ready to go. He's going to have oversight in 30 days to bring these people to where they can employ.

I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico, and I will yield to him the time, if he has given any study into how long it would take to put this stuff on the Web that might hinder the ability of these people to go to work immediately.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what he has actually asked to do is that the companies that are receiving this put information on the Web site also.

This bill was intended to put people to work immediately. And right now, and the gentleman from New Mexico, who, I'm assuming, is going to vote for this bill, understands that we are spending approximately $225,000 or $250,000 for each job that this bill creates that will pay $50,000. And I just would like to ask him one further question.

Do you feel like it's right to put more burden on the small businesses that are going to be taking this money to try to get it to where they can stimulate the economy and create these jobs rather than doing the bureaucratic paperwork that this amendment would require them to do?

Well, one last question, do you have any idea as to how many jobs this would create, your amendment would create?

Well, I thank the gentleman for that.

Reclaiming my time, I think this would really be a hindrance in doing what has been stated so far today in getting these jobs and get them immediately. We need help immediately.

Now, I have some problems with whether this is really going to create jobs or not, but, just in case it did, just in case the stimulus package was going to do, because I have heard the same thing from Chairman Obey about the importance of doing this right now, it's the same argument we heard for the $700 billion in the bailout program that is not unfrozen credit right now and has done nothing but made sure the fat cats in New York have balanced their balance sheets.

So with that, you know, I just want to take this opportunity to say that while I think the intentions were good on this amendment, I think it's going to do more harm than good. And there are so many times that I have seen up here that people offered amendments, we passed bills without looking at the final end use of it, not talking to the end users, and I don't think that any businesses that are going to be established to try to create some of these jobs would want to try to spend as much time as it would take to go about trying to make sure this amendment was put into law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my good friends from Texas and from Iowa. I could listen to you all night because you bring a lot of common sense to this floor. I think the American people were looking for a change in Washington and thought maybe they had gotten one. I don't know.

To go back, Judge, to what you were talking about, the most open, honest, ethical Congress is what Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic- then-to-be, soon-to-be majority in the 2006 election cycle promised the American people.

But, you know, I watch Scooby-Doo sometimes with my grandchildren, and when Scooby-Doo runs into some type of expected challenge or something, he goes ``ruh roh.'' Well, there have been some ``ruh rohs'' lately at what's been going on here, because this most open, honest, ethical Congress has hit several ``ruh rohs.''

This is just one of them, because I think you were being kind of candid, the gentleman from Texas was being kind of candid when he said this certain gentleman has some influence over the IRS. He is actually chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who writes all the tax laws for this House. So that's a little bit of a significant position.

I, like the Judge and the gentleman from Iowa have known cases where, or at least every case I have ever heard is when you get a bill for your back taxes, it includes not only the taxes that you owe, but the penalty that they are charging or assessing you and the interest.

Now, I am not to say that that's not negotiable at some point in time, that you can't work something out, but I have never just seen, after forgetting that you own something for 10 years, and not realizing that you need to pay tax on it, and not understanding the tax laws that you are responsible for writing, that they just go, Oh, well, don't worry about it. Just pay the back taxes.

But I wanted to speak, if I could, Judge. There have been a couple more ``ruh rohs'' that we have run into.

President Obama, in 2007, in November, was campaigning in Orangeburg, South Carolina. He made a statement, ``I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.''

``Ruh roh.'' Because we have got to look at Mr. Geithner because he had a little tax problem too. But this tax problem that he had, the new Secretary of the Treasury, was actually a self-employment tax trust.

But he also hit a little ``ruh roh'' with his nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, the gentleman that was a lobbyist for Raytheon. Raytheon does about $18 billion worth of business a year with the Pentagon. This gentleman owns about anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million in stock. He has unvested restricted stock of about $250,000 to $500,000. But he was given a waiver for this rule about lobbyists not working in the White House. President Obama gave him a waiver.

So you can think well, you know, maybe once you need a waiver. But then we come up on Mr. Geithner's Chief of Staff, Mr. Patterson. ``Ruh roh.'' A registered lobbyist. Is he going to get a waiver? His company, Goldman Sachs, is a firm that has gotten a bunch of money in the bailout. He has

reportedly made quite a large sum of money. He has lobbied Congress on legislation including energy tax credits, Indian gaming. Wasn't that the same thing that Jack Abramoff--Indian gaming. That was a big problem. And those were according to his own financial reports.

And I will yield back to the gentleman from Texas, but there are many more of these ``ruh rohs'' that we have hit already, and I think that we are going to continue to hit them the more that we find out because it seems to be that some of the cover is coming off of some of this stuff and some of the hope and change is getting to be more like business as usual.

The most ethical Congress is turning into something totally different. Hope and change is turning into something different than what the American people thought that they were promised.

So I will yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

To my friend from Texas, I just wanted to talk about a few more things that may be happening in the administration because the hope and the change that was promised to the American people and I think a lot of people were looking forward to and I think the change that they were wanting to see was some honesty and some transparency in somebody that really meant business of coming up here and trying to take this country in a new direction.

I will read, again, President Obama's November, 2007, speech, campaign trail speech, in Orangeburg, South Carolina. ``I've done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I'm President, they won't find a job in my White House.''

I want to bring up one other--a couple of other people. My friend from Texas has talked about what has been going on in this House and it's time to look at what may be becoming a pattern of maybe saying one thing and doing something else.

