Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for the fine work that he is doing on these moments that we have together.

One guarantee that we do have from the stimulus bill that we can count on, that we can take to the bank, on which there will be no disagreement and no dissent is this: If we pass this $825 billion stimulus tomorrow, and it seems to be a certain thing because the majority has the votes, and if we add to that the debt service which would be over $300 billion added on top of that, bringing us to a total of over $1.1 trillion, the certainty, the guarantee that

we will take to the bank, that we will need to look at the American people straight in the eye and be four square honest in telling them is this: You will encounter punishingly high tax increases at every level of the economic spectrum. It's a given. We have to.

Why can we say this with certainty? Because someone has to pay this bill. When you go out to eat, the check comes and someone has to pay for it. Maybe a nice person at the other table will pay for your check. But at the end of the day, someone is paying that check. And it's the American people that are paying for this party.

Make no mistake. This stimulus bill has very little to do with stimulating the economy and helping the average American. This is a bailout for big government. And let's get ready. We are looking at massive tax increases and we are looking at massive inflation or both. In fact, we could be looking at hyperinflation.

I don't want to be ``Debbie Downer'' bringing bad news to the American public, but it's a certainty. If you spend money at this level, and consider we are spending almost as much money on this stimulus bill as we will spend in our discretionary spending, take it to the bank. That is our future.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation under consideration today will saddle generations of taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and will, I fear, not lead this country to real economic recovery.

The Democrats' bill has a starting price of $825 billion--enough money to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

In fact, the total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire Federal Government.

To make matters worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the real cost of the legislation will be more than $1 trillion.

CBO reports that if Congress borrows more than $800 billion, it will burden future generations with an additional $347 billion in interest payments. That totals more than $1.1 trillion.

And, regrettably, that total includes frivolous spending on items such as $600 million for new cars for the Federal Government and $21 million for sod to fill in the mall after the inauguration.

We must not forget our responsibility to the taxpayer simply because we label something a crisis or even a response to a crisis.

The Democrats' have tried to sell this proposal as a transportation and infrastructure investment package. And, I'm all for investing in rebuilding our Nation's roads and bridges and believe that government spending on transportation infrastructure projects is absolutely important.

However, only $30 billion of the bill--or three percent--is for road and highway spending. And, CBO states that much of this spending will take several years to make any stimulative impact.

My constituents understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity and that serious consequences lie ahead if Congress goes down this irresponsible borrow-and-spend path.

What the American people really need are long-term, permanent tax cuts which will impact families twice as fast as the Democrats' government spending in this bill. These tax cuts will spur job creation and help stabilize the economy over the long run.

I support much-needed, incentive-based relief for small businesses, the job-creators and the backbone of our economy, and I believe we must reduce the financial burden that the Federal Government imposes on middle-class families.

I'm a cosponsor of the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act, which is a real economic recovery plan that has NO welfare spending, NO pork-barrel spending, and NO bailouts.

This package would immediately inject private capital into our economy and at the same time, it would lay the groundwork for sustained economic growth.

It includes a permanent 5 percent across-the-board income tax cut. It increases, and makes permanent, the child tax credit to $5,000 and makes the lower 15 percent capital gains and dividends rates permanent.

It repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, on individuals--a punitive and outdated relic of a tax which will hit more than 30 million people in 2009.

It permanently repeals required distributions on retirement accounts and makes all withdrawals from IRAs tax- and penalty-free during 2009. And, it increases by 50 percent the tax deduction on student loans and on qualified higher education expenses.

These are just some of the key initiatives of this legislation.

We have seen the mistakes of tax-and-spend government policies in the past and know that they will not lead to long-term economic growth and recovery.

We must implement real, permanent tax relief for American families and stop this Washington spending spree that will burden many generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 34 men and women and one whole family from Albany, MN who have put their heart and soul into making that community such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise a family.

