Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Alvin G. Davis for being named to the National 4-H Hall of Fame. Alvin is one of 16 honorees from around the country selected to receive this prestigious honor in 2010. Alvin will be the first 4-H Club member from Texas to join the Hall of Fame.

A Post, TX native, Alvin started in the 4-H program in 1939. In 1948, he was the top 4-H boy and National 4-H Leadership Award winner. Alvin has also served as president of the 4-H club at the local, county, district and college levels.

Alvin received a bachelor's degree in animal husbandry from Texas Tech in 1952. While at the university, he was president of the Texas Tech 4-H Club and Texas Tech Rodeo Association. In 1950, he became the director of the first National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association. Alvin was also the first inductee into the Texas Tech Rodeo Hall of Fame.

Along with his commitment to 4-H, Alvin has become a renowned rodeo announcer, poet, writer, and western artist. Several of his sculptures can be found in the collections of presidents, governors, and celebrities. Alvin founded the National Cowboy Symposium and Celebration and has written children's books, poetry books, and a rodeo periodical. In 2002, he was inducted into the National Cowboy Song and Poetry Hall of Fame.

I am enormously appreciative to Alvin for his hard work and for his contributions to promoting cowboy culture. On behalf of the 19th Congressional District, including myself, I thank Alvin for all of his time and effort to preserve the values, honor, and respect of the American Cowboy and congratulate him on joining the National 4-H Hall of Fame.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Brad Moran for being inducted into the Tech University Mass Communications Hall of Fame.

Brad received a Bachelor's Degree in Business from Texas Tech in 1982, making him the first college graduate in his family. While attending Texas Tech, Brad worked as an afternoon disk jockey. After graduation, he went to work for his father at KJTV-34 as a national sales manager. In 1985, Brad and his father decided to make their station a FOX affiliate. The father-son team also launched a Spanish- language station, Telemundo 46. Since then, Brad has launched several successful news and interactive talk radio shows under the name of Ramar Communications. Most recently, the Ramar radio group launched TT 104.3, the Texas Tech University athletics station.

Not only is Brad Moran a successful broadcaster, but he is also very active in the community. He has served on, and chaired, numerous fundraising committees for Lubbock. A few of these include the Lubbock Area United Way, American Cancer Society, South Plains Area Food Bank, and Lubbock Rotary Club. Brad continues to support Texas Tech from academics to athletics. He is a member of the Chief Executives Roundtable for the Rawls College of Business and has committed to begin a scholarship endowment for the Texas Tech College of Mass Communications. Additionally, Brad has served on numerous committees of the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce, and he is currently serving on the Chamber's Board of Directors.

A few noted accolades and awards Brad has received include the 1999 LAF Silver Medalist; 2003 Alexis de Tocqueville Society Award for his community dedication through philanthropic and human service; and the Lubbock Chamber's 2006 Businessperson of the Year Award.

I am enormously appreciative to Mr. Brad Moran for his contributions to Texas Tech and the Lubbock community. Those in District 19, including myself, congratulate him on being named to the Hall of Fame and extend to him our best wishes for his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 1485, to express support for the designation of September as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month by the House of Representatives.

I didn't know much about prostate cancer, other than occasionally one of my friends would turn up with that diagnosis; and about every year when I went to my health care provider, I went through the normal process of having a digital exam and also taking my PSA, and was pretty religious about doing that, always with the good news of a negative result.

Well, that all changed in August of last year when I went for my test and it was decided that additional testing needed to be done. So tests were done, and it was determined that I did in fact have prostate cancer. Once you get cancer, then you get a lot more interested in that subject, and I wanted to share with the folks this evening a little bit about this prostate cancer.

Just in 2010 alone, 217,730 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 32,000 men in the United States will die from prostate cancer. Thirty percent of the new diagnoses of prostate cancer will occur in men under the age of 65. Prostate cancer takes one life every 18 minutes. In the next 24 hours, prostate cancer will claim the lives of 83 American men.

If a close relative has prostate cancer, a man's risk of the disease more than doubles. With two relatives, his risk increases five times. With three close relatives, the risk is about 97 percent.

African American males suffer prostate cancer at a rate of 65 percent higher than white males and double the prostate cancer mortality rates of their white counterparts.