Bill Corr, President Obama's nominee for Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been a registered lobbyist working on health- related issues since 2000. President Obama has given Bill Corr a waiver to his ethics rule, just as he did Mr. Lynn.

Cecilia Munoz, President Obama's new Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, has been issued a waiver to the President's ethics rules because she was a registered lobbyist with the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization, much like ACORN, too. So she has been issued.

Now I don't know if Ron Kirk, President Obama's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, has been given a waiver or not, but he was a registered lobbyist that took in more than $1 million in lobbying revenue for financial and energy firms in the last 2 years.

Of course, we know Tom Daschle, former Senator that has been, I guess, nominated or may be sworn in as new Secretary of Health and Human Services. Of course, he was an individual or advisor to the lobbying firm of Austin Byrd.

So this seems to be a pattern. Patrick Gaspard, President Obama's new White House Political Director, was a registered lobbyist with the Service Employees International Union to work on health care issues, including expansion of funding for children's health care, which you know we just passed the SCHIP bill out of this House.

There's some other things that are starting to unfold that will become more and more to light as far as the digital transition for digital TV. There has been some rumor that some of the people in the administration may be connected with that.

Of course, these are things that are just starting to come out in the news, but these things are starting to surface to the top. So I think the American people are disappointed. I think they are disappointed in the fact that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in this House seems to have gotten some preferential treatment.

And to my friends from Texas and Iowa, I would dare to recommend that our citizens go ahead and try to apply the Rangel rule to any tax problems they have. But it may be a start. If you are negotiating with the IRS now, see if you can't get the same deal that somebody in Congress may have gotten, that you want that same kind of deal that they have got, and we will see if it works.

If you're in trouble right now with the Internal Revenue Service about not sending in the withholding tax for your employees, or maybe some self-employment tax, you might want to try to go the Geithner way and say, Look, just tell me what I owe and I'll pay you. Don't really see that I need to give you any penalty or interest.

So I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice, but that might be something that you might want to try.

But, anyway, it does seem funny and I do think the American people are going to get tired of this, of being told one thing and then something else happening, and then seeing special treatment coming out of this body. And that is not what they expect; they want people to be honest, open, transparent, forthcoming with them. And I think that is what they want. I think that is the real change that they want, the hope that they had, because politicians have very little credibility.

In fact, I was a real estate agent when I was involved in politics, and I had somebody tell me one time that the two worst professions were real estate agents and politicians. And he didn't know I was a politician at the time, but he kind of hit me right in the head with both of them.

So we don't get a lot of credibility already, and the things that we just seem to keep piling on ourselves give us less and less and less. And we wonder why people don't go out to vote. We wonder why the voting percentage is down so low. Because, I think, most Americans have just thrown up their hands and said it is going to be the same old, same old.

This election was a little different. We had a lot of people who voted that had never voted before, who had not voted in a long time, thinking they were voting for a difference, a change. But I think now they are beginning to see that it is just the same old Washington attitude, and it is going to continue to be the same old Washington attitude, and their hopes have been dashed.

I just wanted to comment on something my friend from Iowa said about confusion in the process.

You know, Leader Boehner brought a privileged resolution about asking the chairman to step aside until there could be some resolve in the questions in front of the Ethics Committee. And, of course, the first thing the majority party did was move that that motion or that resolution be tabled. So what it does, it keeps people from having to vote on whether to go through with the resolution or not. And so you are right when you talk about open.

And I was real excited--well, I have got to be honest. I wasn't excited that we had got a new majority, but I was excited to hear that it was going to be an open Congress; and I thought that meant that we were going to have more open rules, and we would be able to offer more amendments, and let all 435 members, if they wanted to, offer amendments that would be important to their district or to their constituents.

It has been just the opposite. We have had more closed rules than ever.

We just passed a new rule at the start of the 111th Congress that changed the rules from the 110th about motions to recommit. And I am not going to go into all that tonight because we understand it, but it is so complicated to go in. But, basically, the rules were changed to prevent the majority, some of their vulnerable Members, from having to take very tough votes on specific language that we would put in the motions to recommit or our alternatives that we wanted to see put in this bill. And it's really a shame that we had to do it in that procedural way because we couldn't offer the amendments.

And so when people do hear that word ``open,'' I think they think about something different than what is really going on here.

This is not an open process. The People's House is the body where I think most of the deliberations should go on. This is the government that is closest to the people here in Washington, this body. We are all elected by roughly 700,000 people, some a little more, some a little less. But it is not a statewide election; we are from specific districts as a republic.

It is a representative form of government, yet, probably at any time three-fourths of us are denied the opportunity to be part of that process. And I think that goes along with getting special treatment up here on the one hand

depending on who you are and what chairman you are the committee of, and then, too, what party you belong to or where you are at in the pecking order in the majority party as to what kind of opportunity you will have to put your opinion or your constituent's thoughts into a bill.

We need to do better with that. We need a transparency. You know, sunshine is the best disinfectant in the world, and we need to let light into this body. We need to let sunshine shine in here.

And what is so bad about making somebody vote on something? That is the question I always have is, well, we are sent up here to vote. That is our job. Why don't we vote on the tough issues? Nobody wants to vote on the tough questions because they are afraid they will not get reelected if they have to make those decisions in the light that shines on what they do up here versus what they say at home.

