Floor Statements

I would like to ask you about that. I'm listening to what you are saying, if I could.

I'm thinking back. If you're referencing the time when--actually, I think I had one of those amendments, if I'm not mistaken. I know one of the amendments I made and I withdrew, and then I made some other amendments, and I think Ed Royce and I'm trying to think. There was a whole series of amendments.

Just two quick points. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding. One, as an individual who was one of the few in those numbers who voted ``no'' on those amendments----

Right. And ``no'' in committee. Obviously, I saw some of the problems and had concerns early on.

Secondly, I will make a suggestion to you as to why you get the accusations, if you will, or the statements about you, as you will. I didn't see the program. I heard you were on Lou Dobbs and other things like that the other night where those statements are often made. I will make the suggestion as to why that may be, if you will.

When I came here in 2002, in that election and that year and joined the committee, I immediately became somewhat involved in this issue, although I had never been involved in it before.

I saw in our committee, between both parties, that one person stood out, in my mind, and a lot of other people's mind, as the person who was always trying to fight to rein in the GSEs. And that person, who is no longer with us, is Richard Baker. He was articulate, he was eloquent. He was always on the facts and what have you. He was always pounding, pounding, pounding at every opportunity. So I and other people saw him as being on that side.

And, quite candidly, when we had those debates, when some of those amendments as you referred to before--and I think there were other ones in the later months that I and others made from the conservative point of view; a number of us saw the champion on the other side of that issue out of both parties, out of both Republicans and Democrats; and I agree that there were some Republicans who were vociferous as far as letting Fannie and Freddie do----

What I am saying is not how the votes were going. I was saying as to which Members actually stood up and were most vociferous on this issues. Not all the Republicans were vociferous on it; there were one or two or three that were vociferous, as Richard Baker was on this side.

And on those other issues, maybe because you were ranking member in the minority years, but otherwise you were very vociferous on opposing those bills.

To the gentleman from Iowa, I appreciate your organizing this hour on the floor. And I came here ostensibly to talk about the issue affecting the American public today, and that you touch on it at the end there as far as the regulation of our financial system. But inasmuch as the chairman of the Financial Services just did spend the last hour addressing the sub issue of that is whether the charges against him, whether they were legitimate, was the basis of his discussion for the last 55 minutes whether it is legitimate as some on this floor and outside in the media as well and other groups and what have you and have accused him of being primarily or ostensibly responsible for some of the problems that we now find ourselves in.

I will just spend a minute, even though he spent 55 minutes, on that. As I said before, in Congress there have been various champions on either side of this issue. Richard Baker, when I came to Congress and you came at the same time, was a champion of trying to rein in the excesses that were in the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There were other people on the outside, as well, actually in the Bush administration. He chastised the Bush administration for not pushing this legislation and putting other impediments of going forward with it. The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration in the form of the Secretary of the Treasury, I believe it was both Snow and Paulson, who came to the Financial Services committee while I was there, and said, there are problems in the GSEs. There are problems in the Fannie Mae. There are problems in Freddie Mac. And they were ones that the Bush administration was, in fact, pushing for some sort of control, some sort of limitation, some sort of reining in of the GSE. So the Bush administration was doing that.

Richard Baker, who was always sitting up in the top row way above me since I was a freshman and a sophomore at the time, was championing that cause as well to say how do we rein them in? And I became involved with it, and I put in some amendments myself, and one was to direct the new regulator to establish limits on the GSE's portfolios in case there were any issues of safety and soundness or possible systemic risk, a word that we discuss now.

Representative Paul offered amendments to cut off Fannie and Freddie's $2 billion line of treasury which would have been one of the key aspects of sending a message to the private markets as to whether they can believe or not, whether the Federal Government were to stand behind them. I know the chairman just said, and he said repeatedly, ``to those investors who believe that when they are investing in the GSEs that the full faith and credit of the United States Government would stand behind them, I'm telling them right now it is not the case. Well, that, of course, was the case. It was an implicit guaranty. It became explicit, however, when things began to fall apart in the last year, and now you and I know what has been the cost to the American taxpayer, literally hundreds of billions of dollars.

But the chairman did say, as far back I think it was, as in the year 2000 which before I was even there, when the Bush

administration was pushing these issues saying there are some problems here, he said he did not see, the chairman said, actually he would have been the ranking member at that time, he did not see the need for the further regulations because he said ``there are no problems here.'' And he did it again I guess in 2003, saying, again, he did not see a problem with those, either one of those companies. I know later on he did say that, probably in 2003, any one of us would have said the same thing with regard to other banks, the Bank of Scotland or some other banks what have you, there wasn't any problems there, and now, of course, we know--I shouldn't have mentioned this particular bank that he had said--but other banks back in 2003, a lot of us would not have said there were problems in those banks. But we are talking about a different level of problems with that situation.

