Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, unlike his predecessor, President Obama recognizes that greenhouse gasses and climate change are a real problem and must be dealt with, and in the tradition of the hugely successful Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, he has ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to develop rules to cap and reduce greenhouse gasses.

This bill today actually prohibits the EPA from continuing to develop rules to regulate greenhouse gasses in the tradition of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Instead, it turns to a market-based approach. Instead of a firm cap, regulating and reducing, this bill turns us to carbon offset derivative futures that will be insured by credit default swaps.

How quickly they forget Wall Street and AIG and the damage they wrought in the financial sector. This, Wall Street predicts, is the new $1 trillion market. The market manipulators of Enron Corporation may have bankrupted their company, Ken Lay may be gone, but their spirit is fully embodied in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, Europeans have had a market-based cap- and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions for 4 years, and it has failed. The last recorded year, $60 billion in trades, that is added costs, and higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Now the House of Representatives wants to bring that European system here to the United States of America, despite its failures. Why? Well, the market-based approach is only a failure if your objective is meaningful and predictable real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps something else is afoot.

Europe already has a carbon offset futures derivatives market, complete with credit default swap insurance. Is it AIG and mortgages all over again but now with carbon? We are going to bring that here to the United States. Wall Street is tingling with excitement. A trillion dollars speculative market.

Listen to this: Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the biggest market overall, Louis Redshaw at Barclays. Oh, Wall Street loves this so much. A brand new Wall Street bubble on something as essential as energy. Deja vu all over again.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2009 Iraq/Afghanistan Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill provides $105.9 billion, 77 percent of which would be to cover costs relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for the rest of this fiscal year. I voted for these funds because I chose to give President Obama time to implement his Afghanistan strategy and withdraw troops from Iraq. But it was not an easy decision.

The war in Afghanistan has entered its eighth year without clearly defined objectives and an exit strategy. With a deteriorating security situation and no comprehensive political outcome yet in sight, some experts view the war in Afghanistan as open-ended. Had the Bush Administration not shifted its focus to the unnecessary war in Iraq, we may have already brought Al Qaeda and the Taliban to justice. I believe President Obama made an error by ordering an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan before first completing a detailed review of U.S. Afghanistan policies. Continuing the vaguely defined strategies of the Bush Administration is not acceptable.

The President did finally lay out a strategy for Afghanistan in late March of this year. It made some significant improvements to the Afghanistan strategy, but fell short in other areas. For example, I was pleased to see a regional approach, ``treating Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries but one challenge,'' and a commitment to ``devote significantly more resources to the civilian efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.'' These are significant improvements over the Bush Administration's approach.

Unfortunately, the President's new Afghan strategy fails to set clear benchmarks for the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments and fails to lay out the consequences of not meeting the benchmarks. It is not surprising that the President has also failed to set benchmarks for the Pentagon and State Department too.

Thankfully, the supplemental bill lays out detailed benchmarks for Afghanistan and Pakistan and the President must report back to Congress on the:

(1) Level of political consensus and unity of purpose across ethnic, tribal, religious and party affiliations to confront the political and security challenges facing the region.

(2) Level of government corruption and actions taken to eliminate it.

(3) Performance of the respective security forces in developing a counterinsurgency capability, conducting counterinsurgency operations and establishing population security.

(4) Performance of the respective intelligence agencies in cooperating with the United States on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations and in purging themselves of policies, programs and personnel that provide material support to extremist networks that target U.S. troops or undermine U.S. objectives in the region.

(5) Ability of the Afghan and Pakistani governments to effectively control the territory within their respective borders.

In addition, I am an original cosponsor of the McGovern bill that simply states, ``Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.'' I firmly believe that the United States is best served by outlining a clear exit strategy that the American public can support and that the Afghani public can be reassured that we have no long-term desire to occupy their nation.

Unfortunately, President Bush's disregard for the complexities of Afghanistan and the damage that came from his disregard may make this war unwinnable. We also must not forget that the Soviet military, with over a hundred thousand troops on the ground, lost decisively in Afghanistan. Today, our troops are fighting some of the very same warlords who defeated the Soviets with our covert support.