That is the reason our constituents are so disgusted with this system. They are tired of hearing people say one thing and do something else.

I appreciate the opportunity the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has given me tonight. I know that I have gotten off the subject a little bit on some of these things, but I do think that people want to hear that some of us are aware of the frustrations and the disappointments that they have had with their government. And I wanted to make sure that they understand that there is a group of us who want to flush some of these things out and bring it into the light and try to put some sunshine on it so people can tell what is really going on up here.

My good friend from Iowa who is in the construction business has suffered many of the things that I have suffered through in business, and I thank him for his dedication and service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would like to do today is to talk a little bit about the new stimulus package that President-elect Obama

and some of the leadership has been talking about, the last stimulus package that we did, the rescue plan, and talk a little bit about the timetable.

And exactly, Mr. Speaker, where the people of this country may get an idea of exactly where we're going because sometimes things happen so fast in Washington that they don't really have an opportunity to grasp exactly what has happened to them not only now, but in the future. And not only in their future, but in their children's future and in their grandchildren's future.

So what I would like to do today is talk a little bit about how we got into the situation that we're in now and what direction the new administration and the new majority or the larger majority is going to take us.

And what I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is start in October of 2007 when the Dow Jones was 14,078, October 10. The Bush administration responded to the unfolding subprime mortgage crisis with the HOPE program, which was a program designed to help people in foreclosure to go back and to renegotiate their mortgages.

At the time, if you will remember, we were told that there were about 80 million mortgages in this country, about 5 percent of them were bad or subprime or delinquent, which is about 4 million loans. January of 2008, the Dow closed at 11,971, and it has gone down continually since then.

In September of 2008, we were informed--the White House, the Congress was informed by Secretary Paulson that we were in a financial crisis; that something had to be done to unfreeze the credit market; that the credit market was frozen; that banks couldn't borrow from each other or wouldn't lend to each other; that large corporations were not able to do overnight borrowing; that student loans were not there; that automobile loans were not there; that loans for new homes were not there, and that we need to unfreeze this. And to unfreeze this, it was going to take $700 billion.

Now, $700 billion is a lot of money, and it's going to affect people for a long time. It's going to create more of a deficit for our country, which a lot of people in this body, especially on the majority side of the aisle, has said was not good policy, not good finances to spend deficits. So we had $700 billion.

Now, if you take the 4 million delinquent or toxic assets or mortgages, that's about $175,000 per mortgage And, Mr. Speaker, I don't know of a lot of mortgages that were in trouble that $175,000 would not have cured.

But what we did is we didn't do anything with those mortgages. We decided that we would bail out those guys that had taken these mortgages and had leveraged them 45, sometimes 50 percent. And while they were doing this, they were making money hand-over-fist. While the poor guy in the house was losing his home, he was losing his job, this guy that had come up with all of this creative financial stuff with all of these derivatives that nobody really understood, and the only thing a lot of the guys coming up with these derivatives understood is that they were making a ton of money. So they were selling these things. And not only did it affect our economy and our banks and our financial institutions, but it did worldwide.

These four million bad loans that could have been solved with $175,000 each, if you took from the $700 billion--probably much, much, much less than that--and all of a sudden we had this great financial crisis.

And so the one thing that I heard, Mr. Speaker, over and over again, not only in this body, but in the Senate and all the pundits on some of these talk shows, was, well, this is kind of like a traffic accident on the expressway and it's got all of the lanes blocked. Credit is frozen. This is the highway of credit; it's frozen. And behind it sitting in line in traffic is the student loans, the car loans, the mortgage loans, the small business loans, the payroll loans, all the credit is sitting in line. We've got to free up this accident. And so we did. Congress voted to free up this accident. All lanes are clear--well, at least the majority of the lanes are clear; we've only done $350 billion of the $700 billion, but they're going to be back wanting the other $350 billion.

But the credit market is not unfrozen. We still have people today that are getting foreclosed on every day. I don't care if you've got credit that's 850 on your credit score, you probably couldn't go borrow a dime today. These banks and these financial institutions, AIG is one--you know, AIG used to write bonds for construction and development. They wrote bonds. They won't even write you a bond now, and the government has given them about $125 billion. What are we doing?

So if you look at all of these things that were intended in this one bailout that was intended to unfreeze the credit market, we can see that it hasn't worked. And not only has it not worked, we have not even tried to make any of these lending institutions, these banks, holding companies, insurance companies accountable for the money that we've given them.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you've got the same thing I've got, community banks, small banks calling me every day saying we've applied for the TARP, we've applied for the Capital program, we can't get any money. We can't get any money. And so what's happening? If you think that the big nine banks are going to come into these communities and loan somebody money to start a beauty salon or a car wash or an automotive repair, or whatever, you're badly mistaken. The community bankers, those small banks in our communities that know Fred and they know Jane, they know their families, they know what kind of reputation they've got, they know their ability to pay back this money, these are the people that are being squeezed out. And the American people are depending on us to do something about it.

I was happy to talk to Chairman Frank, and he said within the next 2 weeks he's going to have legislation come out of Financial Services that's going to do that. We need to make these people accountable because the very taxpayers that are paying the $700 billion that we've given to the fat cats to balance their books and to hold the money to buy out the small and the community bank, we've given them the money and we still can't get credit.