This weekend, the Albany Chamber of Commerce honored these people for putting their ``hand and heart into everything they do'' to serve their colleagues and their fellow citizens. From keeping us safe to teaching our children to caring for our elderly, these men and women are the rock on which we stand. The chamber, which itself is such an integral part of this community, has taken this opportunity to draw attention to the selfless and kind acts of these individuals and their nominating organizations:

Richard ``Hunk'' Wolf, Albany Fire Department; Richard Schiller, Albany Senior Dining; Bertha Schiller, Albany Senior Dining; Rosie Finken, Albany Senior Dining; Bob Pauly, Albany Senior Dining; Bob Thielman, Albany Senior Dining; Ralph Vos, Albany Senior Dining; Norbert Vos, Albany Senior Dining; Rosie Krebs, Albany Senior Dining; Howard Krebs, Albany Senior Dining; Robert St. Marie, Albany Senior Dining; Richard Carlson, Albany Senior Dining; Grace Carlson, Albany Senior Dining; LuAnn Jopp, Albany Home Bakery; Pam Kraker, Albany Lions; Sarah Kittelson, Albany Police Department; Tammy Jurek, Albany Police Department; Darren Trousil, Albany Police Department.

Paul Nelson, Wells Concrete Products; Steve Stromme, Albany Area Schools; Ron Paulsen, Albany Area Schools; Herb Binsfeld, Albany Food Shelf; Mary Binsfeld, Albany Food Shelf; Kathy Pung, AAH & Medical Center; Judy Zenzen, AAH & Medical Center; Janet Christen, Holy Family School; Ryan Scherping, Holy Family School; Patty Leyk, Our Savior's Lutheran Church; Val Oehrlein, Mother of Mercy Auxiliary; The Sand Family, Albany Chamber; Al Amdahl, Albany Jaycees; Brennan Shay, Albany Pioneer Club; Bev Lieser, Albany Women of Today; Nathan Meer, Albany Boy Scouts; Justin Overman, Albany Boy Scouts.

I share in the chamber's recognition of their great public service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 39 to honor the immense influences and contributions that Catholic schools have made on their students and their surrounding communities. For centuries, Catholic schools have provided families with a strong alternative to the public school system, offering a vital faith component that enhances a child's overall education sadly unwelcome in the halls of our local public schools.

A Catholic education prepares our Nation's youth to lead lives of commitment to the message of Jesus Christ while at the same time fostering an environment for academic success. It continuously challenges its students to a life-long pursuit of intellectual growth both in and outside the classroom while also stressing the need to take an active role in the betterment of their neighborhood and community. But most importantly, Madam Speaker, Catholic schools instill in their student body the precious ideal of setting one's heart upon things above, not merely on goods on earth--a much needed lesson in a society that is quick to get caught up in the latest gadget and the never- ending chase for dollars.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to humbly honor the contributions Catholic schools make to the betterment of our society, and pray for their continued success.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would like to just thank him for the years and years and years of commitment that he has had to the unborn here in America. The unborn have had a friend in Chris Smith. I thank you. That through thick and thin, it seems like we got a lot closer to our goal. Right now, it seems like we are a lot farther away when you look at the way the winds are prevailing.

It has been 36 years since we have had the fateful decision of Roe v. Wade. In 36 years, we look at the fruit of that decision and what it has led to. Has it been freedom for women? Some might say so. Has it been enslavement for women? There are a lot of women who testify that yes, it has been enslavement for them, to years of depression, fighting perhaps alcoholism, drug addiction, because they had no idea what terminating the life of their little child would do to them in terms of ripping up their insides. They didn't really know what the decision would mean.

My husband has had the privilege of counseling women and men who have been in that decision, abortion-minded women, who have later deeply regretted that decision that they made. I know for my husband and I, we are just so grateful God gave us five biological children over the years that we are grateful for, and we lost one.

The baby that we lost taught us so much. When that baby died, it changed our lives. I know for me, personally, I couldn't speak for 3 days after I lost that baby. Something was touched in the center of my soul, something so deep, so fundamental about human life that I can't even put into words right now. But the one thing I do know is that we are created in the image and likeness of a holy God.

I just think that we should not be about the business of taking away something that is so precious and so life-giving and that can never be altered. It is a decision that, once it's made, can't be changed.

When we lost our own baby, my husband and I decided we wanted to open up our home to children that were in difficult circumstances. And so we brought in 23 children over the years, not all at once, but over the years, and it changed us for the better, bringing in kids who are in really some of the very tough, tough situations. But, you know what? I have often heard that phrase from Planned Parenthood that says, ``Every Child a Wanted Child.''

I just want the American public to know, every child is a wanted child. There's a foster parent out there that wants to take in a child in at-risk situations. There are adoptive parents out there that are crying tonight, literally crying themselves to sleep, because they want to take in a child.

No, we are not talking just perfect children. We are talking special needs children. Children with disabilities of every kind. There are parents that want to adopt those children.