As you may know, Secretary of Defense Bill Gates, removed the commanding general of Afghanistan in a bid to change the-on-the ground strategy in Afghanistan. With a new White House strategy, a new commanding general, and 21,000 additional troops, I believe this is now President Obama's war.

The bill also funds the continued presence of our troops in Iraq. Despite the continued bursts of violence in Iraq, I am thankful the President has committed to a responsible redeployment of troops out of Iraq. This bill recognizes and supports President Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq by August 31, 2010 and all U.S. military forces by December 31, 2011. The bill continues to prohibit the construction of any base for the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq and U.S. control over any oil resource of Iraq. To ensure accountability, the bill directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress every 90 days that includes:

1. How the Government of Iraq is assuming responsibility for reconciliation initiatives;

2. How the drawdown of military forces complies with the President's timeline; and

3. The roles and responsibilities of remaining contractors in Iraq as the U.S. mission evolves.

The bill does some very good things besides funding wars for Afghanistan and Iraq. I am very supportive of the $534 million for additional pay for more than 170,000 troops who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended since Sept. 11, 2001. These funds allow for payments of $500 per month for every month a soldier was held on active duty under ``stop-loss'' orders. The average payment should be above $4,000. Stop loss orders were used by the Bush Administration to avoid tough decisions on deployment and troop increases, creating a de facto draft for current soldiers. These payments are a good step to honor the sacrifice unfairly asked of these brave men and women.

I also support some of the foreign aid in the bill. The $660 million for bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza represents an important

commitment to the Middle East peace process. In addition, the bill includes $889 million for United Nations peacekeeping operations, including an expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a new mission in Chad and the Central African Republic. Finally, the bill includes $700 million for international food assistance to alleviate suffering during the global economic crisis.

Finally, I was pleased that the conference agreement provides $7.7 billion for efforts to address a potential pandemic flu. The total includes $1.5 billion for the Health and Human Services Department and the Center for Disease Control to supplement federal stockpiles, develop and purchase vaccines, and to expand detection efforts, and $5.8 billion in contingent emergency funds. Of the $1.5 billion, $350 million was set aside to assist state and local governments in preparing for and responding to a pandemic.

Unfortunately, the conference agreement included a $108 billion loan to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). I objected to this loan because Congress should not be in the business of bailing out Central and Eastern European nations that lost money speculating in highly deregulated financial markets and now are indebted to European banks.

The $108 billion loan to the IMF is an unreasonable and irresponsible burden to place on the backs of American taxpayers. They're already paying through the nose for the $700 billion blank check passed by Congress for ``too big to fail'' banks. For the record, I voted against the bank bailout. And, now, Congress is returning to the American taxpayers hat in hand for a rescue package to bailout European banks.

The fact that we continue to run annual deficits means the Federal Reserve will print the $108 billion or borrow it from China. In other words, the U.S. will borrow funds from China to, lend to the International Monetary Fund, which will lend to a Central or Eastern European country to help rescue a foreign bank caught in the credit bubble.

We should be focusing on economic recovery at home rather than loaning billions of dollars to the IMF to rescue troubled European banks. I vehemently oppose the inclusion of the $108 billion for the IMF in the War Supplemental bill. Had this provision been voted on separately--as it should have--I would have voted against this provision.

Reluctantly, I voted in favor of this bill because it reversed the Bush Administration's irresponsible approach to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will continue to watchdog the IMF and look for opportunities to rein in their misguided attempt at restructuring poorer nation's economies.

Republicans gave us a Medicare prescription drug benefit complete with a donut hole based on subsidizing the health insurance industry and the prescription drug industry. Now they are at it again. They are absolutely opposed to a public plan option for health insurance, because that would make the health insurance industry compete. Their solution to the 50 million Americans without health insurance and those who are one pink slip away from losing it is tax breaks, so they can go out and buy private insurance.

