Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to unexpected circumstances, I am speaking at the funeral of a family friend back in my district today. As a result, I am unable to vote on the remaining Floor proceedings for the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173). In order to fully clarify my positions on the votes I will miss, I would have voted as follows: Kanjorski Amendment No. 51: ``no''; McCarthy Amendment No. 168: ``aye''; Peters Amendment No. 22: ``no''; Conyers/Marshall Amendment No. 201: ``no''; Schakowsky Amendment No. 209: ``no''; Minnick Amendment No. 88: ``aye''; Bachus Amendment No. 87: ``aye''; Motion to Recommit: ``aye''; Final Passage of H.R. 4173; ``no''.

I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for the time.

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

``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the precedents and traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

Mr. Speaker, I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take credit for them, because I did not write them. My staff did not write them nor did the Republican staff of the Rules Committee. In fact, so far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in this House of Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat-run Rules Committee, Mr. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

He spoke these exact words on the floor over 2 years ago regarding what he eloquently and accurately called a ``martial law rule,'' which is what we're being asked to consider here today. We're being asked to consider this outrageous process on the House floor today, yet the Democratic Party knows it's not the right thing to do. It was not right then and it's not right now. My friends on the other side of the aisle know it's not right, and that's why they spoke up at the time, and I agree with them.

Last month, the Democrat majority barreled a 2,037-page health care bill through Congress forcing government-run health care on every single American. Today, in similar form, they are considering a 1,300- page Federal takeover of the financial services industry, 1,300 pages. This is simply another example of the government overstepping its boundary into the private market courtesy of the Democratic Party.

This monstrous financial reform package includes provisions to extend TARP, make Federal bailout authority permanent, and allow bureaucrats to determine the types of financial products that will be made available to consumers and set the salaries of private sector employees.

This bill does nothing to help create private sector jobs or to provide financial relief to Americans in these tough times, which should be Congress's number one priority. But not this majority.

Over the past 3 years, America has witnessed a reckless multitrillion dollar spending binge by this Democrat-controlled Congress with more borrowing, more taxing, and more spending. The Treasury Department has reported the total deficit for fiscal year 2009 reached a record $1.4 trillion. This is nine times the size of the deficit when the Democrats first took control of Congress.

Despite the Obama administration and congressional Democrats' promise that their trillion dollar ``stimulus'' plan would create jobs and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, the Department of Labor once again reported an unemployment level of 10 percent. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, the number of unemployed persons has doubled to 15.4 million people, and this is only what is being reported.

It's time to stop the bailouts. It's time to get the government out of business industry takeovers, and it's time to stop killing jobs. Unfortunately, this bill we are considering today puts the American people on the hook once again for one of the greatest expansions of Federal Government in the history of United States while doing nothing to create jobs.

The first major provision of this bill was best summarized by a Democratic Congressman, Brad Sherman from California, as ``TARP on steroids.'' It

creates a permanent bailout authority for the Federal Government by assessing $150 billion in new taxes on American businesses that will ultimately result in higher interest rates and higher fees for consumers.

Most disastrous, however, is that this tax, according to the minority on the Financial Services Committee will shrink available credit by as much as $55 billion and result in the loss of as many as 450,000 more American jobs in the financial services area.

Congress should be focusing on doing things to create jobs, not to tax investors, the financial services, and destroy jobs. This is the core difference between my Republican colleagues and our friends the Democrats in Congress.

Republicans believe it's time to allow business to pay back TARP funds, knock down TARP authority, and pay down the debt with returning the money to the taxpayer. Our friends the Democrats want to create a perpetual TARP-like fund, a bottomless treasure chest to continue their happy spending ways.

In an effort to thwart this trend and to protect American workers from job-killing provisions in this bill, I introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee last night which would eliminate this legislation if the Government Accounting Office finds that the provisions of this bill would kill 1 million or more jobs. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my friends that are Democrats, were really serious about this, they would have made this amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, on a party-line basis, even when the facts of the case said if this bill is going to destroy a million or more jobs, every single Democrat said don't include that as a provision in this bill because politics are more important than policy in this House.

I think we can all agree that protecting consumers is an essential role for Congress. Ensuring consumer safety is absolutely necessary for a successful, prosperous economy. Yet one of the most far-reaching provisions of this bill is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This CFPA is a classic example of the government's overstepping its authority into the free enterprise system simply to make government bigger and to further control the free enterprise system and free market.

This massive new agency will be led by a credit czar, yet another czar, who will have unprecedented, unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers, impose fees on consumer products, and rule over financial transactions. The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers, reduce the number and type of products available to them, increase the micromanagement of financial services firms, greatly increase the confusion caused by conflicting consumer laws, and ensure the demise of American competitiveness around the world.

In addition to the CFPA, this bill provides for the greatest Federal expansion of the Federal Reserve since the central bank's creation almost a hundred years ago.

Mr. Speaker, Americans pride themselves on the free enterprise system, the free market, and choices. Yet Congress once again today will pass legislation that increases government control and interference in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choice, and dictates wages and projects as well as prices involved.

In a time of economic recession, with record unemployment and record deficits, I think--and the Republican Party thinks--Congress should be enacting legislation to grow our economy and to help with the creation of jobs, not to destroy jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear; our Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system once again.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation because Republicans K-N-O-W what our Democrat colleagues are trying to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very interesting that my Democrat colleagues are saying that Republicans handed them this big mess, which they couldn't wait to get, and they have made it worse. They're acting like they made it better. They have diminished the employment in this country, they have raised spending 85 percent in the last 2 years, and they are making this problem even worse. They begged for a chance to get their hands on this. They're doing it the way they wanted, and it's making matters worse for this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Topeka, Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

How much time is the gentleman willing to give me, 1 minute?

I appreciate the opportunity.

The gentleman knows that the surplus was literally trillions of dollars, and that is always a guesstimate in the future of where we exist. The gentleman knows that on 9/11 of 2001 there was a surplus in this country. On 9/11 of 2001, this country was struck by a group of terrorists who intended to harm our financial economy.

Well, this is what I was talking about. The gentleman said he would give me enough----

I will answer the gentleman if he will allow me a full answer.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, the gentleman will be able to vote for Mr. Bachus' amendment, which says exactly the right thing to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

I appreciate the gentleman for asking. In fact, I do have two further speakers who are expected. Neither are here at this time, but I intend to consume that time.

I appreciate the gentleman for providing such information, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On Monday, my colleagues and I sent a more recent letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner, which was a followup to a letter that had been sent by many, many Republican Members of Congress to adhere to the December 31 TARP expiration date and to dedicate all returning funds to reducing the public debt. We had sent Secretary Geithner a letter on December 7, 2009, which spoke about how the original concept of TARP--the Troubled Asset Relief Program, that which we know as TARP--should be implemented and used.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 7, 2009.

Hon. Timothy Geithner,

Secretary of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Geithner: As the December 31, 2009 deadline

for the end of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)

approaches, we urge you to adhere to this expiration date and

decline to use your authority to extend TARP into 2010. As

additional preferred shares are repurchased and dividends and

interest are collected, we also urge you to dedicate all

returned funds and other revenue to reducing the national

debt.

During a recent Congressional hearing you stated that you

were working to ``put the TARP out of its misery.'' We

support your intention and believe putting the program ``out

of its misery'' entails nothing less than ending the

disbursement of any remaining TARP funds on December 31,

2009.

The purpose of TARP was to provide immediate support and

emergency stabilization to the financial system. Regardless

of whether we voted for or against TARP, we believe the

financial system is now significantly stabilized compared

with the situation from a year ago. While there will continue

to be ups and downs as the economy recovers, the federal

government does not need a dedicated support fund for the

financial system. In order for the government to exit from

the unprecedented interventions of the past year and a half,

the government must first stop spending funds on more

interventions.

When TARP was enacted, the public debt limit was increased

to $11.3 trillion. Since January, the national debt has

increased more than $1.4 trillion, and Congress is now set to

consider a debt limit increase of up to $13.2 trillion, the

fourth debt limit increase since July 2008. Not spending the

remaining TARP funds, $246 billion according to the last

SIGTARP quarterly report, will reduce the already staggering

amount our nation is borrowing.