And so when I look at the policy that is coming down the pike here in our Nation's Capitol or we are looking at reviving this policy of having the American taxpayer pay for international abortions, my heart breaks. It breaks because it's all so unnecessary. It's unnecessary because there is love. There are homes. There are men, there are women that want to offer the positive alternative.

For years, one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, Joe Pitts, offered legislation called the Positive Alternatives Act. He was gracious to allow me to offer that bill last year. I offer it again now this year. It says to the men and women of America who are in a pregnancy that maybe they didn't count on that there's another way. Abortion isn't the only answer. There's a positive alternative.

Can we allow tax money, your tax money, the American people, to go to pay for international abortions? Shouldn't we allow your tax money to go to offer to pay for positive alternatives for men and women, to offer them counseling, hope. Isn't this the time of hope and change? Let's offer true hope and change that will make an eternal difference in the lives of America's next generation.

We have lost 50 million. We have lost 50 million Americans. Part of the generation that would be up and working right now to build this country into a better Nation, but we have lost them to eternity. We have lost them.

I say we have a chance now for true hope and true change, to have a positive alternative so that tax money won't be spent just on death, but tax money now could be to offer life, a true positive choice. That is why I am so grateful to my colleague from New Jersey, the wonderful Representative Chris Smith, because for years and years and years he has known, he has fought. He gets it.

The next generation needs us. They need our voice. And that is why I am so grateful that I can be a Member of Congress, to make that message now and to make that plea with my beloved colleague, just to beg our colleagues to join us. If we can offer death, certainly our country is good enough to offer life.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer an amendment to the bill before us, H.R. 384, which would strike the bill's misguided provisions that, in effect, water down important taxpayer protections in the hope for homeowners----

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I am going in order of the amendments. I am going in order of the amendments as they're offered.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I am going according to the rule.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

No, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 384, which would strike the bill's misguided provisions that would water down the important taxpayer protections in the Hope for Homeowners Program.

When the majority created this program, Mr. Chair, 3 months ago, it was not that long ago, Mr. Chair, they promised that it would help a lofty 400,000 families who were behind on mortgage payments and possibly facing foreclosure.

This was a worthy goal, Mr. Chairman, but it seems that the majority created a government program for which there has been very little public demand.

With a little over 300 applications in the pipeline, it's clear that this program has been an enormous waste of time, of energy, of money and of other taxpayer resources. Just 12 days ago, Mr. Chair, as of January 3, 2009, the Hope for Homeowners Program, which cost taxpayers $300 billion, can be credited with helping, not 400,000 families, just 13 families actually refinance.

So what will the majority do? How far will they go to prove that their failing program is a success and not a boondoggle?

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, today we are seeing the answer before this body. My Democrat colleagues are willing to strip out the essential taxpayer protections in an effort to spur more participation in this program.

Mr. Chair, we are talking about taxpayer protections which were already weak at their very best light. In the underlying bill, they are virtually nonexistent. The people who will benefit, the participants, will no longer be required to pay any up-front premiums. In other words, Mr. Chair, they will have no skin in the game, which was originally required to help sustain this program.

The annual premiums are even significantly decreased under H.R. 384 and, in fact, the Federal Housing Administration is given the authority to weigh them all together whenever they see fit.

These two mechanisms were common sense. They were regularly touted, with all due respect, by our Chairman Frank and other supporters of Hope for Homeowners as important safeguards to protect the taxpayers when the program was established. We agreed to that.

Yet today they seek to eliminate those protections from title V. Additionally, title V removes the requirement in the current program that ensures taxpayers will receive a home equity appreciation share as payment for the taxpayers' investment through Hope for Homeowners.

In other words, people will be permitted to receive assistance from the government to pay their mortgages, but should their home values rise, they can make a profit, and they won't have to give anything back to those same taxpayers who lent them a helping hand in the first place to keep their home.

Our chairman, again, explained this issue best once upon a time when our chairman stated you are not going to get a program approved that helps people refinance loans on their homes and then allows them to turn around the following year and make a profit on that home. However, that's exactly the direction that the bill before us, H.R. 384, takes for this program.

This bill scales back the haircut that lenders must take to participate in Hope for Homeowners from 90 percent to 93 percent of the loan-to-value ratio, but it simultaneously removes the already weak taxpayer protections that are in the program.

This provision also authorizes payments to servicers for every loan ensured under the Hope For Homeowners Program.