Obesity is a significant predictor of the severity of prostate cancer and the probability that the disease will lead to death. In fact, high cholesterol levels are strongly associated with advanced prostate cancer.

If a man in the United States has one family member diagnosed with prostate cancer, he has a 1 in 3 chance of being diagnosed with prostate cancer.

What we have learned is that this is a deadly disease, and it affects men. The good news is that once I learned some of those facts, obviously that got my attention. But the good news is that almost 100 percent of the men diagnosed with prostate cancer will stay alive for at least 5 years; about 90 percent of the prostate cancer cases are found while the cancer is still either local or regional, and nearly 100 percent of these men will be alive 5 years after being diagnosed.

So what is the importance of National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month? Well, it is important to recognize that this is a real hazard for men. But, most importantly, and the good news is, if caught early and treated early, the survival chances are extremely good.

So that is the reason that I decided to bring this resolution before this House and to help bring awareness to the American people, and particularly men, is that it is important to make sure you get screened and to make that a part of your annual physical. And, if you are unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, that the earlier you detect it, the better your chances of survival and eventual cure are.

So I am about to celebrate the day after tomorrow, on September 30, of being 1 year cancer free. The reason I am able to do that and the reason I am able to stand before this body tonight is because we have got important research going on on how to treat this cancer. There is important research going on on hopefully some day being able to prevent prostate cancer. But until then, it is important that men get screened and get their tests done so that they too can stand and say, You know what? I survived prostate cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill and urge all men get tested.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

It is my honor and privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, Mr. Hensarling.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Just last month, in the month of August, I traveled around the 19th Congressional District. I had nine town hall meetings. But more importantly, I had numerous meetings with small businesses and with larger businesses in my district and with banks, both large and small, about this issue of getting America back to work and getting small businesses back to creating jobs again, and one of the things I heard over and over again was the word ``uncertainty.''

They said, Congressman, there is too much uncertainty about what the future looks like in this country.

I heard small businesses say, We don't know what this new health care plan is going to mean or cost to our business. Congressman, we don't know what the tax environment is going to be in this country because Congress hasn't done anything to keep the largest tax increase in the history of our country from unfolding. Congressman, we don't know how to deal with all these new regulations that are coming out of all of these agencies where EPA is trying to circumvent Congress and regulate greenhouses. And, Congressman, we don't know what to think about a country that keeps spending and borrowing and spending and borrowing to the point where now every day every dollar we spend we borrow 42 cents.

So I heard that from the businesses. And what I heard them say is, We are holding on to the employees we've got. We've tried not to lay off anybody. And we could probably buy some new machinery, or we could probably put some more people on, but there's too much uncertainty. We are just going to sit on the sidelines.

Also I heard, when we had the debate on this bill previously, the other side talking about the lack of credit availability to a lot of small businesses, and so I went to see my friends in the banking business. And I went to say to them, Why aren't you lending money? And they said, Congressman, we've got lots of money to loan. Our bank has the strongest capital it's had in a long time. We have money to lend. They said, The good customers that we would like to lend money to don't want to borrow money because of the uncertainty that's going on in this country right now.

I said, Well, let me make sure I understand this. You're saying you have the money to loan, but people don't want to borrow it because they are concerned about the future of this country and what the environment, business environment is going to be? And they said, That is exactly right.

And so what is so interesting about this is this is another one of the majority's failed attempts to recycle a program that didn't create any jobs the first round. TARP I, TARP II, all of the stimulus, all of these massive amounts of future generations' economic opportunity thrown at this economy and no jobs have been created. In fact, we have almost got 15 million people in this country that are unemployed today. And since we've done all these programs, we've lost almost 2\1/2\ million jobs.

What the small businesses need in this country is certainty and not another bailout program. This bill raises taxes. It gives some temporary tax relief, as my friend from Texas said, but it also--and I don't know what part of the fact that the small businesses are concerned about this 1099 thing, now we've got the 1099 in the health care bill. Now we've got the 1099 on rental expenses in this bill making it more onerous, creating more uncertainty, more lessening the opportunity and the motivation for small businesses to expand and to create jobs in this country.

In fact, yesterday Secretary Geithner appeared in one of our committees. He said banks have plenty of money to lend. That's Secretary Geithner. We had the Independent Community Bankers say that banks have plenty of liquidity, plenty of money to lend. It's a matter of getting quality demand back.