Well, here is a little secret. Private insurance is exempt from antitrust laws, thanks to the Republicans, so they can and do collude. They won't let you have a preexisting condition. They can discriminate in any way they want. They can price gouge. They can price fix. And the Republicans say that driving people to that system, not giving them a low-cost, public plan option, and making the health insurance industry more cost effective and truly competitive is a better solution.

Now, come on, guys. Do you really care about those 50 million people, or not?

Mr. Speaker, I introduced my first bill to enhance screening of aviation in 1987. I saw the extraordinary deficiencies of the system back then, fought for two decades with the airline industry, and it took a horrible tragedy to transform the system. Even 2 years before that bill, Mr. Lipinski and I looked at the workforce--minimum wage, high turnover, some of them were illegal aliens--and said we ought to Federalize the screening workforce. We need a better system. Again, the airlines fought. Again, it took a tragedy.

Well, now, out of that we have developed the potential for a better system. This bill will move it along tremendously, both in aviation and surface security that we need to protect our Nation. This bill represents tremendous progress, tripling the funding for surface transportation and the oversight program that will require that airlines give meaningful training to flight crews--something that some of the airlines still aren't doing. They say it costs too much.

We will have new standards for foreign repair stations. We have a huge loophole. Most of our planes--or many of them--are getting maintenance overseas where there is no security. Just imagine what a terrorist operative could do to sabotage one of our planes over there. It helps with the last line of defense. Our Federal Flight Deck Officer program. And it makes other tremendous improvements.

I am a bit bemused by the gentleman from Indiana alleging that this bill somehow might allow some terrorist to somehow--who is known--not be on the No Fly List. We've got a whole bunch of really bad people in prison, not just down in Guantanamo but in our super-maximum security prisons here; some who attacked the Twin Towers before 9/11. The guy called the Unibomber. Guess what? They're not on the No Fly List because they aren't going anywhere. And if they did escape, they certainly wouldn't be flying under their own name. So we don't routinely put people who are in super maximum security prisons on a No Fly List.

But what the bill says if and when any one of those people who was detained at Guantanamo is in any way capable of getting out and getting on an airplane: If they're sent to a foreign nation for disposition and we don't know what that disposition would be, their name must go on the No Fly List. So his arguments about somehow we're undermining security or threatening the public are particularly puzzling to me. As one who has advocated long and hard for enhanced security, I'm a bit insulted by that.

Now, we need better technology for the Federal workforce to use at the point where they screen passengers. And one of those things is a walk-through device where you'll be able to see any concealed contraband on the person. That is a tremendous step forward. They've been using it in Heathrow for years now. It's an option at Heathrow.

You can either be very intrusively frisked at Heathrow-- and I have had the experience; it's not great, and it's much more intrusive than here--or you can walk through that screening device. More than 85 percent of the people choose to walk through the screening device. And as we've proposed it here, it has extraordinary privacy protections. The person monitoring the dumbed-down image of the person's body will be remote from the actual screening area, won't be able to see that person. It's dumbed down. It's not very revealing. And this is a step forward that will enhance our security.

There are ways now to smuggle devices onboard, and we've got to deal with them. And this is one of them.

We also have to deal better with liquids and explosives, a major threat. We need to get more equipment deployed--and this committee has pushed hard and there was money in the stimulus bill--and there will be more authorization here to get better equipment to our screeners so they can detect threats before they get on our planes.

I thank the chairman.

``Inclusion of Detainees on No Fly List: The Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist Screening Center, shall include on the No Fly List any individual who was a detainee housed at the Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009, after a final disposition has been issued by the President.'' The quibbling seems to be over the final disposition.