Today we are having problems with those banks, with their investments. With the GSEs, the argument that a number of us on our side of the aisle was making, that President Bush's administration was making as well, was a systemic risk, that by allowing basically unfettered lending by these institutions and by the implicit guaranty that the Federal Government placed behind them by the $2 billion line of credit, you place a systemic risk. And by putting no limitations on either one of those organizations, you allow them to borrow and borrow and borrow with no limitations on their portfolio, which is something I and others were pushing strongly to try and rein them in, you create a systemic risk. So, yes, there was obviously a systemic risk both in 2003 and 2000 as well, until it finally exploded to what we have today.

So I think that is where the outside groups, maybe some Members in this Congress, try to say, that some Members were pushing for tighter regulations, others were leading the fight saying there wasn't any problem, that you didn't need it, so that in 2005 the facts were some of us were actually going to committee, and I don't have them all here, but I was going to committee and saying, here are some other bills, yes, he is right, a lot of Republicans voted against those bills as well, but he was obviously the ranking member and saying that there was no need for those.

And I will yield back.

I guess it would be a fair generalization that from the other side of the aisle that the push was, the emphasis was for the GSEs to focus on their public housing program, in other words, that they should be created, although that was actually a change in their original mission, as you know, but that new changed mission was to say, how can they be used to advance the cause of affordable housing? And so that was always the posture from the other side of the aisle. And that is why there was constant pushback when Ed Royce or other Members on our side said, well, maybe we should put some limitations on one of my amendments, on the portfolio, rather the conforming loan limits, to say that it shouldn't be too high. Well, no, they want to have no limitations, or the portfolio limits, no, there should be no limitation. So it is always clear they were in one direction and we were slightly in a different. I yield.

Well, my dad always said give credit where credit is due. And the chairman was correct to say that those of us who were really strongly pushing these issues didn't get as much support as we would have liked to from our colleagues on this side of the aisle. But as I look at some of the other amendments I put in, I got almost virtually no support from the other side of the aisle for some of our amendments which would have put in limitations. For example, I put in an amendment that would require the GSEs to hold only mortgages and mortgage-backed securities that exclusively support affordable housing.

Now there is an idea if you think about it, if the idea behind the GSEs, one of the functions is to support affordable housing, then if you put that amendment in, it should fall in line with what the other side of the aisle was advocating. And they should support it. But there is another side benefit to allowing them to expand and grow outside of the area of affordable housing and that basically helps their balance sheet and also helps the remuneration to the people at the top of the organizations, to their CEOs, because if their balance sheet is good and their profits are based just like AIG, these bonuses and what have you, it benefits them as well.

But we got no votes, well, from the chairman, I'm certain of, but basically from everyone from the other side of the aisle.

My good friend, I'll explain one other amendment. The portfolio limitation, Representative Price offered that amendment as well. Same thing, to reduce the amount of the GSEs portfolios again. I do recall that the chairman was opposed to that, and I believe that just generally speaking, no support from the other side of the aisle.

So I think that's the underlying message that's probably out in the media and outside of this House as well, as to where the two parties stood on it. Maybe we didn't have as much support as you and I would have liked from our side, but clearly it was a one-sided push for a long time of seeing that there was a systemic problem and trying to do something about it.

Well, I'm certainly not going to question the statistics of the chairman because I believe he was holding a paper or had some other statistics before him. Since I don't have them, I'd certainly take the chairman at his word.

I think though that you have to see the larger issues that came out of that. And the message that the government was sending, whether through that or through other mechanisms, did have a profound impact upon the rest of the marketplace, not only in the low-income area but otherwise, not only through that program, but through the Federal Reserve regulations, the Boston Fed issuing certain guidelines, if you will, as far as lending practices, and that had profound impact, not only on those institutions as the chairman made reference that may come under their auspices or their control or their authority, but through the rest of the marketplace as well.