Another comment was from our folks at NFIB. They said that the primary problem facing small business owners right now in terms of job creation is not access to credit.

This is the group of people that represents small businesses in this country. It is a lack of sales, customers, and confidence. Small business owners are unlikely to invest in hiring or expanding their businesses when their sales and profits remain weak.

If the majority is serious, and we are wondering if they are serious, about getting America back working, getting America back to the vibrant economy that it had, let's do something serious about that and not put the American taxpayers--we are going to go borrow $30 billion for this. And we are going to have to borrow the whole $30 billion because somewhere in the middle of last month, everything the Treasury spends from that point going forward is borrowed money. We are headed to a $1.3 trillion deficit this year.

So we are going to go borrow $30 billion to put into a program that the banking industry and NFIB and all of these people say really isn't what the economy needs. What the economy needs is certainty: certainty in taxes, certainty in regulatory environment, and certainty that this Congress is going to quit borrowing and spending money that it doesn't have.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's vote for something that really matters and really gets America back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was detained from votes due to a meeting on July 28, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall 477, ``nay'' rollcall 478; ``yea'' rollcall 479, ``yea.''

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

Mr. Chairman, earlier this week the House voted 393- 24 to pass legislation that would cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in old earmarks that have been sitting unused, sometimes some of those for over 20 years.

The Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act rescinded $713 million of Federal highway contract authority for 309 Member-designated projects for the Surface Transportation Authorization Acts of 1987, 1991, 1998 and 2005.

After passage of this legislation, Members of Congress should be applauded for supporting these commonsense spending cuts. We said long- term economic growth and recovery can't happen unless we cut wasteful government spending and tackle our exploding deficit. We agreed that these earmarks were a wasteful use of the taxpayers' money.

The number of unused earmarks in these old transportation bills shows that Congress needs a better process of deciding how to spend the taxpayers' money. While many on the other side want to continue their practice of earmarking on their constituents' behalf, I cannot support this reckless spending. The bill before us today includes over 500 new earmarks that we cannot simply afford. More importantly, these earmarks are potentially causing even more government inefficiency.

While I supported the bill on Tuesday, we also need to be honest that it did not actually reduce any spending. These projects have been on hold for a long time, and this money was never going to be used and never was allocated. I agree that Congress should repeal spending that is not going to be used, but we didn't reduce the deficit $700 million by taking out these old earmarks, even though we talked like that's what we were actually doing.

Today, we get to vote on an amendment that actually cuts unspent funds. My amendment says that we should take the unspent money from the stimulus package and return it to the taxpayers. Most of us agreed that we should take unspent money out of the old transportation earmarks in the vote earlier this week. Most of us should agree then that with this bill we should take and give back to the American taxpayer the stimulus money that has not been spent.

My amendment would reduce the FY 2011 spending bill by the same amount that's yet to be committed from the $61.7 billion included in the 2009 economic stimulus bill for transportation and housing programs. According to the Appropriations Committee report, $10.52 billion went to programs that have not been committed to yet, and much less, the money has not been spent or is not out the door.

If Americans go to recovery.gov and review the agency reports for the Department of Transportation or Housing and Urban Development, they will learn that we're once again double-dipping on the backs of their children and their grandchildren. Here are just a few examples of programs receiving more money in today's spending bill that has money left from the 2009 stimulus bill.

One of those is the bill that is before us today, $2 billion for capital investment grants. While these grants may provide worthy investments in the infrastructure, there is still $800 million left from the stimulus that has not been spent.

Today's bill includes $3.5 billion in grants for airports. However, there's more than $1 billion left from the stimulus bill.

Grants to the Amtrak system that were slated to receive $563 million already has almost $1.3 billion ready to go out the door as we so often hear but actually not spent.

Moving on to housing, we still have $2.2 billion in the Home Investment Partnership Program to spend from the stimulus, but today, we're poised to add another $1.8 billion on top of the 2.2 that hasn't been spent.

Mr. Chairman, as we learned on Tuesday, we can raise up, rise above the partisan differences and put a stop to these projects that aren't working, won't be funded and aren't completed and ready to be taken off the books. Today we have an opportunity once again this time to vote to actually reduce spending and the deficit.