While I too have concerns that some servicers may not be refinancing loans as quickly or as often as they could, this is real. The bill's language, unfortunately, is so vague, Mr. Chairman, so open ended, that servicers could be paid billions of dollars in return for refinancing loans.

This provision essentially increases the risk to the cost of the taxpayers while reducing the burden on investors and servicers to submit bad loans to the government for modification, not the direction we want to go, I submit.

Title V also allows taxpayer dollars authorized under TARP to be used to further fund Hope for Homeowners should it run out of the 300 billion the program has already received. What that means is that this bill gives an already failing government program an unlimited supply of tax dollars under TARP should they run out of money. Now how in the world does this make sense for American taxpayers?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just finish this sentence.

At the very least shouldn't we wait to see how the current $300 billion, yes, billion, should be spent.

If this is near the end of my time, Mr. Chair, I would submit my remarks for the Record.

It's as if the Democrats are predicting that their own program will face a shortfall due to re-defaults or some other course of events. At the very least, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. With an unlimited supply of funds on which to draw, there will be no incentive to improve and HOPE for Homeowners will continue to bleed taxpayers dry without any benefit to the homeowners it is meant to help.

Mr. Chair, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston recently stated that the HOPE for Homeowners program has been a failure, in part, because ``Congress dotted the i's and crossed the t's for [HUD], and unfortunately it has made this program tough to use.''

Yet here we are again watching Democrats legislate their way to the impossible--only this time they have rejected even the appearance of protecting taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and restore what little taxpayer protection was in place in the HOPE for Homeowners program.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009. While I support the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and its continued reauthorization, the proposal before the House today reauthorizes this program in an irresponsible manner, at a time when the American people need responsible government more than ever.

As you know, I recently joined many of my Republican colleagues in a letter to you, Madam Speaker, and to President-elect Obama asking that any reauthorization of SCHIP contain commonsense provisions to ensure that the program's mission is fulfilled. For instance, SCHIP is meant to ensure that children without means can gain access to health care. The program is designed to cover them first, before extending coverage to children whose families may be able to afford coverage. Unfortunately, the bill with which we have been presented includes no requirement that states focus the funds in this bill on low-income children. There is a likelihood that the failure to include such a provision will lead to funds being diverted from the children who need them most, particularly in the states that have expanded their SCHIP programs most dramatically.

Another concern that I have is the impact of this legislation on the private insurance market and the families who depend upon it. In scoring this legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 2.4 million people will drop their existing private insurance, opting instead for the public program. This ``crowding out'' will constrict the health insurance pool and further increase the cost of private insurance for millions more. Given the ranks of Americans who already cannot afford health insurance, this is the last thing the American people need.

There are other concerns that I have with this bill and with the way it is being pushed through with so little debate and no opportunity for amendment. While the House leadership has again promised that it will work in a bipartisan fashion, bringing both sides of the aisle together to build consensus legislation, this promise has turned out to be nothing more than empty to the American public. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding a few minutes to me.

It's a tremendous honor to be able to sit on the Financial Services Committee. It's been the center of the universe the last 2 years dealing with this crisis that's very real that is impacting not only individuals but businesses, people who are looking at the loss of their life savings, loss of their greatest capital asset: their home. We know that this is a strong reality. But we also realize the magnitude of the tremendous amount of taxpayer resources that have been devoted to this effort.

Initially we were told by the Treasury Secretary that in effect a financial Armageddon would ensue if this body did not, in fact, pass a bailout of gargantuan proportions. We were told $700 billion is what the Treasury Secretary would need to have in order to offer an effective front to stave off, in essence, the four horsemen of the apocalypse for our financial markets.

We've seen a tremendous roller coaster occur in 2008 regarding our financial markets. For the first $350 billion, the first tranche going forward, what have we seen? This week in the Financial Services Committee, we had testimony before our committee from the administration. Questions were asked: Where has the first $350 billion gone? Who are the recipients of the first $350 billion? What did the money get spent on? What were the answers that we received? What is the effectiveness of that money? Did the American taxpayer receive value for $350 billion that's already been expended?