SIGTARP also reported repayments of $72.9 billion, $9.5

billion from dividends and interest and $2.9 billion in

proceeds from sale of warrants, and we understand $45 billion

more in repayment is pending. All of these TARP receipts and

future receipts must be devoted to debt reduction rather than

spent on further government interventions or other programs.

While estimates vary on the final cost to the taxpayers from

TARP, all estimates are that the taxpayers will lose billions

of dollars and that there will be no profit from TARP.

Ensuring every dime of income goes to debt reduction reduces

the taxpayers' ultimate loss.

The first TARP program, the Capital Purchase Program,

offered taxpayers the greatest opportunity to recover their

investment. Additional programs added to TARP, such as

assistance to the automakers and AIG, carry much less

assurance for the taxpayers, and the mortgage modification

program will result in no recoupment for the taxpayers. The

longer the remaining unspent TARP funds and revenue remain on

the table, the more money that will be spent and not

recovered. The emergency has ended, and TARP must end as

well.

The taxpayers understand the difference between ending TARP

on December 31 and setting aside a portion of unspent funds

as some type of reserve. They know the difference between

devoting all repaid funds, dividends and other income to debt

reduction and using just some of these funds for debt

reduction and spending the rest. In the interest of our

nation's fiscal health and the certainty for the financial

system that comes with knowing the government is done with

this intervention, we urge your consideration of our request

and await your response.

Sincerely,

Randy Neugebauer, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Spencer

Bachus, Mike Pence, Adam Putnam, J. Gresham Barrett,

John P. Carter, Tom Price, Kenny Marchant, Pete

Sessions, Wally Herger, Ron Paul, Joe Wilson.

The bottom line is that the money which was debated on this floor, passed on this floor, passed by the United States Senate, and signed by the former President had a very clear understanding about the money that would be spent and about the money that would be returned. I believe that Secretary Geithner should respond to this letter to let this body know and to let these signers of this letter know how he intends to approach this TARP money that is being returned.

There was a report earlier in the week that virtually 90 percent of this money had been repaid. Yet what we see in this bill is some $200 billion more in a permanent fund which would be established. You and I both recognize that $200 billion more going in behalf of and spent would simply extend our deficit. Our deficit in 2007 was $161 billion. The deficit in 2009 is $1.4 trillion. This is a nine-times growth since our friends, the Democrats, have taken control of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this country was not attacked like we were on 9/11. We have

not had another Katrina. We have not had the things which have been natural disasters, which were dealt with by the Republicans in the majority. This is pure and simple spending that has taken place and that has been raised 85 percent in the last 2 years. To say that someone has laid that at the doorstep and has raised the deficit spending from $161 billion in 2007 to $1.4 trillion in 2009, and yet has blamed that on anyone else other than the people who voted for it, which is the Democrat majority, would be a misnomer. That is mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California, Congressman Royce.

I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, coming down to provide us an update on the reality of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here arguing about deficits and who is responsible for what, and who is guilty of acting like a drunk sailor and who is spending money. The bottom line is that it is true, George Bush and Republicans during 8 years had some deficits. The largest was in 2008, some $415 billion. The first year of the Democrats' spending spree, over a $1.4 trillion deficit. Republicans seem to create jobs. Some 5.3 million jobs were created within this deficit that occurred.

Our friends, the Democrats, massive unemployment, massive spending, massive deficits. Those are the facts of the case. This shows where we are headed, the American people know it, and that's why there is an outcry all across this country to stop what is happening, even today, with a bill that will lose 400,000 more jobs.

Look, I get it. I know that the Speaker's political agenda, the three biggest items, health care, cap-and-trade and card check will not lose 10 million more American jobs. I get that, but so do the American people. The Republican Party is saying, let's not lose 400,000 more jobs with the passage of this massive takeover of the financial services industry. We don't have the votes to stop it, but there are a lot of skid marks in the concrete today to say we shouldn't be doing this. We don't have the votes to stop it, but we are saying let's be careful because we know, k-n-o-w, where you are headed.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think while it's important to provide consumer

safety and security in the marketplace, our constituents are more concerned with the economy and the jobs. They see this as a massive government takeover, and the industry knows exactly what it is also.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are simply looking for more problems so they can put their government takeover solutions in place. Week after week, we come to the House floor to debate bills, bills that kill our economy, diminish jobs and put us further into debt, whether it's cap-and-trade or health care. Now today the government takeover of the financial sector with the Barney Frank bill, we are talking about hundreds of thousands and soon to be millions of jobs at a time of record unemployment.

We ask the Democrat majority to please just put a caveat in here that if this bill were going to lose more than 1 million jobs, let's not do it. The Democrats on a party-line basis have said, Look, pal, our agenda is more important than any facts of the case about losing jobs.

The Republican Party is on the floor here today asking that we defeat this rule, defeat this bill, defeat the things which are going on which will encourage more borrowing, more taxing, more spending, record deficits, record unemployment, and, of course, making sure that the government wins every tie. We disagree with the Democrat majority. We disagree with the politics, the policies, and we disagree with the results.

The Republican Party will be voting ``no'' today, Mr. Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado yielding me the time, and I will use such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do admit, I know the gentleman was not here back in 2003, but on September 11, 2003, President Bush formally asked the Congress for legislation to regulate Freddie and Fannie, seeing a problem that was ahead. The ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Frank, had a quick response that said there is no problem. There is no problem. That's the last thing we should be doing. Their books are clean. They knew that everything was okay. In 2005, just the next session, legislation did pass and was filibustered in the Senate by Democrats, filibustered by Democrats.

To say that the Wild West exists would be a misnomer in financial services terms. There were people who broke the law. There have always been people who break the law. But the people who broke the law knew that they were breaking the law and did so at the expense of other people's money.

But if you want to talk about recession, let's talk about the recession that we are in right now after 3 years of Democratic control in this House of Representatives. Let's talk about 85 percent increase in spending that this body is going to take up a bill today to spend 85 percent more in the last 2 years by this Democrat-controlled Congress. So, I think that we should be very careful about trying to describe a problem when, in fact, someone else is adding to it and making it worse.

Today we are going to consider a 1,300-page bill which will be a Federal takeover of the financial services industry. That is a heck of an answer. An hour ago, I discussed the flaws of the underlying bill, and now you will hear about a number of amendments that

were shut out by our friends, the Democrats. They shut out Democrats. They shut out Republicans. They shut out bipartisan amendments. And here we have on the floor today this massive bill.

I offered a cautionary amendment that would make this bill ineffective if the Government Accountability Office were to find that this bill would kill more than 1 million free enterprise jobs. I stood before the Rules Committee and said that if this bill kills more than 1 million jobs, let's not do it. Forget it. On a party-line vote, my friends in the Rules Committee, the Democrats, voted ``no.'' That's because we are more concerned about politics than we are about the American people, jobs, and the economy.

Also, I offered two commonsense amendments that simply clarify that this bill would not create a bottomless fund for frivolous lawsuits by trial lawyers. The first amendment deals with giving shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation packages. My amendment clarifies that this new vote creates no new private right of action. Without this amendment, trial lawyers will be able to exploit a brand new opportunity to shake down companies for huge payouts. This is a commonsense amendment, and it was rejected by the Rules Committee on a party-line vote. Once again, the Democrats said no, no.

The second amendment I introduced was to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits and simply clarifies that none of the new registration requirements for investment advisers of private funds shall be construed as creating a private right of action. This is a noncontroversial measure, or it should be, seeking to protect investors from frivolous lawsuits, and this, too, was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care more about creating a trial lawyer bonanza than protecting businesses, consumers, our financial systems and certainly the free enterprise system.

In an effort to clarify the intent of the executive compensation provisions, I introduced an amendment that would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring full SEC disclosure about who is financing that purchase to influence votes on this new, congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution. Put simply, this amendment would provide shareholders with access to information about who is trying to influence a vote. Of course not. We would never want to do that. Trial lawyers would hate that. So the Democrat Party up in the Rules Committee, they got it. They complied. No.