I recall the proponents arguing about this stimulus bill and how it's going to create new jobs for the American people. We were going to spend nearly a trillion dollars. We were going to create all these jobs. Unfortunately, unemployment was not going to go above 8 percent. Today 9.5 percent of the American people are out of work. We have lost 2.7 million jobs since this stimulus bill has passed.

Mr. Chairman, let's give the American people a break here. Let's give them their money back. This is money we don't have. We don't have a lot of money that's in this bill. For every dollar we are going to spend we are going to borrow 43 cents. We are going to charge it to our children and our grandchildren.

Quite honestly, it is not sustainable. Our national debt is $13 trillion today. We are headed to $20 trillion. We are headed to having debt almost equal to 90 percent of our total economy.

Mr. Chairman, let's give the American people a break. Let's give them their $10 billion back. A lot of people say, well, it's just $10 billion; but that's the problem around here. People don't take money seriously because it's not real money to them because we are charging it to our children and our grandchildren.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

In the particular category you are talking about, $116 million is still available. You only spent $6.9 million, yet you are asking for $1.4 billion. We were told that this money was going to go out the door real quickly to create jobs for the American people, yet we have a lot of these categories that still have a substantial amount of money.

We are plussing up with new money when we haven't even spent the money we had before. And I think this sense of urgency must have gone away because these projects, the money has not been spent.

Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I proudly congratulate the Lady Buffs softball team of Forsan High School in Forsan, Texas for winning the 2009 and 2010 Texas 1A State Softball Championships.

In their second appearance in the state tournament, the Lady Buffs defended their softball state championship. The Forsan Lady Buffs finished their 2009-2010 season with a 26-4 record, with none of their four losses coming against Class 1A opponents. The impressive record demonstrates the team's strength and ability to work together to achieve success.

Coached by Shanna Roberts, this year's Forsan Lady Buffs successfully proved that their 2009 State Championship was not a fluke, as critics claimed. The team had a strong postseason, outscoring their opponents by 41 runs, 50-9. In the 2010 state championship game, Amanda Longorio pitched a one-hit shutout, leading the Lady Buffs to a 5-0 win over Blue Ridge; this earned her the distinction as the game's Most Valuable Player.

I applaud the Lady Buffs' hard work and tradition of success. With great support from the community, the team proved itself as the best 1A softball team in Texas two years running. The Lady Buffs exemplify the principles of competitive spirit and success both on and off the field, and I congratulate them on their well-deserved state championships.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership got their credit

card bill yesterday, and it wasn't a pretty picture. The Treasury Department announced that the Federal deficit for 2010 hit the trillion-dollar mark at the end of June. That's a staggering amount, and that's not all. There are still 3 months to go in this year. The only time the Federal deficit has ever reached this level was last year.

You know, the American people know, when you hit your spending limit, you stop spending, but President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress don't seem to get it. They've taken the Nation on an unprecedented spending spree that's hurting economic growth, slowing job creation, and putting an incredible burden on our future generations.

We have a trillion-dollar deficit, but Congress doesn't even have a budget or a plan. Running deficits of $1 trillion or more is completely unsustainable. We've got to cut up these credit cards and stop this reckless spending. It's not just something we should do; it's what we have to do. The future of our Nation depends on it.

Madam Speaker, in his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln stated ``. . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan . . .'' It is those same words that grace the steps of the headquarters of the Veterans Administration, representing the sacred duty we owe to the men and women who wore the uniform of this great nation.

Some have worn this uniform voluntarily, others by conscription. Others made a life of service in the military their career, often passed down from one generation to the next. The United States generally and west Texas in particular have had a long and proud history of giving thanks to our veterans. Today, American's all- volunteer force is one composed of men and women willing to risk their lives in defense of freedom and liberty for America and her allies, and in return we owe to them a debt of gratitude.

As part of that gratitude, the Big Spring Veterans Affairs Medical Center serves veterans from a 53-county area in west Texas and part of New Mexico. For 60 years now, the Big Spring VAMC has been an institution helping veterans young and old recover from wounds suffered on the field of battle. Without this facility, rural veterans would be at a significant disadvantage in receiving the specialty care many of them have earned. The Big Spring VAMC is a living testament to the men and women of our armed forces.