Mr. Chairman, not only did we not receive answers to those questions, we didn't receive answers to the very basic question of what will the next administration do with this next request for $350 billion? We don't have a full accounting of that either. And what is the reason? Again, Mr. Chairman, we're told to do just exactly what we were told with the last $350 billion: Trust me. Trust me. That didn't work so well for us last time. We were rushed into this. There wasn't oversight. There weren't strings attached. Once again with the next $350 billion, this Congress is being told that we will have to go out and borrow $350 billion because the American people need to know we don't have $350 billion in the bank right now, or like my father-in-law says to my mother-in-law, ``Elma, I have to go to the backyard and shake the money tree to get the money out.'' There isn't money there in the bank. We have to go and borrow money that we don't have. And who pays that back? It's the American taxpayer. I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to have some very basic answers to our questions before we go forward with this extraordinary request.

We are being forced to vote without details on how this $350 billion will be spent, but the trouble is we haven't held even a single hearing on the merits or the necessity of releasing the second tranche because the House is proceeding as though the decision has already been made to release the second $350 billion without holding any substantial debate on whether or not such a release is the appropriate step for stabilizing the financial markets and getting these markets moving again.

Congress handed the Treasury Secretary a $700 billion blank check. Let's just be clear about that. The original bailout was passed, and we were told that the $700 billion was essentially a big number. It was picked out of thin air, but it was needed to calm the markets. Now, I think most Americans

would be appalled to learn that that was the truth. But we also need to recognize the United States Treasury doesn't even have to spend every penny of that money. Many experts, even Secretary Paulson himself, stated that was the case.

But here we are again and the House is moving forward with a preemptive decision that jumps ahead of this very fundamental question, and it's this: Is it even necessary to release the second tranche for the state of our financial markets?

We remain unconvinced, many of us, that the case hasn't even been made that it is. This bill is attempting to make sweeping changes to the way that TARP must operate. I would agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that TARP has very serious flaws, many of which were predicted by many of us on both sides of the aisle, and we should look at ways to address the flaws.

But Congress should not be forced to rush to vote on this bill the way that we are being forced to rush on it today. Congress was rushed into this gargantuan decision, and we need to take the time to be deliberative.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is about to embark upon another corporate bailout--this time for Detroit's Big Three automakers--without any assurances to the taxpayers that it won't be back for more. In fact, from all news reports, while this bailout comes with a starting price of $15 billion, Congressional leadership negotiating the deal fully expects that this is just the beginning and that taxpayers will be hit up again in the new year.

Though the already-passed $700-billion Wall Street bailout has had little to no success, Congress is about to go down this same road again. And, it appears that it does so with few qualms about the impact of its actions on hard-pressed taxpayers.

We hear promises of strict oversight and accountability measures--but who does the Congress think it's kidding?

Already two nonpartisan, independent panels have lambasted Treasury for its execution of the current bailout scheme. The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) scathing report about the Federal Government's poor oversight says it all in the title: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency.

Why should taxpayers expect the government's oversight of this bailout be any different?

Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Congress has chosen to blindly oblige Big Labor at

every turn, regardless of whether it's in the best interest of taxpayers.

They have dismissed consideration of alternative proposals that could truly restructure these companies over the long-term and help them rein in costs.

They don't want Ford, GM and Chrysler to reorganize under the protection of the bankruptcy courts, even if it would save them without a taxpayer bailout, because it means that they would actually make structural changes and renegotiate labor contracts without the threat of outside lawsuits.

The Democrats have already spent more than a trillion dollars in bailouts this year--why not a few billion more?

Mr. Speaker, the hardworking men and women in America did not sign up for this.

They did not turn over their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam just so Congress can dole it out to unaccountable companies that made poor business decisions for years.

Throwing taxpayer money at Detroit's spiraling problems will not fix their long-term management and productivity troubles and they will only be back for more time and time again.

Congress should not look the other way and put the taxpayers, and their children and grandchildren, on the hook for billions more in unaccountable spending.

Madam Speaker, I rise to share a story of two true public servants, Jack and Genevieve Chapman of Minnesota. As we enter a season when people's hearts and minds are turned to the spirit of giving, these two people have lived a life of selflessness and charity.

Jack Chapman of St. Paul was recognized by the Army as a Shot Expert Rifleman as an ROTC high school student. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, he was an electrical engineering student at the University of Minnesota. One year later, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and was sent to the prestigious Bellevue Radio Materiel School at the U.S. Naval Research Lab. His lifelong love of Ham radio made him a perfect candidate for the new science of radar. He was assigned to the Marine Night Fighters in the South Pacific, the very first to use radar at night. He earned two Bronze Service Stars on the Asiatic-Pacific campaign ribbon. Jack also earned the American Theater Campaign Bar before being honorably discharged to return home and complete his college education.

