Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, while I do not plan to object, I just wanted to point out that by accepting the chairman's request, we are agreeing to help you fix a drafting issue with your amendment. However, Republicans also note that only one of our amendments was made in order today. So at the same time we are agreeing to help you fix your amendment--an amendment, by the way, that is considered adopted without a vote--your side has blocked all but one of our amendments from coming up.

I just wanted to make sure that we are all clear on how things are handled these days in the House before we move on to this bill.

With that, I withdraw my reservation.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5297. My opposition is not a question of whether or not I support small businesses, it's a question of whether or not this bill will actually help small businesses. Unfortunately, my conclusion is that this bill will not help them, but will cost the taxpayers another $33 billion--by the way, $33 billion that we don't have.

As a former small business owner, as well as a former lender, I understand firsthand the need for small business to have access to credit. Access to credit has tightened, but demand for credit from worthy borrowers has also declined.

What small businesses really need more than anything in the current economic environment is more certainty so they can invest and can plan for the future. What they have gotten from Congress is more and more uncertainty.

Small businesses will face a costly tax penalty if they can't comply with the added cost of the new health care law. One business owner in my district told me he had plans to expand and to create jobs, but he has put those on hold now because his business would not grow over 51 employees and then be subject to the new law.

Small businesses are worried about how much their energy costs will go up under the proposals of cap-and-tax

bills. Finally, they have no idea how much their taxes will be next year. Not only are they worried about new taxes to pay for more government spending, but they know that taxes will also go up automatically if Congress does not do anything to address the expiring tax provisions.

No wonder small businesses are in a holding pattern and are not creating new jobs, and this bill does nothing to provide any certainty for small businesses. Rather than doing something that creates more certainty for small businesses to grow and to add jobs in this economy, the majority is repeating the same failed initiatives that have helped our national debt grow to $13 trillion in the past 2 years. This bill follows the model of the TARP program, minus the stronger oversight, and it puts another $30 billion into banks in the hopes that lending to small businesses will increase.

In the words of Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General who oversees the TARP, ``In terms of its basic design,'' he says, ``its participants, its application process, from an oversight perspective, the Small Business Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of the TARP's Capital Purchase Program.''

From the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, chaired by Elizabeth Warren, she says, ``The SBLF's prospects are far from certain. The SBLF also raises questions about whether, in light of the Capital Purchase Program's poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion program can successfully jump-start small business lending.''

This bill allows for another $33 million in spending that will be added to the government's credit card. The CBO tells us that the bank lending portion will ultimately cost taxpayers $3.4 billion when market risk is taken into account.

We have had record bank failures, including the failures of four banks that were TARP recipients. When those TARP recipient banks failed, the taxpayers' investments of $2.6 billion were essentially wiped out. More than 100 banks that have received TARP funds so far have missed their dividend payments. These missed dividend payments have cost the taxpayers almost $200 million. It turns out that many of these banks that received TARP funds were far from healthy.

Do we really think there will be no more bank failures or missed dividend payments among banks that receive funds out of this new TARP program? We know there will be, and the CBO says there will be, which will lead to more losses for the taxpayers.

This fund is just like the TARP's Capital Purchase Program, except for the stronger oversight. I am extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee blocked a sensible amendment that would have improved the oversight of this new lending fund by bringing it under the oversight of the Special Inspector General for TARP. SIGTARP has developed significant experience in looking out for the taxpayers when it comes to the TARP program. SIGTARP's expertise should be used for this fund to protect the taxpayers.

H.R. 5297 will lead to more losses for taxpayers and to no more improvement in credit for small businesses. A lack of credit is not even the largest problem facing these small businesses. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, the top problem facing small businesses is the lack of sales and demand. If businesses are not confident they will have customers, they are not going to borrow; they are not going to expand, and they are not going to add jobs.

This $33 billion bill is not going to help increase demand from small business customers. Instead, we need the government to step back and to stop prolonging the uncertainty that is crowding out economic growth in our country. The sad thing is that there are things that Congress could actually be doing to help small businesses. Instead, the majority has chosen to bring up bills that will cost the taxpayers billions and that will do nothing to help the small businesses. They have denied our side the ability to offer substantial amendments.

I think it was appalling, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, that the majority awarded themselves 66 amendments to this bill and that they awarded the Republicans one. Now, if that is the bipartisanship that this leadership is talking about, I don't think the American people are buying that that is bipartisan, because many of the amendments that we offered, Mr. Chairman, were to add additional protections for the taxpayers. Obviously, the majority is not interested in protecting the taxpayers' investments with this $33 billion. By the way, this is $33 billion that we don't have.