Mr. Speaker, I had a Chrysler dealer that came into my office and he sat down and told me over a period of time, a small period of time, he had sent 155 contracts or sales to Chrysler; they had approved seven of them. If we were supposed to have cleared the wreck and we were have supposed to freed up this credit market, it has not worked, and the American people and myself and many others in this body want to know why it has not worked.

Now, let's look at the deficit for a minute because we're borrowing this money that we're using to stimulate or to buy out--or whatever you want to call--remember that we passed a $150 billion stimulus package, Mr. Speaker, where we actually sent checks to people to stir up the economy, to give the economy credibility. I don't think it worked. Evidently it didn't work. So what's been the result of that? We borrowed that $150 billion from China.

The stimulus that's being discussed today--now, we're beyond the $700 billion stimulus--well, let's start out with the $150 billion stimulus, then the $700 billion stimulus, and then the loan to the automakers. And now we're talking about another $700, $800 billion up to 1.3 trillion. Now, keep in mind if you look at the bailout that had already been done after the first stimulus where we gave checks back to people, we had AIG, we had IndyMac, we had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we had the housing bill, we had already spent about $700 billion. You're starting to talk about some real money now, Mr. Speaker.

You now, this range of $800 billion to $1.3 trillion, what does that mean? Well, I'll tell you what it means; it means that the deficit for 2009 is going to be $1.3 trillion, triple the current year's deficit. In fact, it's going to be 9 percent of our gross domestic product, 9 percent of our gross domestic product in this one--not counting all the other things--this one deficit in this 1 year, 9 percent, which is a 50 percent increase over World War II's record deficit of 6 percent of the gross domestic product. So what that means is that some governments, some countries are thinking about charging us a prime or a premium interest rate from foreign investors, such as China is now thinking about charging us a premium for this

money that we're borrowing from them.

Now, what I've heard is that this majority plan, the Democratic plan, Mr. Speaker, that's coming from the President-elect and the Senate and the House leaders is that this infrastructure, part of this will be infrastructure projects that's ready to go, shovel ready so to speak, they're ready to get out there and they're ready to get it on. The Conference of Mayors published a list of these projects that were ready to go, they put it on their Web site. So Mr. Speaker, if anybody was listening today--and I have to remember that most of my constituents at 2:30 in the afternoon, those that have jobs are out working. We didn't have any votes today in this body, so for you that may be taping this or may have an opportunity of a loved one to see it, we actually counted votes today--or had some people count them for us and we watched them. So we had a pretty easy day today, had a pretty easy day yesterday. In fact, we were out by about two o'clock yesterday. We'll probably have a pretty easy day tomorrow, I think we've got two bills. But for those of you that are watching--and that could be, Mr. Speaker, if I was talking to somebody out in the audience, if I was addressing them I would tell them to go to a Conference of Mayors Web site and look at some of these projects that are ready to go, that are infrastructure and vital--I believe it says vital infrastructure projects. The first one is $350,000 for an Albuquerque, New Mexico fitness center. That's a vital project. Ninety-four million for a parking garage at the Orange Bowl in Miami. Now, these are the ready- to-go infrastructure projects that our tax dollars are going to go into, these are those vital projects; $4.5 million for Gretna, Florida to bottle water with recyclable bottles; $35 million, Music Hall of Fame in Missouri; $55 million for a mob museum in Las Vegas that's described in the Mayor's report as ``historic post office museum rehabilitation.'' You know, we think of so many good ways to name these bills that they just are really warm and fuzzy, and so sometimes you don't pull back the covers. Twenty million for a minor league baseball museum in Durham, North Carolina, and $6 million for snowmaking and maintenance facilities at Spirit Mountain, Minnesota. Now, I apologize to those Members, Mr. Speaker, that these are in their districts and that these may have been put in--not necessarily put in the package to get a vote or two, I don't know. But what I do know is that the lady and the gentleman and the family that's sitting around the kitchen table wanting to know how they're going to pay their house note or their car note or what they're going to do because mom or dad, or both, don't have a job, they don't think these are such vital projects. They don't think they're that vital. What they think is vital is us starting to do something rather than just talking.

We've been talking long enough. It's time to take some action and to have some real cure for the taxpayers of this country; and not just the taxpayers today, but the taxpayers of the future, my children and my grandchildren, and maybe even my great grandchildren at the rate that we're going.

I'll turn now, after we've talked about that for a little bit, Mr. Speaker, and I want to quote President-elect Obama, January 8, 2009, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.'' You know, I think there is some truth in that. Although I think that we the people, the entrepreneurs, the free market system, do a much better job than government doing anything, but I think the truth of this statement is that only government can break the vicious cycle. Yeah, government's got to get out of it. If we want to break the vicious cycle that we're in of rewarding bad behavior, we've got to get out of this and let the market take care of itself. But no, we haven't learned from that because, you know, you would think that with the Dow going down every day, even with all the money that we're pumping in it, we would go, you know what? This isn't working. We've got a problem here. Let's look at it, let's see what it is. And we might find out that we're our own worst enemy, Mr. Speaker.