Genevieve Christgau of Minneapolis pursued a nursing degree and became a registered nurse working in the operating room at Asbury Hospital. Her status as essential personnel kept her from joining the Army Nurse Corps. But, as soon as her status changed, she enlisted and was assigned to the 77th Field Hospital in December 1944. Her tour took her to France where she worked with soldiers preparing to return home. Many had come from POW camps and were suffering severe malnutrition. Before her honorable discharge and return to the States, Genevieve was stationed in Nuremburg, Germany. When she returned home, she resumed nursing; this time in the Veterans Hospital in Minneapolis. During the Cuban Refugee Crisis, she worked at Fort McCoy, WI, and she earned certification as a Public Health Nurse, helping provide early childhood screenings and school nursing services.

Genevieve and Jack married on February 18, 1949 and continued to live a life of service. Both are active volunteers at Pax Christi Catholic Church. They also have been members of ``Friday Friends,'' a group that visits Presbyterian Homes, formerly the Eagle Nursing Home, and of Bridging, an organization that provides household furniture and goods to those who need them most. Always putting their family at the center of their generous spirits, they have raised seven children, giving them 16 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

These two fine people have lived a life of service to their country, their community, and their family. They are two of the many unsung heroes that make America work, and today I rise to sing their praises and to thank them for their selflessness.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I also want to thank the Speaker of the House for making the case why so many Republicans are unwilling at this point to sign on to this legislation that's before us. However, I do believe also, Madam Speaker, that Democrats and Republicans are both committed to finding a way out of this financial challenge, and we think we have one. But the answer we believe needn't cost taxpayers $700 billion.

The problem is a lack of credit for creditworthy people, people who are fully capable of paying that credit back. Why is there a lack of credit? It's because the SEC has mandated accounting rules that have forced banks to value assets well below their actual economic value.

So what does this mean? It means that if a bank has $1 worth of deposits, they can make $10 in loans. But if accounting rules are forcing banks to devalue assets, $500 billion, then that means that banks are prohibited from making $5 trillion worth of loans. And that's why we have a credit crunch.

Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us today doesn't even address this credit crisis.

Let's first direct the SEC to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules for assets for which there is no market. That only makes sense. Second, stop naked short selling. Then the FDIC can issue net asset certificates that saved banks during the S&L crisis and the FDIC can write a letter to United States banks telling them in the absence of fraud that the FDIC will fully back all deposits for first-tier creditors.

Let's try these practical solutions before we pull the trigger on a $700 billion bailout that doesn't even address the underlying program.

Today, Madam Speaker, Republicans and Democrats agree. It's time for a rest. It's time for a break. Let's embrace a practical solution before we tie a $700 billion bailout around the neck of the American people.

Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2008, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act (roll No. 622). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue, which is perhaps the most important vote that Members will take during their entire congressional career. I know for me, this is my first term in Congress. This is the pivotal vote that I will be taking. And my heart has been breaking. I have been despairing over this vote that is coming before us not because I am afraid to take the vote but because I am despairing over what could be the outcome because I grieve over the fact that we may reject, for the first time in the history of our country, in a wholesale manner, free markets, free answers and free capitalism.

And what that means is freedom. And there is nothing more important in this country than freedom. It's why a mom would put her 5-year-old in an inner tube in Havana and brave the shark-infested waters for 90 miles to get to Florida so that she could see her son enjoy something she never knew. And that is a concept called ``freedom.''

And what does that have to do with the bailout? It has everything to do with the bailout because what this bailout represents is the wholesale leap downward towards socialism, towards saying that we can never have failure again. Nobody can ever have a bad day. Congress has to jump in and make it right every time, because government has to take up risk and back up everybody's risk.

I wrote something earlier this week that I would like to share in the course of my remarks this evening. When Bear Stearns hit bottom in March of this year in 2008, the credit crisis claimed the first big Wall Street victim. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, we had to bail out this bleeding financial giant at the cost to the taxpayers of $29 billion. Even for Washington that is a lot of money. Secretary Paulson said that would stabilize the markets. But it didn't.

Next, Treasury Paulson said that we had to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All roads in this big fat mess go through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is a monster of ugly proportions created by the government. That should be our first lesson. Government should never create a private business. But it created this private monstrosity and then decided it would back up with a wink and a nod any risky, hare-brained loan or mortgage-backed security that Fannie and Freddie came up with.