The Big Spring VAMC provides a wide range of patient care services, including inpatient and outpatient care as well as residential rehabilitation. The hospital is currently expanding to meet the needs of more veterans with a 40-bed residential rehabilitation unit expected to be completed later this year. Through many changes, the Big Spring community has stood in strong support of the hospital and the veterans it serves. I join the community in thanking the Big Spring VMAC for 60 years of service and offer best wishes for many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of more spending, more borrowing, more bailouts and more debt. And here we go deeming things again. Deem something, not budgeting. The Democrats' version of a budget means picking a dollar amount for this year without even looking at what the impact for the future is. We need a budget plan that guides spending decisions, but the Democrats are too afraid to even make a real attempt. Deeming things as a budget isn't the answer.

Republicans want to offer a budget that reins in spending, addresses the trillion-dollar national debt, and provides economic certainty for small businesses. In fact, some of us have cosponsored the RSC budget that does that very thing. While others say that this plan is too extreme, it shows just how much Congress is spending beyond its means.

American families have to live within their means. Why should the government be any different? They want Congress to get serious and make the tough decisions that will get our spending problem under control. Our country can't afford for Congress to avoid hard decisions that we were elected to do. You can't deem things. You've got to do things.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. Financial regulatory reform is needed, but this 2,300 page bill is the wrong solution for the taxpayers, and it won't help build strong capital markets needed to fuel growth and new jobs for our country.

If you liked the bailouts of the last few years, you are going to love this new financial bill. If you are a consumer who wants fewer choices, higher costs of credit and new fees, this bill has some great deals for you.

This bill will vastly expand the powers of the government regulators. Those are the same regulators who fell short of the job the first time around, and now they are asking us to trust them and they tell us that the outcome will be different next time. But the outcome won't be different, because this bill sets up a permanent bailout regime that puts the government in charge of picking winners and losers.

Under this bill, if the government says to your company it is too big and too important to fail, your company gets an implied backing and serious advantages over its competitors, especially your smallest competitors. If the government determines a company should be shut down, the government gets to decide how everyone that does business with that company is treated, ignoring the rule of law, just like they did with AIG and the automobile companies behind closed doors.

And if those problems weren't serious enough, now the majority is playing fast and footloose with the taxpayers. In a move that could only make Bernie Madoff and Enron proud, the majority is now taking the unused and paid-back TARP funds that were supposed to pay down the national debt and double-counting the deposit insurance premiums to pay for the $19 billion cost of this bill.

American families can't double-count their income from their paychecks. What kind of accounting is Congress using that will let us double-count the money?

Mr. Speaker, bills sometimes have good titles but they don't accomplish what they are supposed to do. There is no real financial reform in this bill. I wish there was. I want to vote for real financial reform. But the big losers here are the American people. They stay at risk. Their choices are going to be limited, because now we are going to have a new credit czar determine what kind of financial products that the American people get to look at.

If you want real reform, vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, as Congress commemorates the 60th Anniversary of the Korean War, I am honored to recognize Congressman Sam Johnson for his dedicated service to the United States. Sam spent 29 years in the United States Air Force, serving valiantly in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. During the Vietnam War, Sam was held as a Prisoner of War for nearly seven years in Hanoi. Despite 42 months of solitary confinement, Sam's spirit was never broken. In 1991, Sam came to Washington to serve the people of the 3rd District of Texas in the United States Congress.

In honor of Sam's service to our Nation, Albert Carey Caswell, a long time House employee, authored a poem entitled, The Star of

Texas. I would like to share Mr. Caswell's poem as a tribute to Congressman Johnson at his request.

The Star of Texas

In the darkest days of night . . .

All in that battle, all in that fight!

To but bring our light!

All in our souls, so very bright!

As but a Freedom Fighter, who all those wrongs must right!

While, all around you such a living hell . . .

All in those moments of faith and courage, that do tell!

While, all in that darkness . . . where such evil dwells!

As against all odds, Sam . . . your fine heart so chose to

swell!

A Star was born!

For now Sam, the Eyes of Texas . . . are upon you, as a Hero

you will live on!

With but only your most heroic heart, as against all odds you

fought!

To stay the course, and rise above . . .

A Freedom Fighter, now in our Lord's heart you are but his

special love!

Because, your fine heart of courage . . . so chose to swell .

. .

From out of this darkness, from out of such hell!

A Star of Texas would rise, rise up to ever dwell!

Your life, has been a Tour De Force!