The only point at which any of these people might have some opportunity to try and get on an airplane will be after they get out of Guantanamo. The President determines the final disposition, and if they are sent to a third country or transferred elsewhere at that point, they go on the No Fly List. We have terrorists in our super maximum security prisons in the United States who aren't on the No Fly List because they're in a super maximum security prison. If they ever get parole or otherwise get released, they'll go on the No Fly List. But we don't junk up the No Fly List, which already has problems, with a whole bunch of people who are in shackles in ultra-secure locations and are in security already. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I know you're trying to get political advantage here to say somehow we're soft on terrorism. These people will go on the list if they ever get out.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I share with the gentleman--he and I helped create the Transportation Security Administration--tremendous frustration with bureaucracy that gets over the edge for no real purpose, and I will not say that the current process is perfect. Particularly as relates to general aviation, we have had a couple of problems, one in which the chairman has been very involved, having to do with standards for what constitutes a potential threat aircraft and also the issue of background checks for those who work in the general aviation field.

But beyond that, many of these directives are based on sensitive security information or even classified information. So they could not very well, if you were dealing, say, with the gel and liquids rule, subject that to the bureaucratic rulemaking process. I don't think the way to solve inadequacies and problems with the current directive process is to create an even more lengthy, expensive bureaucratic process. I don't think on a normal day the gentleman from Florida would ever present the idea to this Congress that we should expand rulemaking and go back and revisit rules that have already been made and put them through a very lengthy and expensive process. What he wants is more transparency. He wants common sense, and he wants stakeholder groups to have an opportunity to intervene. The legislation does bring stakeholder groups into the process, particularly as relates to general aviation.

The chairman is using his oversight authority to go after nonsensical rules and problems that have occurred. One happened recently with a group of aged veterans on a charter aircraft where the chairman has called the agency to account and asked for a review of the procedures they are using. So I would say there is a new era here.

We are going to make them responsive and responsible and make their work make more sense and meet our true security needs. But if you impose this on the entire structure, you're going to divert a lot of resources in the Transportation Security Administration over into a bureaucratic, lengthy rulemaking process. They are not going to have the flexibility to change, say, the liquids rule as they did from ``all liquids are banned'' to ``well, prescriptions can go'' to ``so many ounces can go.'' Each of those would have required a 6-month to 2-year change in the process during which we would be locked into whatever the first emergency rule was for only 6 months under the gentleman's proposal. It is not a practical way to address this.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to who has the right to close?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First off, last week, I was subjected to the absolutely stupid 30- minute rule. United Airlines can't get it into their manual that it was repealed 4 years ago. I did ask to have my card sent up to the pilot, but I have complained several times. Some pilots still think that since it is apparently still in the United manual, that it was not created by the TSA. And our former Chairman Mica knows that. That was a Secret Service directive which preempted all of the agencies of the government and the newly created TSA.

The TSA agreed with us that it was an absolutely asinine rule, but we were told it was a higher authority. So that would never have gone through a rulemaking process. That was imposed.

Now, those sorts of things could be imposed for 6 months still under the gentleman's rule. And I don't know

that the Secret Service would claim that they could preempt even the 6- month limit. So we can't prevent all stupidity, but we push back against it.

Again, back to the gel rule. Under the gentleman's proposed amendment, they would still be amending the gel rule to get down to the 4 ounces or get to 4 ounces or whatever the current limit is. Maybe it is 3.4. I can't remember. That seems to change, too. But you don't need a 2-year process and shouldn't impose a 2-year process and an extraordinary expense to the taxpayers in that sort of a case.

Yes, there are problems. There is stupidity when it comes to the GA rule. The committee is dealing with it through oversight and pressure.

Where the gentleman concluded is where the debate should end, the normal rule-making process. On any ordinary day, the Republicans would not stand up and say that we need more bureaucracy; we need more 2-year rule-making on things that are important to the American people.

We are creating transparency here. We're creating a stakeholder committee.

Yes, they have done some stupid things in GA. But does that mean you're going to go to all of the things that relate to passengers and airports and baggage screening and explosives and everything else and put those out into a public rule-making process with all the sensitive security information that's involved? That's impossible. It's impractical, and it would jeopardize the safety of the American public.

Yes, let's fix the problems with GA. Somebody down there needs to be picked up and shaken upside down to understand what GA's all about. The chairman's doing that. We'll continue to do that. We'll work with you. We're creating a stakeholder group so that GA will have a voice. But don't throw out all of the other critical security directives and the flexibility to put them in place and change them without a bureaucratic process.