The starting price of that bailout was $200 billion and climbing. And that is on top of $300 billion that was passed by Congress only a month or so earlier in another massive housing bailout bill. We were told then that this would surely calm the markets. But it didn't.

Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke then siphoned $85 billion from taxpayer coffers to save another private company known as AIG from bankruptcy, and again with the stated purpose of stabilizing the markets. Did it do the trick this time? No. Things appear only to have gotten worse.

More than $600 billion into these market-calming bailouts, the market turmoil has only ramped up. And it's continuing. In fact, it has now grown to such an incredible crescendo that here we are tonight, and the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chair has told Congress, in no uncertain terms by the way, that we must spend another $700 billion in taxpayer funds. We are told we must do this now, without delay, without deliberation, as Congressman Garrett has said, without answers to most of our questions.

This would bring the bailout tally to well over $1 trillion, now that is real money, even for Washington, approaching half the size of America's entire budget.

In other words, every American who has played it safe and has played it smart to avoid being in debt is now being asked to spend the rest of his or her life paying off the debts of Washington and the debts of some miscreants on Wall Street. We are well on our way to privatizing profit but socializing risk. And we are well on our way to eliminating moral hazard from economics altogether. This is antithetical not only to the free-market basis of the United States economy, but also to the rich heritage of liberty, that is called freedom, that we've long enjoyed. It runs counter to the American Dream, to what we hold dear, unless you're a fat cat that is rolling the dice with taxpayers' money. Then who cares?

American taxpayers are chumps here in this equation because American taxpayers are being asked to clean up a mess that the American taxpayer didn't create. Congress must not rush to judgment on this matter. We can't do that. It's a complicated issue. That is true. This isn't easy for any of us to sort out. All Members of Congress, I think, are going through a crash course in a Ph.D. in high finance all within less than 1 week's time. And the consequences could threaten generations with lack of prosperity.

We can't just stick a $1 trillion Band-aid on that problem. We don't have that kind of money in our back pocket, because after all, when Uncle Sam opens his cash box this week, there are no greenbacks in there. There are only feathers flying out that cash box.

We have to examine the root causes of this problem. And we have to seek to address the core issues. It's real simple. Government got involved where it shouldn't get involved. We spent more money than what we had. It's not too tough to figure out. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before we find ourselves right back where we were.

The recklessness of government is the primary culprit here. Once again, just like on energy, it is Congress that created this problem. For years Congress has been pushing banks to make risky subprime loans. You heard me right. It wasn't the lenders on their own. Congress passed laws that said we're going to fine you and we're going to file lawsuits against you lenders if you don't make risky loans. And using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton administration. Republicans aren't completely lily-white here with hands. The Clinton administration however ramped this up. And banks that didn't play ball were subjected to serious fines and lawsuits, and regulatory obstacles were placed in their way.

Expanding access to the American Dream is a worthy goal. We all agree with that. But by blindly pursuing that goal and allowing the end to justify means, we put millions of Americans today at financial risk. Although we question what that risk might be.

Because many of these home loans are backed by mammoth government- sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac, kind of like your weird uncle and weird aunt, Wall Street was more than happy to trade on these egregious loans. The assumption, which was proven right, was that Uncle Sam would guarantee them. Fannie and Freddie quickly grew too big. And all calls to regulate them, made even in fact by this administration, more closely to reform their structures were ignored, ignored I would say by the current Chair of the House Financial Services Committee of which I'm privileged to serve on.

In fact, leaders in Congress such as Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, resisted reforming Fannie and Freddie at every turn. When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded before Chairman Frank before his committee for Fannie and Freddie reform, the chairman responded, ``Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially.'' O, that Barney Frank were right. But Treasury Secretary Snow was right.

And millions of homes and a mountain of wealth were built on a foundation of sand. And when the housing bubble burst, it all began to collapse. And suddenly, the homeowners who took out loans that they couldn't afford had homes that were worth less than when they bought them. And stalwart financial giants were left holding on to billions in securities that they just couldn't cash, what are called ``illiquid assets'' that you read about in your morning paper. And without liquidity and without the free flow of credit, the market ground to a halt, and companies began to buckle.

Endless government bailouts will not prevent this crisis from repeating itself. We need to remember that. It will further cement the precedent that got us here in the first place. There are other options to bringing much-needed liquidity to the market, including infusing the market with new capital by suspending the business tax and the capital gains tax.