But let's talk about the national debt. Let's talk about the deficit. The national debt is currently more than 10.6 trillion--and I'm talking with a ``T.'' You know, it took me a while, when I got into government, to learn what a million dollars was, and then it took me a little bit longer to learn what a billion is. It's hard to get your head around a trillion. So Mr. Speaker, if anybody is at home that is going to go to the Mayors Conference vital projects Web site might also want to go to a math Web site and try to figure out how much a trillion is. But our national debt today is $10.6 trillion, continues to grow. The national debt has increased by $2 trillion since the Democrats took over Congress just 2 years ago, $2 trillion increase.

The President-elect on 60 Minutes, November 16, said we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. Speaker Pelosi, on a floor speech on March 17 of 2005, said, ``Democrats have made a commitment to honor the value of accountability, including eliminating deficit spending.'' Steny Hoyer, speech at the National Press Club September 28, 2007, Mr. Speaker, he said, ``Today Democrats are fighting to restore the fiscal discipline that has been sorely lacking since 2001. Why? Because we believe deficits and spiraling debt threaten our future prosperity and national security.'' What has changed in a year, a little over a year; what's changed?

Rahm Emanuel, the President-elect's Chief of Staff in the White House, January 26, 2005 floor speech, ``If you're looking for a crisis to solve, look no further than the President's budget deficit. The President's reckless policies are damaging our Nation's future.'' This is the same Chief of Staff of the President-elect that the President- elect said we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after.

Bart Gordon, in a press release of January 5, 2007, said, ``American families must live within their budgets, and it's time for Congress to do the same.''

Mike Ross, in a floor speech December 6, 2005, said, ``Deficits do matter. Deficits reduce economic growth. They burden our children and grandchildren with liabilities. They increase our reliance on foreign lenders who now own 40 percent of our debt.'' That's right, foreign lenders now own 40 percent of our debt.

I would venture to say to my good friend from Arkansas I would like to work with him to try to find out what percentage foreign investors and lenders own of our debt right now, where they're even thinking about charging us premium interest because 9 percent of our gross domestic product is going to be in that debt.

Tim Ryan, July 6, 2004: ``We have almost a $600 billion annual deficit for the past year. This is getting rolled into our $7 trillion debt that we have. So almost 20 percent of our annual budget that we pay down here is interest on the debt that we have. So if you keep accruing the big debt, you have to keep taking tax money to pay it off. Who's lending us this money? Japan and China are lending us this money.''

Mr. Ryan, you're right. They are. But now rather than a $7 trillion debt, it's a $10.6 trillion debt that has increased by $2 trillion since the Democrats have been in charge here.

Brad Ellsworth, in a press release January 5, 2007: ``Hoosier families in my district make the tough choices to balance their family's budget. Congress should be held to the same standard when it comes to our Nation's budget.''

Ron Klein, in a floor speech on September 10, 2008: ``It's now the Democrats, many of us, who are sort of leading the fight on fiscal discipline. We are the fiscal hawks.''

Representative Klein, the gentleman from Florida, I hope you're right. I hope you're telling the American people the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this is truth that's come out where these people said we're going to look after the fiscal well-being of this country, because if they follow this plan or if they follow the plan that's being discussed right now by the President-elect and the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate, these things are going to be a lot worse than what they were when they were reading these floor speeches. So they're going to be caught head on looking into the headlights of what they've said and how that's going

to balance out with what they do. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be held accountable for what we say and especially in what we do.

So if you want to look at Mr. Cardoza, in a floor speech December 6 of 2006: ``The past few years the Republican rule in Washington has left our Nation severely crippled with debt. Reckless fiscal policies have turned record surpluses into record deficits in 6 short years. Democrats believe that fiscal responsibility is a crucial ingredient in good government. The American people turned to Democrats to get our Nation's books out of the red.''

What a disappointment that must be, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to find out that they hired the Democrats to get the American books out of the red and since that time the debt has grown by $2 trillion.

Dan Boren, in a press release January 5, 2007: ``If the government is going to buy something, Congress has to figure out how to pay for it. It's time the government be held to the same standards as every American family.''

I couldn't agree with you more, Representative Boren. I couldn't agree with you more. We need to be held to those same standards as that American family. But you know what? We're not. And the path that has been laid out, the map that has been laid out by the majority that has been increased in both the House and the Senate and by the President- elect, we're not headed out of the red, we're headed deeper into the red. But this red is not just for this generation, it's for our children and our grandchildren.

Kendrick Meek, in a floor speech June 22, 2005: ``The share of the national debt for every American is $26,255.76. This has to be paid off. This is not monopoly money. This is not funny money. When this House was run by Democrats, we balanced the budget without one Republican vote, and that is a fact. That is prima facie evidence, as they say in the courtroom. That is not a fabrication. That is not an exaggeration. That is not something that some Democrat said on the floor and it's not true. We balanced the budget.''

I want to challenge the gentleman from Florida, my friend (Mr. Meek), to balance the budget. I want to do that. I see my good friend over here. She wants to balance the budget. We all want to balance the budget. And to balance the budget, we're going to have to make some tough, tough decisions in this House. We cannot continue to go down the same road that we have been going down. Sure, we have borrowed the money to do this, but you know what? Here's the hard part: The hard part is that the people that we have done these things for are not receiving the relief and we are still not unfreezing the credit market. So what are we doing? We're not unfreezing the credit market. What we are doing is we're piling more and more and more and more debt on them. So we have got to bring that to a close.