In other words, once you sort of get the ball rolling as far as what the new underwriting standards, and this is really what was being created during this time, in one segment of the market, that ball was just continued right across the rest of the marketplace as well. Some of us, as I said before, seeing that as just the beginning piecemeal of this was rolling out we said there may be a problem as that ball goes along and grows, gains weight and what have you and has impact elsewhere, and eventually we saw that it was picked up by the rest of Wall Street.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And I also thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, for I agree with him, as most Americans do, with regard to the underlying bill here as far as the apparent excesses, as far as the salaries that some people made when they were underperforming companies. And I share the concern that taxpayers have, and I share the chairman's concern with regard to his overall amendment that he makes to the bill. But the underlying bill here, however, has three or four fundamental problems.

One, it is unconstitutional, as some have said; secondly, it has an uncalled for retroactive effect; thirdly, there is this unfairness as we treat disparate individuals within the same company; and, fourthly, there is certainly a harmful impact upon the very programs that our now Secretary of the Treasury wishes to implement.

On the unconstitutionality portion, I am unclear, as are outside experts who have looked over this legislation, to see exactly how it is within the powers of the U.S. Congress, as much as we may like to do so sometimes, to simply go in and abrogate contracts that were voluntarily made by willing parties on either side. Regardless of whether the fact is that those companies or those individuals may be receiving Federal dollars or not, whether there is a constitutional ability to do so is a question I think that this body should be addressing and how that can be answered.

The second aspect is the retroactivity effect. Some of the provisions in this bill I could probably come to agreement with. But to step in here, after the fact, and say that we are now going to go back, backwards in time and look at those very same corporations who had entered into contracts, had activity prior to their receiving TARP funds or other Federal dollars or investments, capital investments, and now saying, we are going backwards and we will basically open up agreements and open up terms of deals over there and look back on them, seems to be an activity that Congress should not engage in.

Prospective is another matter. For companies or banks or other financial institutions that want to engage and receive Federal dollars, absolutely. They should be knowing what the terms of the deal are on the table. And if they accept them today, then those are the deals going forward. But to go backwards in time really raises, as I said before, an unconstitutional aspect.

Finally, the unfairness as far as the disparate treatment that you may receive within the same company. I think the basic outrage that most Americans have on this situation is when we read in the paper the multimillion dollar deals or bonuses that people received, especially in those failing companies, and say, How do they receive millions and millions of dollars? Well, this bill addresses that. Fine. But it also addresses that secretary who may be just working there on weekends or part-time or even full-time making slightly over $10 an hour or more. That secretary comes within the confines of this bill too. The custodian or other worker in the business would also fall within the purviews of this legislation.

Now the answer might be, well, we are still going to look to see whether their payment is reasonable or excessive. But why we would pick on those individuals who did absolutely no wrong and to say that now Congress is going to be scrutinizing your salaries and see whether or not you were paid far too much for the activities that you did in the company is beyond me.

Finally, the fourth portion, harmful. Secretary Geithner comes out, finally, after several failed attempts with his plan on how we are going to get out of this global morass that we are in right now, and how does he want to do it? He and the White House have opened their doors to the free enterprise system, the capitalist markets, and the banking and the financial institutions, as they did this past week and said, Come on board. Work with us as teammates in this. We want to make you partners. Partners? What partner wants to hook up with somebody that if you are successful, there may be other legislation like this that will go in and claw back the money that you made? If you're successful it may be clawed back. And I have heard some people say, If you're unsuccessful, maybe you will be penalized.

And I appreciate the fact that the chairman in Rules Committee yesterday said, to paraphrase, he said, Fear not. If it goes through my committee, I would not permit such language to go forward. And I appreciate that. But as the chairman knows, the bill we did, I think it was last Thursday, the 90 percent tax, to the best of my knowledge, did not go through your committee. You and I may have liked it to. But it did not.

So we have seen the way this House operates. When the mood drives the Speaker or the majority leader, they can pass a bill through. A 90 percent tax that basically makes the Tax Code the penal code and punishes people for activity that they never realized was unlawful or inappropriate before, did not go through his committee. So to all of the best wishes of the chairman, he unfortunately, may not have that ability to block that provision going forward as much as he and I might wish that he did. So the legislation that is before us still puts that harmful impact upon him.

And finally, if I still have some time, we have to ask the larger question, what actually does this do at the end of the day? Is it window dressing? Maybe.

What did we actually do? Well, it puts language in here which says that there cannot be excessive or unreasonable compensation. Yesterday, again, at Rules Committee, somebody from our side of the aisle and someone from the other side of the aisle asked, What is excessive or unreasonable compensation? And quite candidly, they said they couldn't answer the question. They will leave it to someone else.