You Soar! As an Eagle, in The United States Air Force!

Mothers teach your children well!

All about, such heroes you must tell!

And one day Sam, you will get your new wings . . . ``Come to

Heaven my son,'' as our Lord sings!

For we need Angels like you, to fight the darkest of things!

This Star of Texas, one of our Nation's greatest beings!

For the Eyes of Texas, are upon you . . .

And as a great American Hero Sam, you will live on, YOU!

In honor of Sam Johnson, a real American Hero . . .

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

Last week I did offer a motion to recommit that would have required Treasury to certify that every transaction made from the $30 billion TARP Jr lending fun be made on the basis of economics and not politics. As we pointed out during our debate last week, there are several examples of lending to banks out of the first TARP fund that raise questions of whether political considerations were involved in deciding which banks received this money.

When we voted on the issue last week, 237 Members of the other side of the aisle voted against having Treasury certify that each transaction using the taxpayers' $30 billion is based on economics and not politics. Those same Members all voted against putting an experienced and effective regulator over the new program, simply because the regulator has TARP in his title. When the Treasury Department lends $30 billion more of taxpayers' money out to banks, the taxpayers deserve better protection than they are getting.

The majority last week exposed the taxpayers to greater likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse and added to the cost of setting up a new regulator when we already had one. Today, the majority is back on the floor trying to make amends for their vote against the taxpayers.

During the debate last week, Chairman Frank said, We'll go you one better in this effort. Let me repeat that. We'll go you one better. If the bill on the floor today is ``one better'' than our proposal, I would hate to see what happened if the majority tried to go ``one less.''

The bill today does not require a certificate for each investment transaction, as our motion to recommit would have required. Instead, this bill only asks Treasury to certify that the purchase decision process has been designed to ensure decisions are made because of political considerations. Let me repeat that: Certifying that the purchase decision process is designed so that decisions are made based on economics and not political is not going one better than certifying that each actual purchase with the taxpayers' money was made based on economics and not politics.

I'm sure the purchase decision process for the original TARP was not intended to bring any politics into play. While I may not have supported TARP, the purchase decision process was aimed at investing capital in healthy banks to support banks in lending. However, when the individual investment decisions were made with the first TARP, legitimate questions have come up whether political and considerations involving certain banks receiving funds were in fact taken into consideration.

As we recreate this second TARP for smaller banks, we need to make sure that our past problems are not repeated. This bill falls short of a motion to recommit that we offered last week. Last week, Chairman Frank said, We'll come forward with further reinforcement of the oath- taking--we'll even make it oath-taking. Having Treasury certify under oath that the decision process for this new TARP fund for small banks is based on economics and not political is not further reinforcement. It is not even the same as requiring Treasury to certify that each specific investment decision is based on economics or not politics, and I think the taxpayers are smart enough to see the difference.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make an example here. What this process that our colleagues on the other side have brought is the same promise that every 16-year-old young woman or young man makes to their parents when they get their driver's license and borrow the car: promise me you won't ever get any tickets. And they promise. And so basically what we're going to have is the Treasury is going to take an oath that we promise we won't let politics be involved in this process. But we'll have no certification on whether politics, as these transactions play out, whether politics or influence was used to influence how these investments were made. And so we're going to take an oath up front, but no certification during the process. I don't think that's good policy.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Democrats wanting to bring a little bit of additional oversight into this. So I would ask unanimous consent, then, that we take the language from the motion to recommit that says the Secretary shall have to certify every transaction and make that a part of the text of this bill.

So I guess my colleagues are not really serious about making this oversight stronger. We're going to go with the watered-down language, which basically says the Secretary is going to certify that we're going to put together a little process here and we think that, one, it will not be based on politics or influence from outside, but we're not going to make him accountable for each billion-dollar investment or millions of dollars of investment of the taxpayers' money into these banks. And so I wish my colleagues on the other side were actually serious about what we're doing here.

I appreciate the majority's trying to address these shortcomings. However, I've already covered that today's bill falls short of the protections for taxpayers offered in the motion last week. At the same time, the majority said those protections were just another bureaucratic layer in the process. I don't think the taxpayers see it that way. Just like the Capital Purchase Program within TARP, this new $30 billion lending fund will make capital investment in banks with taxpayers' dollars. Unlike the TARP program, however, this new program will lack the strong oversight provided by the Inspector General for TARP or SIGTARP. That same SIGTARP last week announced a $2 billion fraud indictment involving an attempt by a bank to obtain TARP money. The regulator put in charge of this new TARP-like fund, the Treasury Inspector, was not even involved in this fraud case.