I see a good friend of mine from Texas, the gentleman that came up with one of the most brilliant tax packages last December that I know of but we can't seem to get a hearing on it or seem to get it to the floor for a vote, and that's my friend from the First District of Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

The gentleman brought up a good point about government and the fact that we have an interest now in banks and we have an interest in the car business. We even have a car czar I guess that's going to tell them what kind of cars will sell best.

But the question I have and I think the question that the American people have is the government is what brought this on in the Community Reinvestment Act. And, look, I love the Community Reinvestment Act in some of the design of it because I believe in downtown redevelopment. I think we need to go into some of these downtown areas, especially places like Detroit and other places, to redevelop that downtown. These downtowns are beautiful. So some of that Community Reinvestment Act was good.

But the part that was put in place in 1995 by President Clinton that told these lending institutions, look, you're either going to make so many of these loans to people who can't afford them or we are going to fine you, and then we, the government, are bailing out these people that not only took that but then made all these different loan programs with derivatives that nobody in the free world with any type of computer could figure out, and here we are; so the government's being involved--and that's why this statement right here concerns me so much when it says ``Only government can break the vicious cycles.'' There's truth in that, but it's kind of a different truth than what the President-elect means. We can break the cycle; we've got to get out of it.

Yes.

Thank you. Now I want to recognize another friend of mine from New Jersey, the Honorable Representative Garrett.

I told him that most of our constituents were still at work.

Sure.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Absentee ownership.

Let me just make a couple of comments too about some of the things that the lady from Ohio said, of those 4,162 people, I wonder if they would be interested to know if they took the $700 billion, that about $175,000 each of that would have paid and straightened out their mortgage.

They would be appalled to know that. Not only that, if the government had been serious about this, and it put that money and told those banks that made those loans, whether the government made them, make them or what, you need to go back and renegotiate those loans, whether it's for 40 years or 50 years at a less percentage rate so you are getting your money back, that's what you need to do.

But, no, it's a lot easier to give it to the big cats and let them wipe the slate clean, let them fix their balance sheet, throw those people out, sell it for whatever they can and go on about their business. That's wrong.

I would like to recognize my friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Well, and I think the gentleman makes a great point because, you know, change was the key word of this election cycle. And I think the American people love that word ``change,'' and they did want to change.

But I think the change they wanted was trust and transparency. That's what they thought change meant. If we are going down this path, and the path that the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate is talking about, was spending their tax dollars, it's not that trust and transparency that they are going to get.

You know, that's the amazing thing, these 4,162 foreclosures, they are the ones that put up the 700, or part of the $700 billion to allow their house to be sold.

I see another good friend of mine, somebody that I have served with in the State legislature and now have a great opportunity to serve in Congress with, somebody that is the new Republican Study Committee chairman for this Congress, and I am certainly excited about that, and that's my friend, Dr. Price.

Thank you. Let me say this. I think $1 trillion is actually 12 zeros. That is amazing. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that anybody that is watching would go to a Web site that has got some of these math solutions on it and look at exactly how much $1 trillion is.

One billion seconds, one billion seconds is 32 years. There are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year. One billion seconds is 32 years. And we are talking trillions now, trillions with a ``T.''

Mr. Speaker, when I was running for office, when I was running for Congress, I had served in the State legislature. I went to a gathering and I met somebody there, he was a lobbyist for the peanut shellers, and as I got on the plane to come back to Georgia I thought to myself, you know, everybody must have a lobbyist. Everybody. If the peanut shellers of America have a lobbyist, then everybody must have a lobbyist.

But I thought of one group, one group and only one group in this country that does not have a lobbyist, and Mr. Speaker, you probably know who that group is, and I would imagine that anybody watching this knows what that group is. But in case you don't or you may have forgotten, I am going to tell you who that group is that does not have a lobbyist up here. That is the American people.

The American people have representatives up here. They have somebody that is supposed to represent them on this floor. And about half of America is being shut out because of the process. We are going to bring bills to the floor that are going to deal with the deficit. We are going to bring bills to the floor that are going to deal with the national debt. We are going to bring bills to the floor that are going to talk about health care and are going to talk about all different types of things.

Half of this body, Mr. Speaker, half of the Representatives, who are the only people in this city that represent our people back home, are going to be shut out of the process, because it is going to be done under suspension, which is a form that the majority has chosen to do some very important bills, without debate, without committee hearings, without input, in fact, a lot of times without even being available to be read for two or three hours.

That is no way to do business. So we not only have the problems that we have discussed here today with the budget, with the deficit, with the national debt. This whole process is broken. The whole process is broken.

The gentlelady from Ohio, the gentleman from New Jersey, myself, we all had amendments and different ideas that we wanted to put in this legislation. What is so wrong with letting us vote on it? Why did this have to happen so quickly and so immediately? Why is something more important than open, honest, fair debate? There is no disinfectant in the world like sunlight. So we need to open up this process. We need to have sunlight.

Mr. Speaker, if I could tell the American people anything, it is to understand that the only person in Washington, D.C., that is here on your behalf is your Representative. And let me tell you something, you better keep a close eye on him or her to make sure that they are representing you, and not only that they are representing you, but that they have the ability to have some input into what is happening in this body.

There are many Members in the majority party that can't get any input if they disagree with what is going on, not just if you are in the minority, but if you are in the majority. This has been a closed system, a closed House.