The premise of taxpayer support for the auto companies was twofold--preserve our productive capacity and maximize job retention.

Well, the plan has kind of gone off track here. The resolution of Chrysler, losing tens of thousands of jobs through the unnecessary closure of dealerships, and now Chrysler is going to close their most productive, modern engine plant in the world and build one in Mexico? How is that in the taxpayers' interest?

The leadership of the financier from Wall Street, Mr. Rattner, needs to be brought under control here. GM's now on deck. The Obama administration has to reconsider their approach. Don't endorse the closure of thousands of dealerships. Don't support the export of our productive capacity.

It is rumored that GM wants to manufacture their cars in China. Preserving a corporate shell while losing productive manufacturing capacity and tens of thousands of jobs is not in the taxpayer interest and should not receive the endorsement of the Obama administration nor this Congress.

Well, after doubling the national debt under the failed leadership of George Bush, the Republicans unveiled their budget alternative yesterday, very appropriately on April 1, April Fool's Day.

Now, there's a pretense that they're going to restore fiscal stability through budget gimmicks, the spending freeze, no matter how great the need, bridges falling down, veterans need services, to educate our kids, budget's frozen. Well, it's frozen, sort of. There is another part that's not. After the smoke and mirrors are put up, their real agenda comes through, which is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Here's the amazing thing. They're going to eliminate all taxes on capital gains so people who invest for a living don't have to pay taxes. We have had that argument before. But think of it, it's so beautiful. The hedge fund managers, who averaged $260 million each a year last year creating toxic assets that are destroying our economy, claim that their income is carried interest, which is capital gains.

So the hedge fund managers who put our economy in the tank will contribute zero, zero dollars, under the Republican budget alternative to helping repair the damage in America.

Good work, guys. April fools.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise in support of the bill, and I'm very favorable to the say-on-pay provision. I'm going to propose that we actually add to that provision, but first, I've been a bit bemused by the debate today and listening from my office to hear from the Republican side that they're saying, well, it's the Democrats' fault that there aren't more meaningful restrictions, but we're against these meaningful restrictions. So I'm going to give them a chance here to maybe be a little more consistent because I'm going to offer a free-market approach to enhancing protections for stockholders and taxpayers against excessive corporate executive remuneration. It's a free-market approach, and it's also a democratic approach because it would allow the owners of the company, the stockholders, to cast not just an advisory vote but a binding vote on corporate compensation.

Now, I know we're going to hear concerns about this, and perhaps again they will be extraordinarily inconsistent on their side of the aisle, bemoaning the fact that we didn't do this earlier but not wanting to do it now in a more meaningful way.

But the issue here is very real. The growth in corporate compensation has been extraordinary. We've gone from a 40:1 ratio to the average worker 25 years ago to nearly 400:1 in many cases now, and Americans are justifiably outraged, and they're particularly outraged when it's sometimes now their taxpayer money which is going to support these lavish lifestyles.

We have examples of some corporations that have recently gone to binding votes. NBIA after a rather disastrous year has gone there. You can expect that their stockholders are going to be a little cranky about the corporate compensation. Carl Icahn supports this provision. And the Netherlands has adopted this. In the Netherlands, the way it works is it's prospective. The next year's salary package has to be approved by the stockholders in a vote.

Now, the bill does refer, the provision regarding say-on-pay, to the SEC, and I would leave that intact so it would be up to the SEC to figure out how this might work. Perhaps there's already an egregious pay package in effect and voting against a prospective package wouldn't even get at the underlying--I can understand that some people would say that this needs a little work, but I trust the SEC to get there.

With that, I yield to the chairman.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe I have the right to close. Does he have further speakers?

Okay. Well, then I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman refers to the board of directors. He's apparently not particularly conversant with how those elections are set up so that it is extraordinarily difficult to nominate and/or replace anyone on boards of directors the way most corporate governance is set up.