According to GAO and the Treasury Inspector General's report, the Treasury Inspector General is currently focused on material loss reviews required for failed banks due to the large number of bank failures. Adding oversight of the $30 billion lending fund will require more resources, creating more bureaucracy when we already have in place an agency that can do this job.

SIGTARP has considerable experience overseeing a program in which government purchases preferred stocks in banks--TARP and TARP 2, both the same program. If we create a new TARP program that will also purchase shares in banks, we should use the same oversight agency that has a proven track record and expertise. Doing less is a disservice to the taxpayers. Merely requiring certification that the process the Treasury intends to use will prevent politics from coming into play is not the same as requiring Treasury to certify that each transaction made was based on economics and not politics.

The majority can't have it both ways. You can't say you are going to go ``one better'' than the protections in our motion to recommit that you called another ``bureaucratic layer'' and then do less, which basically is the bill that they brought before us today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will remind the gentleman that the original TARP program was the Federal Government investing taxpayer dollars into the preferred stock of banks. I would encourage the gentleman to read the text of this bill that we passed last Friday. And what does that say? It says the Federal Government will tax the taxpayers' money and provide preferred stock. Now you can try to call it something else, but it's a TARP program.

I want to go back to something that happened last week. During that debate, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) said that those of us on this side of the aisle wanted to keep TARP going. Let's go back to the record here. I didn't get a chance to respond then, so I want to set the record straight.

TARP was supposed to expire on December 31, 2009, and there was strong support for allowing TARP to expire. In fact, more than 100 of us on this side of the aisle sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner that urged him to let TARP expire. In fact, we introduced legislation to force the expiration of TARP. We voted against the majority's legislation to divert TARP funds for other spending. But the Treasury Secretary extended TARP through this October, and the majority did nothing to stop it.

Just as we are, again, getting close to having TARP expire, the majority brings up a bill that creates what is essentially a second TARP program, and it will last for years. So who wants to keep TARP going? Rather than doing something that creates more certainty

for small businesses to grow and add jobs to this economy, the majority is repeating the same failed initiatives that have helped grow our national debt to over $13 trillion in the past 2 years.

We've had record bank failures, including four banks that were TARP recipients. When those TARP recipient banks failed, the taxpayers' investment of $2.6 billion was essentially wiped out. More than 100 banks that have received TARP funds have missed their dividend payments. These missed dividend payments have cost the American taxpayers more than $200 million. The sad thing is that there are things Congress could do that actually help small businesses. Instead, the majority has chosen to pass a bill that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and do nothing, really, to help small businesses. And today the majority has chosen to provide fewer taxpayer protections than we offered last week.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the majority thought we had a good idea. I just wish they would have used our idea. So the vote today is, Do you want to make sure that the taxpayers have a strong oversight, or do you want a watered-down version?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman's amendment is trying to do. I think the intent, if this bill goes forward, is that all small businesses would be eligible under this program. But I think the gentleman is trying to accentuate the fact that land developers and home builders in America are also small businesses and should be able to participate under this program.

As a former developer and builder myself, I'm sympathetic to the difficulties many of these in the construction and housing business face. I think we have to be careful here not to send a signal that would encourage an oversupply in the marketplace and further hurt the industry and job creation.

Also, I would have to remind my colleagues, though, something that we talked about yesterday, is that this is a $30 billion lending fund. The United States Treasury does not have $30 billion, and that's the reason they have these auctions every week. And we're going to have to go borrow another $30 billion, which is going to increase the national debt by another $30 billion.

I have the same concerns about the bill that we had yesterday. We're not sure that this is the right prescription for small businesses. We've seen record liquidity in many of the financial institutions. And as I talk to many banker friends of mine and also the small businesses, basically what's really holding back the country is sales.

The American people are cutting back; they're balancing their budgets, but, unfortunately, the Federal Government is not balancing its budget. In fact, we're going to have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. We just went over $13 trillion in debt in this country. We're approaching a time in this country, and God forbid, where our GDP and our national debt will be the same number.