I am hoping that the majority is going to tell us this morning where the proposal of the $33 billion is going to come from. Well, I can tell you where it is going to come from. We are going to charge it to our children and to our grandchildren. You know what? I think we've just about reached the limit on the amount of money we should charge to our children and to our grandchildren.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to urge my colleagues to insist that we do better for small businesses. We must do something for small businesses, but this is not the answer, and I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that is interesting is that this program is designed to put more capital into the banking system.

According to the Federal Reserve's April survey of senior loan officers, three factors that exerted the greatest influence on banks' business lending practices over the past 3 months were competitive pressures, the economic outlook, and the tolerance for risk in the business loan market. Lack of capital was not mentioned as one of the driving forces for lending decisions that are being made.

So, basically, Mr. Chairman, what this bill tries to do is to solve a problem that, according to the Federal Reserve, doesn't exist. There is plenty of capital, but there is this competitive pressure, this economic outlook, and this tolerance for risk.

Going back to my earlier point, when I traveled around the 19th Congressional District, I talked to a number of lenders. At the same time, I visited businesses in their communities. What I learned during that process is that many of the small businesses just said, Congressman, things are just too uncertain right now. We don't know what Congress is going to do with taxes. We don't know what they're going to do with this energy bill. We don't know exactly. We are trying to figure out how this new health care bill is going to impact our businesses, how it is going to impact our bottom lines.

Then I went over and talked to the lenders. Many of the lenders are sitting on record amounts of cash and capital in their banks. They are looking as hard as they can for good lending opportunities. What they said is, Unfortunately, some of our customers are not creditworthy. The economy has hurt their sales, and so it wouldn't be

prudent to loan those businesses more money. Others said, Our good customers, customers who are creditworthy, are not coming to us and borrowing any money because, again, of this uncertainty.

So, again, our opposition to this bill is that it is not really addressing the real issue in our economy, which is needing to bring some certainty and to leave the capital in the companies, to leave the capital in the economy, instead of the Federal Government's continuing to create uncertainty and taking money out of the economy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the majority leader coming and telling us that this won't cost the taxpayers any money. We have asked the majority for an updated CBO score on this bill with the revisions, and we have not seen that yet. So we don't actually know that for certain. But what we do know is that from the TARP program, there were losses incurred in the TARP program. And this program has been identified by people who are very familiar with the TARP program as another TARP program, except some people want to call this TARP II, TARP Jr. But by and large, this is another TARP program.

You know, there is no question today that all of us realize that small businesses are the number one job creator in our country. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I am a small businessman. I came to Congress not from being a lifelong politician, but from creating jobs in this country, of making payrolls. I have made a payroll. I have borrowed money. I have actually been a lender. And if you really want to get the economy going back in America, as the majority has tried throwing money at the problem--and I would have thought that they would have learned by now that all this money, the trillions of dollars that they have thrown at the economy hasn't created any jobs. We still have almost 10 percent of the American people who are unemployed in this country today. The numbers show that 17 percent of the American people are either unemployed or underemployed, so throwing money at the problem isn't the answer.

If you want to create jobs in America, I will tell you how you create jobs in America. Number one, you bring some certainty in America. Right now the American people are questioning what the future of their country is. They are seeing record deficits by this administration. This year alone, if we had a budget--we don't know what the deficit is going to be this year because, one, we haven't passed any appropriation bills in this Congress.

And, secondly, the leadership of the majority hasn't brought a budget to the floor, and maybe they are not going to because they don't want their Members to have to take a vote on a budget that's going to say: for every dollar we're going to spend, we are going to have to borrow 42 cents. I am sure they would be embarrassed. And it would be more embarrassing if you voted for a budget like that.

But the way you bring certainty to the country is, one, we are going to have to start cutting back our spending and reducing these deficits. Leaving money in the economy. As a small businessman, when I had the capital in my business, and the government wasn't taxing away my capital, I was able to take that capital and leverage it, and go to my lender, be a responsible borrower, and it would be prudent to lend to me, and we could expand our business that way.

The other thing is, yesterday this body had an opportunity to do something for small business, and that was to repeal the mandate for health care

that was in the Democrats' health care bill. Unfortunately, there was not enough votes, but some of our Democratic colleagues understand the same thing we do: if you want to bring certainty, create jobs in America, you take that off the backs of small businesses.

So, really, I wish that this bill would do something for small businesses in this country because small businesses are the lifeblood and the engine for our country. Unfortunately, this bill will not do anything for small businesses; but it will put the taxpayers, again, at risk to underwrite and to invest in banks.