I'm not sure if that is the right answer to that question. If you're going to have legislation like this, and I don't support the legislation, but if you're going to have legislation like this, you should be doing it the way we dealt with Fannie and Freddie when we had that situation and say, We don't want anybody making more than X, and take the responsibility as Congress and say, We are going to put the dollar amounts in it. This doesn't. This abrogates that to a Secretary of the Treasury who can come up with who knows what? It could be $1 million. It could be

$10 million. It could be $100,000. It could be $50,000.

We should not be putting this ambiguity in here. It doesn't answer the question. It is just one more way to say that this is a potentially harmful, unconstitutional, retroactive legislation to the overall global climate that we are in today.

I'm reminded of the statement that the nearest thing to immortality on this Earth

is a Federal agency or Federal program. So some things do apparently live forever--and that's Federal Government programs.

And on to this point, if the gentlelady is still on the floor, the history of the underlying problem here is AIG. And it did in fact start not as a TARP program, but as the Fed Reserve, and that was 9/16, when the Fed gave an $85 billion loan to AIG. That did change, as the gentlelady knows, on November 10, and it basically became a Federal TARP program when the loan was restructured and reduced. And it eventually changed again on March 2. I assume the gentlelady who's the sponsor of the bill is familiar with that history.

I will yield to the gentlelady to make sure that she is understanding of the history of how we got here.

Just to the gentlelady. I appreciate that. To the gentlelady--I just ran through the history of saying that it initially began as a Fed program and then became a TARP program, without any restrictions on it.

Madam Chairman, tonight the Democrats are continuing their lengthy rhetorical tradition of saying one thing on the floor of the House but saying a far different thing in their budget.

We know the greatest long-term threat to our Nation's economic security is the looming explosion of spending in our Nation's largest entitlements.

We know this. Everyone in this House knows this. But in case anyone has forgotten, let me just share some facts that I did with the committee.

You know, back in 1959 when I was born, at that time the employer- employee share of the payroll tax used to support Social Security was 4.5 percent. When I was about ready to go to school in 1965 and Lyndon Johnson was the President, they added Medicare as an entitlement, and the taxes went up to 8.8 percent.

Today, the combined payroll tax for these programs is 15.3 percent, far higher than the programs' creators ever imagined. But what is worse is that, despite the fact that 15.3 percent of every dollar earned in America is used to fund these programs, that alone is not nearly enough money to keep them afloat.

When a child is born in this country, in the United States, as soon as that child takes its first breath, they owe for all those type programs $184,000 the day they're born. For those keeping track, this is more than three-and-a-half times the median household income.

Just to preserve current benefits that these programs provide, this generation would have to pay twice the rate of taxes--that's more than 30 cents out of every dollar earned in America--to maintain the status quo.

So, in short, even as my friends on the other side of the aisle repeat their claims to be protectors of those most in need, and those most likely to need the assistance that our largest safety net programs provide, their choices in this budget, as in their past two budgets, do absolutely nothing but to hit the gas on the demise of our Nation's most critical safety net, while at the same time consigning the next generation of Americans to a likely insurmountable burden of debt.

Every year that we don't fix this problem we add an additional $2 to $3 trillion in unfunded obligations to our children. And yet the Democratic majority often claims that their judgments are a moral document. I ask you, what kind of morals do we subscribe to if we prescribe our children to a life of indentured servitude in service of government largesse?

We know that there is a better way. We can reform these programs to ensure that they can do so, and we can start by amending this ill- conceived budget.

And I thank the gentlelady for allowing me to say a few words. And I see also that we are joined on the floor by the gentleman from Georgia as well. And so maybe I will go back and forth and just make some points.

I come to the floor because I heard your remarks just a few moments ago, and I thought they were quite eloquent in trying to put in perspective exactly what is occurring here on the floor of the House and what is occurring here in Washington, D.C., our Nation's capital, as Congress goes about its business of formulating and passing a budget and how we can talk sometimes here in Washington in these global terms and esoteric terms, but at the end of the day it is the American public who actually has to foot the bill. They have to reach into their proverbial pocket and see if--oh, there is a couple bucks here--they can pull dollars out and send them to Washington.

Since I'm in Washington, there may be a hand out trying to reach into my pocket to try and grab those dollars. Absolutely. But you make the point that we are, in this country right now, and globally as well, in difficult economic times. Whether you are trying to put a few bucks away for your kid's education and now you realize, gee, at the end of the week when you write your checks, you just don't have that money to put aside, or if your kids are already in college and you say, how am going to make this month's or this quarter's college bill that is due? You just don't know how you're going to do it.