So I appreciate what my colleagues are trying to do, but I believe if you really want to help small businesses, bring some certainty to the economy. Right now, many businesses are uncertain about what this body might do to them next. They've imposed massive increases in the cost through their health insurance, uncertainty about what the cost of utilities are going to be in the future with cap-and-trade.

So this overall uncertainty is creating a lot of angst in the marketplace, and I think it's affecting the American consumers. Certainly, the people that affect American small businesses the most are the American consumers--the people that are going to buy houses, going to buy cars, going to buy televisions.

And so while I understand where the gentleman is coming from and support his intent to make sure this program is all-inclusive, I do not support the underlying bill. Again, when we say that this is really not going to put the taxpayers at risk, I remind my colleagues that, in fact, 91 banks that received TARP money--and, by the way, this is another TARP program; this is TARP, Junior, TARP II--that another 91 banks missed their dividend payment in May. And so what does that say? That the Treasury's ability to pay out this money to banks that are not in trouble is somewhat questioned because, in fact, when 91 banks miss their dividend payment, evidently there's not something going well in that bank.

Many people voted against TARP I. I believe a number of people are going to vote against TARP II, because that's not the right prescription to get our country going again.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, yes.

This motion makes two important changes to this bill. First, it puts a Special Inspector General for TARP in charge of the oversight of the new Small Business Lending Fund. Remember, this fund is TARP II or TARP, Junior, as it's referred to. Second, the motion requires the Treasury to certify that the decisions about which banks receive funds are based on merit and not political consideration.

This new lending fund follows the model of TARP, minus the stronger oversight, and puts another $30 billion in banks. The motion to recommit would make the Special Inspector General for TARP, or SIGTARP, responsible for oversight of this new program.

In a letter to Chairman Frank, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, said, ``I believe it is absolutely critical to protect the taxpayers that the Office of SIGTARP be permitted to continue its oversight in what is essentially an extension of TARP's Capital Purchase Program. Accordingly, I write to recommend that Congress provide SIGTARP oversight for the SBLF in any resulting legislation.''

Just yesterday, SIGTARP announced an indictment in a $1.9 billion fraud case involving the failed Colonial Bank. Part of the fraud case involves efforts to obtain $533 million in taxpayer money from TARP. Due to the efforts of SIGTARP agents working with law enforcement, the taxpayers were protected.

The underlying legislation puts a deputy of the Treasury Inspector General in charge of oversight. The Treasury Inspector General was not among the many agencies and law enforcement that worked on this $1.9 million fraud involving TARP.

SIGTARP has considerable experience overseeing a program in which the government purchases preferred stocks in banks. If we create a new TARP program that will also purchase shares in banks, why should we not use the same oversight agency that has a proven track record and expertise? Failing to take advantage of SIGTARP's unique expertise is an extreme service to the taxpayers, exposing them to a greater likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Is the majority afraid to use this experienced and effective regulator simply because the word ``TARP'' is part of its title?

The taxpayers deserve to be protected when Treasury makes investments with their money. Unfortunately, we have some examples of TARP investments that have raised serious questions about how the investment decisions were made.

When One United bank received TARP funds in 2008, questions came up about whether the bank's political connections helped with its TARP approval. Prior to receiving funds, One United had lost capital and was under scrutiny by regulators for its lending practices

More recently, a number of Members of Congress and others have questioned whether political pressure was involved in the decision by large banks to raise capital for the troubled Shore Bank in Chicago. Shore Bank has applied for TARP funds, in addition to the $140 million in assistance from other banks, to head off a takeover by the FDIC. Shore Bank also has ties to the Obama administration.

We do not have all the answers on how these decisions were made for the banks, but we need to be sure that these types of questions are not raised about other banks.

The motion to recommit says Treasury must certify that each decision to provide funds is made solely on economic fundamentals and not because of any political consideration. This is the type of decision- making that taxpayers always expect and deserve. When their $30 billion is being put on the line, we need to do all we can to protect their investment. The underlying bill falls short to do that.

The motion to recommit improves taxpayer protections by putting the experience of SIGTARP over this new TARP program and requiring that investment decisions be made on economic fundamentals, not political connections. If you're going to have TARP II, why wouldn't you use the same regulator that you had for TARP I?

I urge my colleagues to stand with the taxpayers and support this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.