As Federal candidates, we are obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation, and amount given by our donors. We require this because public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. This is important. My amendment asks for the same disclosure so that shareholders know who is trying to influence a vote, what people, what organizations, what groups, what consumer advocates, the amount of money, and who is influencing this. Surprisingly, this amendment was also voted down. So much for transparency and the light of day.

The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy and to sustain economic growth and job creation. This legislation does the opposite. It takes a one-size-fits-all approach to governing, undermining U.S. economic competitiveness and business growth. That's why so many business groups oppose this. This Democratic solution will only increase government intervention in the financial markets, ration resources, limit consumer choice, raise taxes, dictate wages, and kill jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear. My Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system while paving the road for trial lawyers and killing American jobs. I guess this is nothing new. We should get used to this.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is made up of a group of Members here in Congress who have various backgrounds, and one of them who I am getting ready to yield to came as a small businessman from a manufacturing firm that employed people, cared about their community and the families that worked therein.

I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado keeps trying to search and search and search and find who to pin this on, this bad economy and the job loss. Well, I would direct the gentleman to something that we have known for a long, long time in this country. The answer is, pin the tail on the donkey.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Eden Prairie, Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Speaker, without challenging the gentleman's words on the floor, I challenge anyone to think that there would be $600 trillion worth of derivatives business that has taken place in this country.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Good, I appreciate the gentleman. It sounds to me like you would like me to go ahead and take the time to close.

I appreciate the gentleman advising me of such.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rockledge, Florida (Mr. Posey).

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, while it's important to provide consumer safety and security in the marketplace, our constituents are more concerned with the economy, the debt and the loss of jobs. When my friends on the other side of the aisle finally

focus on this, I think we are going to start making advances for the American people to reduce our debt and to get back to where we have a growing economy.

Week after week we come to the House floor to debate bills that kill and diminish jobs. It's not what I want to spend my time doing, but, by golly, the Republican Party is going fight the Democrat Party all the way on these job-killing bills, whether it's cap-and-trade, health care, or government takeover of the financial sector. And we are talking about millions of jobs at a time that are coming up for unemployment. The Republican Party will stand up for the American people.

I would like to encourage our friends and Democrats to start listening to the American people. Stop the borrowing, stop the taxing, stop the spending policies, including an 85 percent increase in spending in a 2-year cycle increase, that have led this country to record deficits and record unemployment.

Unfortunately, due to a tragic event that happened back in my home State, I will be unable to be here tomorrow to vote ``no'' on all these bills. I will be attending a funeral tomorrow in Dallas, Texas, of a dear friend. However, if I were here, I would vote ``no''--``no'' on taxing, ``no'' on spending, and ``no'' on bigger government.

So I will encourage my colleagues right now to do the same. Just say ``no.'' We have heard that before. Just say ``no'' to more taxes, more spending, and more unemployment in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 2.

Madam Chair, since 2002, Congress has significantly built upon the budget, the payroll, and the authorities of the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide proper investor and consumer protections. Among the SEC's many responsibilities is handling regulatory disputes, which they were engaged in on a day-to-day basis.

The bill we are considering today once again increases the Securities and Exchange Commission budget by doubling their multibillion dollar budget, by doubling their multibillion dollar budget. My Democratic colleagues claim that the additional monies will provide additional protection for consumers and investors. However, instead of allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission to use these new resources assigned in this legislation to enhance enforcement, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in this bill, assign new private rights of actions to allow trial lawyers to run wild with enforcement capacities.

Madam Chair, I know that my friends, the Democrats, want both bigger government and an open house for trial lawyers. If they double the SEC's budget to ensure the necessary protections, then why would they also open this up to trial lawyers as well?

For these reasons, I have introduced amendment No. 2, which strikes the provisions creating a new private right of action against credit rating agencies. Despite the fact that the SEC is already handling regulatory disputes with no backlog, this new provision allows trial lawyers to take regulatory enforcement into their own hands in the form of frivolous, unnecessary lawsuits. When it comes to a case of fraud, investors already have the right to sue credit rating agencies.

This provision is completely unnecessary, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment to allow the SEC to do their job.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman, my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) to control.

Madam Chairman, my friends who are arguing on behalf of trial lawyers usually argue on behalf of government, and now we're hearing about how government's really not empowered and really not going to do their job. But, at the same time, we look at a lower standard in this bill where we take it from knowingly or recklessly or grossly negligent to just gross negligence, a lower standard. This lower standard is there to help the trial lawyers. Trial lawyers do not build value in this country. They diminish the value.

We need to give the SEC the authority, the responsibility. We're already giving them the money. The SEC will double in size of the amount of money that they get as a result of this bill. We're empowering the SEC to do their job. We should not lower the standard and then allow the trial bar to come after what should be an enforcement action. An enforcement action is what this statute should be all about with the credit rating agencies.

I'll support my amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Parliamentary inquiry.

The question is, could the Speaker please advise us of the time that is being consumed. Does it come off the time that would be allowed in the rule for debate by the gentlewoman from New York?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what is occurring is that the facts of the case are that this has gone beyond the rules of the House in the presentation, and I object and would ask for regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I believe what is occurring now is not only opposed to the House rules but is containing further comment, which was not allowed in the rule nor in the general provisions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Could the Speaker please advise me about the time that is presently being consumed?

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are asking for an extension of 1 hour on both sides under the rule that will equally allow both sides 30 additional minutes to be heard, because it's obvious that Members of Congress need to be heard and this rule does not provide the amount of time necessary, and the people who are here is an example of why this is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. FALLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. BONO MACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. LUMMIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. COFFMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire upon the time that is left on both sides, please, sir.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. LEE of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. POSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. LANCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker, who is forthrightly

following the procedures which he spoke about.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to request the time that remains on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here on the floor today to debate the government takeover of health care in America. We understand that this bill is about a massive tax increase, $740 billion. We understand it is about deep Medicare cuts, some $430 billion. We also understand that millions of jobs will be lost and that mandates for purchasing insurance will cost an incredible $1.2 trillion, and there will be 118 new Federal bureaucracies created by this legislation.

The gentleman from Massachusetts came down and talked about the evil insurance companies. Well, the fact of the matter is that the largest six insurance companies in this country made about $6 billion 2 years ago, but the Federal Government in their mismanagement lost $90 billion. Mr. Speaker, we know who can best take care of the health care for our country.

For the past 5 months, the American people have called out, written and taken part in town hall meetings, calling the Capitol and their Members of Congress to express their outrage to the Democrat health care proposal. But here we are today. Month after month, this country has bled jobs. We are now at a record 10.2 percent unemployment rate, and over 15 million Americans are currently unemployed. And what do we do? We stick it to them again.

Mr. Speaker, last night I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have prohibited any provisions of this bill to take place if the Office of Management and Budget, working with the Department of Labor, found that this bill would result in 4 million jobs or more being lost, but my Democrat opponents defeated that. That means that they really could care less how many jobs are lost in America as a result of this legislation. They want a government-controlled and -run health care system.

Chairman Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was

up before Rules last night. He admitted to the Rules Committee that he had not asked the CBO or any other independent source for employment implications of this bill. Yet Republicans, using the same economic forecasts and economic models that the White House uses, we find that there would be between 4 and 5 million free enterprise-system jobs that would be lost.

During a time of recession where every single American is trying to make ends meet, what do we find? We find $730 billion in new taxes that are on this bill. Taxes on small businesses, taxes on health savings accounts, and the worst part is is that this will surely lead to a double dip in the recession. This is a problem not only for employers, but it will be a problem for people who want to find jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a hard mandate on business, and it means that the free enterprise system will simply not employ more Americans. We're concerned about this. We Republicans are on the floor today, and we're going to stand and say ``no'' to what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this legislation for health care will do about for health care what the stimulus did for jobs, the diminishment of employment in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a unanimous consent agreement.

(Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's story. The other side of the story is that it will be $730 billion worth of taxes, that we will have a health care system where you will not be able to choose your own physician, where you will have to call someone to then find out which doctor you go to, and perhaps worst of all, the gentlewoman also needs to know--because we heard in the Rules Committee last night--if you willingly make the decision that you do not want to participate and you do not pay the tax to the IRS, there is a penalty and a fine that is a criminal penalty of up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine. That is not freedom.

Criminalizing this issue is a bad way. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have it on the floor today. It is not in the Senate bill. It is in this bill. So to glorify this bill which has criminal felony penalties is a difficult way to have enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Miami Township, Mrs. Schmidt.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tarkio, Missouri, the senior Republican member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to a favorite son from Sarasota, Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Speaker, I know that Republicans in our districts are also telling seniors and other people that there will be a $730 billion tax increase to pay for this massive government takeover of health care.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Dr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the star of the Texas delegation from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee asking about our further speakers. We have several speakers left before I would close.

Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire upon the time that remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona is correct. This bill is as much about health care as the stimulus package was about jobs. It is to bust the free enterprise system and for all of the control of health care to go to the Federal Government. I get it, and I assure you, the American people get it, also. And we

will give our friends, the Democrats, all of the credit for what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee did a great job; they held a 12-hour meeting yesterday.

I would like to say to the American people that everybody understands what's in this bill, they have a chance. No unintended consequences with this. Republicans have laid out what we believe will happen.

Mr. Speaker, lots of groups around the country also know what would happen, and I would like to insert into the Record the list of people who would say vote ``no'' on this bill. They are business organizations all across this country.

H.R. 3962--The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Groups Key Voting ``NO''

American Bakers Association; American Conservative Union;

American Council of Engineering Companies; American Hotel and

Lodging Association; American Rental Association; Americans

for Tax Reform (Double Rating); Associated Builders and

Contractors, Inc (ABC); Associated Equipment Distributors;

Associated General Contractors of America; Automotive

Recyclers Association; Brick Industry Association; Club for

Growth; Concerned Women for America; Council for Citizens

Against Government Waste; Family Research Council;

FreedomWorks.

Independent Electrical Contractors; International

Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise

Association; National Association of Manufacturers; National

Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Federation

of Independent Business (NFIB); National Lumber and Building

Material Dealers Association; National Ready Mix Concrete

Association; National Retail Federation; National Taxpayers

Union; North American Die Casting Association; Printing

Industries of America; Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Council; U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Groups Opposing H.R. 3962

Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Air Conditioning

Contractors of America; American Academy of Facial Plastic

and Reconstructive Surgery; American Apparel & Footwear

Association; American Architectural Manufacturers

Association; American Association of Neurological Surgeons;

American Benefits Council; American Center for Law and

Justice; American Electric Power; American Family Insurance;

American Farm Bureau Federation; American Foundry Society;

American International Automobile Dealer Association (AIDA);

American Petroleum Institute; American Society of General

Surgeons; American Staffing Association; American Veterinary

Medical Association; American Wire Producers Association;

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP); AMT--The Association

For Manufacturing Technology; Arizona-New Mexico Cable

Communications Association; Arkansas Medical Society;

Association of Ship Brokers and Agents.

Association of Washington Business; AT&T; Automotive

Aftermarket Industry Association; Best Buy Co., Inc.; Blue

Cross Blue Shield; Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota;

Bowling Proprietors' Association of America; Business

Roundtable; Caterpillar, Inc.; CIGNA; Congress of

Neurological Surgeons; Corporate Health Care Coalition; Deere

& Company; Eastman Kodak Company; Electronic Security

Association (ESA); Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida

Medical Association; Food Marketing Institute; Goodrich

Corporation; Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration

Distributors International; HR Policy Association; HSBC North

America; Illinois State Medical Society; Independent

Insurance Agents & Brokers of America.

Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers

Association; Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Indiana

Manufacturers Association; International Association of

Refrigerated Warehouses; International Housewares

Association; International Sleep Products Association; Kansas

Medical Society; Land O'Lakes, Inc.; Maine Chamber of

Commerce; Marathon Oil Corporation; Marine Retailers

Association of America; MeadWestvaco Corporation; Medical

Association of Georgia; Medical Society of Deleware; Medical

Society of New Jersey; Medical Society of the District of

Columbia; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Missouri Chamber of

Commerce and Industry; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers

Association; NAMM, International Music Products Association.

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS); National

Association of Health Underwriters; National Association of

Mortgage Brokers; National Association of Theatre Owners;

National Automobile Dealers Association; National Business

Group on Health; National Club Association; National

Coalition on Benefits (440 Associations and Companies);

National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Funeral

Directors Association; National Grocers Association; National

Newspaper Association; National Roofing Contractors

Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association;

National Teachers Associates Life Insurance Company; National

Tooling Machining Association; National Utility Contractors

Association; North Carolina Chamber; North Dakota Chamber of

Commerce; Northeastern Retail Lumber Association.

Nursery and Landscape Association; Ohio Chamber of

Commerce; Ohio State Medical Association; Pennsylvania

Chamber of Business and Industry; Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America (PhRMA); Plumbing-Heating-Cooling

Contractors Association; Precision Machined Products

Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Professional

Golfers Association of America; Republican Jewish Coalition;

Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA); Self-Insurance

Institute of America (SIIA); Small Business Coalition for

Affordable Health Care; Society for Human Resource

Management; Society of American Florists; Society of Chemical

Manufacturers & Affiliates; South Carolina Chamber of

Commerce; South Carolina Medical Association; Specialty

Equipment Market Association (SEMA); SPI: The Plastics

Industry Trade Association.

Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Texas Association

of Business; The Black & Decker Corporation; The Business

Coalition for Fair Competition; The Business Council of New

York State, Inc.; The Dow Chemical Company; The ERISA

Industry Committee; The Louisiana State Medical Society; The

Medical Association of the State of Alabama; Tire Industry

Association; Triological Society; Tyco International; UAM

Action Network; United Parcel Service, Inc.; United States

Steel Corporation; Universal Health Network; Utah

Manufacturers Association; Verizon Communications; Virginia

Chamber of Commerce; Wedding & Event Videographers

Association International; WellPoint, Inc.; Western Growers

Association Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Wood

Machinery Manufacturers of America (WMMA); Xerox Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we understand $732.5 billion worth of tax increases. Once again, let's get this right. No unintended consequences here. This is a job killer.

I will insert into the Record a list of the tax increases that are proposed in this bill.

Top Ten Tax Increases Included in H.R. 3962

(As scheduled for consideration on the House Floor on November 7, 2009)

1. Small business surtax (Sec. 551, p. 336): $460.5

billion.

2. Employer Mandate tax* (Secs. 511-512, p. 308): $135.0

billion.

3. Individual Mandate tax* (Sec. 501, p. 296): $33.0

billion.

4. Medical device tax* (Sec. 552, p. 339): $20.0 billion.

5. $2,500 Annual cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325): $13.3

billion,

6. Prohibition on pre-tax purchases of over-the-counter

drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p. 324): $5.0

billion.

7. Tax on health insurance policies to fund comparative

effectiveness research trust fund* (Sec. 1802, p. 1162): $2.0

billion.

8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA distributions* (Sec. 533, p.

326): $1.3 billion.

9. Other tax hikes and increased compliance costs on U.S.

job creators: $60.2 billion.

IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553,

p. 344): $17.1 Billion.

Repeal implementation of worldwide interest allocation

rules (Sec. 554, p. 345): $6.0 billion.

Cellulosic Biofuel Credit/deny eligibility for ``black

liquor'' (New Sec. 555, inserted on p. 346): $23.9 billion.

Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by

``insourcing'' businesses (Sec. 561, p. 346): $7.5 billion.

Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties

(Sec. 562, p. 349): $5.7 billion.

10. Other revenue-raising provisions: $2.2 billion.

Total tax increases: $732.5 billion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke just a second ago about the mandates that would be criminal penalties. I would like to enter a letter from the gentleman, Mr. Camp, that is from the Joint Committee on Taxation that outlines this part of the law.