I was just talking on the phone before I came here to the floor, honestly, to folks in Upstate New York. And I said, how is the weather up there? They said, it is cold. And you're thinking, well, they have their heat ratcheted up and they are trying to warm their homes and they are paying the fuel costs. Thank goodness that rates have come down a little bit, but not by that much. But the young lady that I was talking to, she was concerned about how she is going to pay her heating bill for the house or the gas to cook the food or the other things they need for her kids around the house. And so we talk about things in global terms, in large terms. And as you know, I serve on the Budget Committee. I have had the honor now to serve on that committee for all 6 years that I have been in Congress. This year, when I served on the committee, this past week we had markup, which as you well know is

the process where the Democrats present their budget to us, give us the opportunity to make some amendments to it, make some improvements, and have some give and take.

I have to tell you that both the time when I was in the majority and the time that now I'm in the minority as well, this was the most distressing, this was the most frustrating, most unfulfilling process that we had in that committee ever. I recall in both scenarios in the past years that there was a give and take, there was an ability to have some discussion on it. Somebody would say, well, you might have an idea on this area and we have an idea on this area, let's come together and try to reach some accommodation on that. Let's see where there is some agreement where we can work together for the American public.

You just didn't see that at all. The meeting started I think around a little after 9 in the morning. We were done there around midnight. So you can count up the number of hours that we were there. We started with somewhere up to 30-some-odd amendments I believe that we had, that Republicans were presenting to the Democrats. And we would say, here is our little slice of our suggestions. And it is not just coming from me. And it is not just coming from the staff. These ideas are coming from our constituents, from Americans across all 50 States, on how to make this budget, this Obama budget, a better budget for America. But not one of those substantive amendments passed. They would not vote for a single amendment that we proposed. They would not vote for a single change, a single alteration, a single--what is that expression, changing a jot or a tittle--they would not allow ne'er a one of those.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? So many people went into this past election this past November and said we want a new era of bipartisanship. We want to work together. And my gosh, so do I. I want to be able to extend my hand across the aisle and say, here are our ideas. What are your ideas?

You didn't see it at all. And it was very frustrating. But larger than that, larger than the frustration is the irony of it all. The Office of Management and Budget from this administration puts out this blue book. And you have to scratch your head and laugh because if you didn't laugh you would be upset. It's called, this is looking at the budget and what have you, it is called ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' And as I looked at that multitrillion dollar----

That multitrillion-dollar budget.

You don't see it in Washington. And the reason I came to the floor is because you were making the point just as I left the office, the administration is asking it from the American people. The American people have to be responsible in trying to figure out how are they going to live within their means? You were citing the examples of cutting back in various facets of a life. And you were also pointing out the fact that the American people are actually doing a very good thing, and that is increasing their rate of savings. Boy, you don't see that aspect of responsibility here in this budget.

And my last point, and then I will yield the floor back to you or to the gentleman from Georgia, is my first point, is that we here in Washington sometimes get into Washington and speak on these things and the global sort of terms on it. And if you're watching that budget meeting, you sort of get the same sense of it. We talk about the fact that now as you look at all the wealth of this country, the GDP, the gross domestic product of this country, you can see the numbers in this budget, meaning that over a quarter of it, up to around 27 percent is basically being sucked throughout all 50 States and sent here right to Washington, D.C., as the GDP, the amount of government spending will be equated to around 27 percent of the gross domestic product.

Yes. And that is a historically high figure. And this is the other funny--I say ``funny,'' but it is not funny. This new administration was always rife for criticizing our past administration for spending too much money, too high of a percentage. But historically, we have been around the 20, 22-some odd percent. And we were around that number in this past administration.

Now we are going through the roof on this. But those are esoteric numbers. Those are larger numbers. You can't get your arms around that. But it is the numbers when you talk about your family, when you talk about the cap and tax, $634 billion roughly of that amount, what does that relate to me or to you, your average family?

And it is from $634 of the $2 trillion in taxes, which is hard enough because that is money out of your pocket. But we also heard the reports today that it could be even more difficult for the American family, the American worker. It could mean American jobs. And they were talking about the fact that one of two things are going to happen here. The first is that the energy secretary made this first observation was something to the effect of this cap and tax will have the effect of having jobs leave this country because the jobs will go to where the manufacturing and the cost of doing business is cheaper. That makes sense. That means your constituents and mine who have a job right now tomorrow will find out that their job just went overseas as well. And later on this week the secretary made the observation, well, one of the responses that we could do, and not that he was suggesting it I don't believe, was new tariffs.