You know, I figured this: it's simple back there in Lubbock, Texas, that, you know, if somebody wants to invest their dollars in a bank, let them invest their dollars in a bank. Don't take the money away from the taxpayers and invest it because the government thinks that they know what is a better program. So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote for small business, but not this bill. This bill doesn't help small business.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

The bill currently includes language regarding women and minority-owned business, and adding the veteran-owned businesses makes sense. And so with that, we support this amendment and we thank the gentleman for bringing it forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it removes some of the safeguards to ensure the banks use the money in the way that they are supposed to and not simply just building up their capital buffers. Allowing recipients to self-certify that they have increased small business lending guts all of the other protections in this bill.

If we are going to allow recipients to pay dividends as low as 1 percent, we need to make sure that the money is used the way the legislation is intended. We already have less oversight of this money than we did in the TARP program, and even though it is the same program, cutting back even further is the wrong approach.

Already under this bill, banks are getting a good deal on the cost of capital, thanks to the taxpayers. Community banks that issue preferred equity paid dividends of 9 percent or more in the private market, here we have the government giving them the capital for 5 percent, or as low as 1 percent.

This amendment changes the incentives in the wrong way, and we need more safeguards for the taxpayers, not fewer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that when we are going to give a dividend, a lesser dividend rate for the more performance that these banks have, letting themselves certify is not a good check and balance. Certainly we want them to increase their lending, but we need third-party validation to make sure that if they are going to get as low as a 1 percent capital dividend rate, that some third-party validation validates that because obviously that has impact on this program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's point here of trying to create a new source of capital in commercial real estate at a time when there is a significant amount of stress on our community banks. Financing for commercial real estate, particularly the smaller loan market that serves small businesses, has been limited. The commercial mortgage-backed securities market, the CMBS market, which accounted for nearly 50 percent of the commercial real estate lending in 2007, remains dormant.

So while I continue to believe the $30 billion lending fund will not improve lending for small businesses, I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment.

Certainly I am sympathetic to the many community banks coping with real estate assets on their books that have lost their value; however, I am not sure this amendment is the best solution.

This amendment would essentially allow certain banks to hide losses for up to 10 years. The practice of legislative forbearance is a dangerous one and could result in problems that only get worse because they are not properly addressed. Accounting rules function to provide a clear record of the health of the institution. This amendment does just the opposite by hiding the losses.

The amortization provided by this amendment does not take effect for 2 years, when the increase in small business lending is measured; thus, it doesn't really address the current credit problems that this bill attempts to solve. This amendment creates the wrong incentive of allowing banks to hide losses for longer periods of time based on making even more loans. Instead of continuing to distort the market, the government should instead create an expansionary environment where we are lowering taxes and providing regulatory certainty and not hiding accounting losses.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I don't think I'm going to oppose the amendment.

I just wanted to clarify something that the gentleman said.

I understand that the bank will disclose to the borrower that they are loaning them funds because they are participating under this program, and then the gentleman went on to say that the Treasury would then post a report on their Web site. Now, would that list the names of the borrowers? Will the Treasury report list on their Web site the names of each borrower that borrowed money under this program?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman because I was concerned about the privacy of those business owners, you know, letting the world know how much money they're borrowing. So I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I think disclosure is a good thing.

I just want to make a point that there have been several discussions up here today that this is not going to cost the taxpayers any money, and only in Washington, D.C., can you go spend $33 billion and say it's not going to cost anything. The problem is, if this program is participated up to $33 billion, we don't have $33 billion, and so we're going to go have to borrow $33 billion from the Chinese to loan banks to loan to small businesses in this country.

And a lot of folks I think understand that kind of how we got here was that the whole world, small businesses, individuals, and governments, have been on this borrowing and spending binge, borrow and spend, borrow and spend, and quite honestly, that's how we wove this web where we've got our financial markets in somewhat of a wrinkle right now.

So, while I applaud the gentleman's amendment, I still go back to the fundamental point here that, one, this bill will not help small businesses have any additional capital, but more importantly, we are going to go spend $33 billion that we don't have, and I don't think that's the right prescription for our country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman.

I still go back to the point, and I think that's where we get kind of in a, we're living in Wally World here in Washington, D.C., where you still have to have $33 billion. If you're going to go invest in the preferred shares of these banks, you've still got to find the $33 billion. And the truth of the matter is for every dollar we're going to appropriate or allocate in this country this year, we're going to have to borrow 42 cents of it.

So I guess the question is, should we go out and hock another $33 billion for a program that many people think that there's adequate capital and liquidity already in the banking industry? Some people have been quoted as saying, well, 42 percent of the small businesses have been turned down for loans in this country. Well, you know, I was in the loan business, and everybody that came in to my borrow money from me when I was a loan officer wasn't credit-worthy or it wasn't in their best interest to leverage their business further.