You know, it's amazing to me that somehow those who have a direct interest, Americans who own the stock, they should just sell their stock. Well, maybe their stock's worth half what it was last year because of crumby management, and he says, well, just sell your stock because they lost half your money and let the CEO still get an exorbitant salary. Come on, is that a good decision? No.

The other alternative would be to actually allow the owners, in what I think is a fairly well-accepted form of government in the United States of America, those people to actually vote in a meaningful and binding way, as opposed to an advisory way, to a board

of directors who are all first cousins, who all serve on each other's boards, and all feather each other's nests and all compensate themselves very well. Come on, we all know how this works.

If you want to just stick up for the current system, then stop this sort of bifurcated argument, oh, the Democrats are really bad because they didn't do this earlier, and it was in another bill that could have been or should have been but we don't want to do it now, and we don't want to do it in a meaningful way. That's where the Republicans are coming down here, and I find it to be a most disingenuous argument.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Well, the Republicans are at it again. It would be funny if we weren't in such dire financial straits as the government is, thanks to a number of years of Republican rule.

During the Bush era, George Bush inherited a balanced budget, he inherited projections of a surplus for years to come, and paying down the debt of the United States substantially. Well, he went to work busily, and using restrictive legislative rules the Republicans passed massive tax cuts favoring the wealthiest of us. Those with estates over $5 million, those who earn over $250,000 a year got huge largess from the Republican Party.

Now, in a time of surplus, it didn't hurt too much. But then, George Bush launched an unnecessary war in Iraq and decided to pay for it off the books; i.e., he did not score it in the budget, and just every year declared it as an emergency as much as it might cost. So far, close to $700 billion has been spent on George Bush's war in Iraq.

Of course George Bush's tax cuts and his off-the-books spending and a massive expansion of government under total Republican rule, took us from a time of surplus to a time of massive deficits. George Bush set record after record with deficits during his Presidency, and he managed in 8 short years to double the debt that it had taken us more than 200 years to accumulate as a Nation. And the Republicans were all for it.

But now they would have us believe that their born-again fiscal conservatives, with a 19-page document with no specifics--and guess what it contains, this is how we are going to balance the budget, folks--more tax cuts for rich people. Oh, what a surprise. That will solve everything. They do have this cockamamie theory, and it is that if we give all of the money to the rich people, the rich people will go out and invest that money. When they invest that money, the little people will get jobs, and the little people will pay taxes because the rich people shouldn't. That is their budget, plain and simple.

Eliminate the estate tax. That would mean that if Bill Gates died tomorrow, and God forbid, I hope he is healthy and he won't, but if he did, the unrealized capital gains of his stock would then become nontaxable. No taxes would have ever been paid on that stock, passed on to his kids. If his kids invest it for a living under the Republican plan, they would earn capital gains and under their plan investors don't pay taxes. So you can have multi-generations of people accumulating more and more wealth who haven't paid a penny in taxes. But don't worry, the Republicans tell us, they will invest that money in America and put the little people to work. Well, no, maybe they will invest that money in China where labor is cheaper, or Mexico where labor is cheaper, or who knows where. Who knows how they will waste it. Who knows what new, speculative instruments they will come up with. Their so-called alternative would be funny if it wasn't so serious. But this is deadly serious.

President Obama is trying to dig us out of an incredibly deep hole and a very difficult time in the American economy. The radical deregulation of the Bush years and all of that wealth creation on Wall Street, which has now tanked, many people's pensions and their 401(k)s, it is killing jobs, we are trying to fix that, and we are trying to re- instill a sense of fiscal responsibility here in Washington, DC. It will not be easy. And particularly it won't be easy if the Republicans continue to play the clown on their side of the aisle and say eliminating taxes for rich people will solve all of the problems confronting the American people. Maybe it will provide them health care; I'm not sure how that works. Maybe it will help educate their kids in public schools; I don't quite get that part. Maybe it will rebuild our infrastructure; hmm, it won't do that, either. But it will make the rich richer, and that's all they are about.