And what will that do in the short term and the long term? Well, in the short term they will say, don't worry. That means that you will keep the jobs here in the United States because they won't go overseas because of the tariffs that we created. That is the short term.

Obviously, the long-term effect is, as you indicate, barriers will be made in all the other countries, as well, which means when you and I go down to the store and buy products which are imported into this country, manufactured from other places, what is going to happen to the price? It is going to go through the roof.

How are we going to be hit here? Several ways. First, we are going to be hit potentially by losing our jobs. Secondly, we are going to be hit with the new taxes, several thousand dollars on the families for new taxes, if you have a job. And thirdly, the expenses at the store, if you do have a job, and you still have some money in your pocket after your taxes and you're able to go to the store and do some shopping, what are you going to find? You will find that prices are going to be going through the roof. So one, two, three,

we are going to be hit in three separate ways because of this budget. Those are the practical aspects.

I see the gentleman from Georgia here is nodding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the anniversary of Greek independence, which occurred on March 25, 1821. It's been one hundred and eighty-eight years since Greece obtained freedom from the oppressive Ottoman Empire.

Like our own American Founding Fathers, the people of Greece fought valiantly to achieve independence from a sprawling empire that treated its citizens like subjects. The Greek revolutionaries also drew much of their authority from European philosophers, much like our forefathers who were motivated by classical and English values. A culture steeped in such a rich tradition, such as Greece, can be celebrated by all Americans. As the birthplace of democracy, Greece has informed numerous self-government efforts across the world.

The celebration of Greek independence coincides with a Greek Orthodox holiday, the Annunciation of the Theotokos. Yet Greece's bloody struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire bears little resemblance to the peaceful appearance of the Archangel Gabriel. The Greeks endured atrocities such as the Chios Massacre, the massacre of Heraklion, and the Destruction of Psara; most of these conflicts were religiously motivated and they highlight the Greek dedication to freedom.

After eight years of brutal fighting, the Greek people were finally able to achieve independence. The Treaty of Constantinople was signed in July 1832, giving Greece its independence from the Ottoman Empire.

I am honored to cosponsor H.J. Res. 39, which recognizes the 188th anniversary of the independence of Greece. Furthermore, I am pleased that this bill is scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives today.

I would again like to congratulate Greece for celebrating such a momentous occasion. This anniversary is a time to remember the sacrifices of the past, to take pride in your nation, and to look ahead to a future of promise.

During the last campaign, Hillary Clinton said that she had a million good ideas. She probably never thought that she would be outbid by this new administration that has a million bad ideas that are going to cost American taxpayers literally trillions of dollars.

This current budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. It spends too much, and it's coming up to $2.3 trillion more than the White House even estimated a short time ago.

It taxes too much because every hardworking American household across this country is going to see their taxes go up by over $3,000. While they're struggling with paying their bills, their taxes will be rising.

It borrows too much because it's going to increase the debt on taxpayers across this country. Right now it stands at about $35,000 per capita. It's going to double in 8 years to around $70,000.

You know, Americans were voting for a change. I think at the end they were really hoping for something better than this.

I thank the Chair. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Would the gentleman yield on that one point?

It is not to my sensitivity, just that since you are throwing out the dates, you said from September until January.

Is it not true that somewhere in between there, approximately on November 10, there was a restructuring that was done from the $85 billion initially, and the gentleman is correct when you said it initially came from the Fed, but restructuring was done perhaps at the request because of the credit ratings and what have you, and they needed to change the terms, and that the funds then came in part from TARP; is that correct?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The point that I was about to make on completion of that was that yes, it was the Bush administration, his Secretary in November, November 10, 2008, who did the restructuring to help the situation move along. But they were not able to do that unilaterally, were they? In other words the TARP money that they spent, they didn't just pull that out of thin air like the Fed when they created money, they had to do that by requesting the House and the Senate to pass TARP legislation. My question to you was: Did that go through the House and who was it that sponsored the TARP legislation that provided the money?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

I thank the gentleman from Delaware for his comments, and pointing out the fact that members of this administration, specifically Secretary Geithner was actually considered the architect of the AIG bailout bill.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, please.

Is it under the rules of the House that the sponsor of the resolution has to be on the floor during the presentation of the discussions and debate on the resolution?

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas for pointing out that these problems were, in fact, created through legislation, and that legislation came under the leadership of the Democrat House.

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our leader, I will yield such time to the chairman if he wishes to answer the question that the gentleman from Iowa asked, which was, how did this language get into the legislation which allowed for these bonuses to go through? He did not answer the question before, but I will yield.