So I'm afraid that we're out here trying to encourage behavior that the marketplace may be already taking care of.

My good friend from Georgia did make a point that the regulatory folks are sending mixed messages. I think that's a bad policy. I think the regulators need to be more consistent with their policy, again bringing that certainty because what we've heard time and time again, whether it's from the business community or from the lending community, all of this uncertainty about what Congress is doing and the regulatory reforms that are going on, all of this is creating a huge amount of uncertainty. And so what happens when we have uncertainty in the marketplace, people just sit on the sidelines.

If you want to get businesses going again, if you want to get the economy going again, we've got to get the government out of the banking business. We've got to get the government out of all these huge regulations. We've got to bring economic certainty by not imposing more restrictions on companies on their health care; cap-and-trade affecting what they're potentially going to pay for energy in the future; uncertainty with our tax code, where we don't know what provisions are going to expire, what provisions aren't.

And you know, wouldn't it be nice for the American people to get to see a budget of how Congress is planning to spend their money, instead of going through a daily, monthly, weekly exercise of spending money without a budget? The American people don't do their business that way. They're a little bit concerned that the United States Congress just keeps on spending money but without a budget.

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the bill.

This new capital injection program is designed to operate exactly like the TARP program but without any of the taxpayer protection or oversight bodies. Now, this amendment is intended to substitute for putting the experience of the Inspector General for this type of program in charge of this new fund.

Republicans had an amendment that put the Special Inspector General for TARP, or SIGTARP, in charge of the oversight of this new fund, but the Rules Committee blocked it. Really, this creates a new regulator where we had an existing regulator in place for TARP-like programs, which this is, and we think that that was a better alternative. And now we want to put someone that doesn't have as much experience with this type of program in charge of oversight, and we just don't think that's in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Republicans, as I want to remind the chairman, offered a number of amendments that would have given the taxpayers much more protection even than this amendment would. Unfortunately, again--and I don't want to be redundant here, but the Rules Committee, which is controlled by the majority, only allowed one Republican amendment to be heard while we've

had 16 amendments from the majority. Again, we wondered why Republican amendments to provide better protection and better oversight were blocked by the majority when I think the American people think that any kind of amendment that would have provided them more opportunity, more protection, and more oversight would have been in their best interest.

We don't think that this amendment does the job that it needs to do, and therefore we're opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I concede to the gentleman that none of this money is coming from the TARP program; it probably should have because it's a TARP program. I want to just remind the gentleman that Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General who oversees TARP, said, In terms of its basic design, its participants, its application process, from an oversight perspective the Small Business Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of TARP's capital purchase program.

From Elizabeth Warren, the SBLF's prospects are far from certain. The SBLF also raises the question whether, in light of the capital purchase program's poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion for the program can essentially jump-start small business lending. So everybody but the Democrats understands that this is a TARP program.

Now, why did we want SIGTARP to have oversight? Because this is a TARP-like program. And just today it was released that SIGTARP helped bring a new lawsuit today for $1.9 billion in fraud collection with the failure of Colonial Bank. Colonial Bank received $553 million in TARP funds. To say that you're going to go out and put $33 billion into the marketplace and not suffer any losses at a time when we have over 100 banks that have already missed one dividend payment--we've had one bank that has missed six dividend payments--and that several billion dollars have already been lost from some of these banks that were defaulted and were closed after the taxpayers had put money in there.

And I go back to you saying, well, it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. I keep asking the majority, where is the $33 billion for this program coming from?

I yield to the gentleman.

No. I would like the gentleman to answer the question----

I will reclaim my time if the gentleman is not going to answer my question. The question to the gentleman was, Where is the $33 billion coming from? If the gentleman wants to answer that question, I would love to yield him time. If he's not prepared to tell me where the $33 billion is coming from, then I would not yield the gentleman time.

No. The pay-for was to cover any potential losses, supposedly. But where is the $33 billion that you're going to invest in these banks coming from?

I will reclaim my time because the gentleman obviously doesn't know where the $33 billion is coming from, which is part of the problem up here. People just think this money appears when you start saying I'm going to put $33 billion here or $100 billion here, $250 billion here; and nobody knows where the money is coming from. But the bottom line is we know where the money is coming from. We're going out and borrowing that money because the Treasury doesn't have $33 billion.

Madam Chair, we do not object to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the bill.

I thank my friend from Texas.