We have been told this would be the most transparent administration in history. And in many areas, they are infinitely better than the Bush administration. Their single greatest failing comes in the area that, unfortunately, is foremost with most Americans today, which is the economy and the bailouts on Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Geithner has now proposed a new plan. It is a pretty good deal. Taxpayers will put up 95 cents of every $1, investors will put up, well, between 5 and 7 cents. And it is called a nonrecourse loan; that is, these speculators will put down 5 cents on the dollar to bet on certain packages of so-called toxic assets from the banks, buying them from the banks, and they will share evenly in the profits with the American taxpayers, except the American taxpayers put up 95 cents, and the speculators put up a nickel.

It is certain to perpetuate what has been going on on Wall Street, which is making a few people very rich and impoverishing average Americans, and this time through the tax system and putting taxpayers on the hook.

The program is reported, according to the Washington Times, to have been designed by two prominent Wall Street firms, Blackstone, a secretive private equity group, and a company called Pimco, both of whom apparently have very large positions in these so-called ``toxic assets.'' It is reported by the Washington Times that they suggested this to some of their insider buddies in the administration, and the insider buddies presented this to Secretary Geithner, who has been floundering around trying to put details to his program, and now he has found them. So Wall Street has written the details.

Also, according to the Times, Pimco and Blackstone are not only in line to be able to wash some of their toxic assets and to gamble mostly with taxpayers' money on other people's toxic assets, but they are going to be hired by the government to manage the program. What a beautiful sort of circular little system this is.

We need some accountability and transparency. We need a commission akin to the commission named after the collapse in the Great Depression to investigate every aspect of what has gotten us to this point, who has been involved, what laws have been broken, with subpoena power so that some of these people can enjoy, instead of Federal handouts, they can enjoy Federal hospitality in a maximum security prison somewhere.

Plain and simply, I believe the American people are being taken to the cleaners yet again with this particular plan. What is wrong with actually taking AIG and winding it down? It is a so-called ``zombie.'' We are told in vague terms ``it is too big to fail.'' When I asked Secretary Geithner, just about 10 days ago, I read in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Secretary, that, in fact, we are shoveling money in the front door of AIG because it is too big to fail, the taxpayers are on the hook for over $150 billion to AIG, and now we are 80 percent owners, and they are still paying bonuses to the people who created the problem, and apparently they are shoveling money out the back door to some of the firms who are getting money in the front door, most notably Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs has been getting direct infusions of cash from the Federal Government, and now they are going to be made 100 percent whole on their bets with AIG. They were gambling with AIG, betting against other people's securities with these so-called ``credit default swaps.'' So instead of saying, ``tough, we will give you back your bet, but we are not going to give you 100 percent of the amount you were betting on,'' they are getting 100 percent of the amount they were betting on, and meanwhile we are subsidizing them on both ends here through this black box that is called ``AIG'' that is too big to fail, that, gee, it is just way too complicated to explain to you why it is too big to fail and why we couldn't unwind this zombie corporation in an orderly way. Had we done that last fall or earlier this year, then we wouldn't have had to pay the bonuses because it would have been clear the company was bankrupt, and it could have been taken care of and unwound in a much more orderly way. But we are not being given the information about why it is too big to fail and why this is the way to do it.

And when I asked Secretary Geithner, is it true we are giving money to AIG that then they are giving to Goldman Sachs for bad bets they made? I asked if there was something call a ``naked credit default swap?'' He said, ``oh, don't believe everything you read in the Wall Street Journal. It is not true.''

The Treasury has revealed that what I read in the Wall Street Journal was indeed true. These same huge firms that are benefiting from a direct bailout from the government are also getting a second-level indirect bailout on their bad bet. And some of these firms are foreign banks. We are not only bailing out the likes of Goldman Sachs. We are bailing out Deutsche Bank and other foreign interests.

This is outrageous. We need a full investigation, an explanation of what has gone on and what is going on. We need to take legal steps to prosecute any of

those who broke the laws. And we also have to have stiff new regulatory reforms to make sure this doesn't happen again. And none of that is happening, sad to say.