Then I take back my time.

I take back my time. Apparently, the gentleman doesn't know the same rules that he was asking for one of his peers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a gentleman now who also wants to get the money back but also wants to find out how we got to this place in the first place, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time remains on both sides, and was that time that just used then in excess of the 1 minute that was yielded to the gentleman by unanimous consent?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas who knows as well as Ron Paul does that the Federal Reserve was created during a Democrat administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, we are essentially here today on a resolution that does nothing much more than to say congratulations to this administration.

When you think about all the outrage across the country, and Americans should be outraged. We all want to get our money back and we will do everything in our power to get our money back. But the Americans are not only outraged at these bonuses, they are not only outraged at AIG and that they paid them out, but they are also outraged that we got here in the first place. And they know the fact that it was Secretary Geithner who was the architect of this. They know that TARP 1, 2, and 3 passed under the leadership of this Democrat House without absolute any strings attached whatsoever. And they know that it was under the leadership of this House that a bill passed that pulled out the restrictions. And so there is no reason why we should be commending this administration on this matter.

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

If the gentlewoman from Minnesota would yield.

I just want to touch on that one point as far as the perception of what the Democrats did and what the Republicans did. And I do this not for any partisan reasons because I do honestly believe that all of us here tonight actually believe, as the majority of the American public believes, that we are in a difficult situation; that people are hurting; that jobs are being lost, as your chart so adequately demonstrates there; and we don't need to be partisan about it, but we do need to set the record straight. And I will tell you this little story.

I have served here for 6 years now, and I have served on the Budget Committee. And I was here when the Republicans were in charge. And I, like you, was frustrated with the fact that many times during our tenure in office when Republicans controlled the House we were spending too much money. You and I voted against a lot of those expenditures, but as a party we were. And that's why in 2006 the American voters voted with their wallets, if you will, and said let's throw them out and let's put in a party that is campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility. And the reason I point out that I serve on the Budget Committee was because for 4 years when they were in the minority, they were saying a lot of the things that you and I agreed with and that you and I were saying, that we were spending too much money and were going in the wrong direction. So I perhaps naively hoped that in 2006 when they took the majority, they were going to put in practice much of what they said about the budget on their campaign trail in their rhetoric. But, you know, they didn't. They don't do it in 2006, and they didn't do it now in the 2008 election as well. And that's where we are right now.

However, I will credit them with being able to say that they have inherited the problems, but, of course, the facts don't speak to that as well. You're looking at a chart right there that says ``jobs lost since the start of the Democrat majority,'' and even without my glasses on, I can see at the bottom of the XY-axis, it is January of 2007, and that is the starting point, and then the line goes off the charts. All you need is a little rocket on engine of how to succeed in business without really trying and just shoot up through the end over there, if you're familiar with that movie, and you would see that during their tenure, you lost the jobs. But it's not only the fact that they didn't inherit the lost jobs because they were in control of the House and Senate. I don't have a little easel here, but let me just share this chart. I don't know whether you have one up there by you as well.

The other mantra that they will say in the media, and I've been on TV shows and radio shows, and the anchors will say, well, didn't the Democrats inherit all of this spending? Not exactly, not when you really look down to it. Let me give you about five quick points that I can run through here. This too is going back to the bottom of your XY- axis, January of 2007, when Harry Reid was in charge over in the Senate and Speaker Pelosi was in charge here as Speaker of the House. Let's see what has occurred from January, 2007, to where we are now, and this is March. I will just run through a few quick numbers.

The omnibus, most recent, fiscal year 2009 omnibus, $410 billion. That didn't occur under Republican control. That occurred under Democrat control, spending. Stimulus 2, $187 billion, again occurred under Democrat control and leadership. Auto bailout, of course, that too, $14 billion, and that occurred again during Democrat control of the House and Senate. TARP, something that I have been on the floor hours upon hours talking and railing against how we're spending so much money there. First it was $350 billion at the end of last year, and then they added another $350 billion on that. People say we're bailing out Wall Street. We're just finding out now where some of that money is going. Apparently it's going to AIG executives, who made some of these great decisions that brought that company down to where it is today, in bonuses and what have you. So there's $700 billion in TARP under Democrat control. The next one, pre-TARP loans, $300 billion. And, finally, a stimulus bill, stimulus 1, that was July of last year, if I'm not mistaken, $152 billion.