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, November 5, 2009.

Hon. Dave Camp,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Camp: This is in response to your request for

information relating to enforcement through the Internal

Revenue Code (``Code'') of the individual mandate of H.R.

3962, as amended, the ``Affordable Health Care for America

Act.'' You specifically inquired about penalties for a

willful failure to comply.

Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage

H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and

wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time

during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance

coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her

qualifying children is subject to an additional tax. The tax

is equal to the lesser of (a) the national average premium

for single or family coverage, as applicable, as determined

by the Secretary of Treasury in coordination with the Health

Choices Commissioner, or (b) 2.5 percent of the excess of the

taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income over the threshold

amount of income required for the income tax return filing

for that taxpayer. This tax is in addition to both regular

income tax and the alternative minimum tax, and is prorated

for periods in which the failure exists for only part of the

year. In general, the additional tax applies only to United

States citizens and resident aliens. The additional tax does

not apply to those who are residents of the possessions or

who are dependents, nor does it apply to those whose lapses

in coverage are de minimis or those with religious conscience

exemptions. The additional tax does not apply if the

maintenance of acceptable coverage would result in a hardship

to the individual or if the person's income is below the

threshold for filing a Federal income tax return.

Range of civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance

You asked that I discuss the situation in which the

taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and

not to pay the additional tax. The Code provides for both

civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate

reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent

attempts to defeat or evade tax. Civil and criminal penalties

are applied separately. Thus, a taxpayer convicted of a

criminal tax offense may be subject to both criminal and

civil penalties, and a taxpayer acquitted of a criminal tax

offense may nonetheless be subject to civil tax penalties. In

cases involving both criminal and civil penalties, the IRS

generally does not pursue both simultaneously, but delays

pursuit of civil penalties until the criminal proceedings

have concluded.

The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are

collected through the civil process. In determining whether a

penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the

examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable

statutory provisions, but also by the written policy of the

IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead

to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to

assert or not to assert a penalty. The goal is consistency,

fairness and predictability in administration of penalties.

If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax

liability results from willful behavior, the following

penalties could apply.

Civil penalties

Section 6662(a)--an accuracy related penalty of 20 percent

of the underpayment attributable to health care tax, based on

negligence or disregard (the former includes lack of a

reasonable attempt to comply and the latter includes any

intentional disregard of rules or regulations) or substantial

understatement, if the understatement of tax is sufficiently

large.

Section 6663--a fraud penalty of 75 percent of the

underpayment, if the government can prove fraudulent intent

to avoid taxes by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 6702--a $5,000 penalty for taking a frivolous

position on a tax return, if the underpayment is intended to

delay or impede tax administration and the return on its face

indicates that the self-assessment is substantially

incorrect.

Section 6651--delinquency penalty of .5 percent of the

underpayment, each month, up to a maximum of 25 percent of

the underpayment.

Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of

offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the

following penalties could apply to an individual:

Section 7203--misdemeanor willful failure to pay is

punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of

up to one year.

Section 7201--felony willful evasion is punishable by a

fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five

years.

Application of penalties under current practice

The IRS attempts to collect most unpaid liabilities through

the civil procedures described above. A number of factors

distinguish civil from criminal penalties, in addition to the

potential for incarceration if found guilty of a crime.

Unlike the standard in civil cases, successful criminal

prosecution requires that the government bear the burden of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the

offense. Most criminal offenses require proof that the

offense was willful, which is a degree of culpability greater

than that required in a civil penalty cases. For example, a

prosecution for willful failure to pay under section 7203

requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt both that the

taxpayer intentionally violated a known legal duty and that

the taxpayer had the ability to pay. In contrast, in applying

the civil penalty for failure to pay under section 6651, the

burden is on the taxpayer: the penalty applies unless the

taxpayer can establish reasonable cause and lack of willful

neglect with respect to his failure to pay.

Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful

review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In

practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent.

In fiscal year 2008, the total cases referred for prosecution

of legal source tax crimes were as follows.

Investigations initiated: 1,531.

Indictments and informations: 757.

Convictions: 666.

Sentenced: 645.

Incarcerated: 498.

Percentage of those sentenced who were incarcerated: 77.2.

Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008,

fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file

or pay taxes under section 7203. Civil penalties outnumber

criminal penalties imposed. For example, in fiscal year 2008,

compared to the 666 convictions, approximately 392,000

accuracy related penalties were assessed on individual

returns. Also in fiscal year 2008, the IRS assessed 5,502

penalties under section 6702 for frivolous positions taken on

returns.

I hope this information is helpful for you. If I can be of

further assistance, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield for the close for the Republican Party, the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of the armed service members whose lives were taken from us yesterday at Fort Hood.

I am deeply saddened over the unspeakable violence that has shattered the lives of brave and honorable soldiers at Fort Hood. This senseless shooting will no doubt be met with the justice and goodness of America, and I stand ready to support the Fort Hood family in any way possible.

The fallen and wounded soldiers represent the best of America. In the coming days and weeks, we will learn about their dreams, love of country, and acts of bravery that will engrave their honorable legacy in service of our country. They will be greatly missed. May the peace of God be with the victims and their loved ones. My thoughts and prayers remain with them.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we've just heard our good friends from the Democratic Party talk about wanting to support small business. I think it's interesting that today this bill is all about making sure the government has money available to loan to small business because we want them to be successful, and yet this committee and this Congress, under the Democrat leadership, ignores the leading four or five different items that small business would say they need the most to be successful to grow, to expand, to continue employment, which is the backbone of the economy.

High taxes, depreciation--this next week the biggest killer of them all, after we pass this bill, the health care bill is going to come on the floor which will kill small business. President Obama's own numbers say 4.7 million

jobs will be lost with the health care bill. It will tax small business. It will bring enormous rules and regulations, and yet here we are, talking about wanting to help small business today. If you really want to help, first of all, you ought to get out of the way; secondly, don't pass rules, regulation, laws, taxation that diminish small business.

So, with that said, I am delighted to be on the floor to talk about this Small Business Financing and Investment Act. In the Rules Committee, it was plain and simple that not allowing an open rule this year is where we continue. There is plenty of time for my friends on the other side of the aisle to allow for an open rule today to discuss the 42 amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee, of which only 16 were made in order.

I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee last night that was voted down by my Democrat colleagues. My amendment would have benefited small businesses by allowing them to choose the asset depreciation schedule that best suits their individual businesses. Today we have a depreciation schedule that is entirely formulated by the government, to the detriment of the free enterprise system and small businesses. The current system of asset depreciation inhibits economic growth. That's right. It forces companies to depreciate their assets over an arbitrary period of time. It competes against business, and certainly small business, by making sure the government gets their money first. Congress needs to create incentives for American businesses to reinvest in their companies, buy new equipment and hire more workers, not the opposite.

Small business employs about half of all Americans, and they are critical to our economic growth. But tax policies out of Washington by this Democratic Congress are making it harder and harder for them to do business. Also add in rules, regulations and a political agenda that will lose a net 10 million American jobs, most of them small business, just with the three biggest political agenda items that the Democratic Party has, 10 million American jobs lost, and that's the political agenda.

If this Democrat majority really wants to help small businesses, they would have allowed some commonsense amendments to come forth to the floor, by the way, amendments that small businesses ask for the most. I plan on using this opportunity to talk about our economy, the Nation's diminishing job numbers, the future of government mandates, and tax increases that will continue to stifle our economy and cut U.S. jobs. This is the Democratic Party's agenda, to kill the free enterprise system in America, and the starting blow is these three major political agendas that will lose a net 10 million American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised Americans that if Congress passed the stimulus package, that unemployment would not go above 8 percent, that it would create and save millions of jobs. Here we are 9 months later with a record 9.7 percent unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus package of $1.2 trillion.

What do we see from the White House? Lavish parties, trips to New York, just a whole lot of fun, everything but this President focusing on what any economist would say will create jobs in this country, what will keep the jobs that we have in this country. So my colleagues on the Democratic side continue to push their agenda that increases costs, increases taxes for individuals, while shrinking our Nation's workforce.