Well, today was 6 months overdue here in the House. Last fall, when President George Bush and Secretary Henry--``Hank,'' as people like to call him--Paulson--just a regular guy from Wall Street who earned $750 million in 1 year before he left Wall Street to come here and be Secretary of the Treasury, protecting Main Street interests under the Bush administration--panics the Congress, said the world was on the verge of collapse, and submitted, on a Friday

evening, a three-page bill asking that we appropriate $700 billion and give it to Henry ``Hank'' Paulson and let him spend it however he deemed fit.

Unfortunately, Congress didn't really improve too much on that original draft. Congress got stampeded. I didn't. I voted against it. And for one glorious moment, one night, one day, we stunned the world by stopping that bill here in the House and saying there are not enough protections for American taxpayers in this bill. There's no guarantee we'll get paid back. There's no real restraint on how Henry ``Hank'' Paulson of Wall Street is going to spend the money. We fear it will go to bonuses, it will go to waste, it will go to his buddies on Wall Street and he'll use it to penalize his enemies on Wall Street. And that's exactly what happened.

And here we are now, at least $350 billion later of that $700 billion. It's estimated, by one group that does weekly estimates, we've lost about a third of the money. The American taxpayers are being told they'll have to pay that back over the next 30 years.

In the meantime, many of these companies and these lords are rewarding themselves with bonuses. We're told, well, these are certifiably smart people. I mean, how can these firms continue to exist without them?

Well, the firms like AIG don't exist anymore except for the largesse from the American taxpayer. They bankrupted their companies. How could anybody think they deserve a performance bonus or a retention bonus of any sort? What they need is a bonus push out the door. And that should have happened a long time ago. And I've got to say the Obama administration is trying. A big hole was dug here. They are trying to make some sense out of what Bush and Paulson did.

But I am not impressed by our Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, and I think that President Obama should rethink whether or not he is the man for the job at this time. When did Secretary Geithner know about these bonuses that were coming due at AIG? He was head of the New York Fed. He was very involved in bailing out AIG through the Federal Reserve last fall. Did he just find out or has he known? And did he neglect to tell the President, did he neglect to tell the Congress that these bonuses were pending? I don't know for sure. But we need to have that question answered.

Geithner was hired because he said, well, Wall Street's comfortable with him. I'll tell you what. I'd like a Secretary of the Treasury who Wall Street doesn't like because that person is protecting Main Street Americans and the taxpayers of this country instead of coddling these fat, overpaid people on Wall Street who have bankrupted their own companies and are trying to bankrupt America and have caused nationally and worldwide an economic collapse. These certifiably smart people.

So today we began to correct the mistakes that were made here last fall under pressure from Bush and Paulson. But people need to be brought to account. We need to hire the 1,100 agents that the FBI has been asking for for 4 years to fill out their financial fraud and crimes unit. We need to hire those 1,100 people and maybe give some of these people who today are getting bonuses Federal hospitality in the future, a little uniform and a nice warm place to sit behind bars.

We need those investigators. We need that budget. We need to thoroughly review everything that's gone on. And we really need to question the leadership of Secretary Geithner in these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Well, we just heard from the Republican side of the aisle that they are ready to make the tough fiscal choices. Unfortunately, they are about 8 years and $5 trillion short with their newfound fiscal conservatism.

Remember, George Bush inherited a surplus. What was the answer to the surplus? Tax cuts. Then we had the attacks of 9/11. What was the answer to that? Tax cuts. Then we had the misbegotten war in Iraq. What was the answer to that? Tax cuts. A war fought on borrowed money and tax cuts. And then we had the bank collapse and the recession growing into a depression. And what was the answer of George Bush? Tax cuts. And what is the answer of the Republicans today? Tax cuts.

For them to say they are for fiscal responsibility and honest budgeting after those 8 years is laughable. The Obama administration is going to give it straight to the American people tonight. They have made a hash out of it, and we are going to try to fix it, but it is going to take some time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 47, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.