I am not saying we did it perfectly, Mr. Speaker, when we were in charge for 12 years. But I want to put all of that aside. President- elect Obama gave many people in this country hope. He gave them hope and he promised change, and part of that hope and that change was to open up the process and to work in a bipartisan way.

So as I am closing today, I want to hope. My hope is that your hope will be brought to fruition, and that we can sit in this Chamber and we can have open, honest discussions about how the constituents of the Third District of Georgia feel, or how the district of the gentlelady from Ohio's feels, or how the district of the gentleman from Virginia feels. We will make sure that our 600,000 or 700,000 constituents give the only representation they have in this body the ability to speak, to speak freely and openly and share ideas, not only with their colleagues, but with everybody in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask for them to contact their Representative, I would, and pay attention, because I promise you that nobody is going to look after you if they know that you are not looking at them.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I appreciate the opportunity that the minority leader gave me to share this hour with you and others.

Madam Speaker, at the end of 2008, a great Georgia lawman turned in his badge to retire after a long, distinguished career.

Randall Johnson worked for Fayette County as sheriff for 32 years. At his retirement, he was one of the longest serving sheriffs in the state of Georgia. But more important, he was one of the most distinguished sheriffs in Georgia.

Sheriff Johnson oversaw the department during three decades of incredible growth. In the 1970s when Johnson first won election to the post, the Fayette Sheriff's Department has less than a dozen employees in a county then considered a rural outpost. By the time he left, the department had transformed into a modern law enforcement operation that protected a large suburban county in the booming metropolitan Atlanta region. Sheriff Johnson acted as a constant, a steady hand and a voice of leadership throughout those times of change.

The sheriff's post fulfilled Johnson's lifelong dream. He said at his graduation from Fayette County High School in 1960 that he was going to be sheriff one day. He got his start in law enforcement working for the state of Georgia, busting moonshine operations along the multitude of Georgia's creaks and streams. As testament to the depth of respect he holds in the community, some of those moonshiners he arrested decades ago showed up at his retirement party to wish him well.

During my two decades in politics, I've seen a lot of politicians come and go. Most are quickly forgotten. It is the rare public official who holds the job for three decades. It is even rarer that one constantly maintains the integrity, dignity and honesty that Sheriff Johnson demonstrated in office.

I'm well aware that, as I enter my third term in the U.S. House of Representatives, I owe a large debt to Sheriff Johnson. I got my start in politics in Fayette County as a state representative. No one in the county back then won office without the express consent of Sheriff Johnson. His support was the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for any local campaign. He carried great weight not because he carried the proverbial big stick but because he had earned the people's trust and respect. His loyalty and backing through all these years humbles me.

In Fayette County, ``sheriff and -Randall Johnson'' are synonymous. When he entered a room, everybody knew the sheriff had arrived--even if he wasn't wearing his uniform. His presence was a statement in itself The county will sorely miss one of the greatest leaders in its history, but the department that he has built up will carry on, and its continued success will serve as part of Sheriff Johnson's legacy.

On behalf of the people of Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, I want to thank Sheriff Johnson for his lifetime of service to the people of Georgia and to Fayette County. He is a great American and an inspiration to us all. Best wishes to Sheriff Johnson and his wife Kaye as they enter a new phase of life in retirement, a reward that's richly deserved.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. It might not be your accent that hurts you with the points IQ, but it may have been your introduction of me. But it is good to be here with you to talk about the stimulus package.

I voted against the stimulus package, or the recovery bill, as I know you did and many others did, because we didn't see any real plan out there. And the only plan that we really heard, Madam Speaker, if you will remember, they said there was a bad automobile wreck, that this credit crisis was like a bad automobile wreck clogging up the expressway and that behind this accident there were trucks carrying student loans, automobile loans, mortgage loans, all different types of credit, and that because of this accident that those loans were not getting through to the people that needed them; so we need to spend $700 billion. And I think at the time they said it was about a 5 percent bad mortgage of home loans, and there are about 80 million mortgages; so that's roughly 4 million loans. So this credit crunch was caused by these 4 million loans to spend $700 billion. So we cleared the accident, or at least we were told that we were clearing the accident.

But the accident is not cleared, or if it is cleared, nobody has let the traffic through because there are people every day being foreclosed on because the banks that are getting this money, and one bank in particular that does business in Georgia got $4 billion of TARP money and they are foreclosing on people every day. They are not giving people an opportunity to restructure their loans. They are calling more principal due on these loans. And I'm not telling a bank to make bad loans, but the reason that we are in this situation is because they originally made bad loans. What I think we're telling them is they need to clean up the bad loans that they made. They need to clean up their own mess. But now that they've got taxpayers' dollars, they especially need to be using that for the intent that Congress gave it to them.

There was an article, and I think it was in the New York Times, this is the name of the article, December 17, ``Fed Cuts Key Rate to a Record Low.'' It says: ``Of much greater practical importance, the Fed bluntly announced that it would print as much money as necessary to revive the frozen credit markets and fight what is shaping up as the Nation's worst economic downturn since World War II.''

And you addressed that. We're not necessarily in that economic downturn, and we're going to continue to print money until we unfreeze the credit market. Well, this first $350 billion should have done something to help fall it out in the least, but people every day--I have got builders and developers, small business people in my district, the Third District of Georgia, every week calling me saying, we're going out of business.