By the way, the Nation's workforce is called American jobs. By the way, those evil corporations that our friends, the Democrats, are after are called employers. Let's just put them at bay, and you will see no job employment.

In June, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and- trade, or what is commonly called cap-and-tax, bill that will raise prices on energy, raise prices on goods, raise prices on services for every single hardworking American in this country. In my home State of Texas, the average household can now expect to spend more than $1,100 extra a year if this bill passes as a result of this legislation, and this legislation could diminish over 1.38 million manufacturing jobs.

In my book, manufacturing is small business. Just today congressional Democrats had a great big press conference that looked more like a victory lap to me, thinking that they're going to pass this bill that was 1,990 pages, a sweeping health care bill that effectively will continue to shrink the employer base. It will shrink the employer-based insurance market and force 114 million people into an unsustainable government-run program, a program where government bureaucrats will be choosing what doctors a patient can see and, further, what procedures will be paid for for that doctor.

This trillion-dollar package also raises taxes on individuals, it raises taxes on small businesses that do not participate in the government plan, and up to $800 billion will be spent, according to a model developed by the President's own economic adviser, and it will diminish between 4.7 and 5.5 million more American jobs, using the President's own figures. Most of those will come from small business.

Well, hold it. I thought we were here to help small business today. But don't worry, next week we'll go ahead and pass a bill that will diminish between 4.7 and 5.5 million more American jobs. No wonder the American public can't figure out what's going on in Washington. One week we're saying, We're trying to help you, and the next week, I'm sorry about that, but somebody else's job is more important than yours.

Earlier this month, the Treasury Department reported that the Federal budget deficit reached a record $1.1417 trillion during the month of September. The Treasury Department also reported that the national debt reached $11.9 trillion. This means that since 2007, the Obama administration and this Democrat Congress have increased the Federal deficit by over $1.25 trillion and increased the national debt by over $3 trillion. When will it stop? No wonder we're losing small business jobs. No wonder we're losing American jobs. No wonder the American people are saying, What is going on in Washington, D.C.?

The Democratic majority is taxing, spending with more rules and regulations, and the jobs--let's get this right--are leaving. They're leaving this country, and they're going somewhere else. We aren't just losing the jobs. They're going somewhere else. We've asked this administration, we've asked this Democrat majority, Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs you promised? We've spent a lot of money. Where are the jobs?

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation--yeah, I would offer some assistance to small business, but I believe there are more effective ways to assist them during the economic crisis. For instance, not growing the size of government just to give them, small business, a loan. We should be doing things to improve small business by expensing, by permanently repealing the death tax, by extending tax relief, by improving regulatory reform, by not adding a cap-and-trade bill, and by golly, for sure not next week trying out and then passing a health care bill which will diminish American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to say. There is a lot of time today, but what we want is for the American people to become engaged in what's going on in Washington, and I think they're watching.

I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to a very distinguished young gentleman who is an arch supporter of not only small business but who remembers that, if we will balance the budget, the free enterprise system will grow, the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that I do not anticipate having any additional speakers at this time, and I would allow the gentlewoman to run down any time she has with the knowledge that, before she would close, I would do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress. They've attended town hall meetings. They've been in the media, on the news, in the newspapers, and they have asked that all Members of Congress read their bills before they vote on them. The American people are outraged.

That's why, today, we will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, because we believe that this process is closed and not open to amendments that would need to be done, which the American people are asking for, including small businesses. We can see what's getting ready to happen next week when we handle the health care bill. So I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule and can allow the House to consider an open bill for H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues Representatives Baird and Culberson. They have gathered together to make sure that all of the bills of interest would be allowed to be read for 72 hours.

I also ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an amendment and extraneous materials prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. King, for not only yielding me time to talk about our former colleague and the great Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, but I also thank the gentleman for his leadership on behalf of the State of New York. He really cochaired that responsibility and leadership in so many respects with the gentleman John McHugh.

As we see John's friends who have come to the floor this evening to talk about this great man John McHugh from New York--our former colleague, the gentleman from the 24th District of New York--and as his colleagues come to the floor to tout the attributes of service and respect and admiration that we have for John McHugh, I think it's important to note and to amplify how we believe that the men and women of the United States Army and every person who wears the uniform of the United States military will recognize this man who is from our body--a man who in service to his congressional district, to his State and to his country embodied the highest of skillsets, of personal accomplishment and the best wishes.

If I can for a minute, I'd like to talk about John McHugh, the man, as we have all taken the pleasure of doing. We just heard the gentleman Mr. LaTourette talk about how he worked with John McHugh on the Government Reform Committee. In fact, I arrived in Congress in 1997, and immediately found myself on the Government Reform Committee. I was a freshman who was eager to take part in the endeavors that lay ahead of us.

One of the subcommittees at that time, which I believe the gentleman Mr. LaTourette spoke about, was the Postal Subcommittee. The Postal Subcommittee had this bright, young person who was the subcommittee chairman. He was John McHugh, the gentleman from New York. John made sure, as my subcommittee chairman, that I was there at all the meetings--I was expected to be as a freshman--but more importantly, that I understood the substance and the issues that would be before us.

John took very seriously, as he always has, the duties and responsibilities that were there, presented to him and that he accepted. John made sure that I was well-versed on postal issues, talking about not just the compromises but the opportunities that lay ahead for us, making sure that the challenges were properly taken care of. I developed a deep and abiding relationship with John that I cherish even today--although, I'm sure he wants to forget a few of those meetings that we had that went on and on. It was all in the spirit of our service and in the need to make sure that we appropriately and properly did our duty.

I also had a chance to run across John McHugh as the left fielder for our baseball team. John McHugh played left field in college. John McHugh is a little, skinny runt who probably weighed about 115 pounds-- if he had a bat in his hand, maybe 120--but that old guy could catch flies out in left field. Some of the most fun activities

and times that I had here in Washington were on the baseball field in Alexandria. As Republicans, we would prepare for our baseball games and for the charity game that we do every year, Republicans against Democrats. John McHugh showed up every darned day. I, some days, wanted him not to be there because I wanted a chance to play in the ball game.

John started in left field. I didn't understand how this old guy, who was probably five or six years older than I am--and I was old at the time--could be a skinny runt with little legs that could carry him and how he could catch all the balls.

He was very kind to me. He showed me, really, how to dodge all of the mud puddles that were out in left field. That was when we had an amazing rain in about the year 2000, maybe '99, 2000, 2001. John had it down. As people across this country are hearing about this great guy John McHugh, John had his position down once again, and John in left field could walk out in the midst of all the mud that was outside there, play three or four innings, come back in, and not have a piece of dirt on him. I went out there and found the mud puddle as I was running, trying to catch the fly, staying up with just catching.

There were two ducks that were out there in the mud puddle in left field with us. John made friends with the ducks. The ducks got along with him, but when I went out there, I was in trouble. I remember diving and sliding and walking back and John just looking at me and laughing. He's not just a fun and kind guy. He found a way to allow me to play in the game. He allowed me to share in that endeavor, and we had a good time--always at my expense, I'm sure--but that just spoke volumes about the kind of man that he was early on in my career as we worked together.

John and I found lots of activities with each other, and John always included me, not just because of my thought processes of wanting to know what I was thinking but because of how we could work together and how we could make things work.

Well, when 9/11 came, Pete King, John McHugh and other members of the New York delegation who were hit and hit hard--Sue Kelly was in that group, John Sweeney and some others--really worked with members of other delegations to talk with them about the needs of New York and about what we needed to do. John McHugh was a strong advocate. He felt very strongly about the men and women who would be called also into harm's way as a result of 9/11. He understood firsthand those families.

John, as we know, ended up taking some 10 visits to Iraq and 4 visits to Afghanistan. He sat on the West Point or the U.S. Military Academy Board of Visitors. He knew that I went to the graduations at West Point and enjoyed them immensely. He knows that I have had and that virtually every Member of this body has had several young men or young women who are students at the Academy from all over this Congress and from all over this country. John had a strong sense of responsibility about believing in the mission and purpose, and knew that I felt that way, and looked at other Members the same way.