I think this is a commonsense amendment. I think if you're going to do this program--certainly, I don't support the underlying program, but if we are going to do it, we are going to put this capital into some of these banks for lending, it certainly ought to be in areas where they have the highest unemployment. That makes sense.

I still think we can do better for small businesses by providing an environment where there's less uncertainty; more certainty on what the tax situation is going to be, and less uncertainty about what the regulatory environment is going to be. But I think the gentleman's amendment makes the underlying bill better. So we would not object to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim opposition to the amendment, but I am not opposed to it.

Well, I thank the gentleman for this commonsense amendment. It's unfortunate that we have to bring an amendment to the floor of the House of Representatives to tell government agencies to write out the instructions in plain English. But I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I think it makes the bill better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

As the provisions in the bill say, loans to farmers in rural areas count as small business lending under the provisions of this bill. But just like the sponsor of the bill, I represent an agricultural district and understand how important access to credit is for farmers. I think this sense of Congress emphasizes that farming and ranching and agriculture is an integral part of our economy. It is an integral part of our small business community, and I think it highlights that. So I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa bringing that forward. I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the bill.

I thank the gentleman for that. Basically, the amendment would require an applicant for the Small Business Lending Fund to plan for logistically and culturally appropriate outreach and require that such outreach is performed after receiving the funds. I think that could be appropriate there. And as I understand it, the requirements of this fall to the eligible institutions; and there's no additional money appropriated for that; but they would do that out of their own operating expenses. Is that correct?

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know when they are being ignored. Congress just isn't listening. Unemployment is nearly 10 percent. The national debt is skyrocketing past $13 trillion; and even more spending is coming down the pipe this week. Dependency on the Federal Government is rising at an alarming rate, and the Democrats have failed to even propose a budget.

Our Founding Fathers would not be pleased with this situation, and neither are the American people. That is why I am launching The Empowerment Project. To get America back on track, we must restore our founders' principles of empowerment by having more limited government, increasing personal freedom and responsibility, and having greater choices and opportunity. The Empowerment Project will work to highlight Member initiatives that empower the American people to prosper.

Our Nation cannot thrive if it is built on government dependency. It is time to put America back on the path of empowerment. To learn more about The Empowerment Project, go to my Web site at Randy.house.gov.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1368, supporting the goals of National Dairy Month, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 70 years, we have celebrated the month of June as National Dairy Month. Today it is particularly important to recognize the efforts of the hardworking men and women in the dairy industry.

The 19th Congressional District is one of the fastest growing dairy regions in the Nation, but many dairy

producers from west Texas and the big country are concerned about low milk prices and rising production costs that are making it difficult for these operations to survive.

Dairy products, like milk, cheese and ice cream, contain essential nutrients, including calcium, and potassium. These products may help to reduce your risk for high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and certain cancers. National Dairy Month is a great opportunity to get together with friends and family and celebrate an industry that provides nutritional value to our lives and is an important part of many local economies.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts that are underway within the National Milk Producers Federation. They are working to develop policy proposals to address the current crisis that have affected the profitability of nearly every dairy farm in this country. While I may not agree with each of their policy recommendations, I do appreciate the forward thinking and innovative approach that they are taking.

However, despite these efforts, it is likely that whatever we do to ``fix'' the dairy policy will be negatively offset as a result of other policies advocated by this administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Whether we are talking about the cap-and-tax bill or the growing list of regulatory proposals being advanced at the EPA and other Federal agencies, there doesn't seem to be any limit on the costs this administration is willing to impose on big businesses or small businesses around this country. We need to empower businesses large and small to create jobs and have long-term profitability instead of burdening them with new regulations and taxes that prevent long-term business planning.

As we celebrate the accomplishments of America's dairy industry this month, I am hopeful that my colleagues will agree that in order to sustain the long-term profitability of this or any other agricultural enterprise steps need to be taken to curb the efforts by this administration and the Democratic leadership that threaten our industry, our economy and our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1383, honoring the contributions and the retirement of National FFA Advisor Dr. Larry Case. This is the time of year when we see FFA members in our Nation's Capitol wearing the symbolic blue and gold jackets. These students are the future of American agriculture. We are grateful to Dr. Case, as well as local and State FFA advisors across the country, for educating and encouraging these students to develop lifelong skills in the field of agriculture. In fact, two of my current staff members are former FFA chapter presidents.

With more than 500,000 members, the National FFA Organization is one of the largest youth organizations in the world. For 26 years, Dr. Case has served as the national advisor. The National FFA Organization mission statement is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education.

During his tenure, Dr. Case has led this organization in tremendous membership growth, promoted the importance of agriculture education, and helped empower countless individuals to build a brighter future for agriculture.