A good friend of mine has been in the grading business. His family has been in the grading business for 57 years. He's been running it for the past 30 years. His father started it. He called me and he said, ``Lynn, today is the last day we're going to be in business. I've got employees that have been with me for over 30 years that I have got to let go. What do I need to tell them about the bailout?''

This money is not getting through to these small businesspeople, and we need to make these lending institutions accountable. I talked to Chairman Frank, and he said that they're going to come up with a bill in about the next 2 weeks or so to make these people accountable. And they need to be held accountable.

These are taxpayers' dollars. These are people's individual dollars going to this bailout, and they are not having the ability to even access any of the money. These banks are holding the money, and they're holding the money so they can buy small banks. I've had community bankers call me and say, we applied for TARP but we can't get it. We can't get the TARP money.

So do you think that some of the Big Nine are going to go into our communities, into Grantville, Georgia; or Griffin, Georgia; or Thomaston or Greenville, Georgia; and make somebody a loan that wants to open up a barber shop or wants to have a nail salon or wants to do an automotive repair shop? No. We depend on these community bankers, and right now these big banks are sitting around waiting on these community banks to fail so they can go in, gobble them up, and do away with our community banks. These community banks, some of them told me they voted not to get them. The gentleman from Texas, they voted not to take the TARP money. The Federal regulators came in and said, you need to take the TARP money. And then they applied for it and couldn't get it. We have got to stop this nonsense, and we need to let the free market work. It will work.

It has worked. It will work again if we will just quit muddying the water.

Now I hear about this new stimulus package that the President-elect is going to come up with. He is going to create about 3 million jobs, and I heard today on the news, before I came over here, of 1.2 trillion, which means that each one of these jobs is going to be about $400,000.

Now, I don't know about you, but that's pretty expensive for the taxpayers to create 3 million jobs at $400,000 apiece. I would think that we might create, with that kind of money, we might create a lot more jobs than that at $200,000 apiece, twice as many jobs. In fact, I know a lot of people today that would just love to have a job.

But the government creating jobs, 600,000 new government jobs, that's 50 percent of the people, exclusive of the Postal Service, that we employ right now. We are fixing to employ 50 percent more people.

Now, that's great that we are creating these jobs, but that means that this 600,000 people are going to have to continue to be paid every year and their insurance and their benefits. I am telling you, we are going down a real rocky road.

I am glad that the President-elect has realized that this economic situation that we are facing in our country today needs some attention. This Congress has tried to give it the attention. The current President has tried to give it the attention, but I think there has been too much love and not enough firm discipline that everyday citizen is out there facing, the firm discipline of not being able to pay your bills. They don't have the ability to print more money, and they are out there suffering.

We are not doing the suffering here. We keep printing the money and keep throwing it out there, and it keeps going to the big dogs. It keeps going to the people that made these major mistakes that leveraged some of these mortgage investments 45 and 50-1.

We are bailing them out, and the average guy is not getting bailed out. I have got a real good friend of mine that called me yesterday, he is in his early 50s, he has been in the real estate business and the building business along with me--he and I have been in it together for a long time--he is going to the police academy. He is starting the police academy. He is starting a new career because he cannot make a living doing what he's doing.

We need to wake up and to realize that if we are going to clear the wreck, if we are going to unfreeze this credit market, these lending institutions need to be accountable to us, the taxpayers, and make sure that they are taking this money and doing what they are supposed to do with it and not just paying their top dogs, their bigwigs, all

this money going to the resorts, sponsoring championship football games, buying banks in China for $6 billion, but they are lending the money out.

I don't care if you have got a credit rating of 835, you are not going to be able to borrow a dime, because they are afraid. They don't want to lend it, and they are saving this money to help their balance sheets. This is no way to run a railroad.

It's not the intention that this Congress had. We need to do something to make these people that are receiving this TARP money accountable. We need to make them go back and correct the bad loans that they made and to make sure that the everyday guy out there that's furnishing this $700 billion can have some type of benefit from it.

With that, I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to do this.

I want to thank my friend from Alabama for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, I've often said as I have stood up that when the process is broken, the product is flawed. And I appreciate all of the meetings that the chairman and ranking member and others have attended and the time that they have spent. There was only one hearing that I know of in the Financial Services Committee that was held before this bill, and that was to have Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke come and testify. Those were the only two witnesses. And I'm not sure what alternatives are out there, what the plans are for a free market, for capital infusion and not just buying these toxic assets.

And I think that's going to be the key to any plan working is the infusion of capital. But the process is broken because there was no markup on the bill. The bill was introduced about 24 hours ago. It's 106 pages. And as we saw earlier in the week with some of the tax extender bills and some of the other bills that were introduced early in the morning, brought to the floor early afternoon, had problems in it, having to recommit, redo the rules.

You cannot do this type of bailout of $700 billion without adequate hearings, without adequate testimony, without hearing other alternatives that can be injected into this that we could do some of the things as the net operating loss, how that can help a business. Doing away with the capital gains tax, the repatriation of money to come back into this country. The last time we did that, $350 billion came in.

These banks need cash. They need capital. They do not need somebody buying these assets when they still have mark-to-market. They still have accounting rules that don't allow them to have the amount of money they need to loan to small businesses and individuals to keep our economy going.

This is a rush. We need to defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I object.