He was a co-Chair of the House Army Caucus. He understood firsthand not just the men and their missions but their families and their lives after coming back home. He spoke very passionately, he and I, about the needs of our returning vets who sometimes still need more in additional help. He has indicated that he will go and take this job. He is fulfilling this duty to do his best for the men and women of the United States Army--a branch of a service that he not only strongly identifies with but has worked with in his congressional duties.

John McHugh is a friend. He is a friend of anyone who has balance about trying to solve problems. John McHugh is a kind man. Many times in the midst, when lots of us are hurried in making decisions, John McHugh listens to the facts of the case. John McHugh has in this body exemplified himself. He has stood out as a person who can be trusted, who can make a wise decision and who cares about other people.

So, tonight, as this body honors the gentleman John McHugh, I would say to the men and women of the United States Army, to the spouses, to the children, and to the families that John McHugh is taking the place of Pete Geren. Pete Geren grew to have a strong reputation that the Army could count on, not only in discipline and leadership but in doing the right thing. John McHugh is that kind of man also. John McHugh will lead with honor and distinction. John McHugh will also do the right thing.

So, for our colleague who was tapped by the President of the United States to go and lead, for our colleague who worked with us day in and day out and year after year with honor and distinction, for our colleague John McHugh who will leave this body, knowing that he still had fight left in him, to go and still lead for the best, for this young man John McHugh, who has lots of friends here who wish him not only the very best but who want to see him again, for our friend John McHugh, who is serving with distinction and who will do well, we say:

John McHugh, we thank you. We thank you for who you are and for what you are. Don't change. Sure, get better, but go ahead, and do just what you've done all these years. Do this for the right reason.

The gentleman from New York, as I go to conclude here, I would like to read something which was part of John McHugh's statement as he left this body.

He said in July, I have been so struck how these heroes facing pain and loss and uncertainty asked one question, What else can I do to serve? He challenged himself when he said, We can ask no less of ourselves.

I would say to the men and women of the United States Army, you have a kind, gracious leader who will care about you. You have a man that understands that it is you who will be asked to sacrifice, but you will also have a man that will never ask you to do anything that he does not honestly believe in that is in the best interest of freedom and opportunity in the United States of America.

And as we hear these stories of bravery and heroism, as we see these men suffer, as we see their families well up, not only in pride, but also in fear for their families, we would offer one of our own from this body to say, We have confidence that you will lead, you will lead to the best; and we're going to miss you, but we're very, very proud of you.

From my left field buddy from congressional baseball, good luck with the New York Yankees against the Philadelphia Phillies, because you guys are going to need it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the looming health care debate here in Washington, D.C.

The American people know the truth about the Democrat health care proposal. We know that it's full of mandates, full of taxes, and will result in further job losses, but it also cuts reimbursement to physicians and hospitals and creates an even larger access problem.

In the proposed health care reforms, congressional Democrats are racing to create an unsustainable government-run health care plan that would reimburse physicians and hospitals no more than 30 to 60 percent of market rates.

Public safety-net hospitals like Parkland Hospital--which serves as a critical health care provider to many in Dallas, Texas--need to keep their doors open to make this plan successful. My Republican colleagues and I believe that we need to guarantee physicians and hospitals adequate reimbursement for their services to ensure the American people have access to a delivery system that works--not mandates, not taxes, and not job losses.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of an outstanding individual, Julie Cain Burkhard, as she concludes her distinguished work as Chairman of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC). This conference represents 26 sororities with a member base of more than four million women at 655 campuses and 4,500 alumnae chapters in the United States and Canada. Sororities and fraternities are the largest values-based organizations on college campuses and among the most successful leadership development programs for college students. As Chairman, Julie has led NPC's effort to provide support and guidance for its members, and acted as one of NPC's leading voices on contemporary issues of sorority life.

As a proud University of Georgia alumna and past national president of her sorority Alpha Chi Omega, Julie's unyielding passion for Greek life is reflected in her lifetime commitment to collegiate leadership. Under her leadership, NPC has increased their membership, created web- based advocacy tools, and furthered the organizational effectiveness of the conference.

Julie has been a great resource and advocate for women worldwide. Her long-term commitment to her Alpha Chi Omega chapter, its international organization, and the entire Greek community are tokens of the leadership, dedication, and loyalty that make her a role model for women leaders and incredibly deserving of this honor.

I have personally had the opportunity to work with Julie over the years as she has come to Washington to tirelessly advocate for students across the country. We have worked together on the passage of the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act, a bill that would help improve not-for-profit housing for college students, as well as legislation dedicated to advancing college fire safety standards and student financial aid.

The National Panhellenic Conference is a stronger organization as a result of her unwavering leadership and steadfast commitment to the lives of Greek women. I am pleased to honor Julie Cain Burkhard's exemplary service and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise to day to recognize the City of Richardson and the Richardson Police Department for its efforts to combat crime and its 2009 National Night Out on October 13, 2009.

Since its inception twenty-six years ago, the National Night Out program has successfully reached out to numerous communities nationwide in its mission to raise crime and drug prevention awareness. The City of Richardson has utilized innovative methods to encourage citywide participation such as organizing neighborhood block parties, programs for the Hispanic and Asian communities, and activities at various senior centers. These gatherings unite citizens, law enforcement agencies, businesses, civic organizations, and local officials. It shows their resolve to fight back against criminals and their commitment to keeping our neighborhoods safe. The City of Richardson's high participation has resulted in their being the award winner for Category #3 in the Nation. National Night Out has helped the Police strengthen neighborhood spirit and build partnerships within the local community.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the City of Richardson and the Richardson Police Department for their hard work and dedication. Their efforts have made our community a safer and better place.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the City of Dallas and the Dallas Police Department for its efforts to combat crime and its 2009 National Night Out on October 6, 2009.

Since its inception twenty-six years ago, the National Night Out program has successfully reached out to numerous communities nationwide in its mission to raise crime and drug prevention awareness. The City of Dallas has utilized innovative methods to encourage citywide participation such as organizing neighborhood block parties, safety fairs, visits from police, contests, and rallies. These gatherings unite citizens, law enforcement agencies, businesses, civic organizations, and local officials. It shows their resolve to fight back against criminals and their commitment to keeping our neighborhoods safe. National Night Out has helped the Dallas Police strengthen neighborhood spirit and build partnerships within the local community.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the City of Dallas and the Dallas Police Department for their hard work and dedication. Their efforts have made our community a safer and better place.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, my friend, for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule--once again, a closed rule--coming out of the Rules Committee and the process that brought this bill to the floor. My friends on the other side of the aisle for the first time in history shut down the appropriation process by placing extremely restrictive rules on every single appropriation bill that has come to the floor of the House this year. Chairman Obey set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat Rules Committee to limit every Republican and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor.

Why? For what reason? There are hundreds of good amendments which were offered by all of my colleagues which were rejected in this unprecedented fashion. Now that this House has finished all the appropriation bills, you would think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would allow for an appropriate time and an appropriate process for consideration of the conference reports, not just come to this House floor but for Members to be heard from and for us to go back to a process which this House was used to in its precedents for so many years.

But no. Last night the conference report was filed after 6 p.m., I believe 6:17, and the Rules Committee met at 7:15 to report out a rule for floor consideration. Our Democrat colleagues in the committee waived the House rule that requires a 3-day layover of conference reports and scheduled a bill on the floor first thing this morning. Additionally, just last week this House voted to adopt a motion to instruct that stated that the conference report, a bill that we are discussing on the floor here today, should be available online in a searchable format for at least 48 hours before it's voted on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, forget the 3-day rule. Forget the 48-hour motion to instruct; this House was given just less than 24 hours to review the conference report and its changes. I don't know when my Democrat colleagues will allow for the open, honest and ethical Congress that they once called for, but we're on the floor once again saying, We have met the deadline that Chairman Obey wanted. Can we get back to a normal process now, a normal process that is not good just for Republicans and not just for our Democratic Members but good for this House to follow?