Dr. Case's involvement with FFA began when he was a member in Stet, Missouri. He later chose to pursue his agriculture education degree at the University of Missouri. In 1966, he began his career as an agriculture education instructor. Since that time, he has taught numerous students valuable leadership skills while learning about the importance of the U.S. agriculture industry.

We appreciate Dr. Case's tireless dedication, service, and leadership, and we wish him well on his retirement in January. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1383.

I yield back the balance of my time.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want financial reform. They don't want a financial reform replay. Financial regulatory reform is something we can all agree is needed, but we owe it to the taxpayers, who have picked up the tab for the endless bailouts, to get it right.

The House and Senate bills both lead us a long way from getting it done right. Both the House and Senate bills give the government permanent authority to continue these AIG bailouts of failing firms. Both bills let the government continue to pick winners and losers by deciding which financial companies will get on the too-big-to-fail list and which will benefit from government backing. As it stands right now, these bills give the very same regulators, who, by the way, failed to get the job done right in the first place, more authority and more power. These bills don't provide real reform. They only make bailouts and government protection for failure explicit and permanent, leaving taxpayers on the hook indefinitely.

These bills reduce choices and increase the cost of credit. At a time when small businesses all across the country are having a hard time getting credit, we are going to take action now that will reduce the ability for them, leading to fewer jobs and to more unemployment in our country.

Finally, these bills fail to address the two companies that have cost the taxpayers the most: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. $175 billion, to date, of the taxpayers' money is already invested in these two entities. Yet this bill fails to make any attempt at any kind of reform of these two entities.

Our motion instructs conferees to fix the biggest problems with this bill by removing all of the new and permanent bailouts. Our motion says that financial companies that fail should be allowed to fail and to use the rule of bankruptcy law, not backroom deals, which give some creditors more preference over others and which give different treatment to different creditors. Our motion says that the regulators should be held accountable, that they should not being given free rein to pick winners and losers and to decide who is too big to fail. The taxpayers want the

financial regulatory system fixed, but they don't want it fixed with permanent bailouts.

Support the motion to instruct to remove the bailout provisions from this bill and insist on real protections and reforms for the taxpayers, for our financial system, and for our economy. Mr. Speaker, the American people want reform. They don't want another replay of bailouts. Support the motion.

Well, I thank the gentleman, and he brings up some excellent points.

I am a proud member of the 10th Amendment Task Force because I think one of the things that we have to do in order to restore order in this country is to get back to some of the principles that our Founders intended. They didn't intend for government to be the answer to every issue in this country.

One of the things I think back to happened a few years ago in my congressional district, which was not too long after we had the Katrina incident in New Orleans. We had a major fire in an area called Cross Plains, Texas. I went down there the next day, and the people in that region had already brought clothes to the church, so the people who had lost everything in the fire were able to receive clothes. For the people who had lost livestock, other people were going out and helping them. For people who had lost their homes, people in the community had provided temporary housing.

And within a very short period of time, the people in this community met their own needs. And I got an interesting phone call from a member of the media, and that person said, well, what is the government doing for the people in Cross Plains today? And I said, well, you know, the good news, we didn't need the government in Cross Plains today because the people responded to that.

And I think what we've gotten away from, as the gentleman points out, is we've kind of turned the whole concept of what the Founders thought about this country upside down. They never intended for the government to be the solution and, in fact, the best solutions happen when you keep the government closest to the people.

So the Tenth Amendment Task Force, what we're going to try to do is not only analyze some of the things we've already done; but as legislation is brought to this very floor, we're going to try to remind our colleagues of the principle of federalism, and is this the right place for this particular piece of legislation to be originated, or should this be left to the people, because every time the Federal Government puts a new law in place, individuals' liberties and freedoms are eroded.

Now, one of the things that we've been talking about in this body for a number of months now is these record deficits in our country. It wasn't many years ago that this country had a budget of $100 billion, in fact, back in, I think, 1962. This year the President of the United States brought a budget to this floor that spent over $3.7 trillion. And by the way, it's $3.7 trillion, and we don't have $3.7 trillion. In fact, we're going to borrow 42 cents for every dollar we're going to spend.

One of the reasons that we are running these record deficits is we have all of this money being funneled into the Federal system, and then we have all of these people up here in Washington trying to figure out how to spend the taxpayers' dollars, and then those monies go down to the States, and the States try to figure out how to distribute those dollars, and then the States pass them out maybe to the local communities. And here's what happens:

Here is a dollar bill that the taxpayers pay in taxes. Now, what happens is, after Washington washes this money in this massive federalism, then we have the dollar that actually gets back to the intended purpose. It's a shrunk dollar. And one of the things we can do if we really want to be serious about, one, being more government efficient is getting the government out of some of the businesses they're in so that this dollar is the dollar that gets to the people, and not this dollar that's been washed through Washington and through the States, but back to the local governments.