Also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to be dismantled and quick. Now that the implicit taxpayer guarantee that they enjoyed for years has been made permanent, we have to make a clean break with them.

Accounting that artificially devalued securities and other assets could be temporarily suspended. And before Congress jumps to a full trillion dollar plus bailout, it should explore these and other market reforms. Congress should look for the best way to provide the greatest stabilization in the markets with the least taxpayer exposure.

And that is where House Republicans come in. We do not want the American taxpayer to bail out this $700 billion tab. It isn't about Wall Street. It's about this street, Washington, D.C. The Congress created this problem. For 2 years, the Democrat-controlled Congress, while this head of steam has been building, has failed to dismantle Freddie and Fannie. They have failed to dismantle the Community Reinvestment Act.

But the real issue here is the forgotten man. That is the issue. It's the forgotten man. It's the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer. Who is going to be left to bail him out?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House considered and passed H.R. 6353, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. This legislation will ensure that purchasers of potentially dangerous prescription drugs are evaluated face-to-face by a physician, removing the potentially dangerous anonymity inherent in the current federal regulations which allow prescriptions to be written based on a telephone call or online questionnaire.

To be sure, online pharmaceuticals makes it possible for millions of Americans to conveniently and affordably access the prescription medications on which they rely. However, the online system of prescribing and dispensing medication has been accompanied by a disturbing increase in the level of harm and death due to prescription drugs. This increase is, in large part, a result of the current federal guidelines that allow online pharmacies to write prescriptions for patients based on a telephone conversation with a physician or a simple online questionnaire, empowering patients to diagnose and prescribe for themselves virtually any drug and dosage they desire. Without the necessary information for adequate oversight by a qualified physician, many people have been exposed to dangerous and, all too often, deadly medications.

In response, many states have enacted laws requiring that individuals seeking access to powerful medications such as Vicoden and Xanax be evaluated in person before being prescribed a controlled substance. For example, in my state of Minnesota, the legislature and governor have recently worked together to establish Justin's Law. Named for a vibrant young man whose bright future was cut short by an overdose of prescription painkillers obtained through an internet pharmacy without a physician visit, Justin's Law has already been implemented to hold illicit online pharmacies accountable.

That said, the lives affected by online pharmacies are not limited to a particular state, and moreover, the interstate nature of the commerce conducted via the internet warrants that legislation be enacted at the federal level to help protect online consumers. As a result, I applaud my colleague, Congressman Stupak for introducing H.R. 6353. This legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, will help stem the dangerous tide of controlled substances being dispensed without adequate supervision.

Madam Speaker, over the weekend Secretary Paulson asked taxpayers to pony up an astonishing $700 billion to buy financial services sector debt on top of the existing bailouts that are already implemented this year. All told, that amounts to an astonishing $1.5 trillion.

Spending at this proportion doesn't just impact a fiscal year, it will impact generations of prosperity. We are told that the consequences of inaction, even of deliberative action, will be severe, but I am concerned that the consequences of hasty action could be just as dire. I have had hundreds of constituents call my office, as have my colleagues, over the last 2 days, asking this question. They are all expressing skepticism for this plan.

They remain unconvinced, as I remain unconvinced, that they will get much result for their investment. We should not be in the habit of writing blank checks. We should not rush to take action in a week when the consequences could last several lifetimes, because the forgotten man in all of this is the everyday American taxpayer.

It's with them in mind that we should fully focus on our responsibilities and not rush to judgment because of an artificial deadline.

Madam Speaker, this weekend, the professional pipefitters of St. Cloud Local No. 539 and contractors from the Minnesota Mechanical Contractors Association will head out to 30-40 local homes to provide free furnace service for low-income, senior, and disabled homeowners. They are putting

their skills and experience to work to help those who are less fortunate in our community.

Maintaining a furnace is a very important household task. An inefficient furnace can cost a family hundreds of extra dollars each year--and the winters get pretty cold in Minnesota. With energy prices already high and with food and other costs skyrocketing as well, few can make room in their tight budgets for those hundreds of dollars. And, this is especially true of seniors and others on fixed incomes.

The free services provided by these professionals, however, not only help save money, but also help save lives. By installing detectors during their inspections, they will help keep so many people from exposure to life-threatening levels of carbon monoxide.

For 22 years, HEATS ON has provided more than 25,000 hours of services to more than 6200 households. While the money value on these services exceeds $2.7 million, the real value is so much greater. And, I commend these men and women for their work and their dedication to their community.