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Energy and Water appropriation conference report for fiscal year 2010. Today it is my intention to focus on the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue that have only killed jobs and led to record deficits. This administration and this Democratic Congress promised the American public jobs, economic growth, economic recovery, health care, a cleaner environment, better education and just a wonderful, wonderful life, all contained within their appropriation bills. And the list goes on and on with other promises.

Yet the only thing up to now that they really have accomplished is record deficits, record spending and record unemployment numbers all across America. The fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriation conference report provides $33.5 billion in total funding, which is hundreds of millions of dollars above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in fiscal year 2009 emergency funding just from a few months ago, mostly from the stimulus bill.

We have seen massive government spending. Now this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability. More promises, more spending, more deficit, more record unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised America, if Congress passed the stimulus bill, that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent, that it would create and save millions of jobs. Here we are 8 months later with a record 9.7 unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the passage of the $1.2 trillion ``stimulus employment plan.''

This summer when discussing the stimulus, Vice President Biden said the Obama administration--and I quote--``misread how bad the economy was,'' even though as a candidate for President and Vice President both of them had been all over the country. They had seen firsthand exactly the circumstance this country was in.

The Obama administration got it wrong. They got it wrong when it came to the stimulus, and the American people know they got it wrong also. The American people can no longer afford this Democrat-controlled House, Senate and White House. We've got to start getting it right, not guessing and getting it wrong. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars more in addition to the $58 billion additional spending this year is not a way to fix the problem. In June of this year, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-trade bill that will raise prices on energy, goods, and services, and every single hardworking American across the country will pay that price.

In my home State of Texas, the average household can expect to pay more than $1,100 a year extra as a result of that legislation. Additionally, this legislation could ultimately kill over 1.38 million jobs that are in the manufacturing sector of this economy. That's 1.38 million more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, some time this month the Democrat-controlled House wants to pass sweeping health care reform. Effectively, it will diminish the employer-based insurance market and forces 114 million Americans into a government-run program. This $1.2 trillion package raises taxes once again, raises taxes once again, raises taxes once again, which is what this Democratic-controlled Congress is about. Raise $1.2 trillion in taxes on individuals and small businesses that do not participate in the government plan and $800 billion, which the President talks about will be necessary to fund this massive government takeover and will result in 4.7 to 5.5 million more private-sector jobs being lost in America.

In July, the Congressional Budget Office director stated that the Democratic health care proposal ``significantly expands the Federal responsibility for health care costs.'' Mr. Speaker, I thought that the goal of health reform was to bring costs down for Americans, not to increase the cost, further America toward bankruptcy and to cost 4.7 to 5.5 million more enterprise system jobs. By the way, those are jobs that are not in Washington, D.C.

The American people know that you cannot spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what we are doing here today with the Democratic majority. Earlier this month, the Treasury Department released a statement reporting that the Federal budget deficit reached a record $1.378 trillion and that the national debt reached $11.8 trillion by the end of August. This means that since 2007, this Democratic Congress has increased the Federal deficit by $1.217 billion and increased the national debt by over $3 trillion. What a record.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to point out that our friends on the other side of the aisle should not tax and spend not only this country but also hardworking families into a further economic recession.

My Democratic colleagues need to get a handle on the out-of-control spending which they dogged us repeatedly about when we were in the majority at far lesser levels.

Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending by Uncle Sam. Huge energy and health care costs that raise taxes and kill jobs is not what our economy needs right now. Americans need a balance. They need to listen to what is happening in Washington only to see that Washington is the problem, not the answer. Americans are tightening their belts because they get it. Congress should be doing the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked today about the process. We have talked today about spending. And we have talked about the overall agenda of this

Democratic majority that is about taxing, it is about spending, it is about record unemployment, rather than working on the things that the American people, the people back home who sent us here to do our job, are working on.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, the thought process here in Washington is that we can solve all the problems that our country has, just trust Washington. I think now more than ever we are seeing at the end of this year that the leadership in Washington, D.C., the bills that are on this floor, the votes which we take virtually every single time, every single vote is about more taxes, more spending, more rules and regulations that are thrown to the American people with this package about how great this is for the American people.

Yet what happens is that Members of Congress, lots of them in our body on both sides, go back home and they listen to the American people. And they listen to the American people talk what I think is a lot of common sense: common sense about how to fix our health care, how to fix our spending, how to fix the unemployment, how to encourage manufacturing rather than deleting it.

Then they look up and see the political agenda of the Democratic Party, that in the three biggest political bills that represent the Democratic Party we will lose almost 10 million jobs in this country; and the political agenda of the Democratic Party, one which this body is barreling down that pathway to meet and match, has resulted in disaster for people back home.

So the Republican Party will continue to come to Washington and be faithful after listening, and we will go to our committees and we will throw our ideas on the floor and ask the committees to vote on them. We will continue to have Members come to the Rules Committee that seek time, permission to speak about ideas that will better the bills.

Yet we find that in these instances before the Rules Committee, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter not just for Republicans, but it really doesn't matter to a Democrat either. They will block the best ideas that come from the heartland.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to continue. We are once again coming to the floor, as I have done all year, and my colleagues David Dreier, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Virginia Foxx, as we explain the rules and explain the Rules Committee, explain what is happening: receiving a bill at 3 o'clock in the morning; getting a bill, as we did last night, 1 hour before the meeting; not even following the rules from a resolution we had just the week before about online availability of bills.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the American people are up in arms and insisting that Members of Congress read the bill first; that every single Member of this body is given a chance every single time to say, I disagree with the direction that the Democratic leadership is taking us.

We need to read the bills. We need to take the ideas from people in the heartland, through their Representatives in committees and up in the Rules Committee, and make these in order and follow a process that the American people, if they were sitting in, would say, Why not take more time? Why not understand the bill? Why not cut spending? Why not make some commonsense directional issues happen in this Congress? This leadership, these bills continue to follow a process that the American people are questioning.

We will continue coming to the floor and politely, on behalf of people back home, say that we would hope that we would go back to regular processes instead of setting a new record every time for closed rules. I think it's important. I think it's important.

We will keep coming to the floor, and we will dutifully keep speaking up, and we will make sure that we are properly representing those people who are talking about better process, better direction, and doing the things that will work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas (AAGD).

Founded in 1959 by a small group of dedicated professionals, the Apartment Owners Association of Dallas sought to establish a communication forum to share information and foster professionalism for the growing multifamily industry. Since then the organization has grown to over 1,000 members, representing members across 11 counties in North Texas and over 35 municipalities. Members of AAGD are wholeheartedly committed to providing quality and affordable housing for all apartment residents. They are also responsible for managing over 1,890 properties representing 435,000 rental units, which consists of more than 90 percent of the apartments and rental homes in the Dallas area.

As the nation's largest member based local apartment association, they are specifically devoted to the advancement of its members within the apartment industry ranging from legislative representation to education and certification programs to community service projects as well as a wide range of communication tools. Also functioning as a trade association, AAGD is dedicated to upholding and promoting the highest professional standards in the apartment industry.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in celebrating AAGD's 50th anniversary. Congratulations to AAGD on fifty years of dedicated service to the multifamily industry! I know their hard work and commitment to quality and affording living has benefitted the many residents of apartment homes managed by AAGD members.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the efforts underway to improve the relationship between the Republics of Turkey and Armenia.

Over the past several years, the two countries have been meeting quietly, with the assistance of Switzerland, to come to an agreement to normalize their relations and open the borders between Armenia and Turkey. I am pleased that these negotiations have been fruitful. A strong relationship between these two countries will benefit not only the citizens of Armenia and Turkey, but the region and world as well. I also encourage the two countries to continue to work together to finish this process.

I am optimistic that these efforts will lead to greater stabilization of the region, and I applaud and congratulate the governments of Armenia and Turkey on their efforts to date and offer our friendship and help as they move on to the next steps in the process.