As I close and yield back to the gentleman, I think about the days when I was on the city council in Lubbock, Texas. And it was so discouraging to me where we would be sitting in council meetings, and we would be sitting with staff, and someone would have an innovative idea of better ways to serve our citizenry in Lubbock, Texas. But we would always hear from some of the staffers, well, there's a Federal regulation that we'll have to check on; or I'm not sure that that is in keeping with certain regulations that would keep Lubbock from getting certain kinds of funding, because it was stifling creativity in our local communities.

And so, as the gentleman points out, the Founders were very sincere about not letting the Federal Government have very many powers, because they knew where the best work happens, that to keep innovation and liberty and freedom in place was to limit the powers of our Federal Government. Some way along the line we lost our way.

And one of the reasons I joined the Tenth Amendment Task Force was to see if we can restore the spirit of the Constitution back to this body.

And with that, I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his time.

Mr. Speaker, I saw a headline yesterday that said it's going to be another trillion dollar week in Washington, DC. We are going to spend nearly $1 trillion this week in Washington, and you know what? We don't even have a budget. There's another problem: we don't have $1 trillion either.

So now what are we going to do? Well, we're going to go out and borrow some more money from the Chinese and other people. Remember the old days when you used to go to your parents and ask them if they could get a loan? Now we go to our children and ask them if they will pay back our loans.

We hear a lot of talk in this town about cutting expenses, cutting the budget. Well, it would be nice to cut a budget if we had one, but we don't. And how does the majority think that they can run this country or lead this Nation when they don't even have a budget? We don't even know what the deficit is going to be, but we hear it's going to be $1.8 trillion. And by the way, a trillion, that's 12 zeros, in case anyone wants to know. In fact, Mr. Spratt said, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee who is supposed to bring us a budget, If you can't bring a budget, you can't govern. So we ask the question now, can this Democratic majority govern?

Mr. Speaker, every day all across America right now families are sitting down at the dinner table trying to figure out how to make ends meet. Many of them have lost their jobs. Others have seen that their mortgage payments have gone up, their utility costs are going up. And you know what they are having to do? They are having to sit down and revise their budget. They are trying to figure out instead of taking a vacation if they need to go and fix the car.

What we have seen is the American people are realizing that you can't borrow and spend, borrow and spend, that someday there is a day of reckoning. And they are wondering why their government hasn't figured that out.

Last week, Republicans gave the American people an opportunity to voice their opinion about whether we should cut expenses or not; 280,000 people said we should start cutting spending. And they are going to be given an opportunity this week to express themselves as well.

Mr. Speaker, what they wonder is why Congress doesn't get the message. We saw today that the jobless rate is up to 471,000 people. People are out of work, Mr. Speaker. We need to get Americans back to work and we need to cut the spending. We need to listen to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in a minute, we're going to have a vote on the previous question. It's going to be a very simple vote. If you vote ``yes''--and I think a lot of my colleagues on the other side are going to do that--that means yes, keep on spending money we don't have. Now I'm going to vote ``no'' because I believe that the American people are speaking out--and I'm listening--that they're tired of spending.

There's a picture in the cloakroom of a little girl standing next to a dollhouse. She says, You know, I owe $41,966, and all I own is a dollhouse. Really, that's what this is about. This is about the future of our children and our grandchildren. And what we're doing every day is mortgaging that future. Today, we have almost $13 trillion in debt. We're on course here to double that debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years.

What are we going to say to our children and our grandchildren when we leave them with a legacy that, basically, all they get to do is service the debt service? We've got to stop it. And so that's the reason the right vote on the previous question is ``yes'' if you want to keep on spending. But if you want to stop spending, you want to bring fiscal responsibility to this country, you want to leave a legacy of opportunity and empowerment for our future generations, you're going to vote ``no.'' It's time to listen to the 280,000 people that participated in YouCut last week that said, Stop the spending. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, National Police Week provides an opportunity for all of us to reflect on our law enforcement officers' countless contributions to building safe communities, not only in the Nation but also in the 19th Congressional District. This week, we pay tribute to those police officers who sacrifice so much for our safety. I am honored to stand behind those who risk their lives on a daily basis to keep our families and our neighborhoods safe. During this week, we also take time to remember those officers who we have lost in the line of duty and their families.

This week, members of the Lubbock County Sheriff's Office are in Washington to attend the candlelight vigil in honor of fallen police officers across the Nation, including Lubbock County Sheriff Deputy Corporal Harvey. Corporal Harvey was killed on April 6, 2009, in a vehicle accident while on duty. Corporal Harvey joined the Lubbock County Sheriff's Office in 2001 and was a member of the Texas Tactical Peace Officers Association. Corporal Harvey was a devoted father to sons J.D. and Austin and loving husband to his wife, Stacy.

Corporal Harvey's name will be engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and will be revealed during a ceremony in honor of all 116 officers who were killed in 2009. I will have the great honor to meet Corporal Harvey's parents, Danny and Diana, and his brother Brendan while they are here in Washington and to welcome the Lubbock County Sheriff's Department Honor Guard. We cannot and will not forget the service of Corporal Harvey and the many others who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, we sometimes take for granted that every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, that men and women go out and put on a different uniform than our Nation's military. They put on a uniform of keeping the peace in our country, keeping our homes safe, keeping our businesses safe, keeping our streets safe. And we thank those men and women that do that. Sometimes I think we take them for granted.

I hope that the American people will use this week to go up to a peace officer, a law enforcement officer and take that opportunity to say ``thank you.'' But also, maybe you live in a neighborhood where a sheriff's officer or a police officer lives in your neighborhood. Maybe they live next door to you. I hope you will take time to say to their family, Thank you for supporting your dad or your mom or your husband or your wife and allowing them to serve our country in this very special way because truly, it is a team sport, because without the support of the families, these men and women could not go and do the great job that we ask them to do. And what we learn is, this is a dangerous job, and unfortunately every year, we lose officers in the line of duty. We've already lost at least one in the 19th Congressional District this year. So from all the people in the 19th Congressional District--and I think I can speak for all the people across America, thank you, peace officers, law enforcement officers all across our country. And may God bless you, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are frustrated. They don't think that bailouts, government spending, and debt will ever stop. My colleagues across the aisle just don't seem to get it. They say they want to stop bailouts and make sure that the breakdown in our financial system doesn't ever happen again. But financial reform that perpetuates bailouts and limits the choices of individuals is not going to do that.

They're hoping the taxpayers won't take time to understand what the financial regulatory bills actually do. Small businesses will be hurt. Community banks will have to restrict credit. We'll only punish Main Street and slow down job growth. The proposal that passed the House and is pending in the Senate is just more big government takeover of all aspects of our financial systems and less empowerment where we need it the most.

More than 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the President signed his so-called stimulus plan. Month after month the American people still want to know, ``Mr. President, where are those jobs?'' Rather than creating a permanent bailout, picking winners and losers, we need real financial reform that supports Main Street.

Mr. Speaker, in case there's any doubt about the new report released by CMS this week, the report says it all. The Democrats' health care bill fails to provide the reform taxpayers deserve and expected. In fact, the report clearly states that the health care spending will go up by $310 billion over the next 10 years and that the new long-term care CLASS Program poses serious risk of being unsustainable.

This is just another example of the Federal Government's creating yet another unsustainable program and failing to empower the American people. We have set ourselves up for more spending, more burdens that we simply cannot afford, while taking away benefits from seniors and disabled Americans who need them most.

While Republicans offered positive solutions to tackle the spending, Democrats created a massive new government-run health care plan that hurts the economy, interferes with patient choices, and does nothing to bring down the cost of health care.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent a number of weeks back in my district, the 19th Congressional District of Texas, talking to small businesses all throughout the district about the economy and about jobs, which is on the minds of the American people, and particularly the people in the 19th Congressional District.

Many of them said, Congressman, we would be spending money, we would be expanding our business, but Congress is creating such an uncertainty that we don't know what to do. They're still trying to figure out how this health care bill is going to impact them. They're still trying to figure out if this Congress is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill that will increase the cost of energy. They hear Congress talking about all kinds of taxes, VAT taxes, gasoline taxes.

And now they see Congress is spending and borrowing money it doesn't have, running up these record deficits. And they said, Congressman, we're just uncertain about what the future is in this country.

In fact, when I go around to clubs and meetings, I ask people in the audience to raise their hand if they are living out a better life than their parents. Everybody's hand raises. But when I ask them how many people think, based upon the course we are on today, that their children and grandchildren will live a better day, the hands are brought down.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get back to the basics here, cut spending, cut taxes, and get the American people back to work.

Madam Speaker, I was absent from votes on April 15, 2010 due to official travel. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 207 ``nay''; Rollcall 208 ``yea''; Rollcall 209 ``nay''; Rollcall 210 ``yea''; and Rollcall 211 ``nay.''