So you add them up, and I'm not going to do that in my head, but you have 400, 187, 14, 700, 300, $152 billion. This all occurred during the time that Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid were running things on the floor. They could have stopped, and it's easier in the Senate than here, but they could have stopped each and every one of these. They could have put any restrictions on each and every one of these. And maybe the gentlewoman from Minnesota would like to chime in on this one, and that is to talk about how they didn't put any restrictions on these points. They basically said here's $700 billion, out the window, any way you want to spend it.

It's absolutely my memory. And the reason I remember it is because there were a few of us in the House who were raising our hand at that time and saying what are we spending $700 billion on? The idea was the so-called purchase of toxic assets, which never did occur, and we said shouldn't there, A, be other alternatives considered; B, another implementation; and, C, shouldn't there be restrictions or strings, if you will, attached to some of this? All of that was dismissed and put aside. But you're absolutely correct. Senator Obama at that time supported it, as did the leadership of this House. Not only did they support it in this House, they pushed it through so quickly that none of us really had an opportunity. We never had any markup on this bill.

That's the other little frustrating thing about all of this, and the American taxpayer must be so frustrated with how, quote, ``their government,'' and it is their government, works, how Washington works. We spend the money today, and then a day or a week or a month from then, we'll come back and say we are going to have a hearing on this and see exactly what we spent the money on. We spent $350 billion, then $700 billion without so much as a markup on it, which is, for folks who don't know, the way the bill goes through and you can say I want to put this in or take that out. Without so much as a markup, we spend this $700 billion; then Congress can comes back and says let's take a look at this. We saw that on TARP 1. We saw that on TARP 2. In essence, you could say we did that on the stimulus as well. We rushed right through how many pages? I'm forgetting.

The American people get it, although we did that hear from our President here a couple of weeks ago. He said, ``I get it.'' Unfortunately, I don't think he does. I think what he does get is the idea of a new movement he is leading, and that is a movement of redistribution of the wealth in this country, and basically he's doing it by burdening the responsible taxpayer, the responsible family, the responsible American, and putting it on the irresponsible ones. And it's sort of funny, and maybe ``funny'' isn't right word for this, but if you look at the budget documents that came out, the title of it is ``An Era of Responsibility.'' This is anything but an era of responsibility.

And I will close with this: Just as I was hopeful in 2006 and 2007 for the Democrat leadership that they would be responsible in this area, I honestly was hopeful that when President Obama became the President that he would fulfill his pledge that he would give the American public and all of us in Congress the opportunity to have 4 or 5 days actually to have any bill up on the Web site so they could see it and read it and comment on it otherwise. And you pointed out so accurately that in this case with an 1,100-page bill, it went through and no one saw it.

And there was a whole bunch of points I wanted to raise on the things you said right then, but I will go with the whole bunch of them.

On the middle point with regard to taxation of capital gains and what have you, it may sound, at first blush, that when you say, well, we have to address the capital gains situation in this country, we are talking about the rich out there. But when you realize that as across the board, Americans are hurting generally pretty much across the board. A lot of people who are hurting are senior citizens, retirees, people who rely upon their pensions, whether it's union pension or private pension or otherwise.

They are saving to pay for college, what have you, they are seeing those funds go down. What can we do to try to turn that around?

I can't guarantee that it would turn around by tomorrow, but, as you said, pretty darn soon if you can get the trillions of dollars, as people say, are sitting on the sidelines and to start investing it. How can you do that?

You can do that in a couple of ways. You hit on the main ones by lowering the capital gains tax. Honestly, right now, people aren't saying I don't have any capital gains in this marketplace. But if you gave that incentive to say get into the market today, you will be tax free or have a lower rate, people would get off the side and they would get into the market immediately.

The other point that I just wanted to touch on, the other point here, I will spend 2 minutes on it. In the spending plan we have had in the last several weeks, actually several months now, we have had hundreds of billion of dollars. And this is a side note, other people are criticizing the other side of the aisle, how much debt the Bush administration added during their 8 years in office, it was something like $4.6 trillion in his 8 years in office.

Just in 3 years, it's doubling. But, basically, remember these numbers, President Bush was in office for 8 years, he saw it go up about 4.6. President Obama has been in office for less than 2 months or something like that, a month, and you will see the debt go up by $5.6 trillion in a 3-year period of time. It is incredible.

Part of that money, where is that money going to, deals with what the gentlelady from North Carolina was talking about before. And that is to the whole foreclosure situation, home pricing, what have you, and just follow with me on this.

Their argument is this, foreclosures are happening out there right now. We agree. That is causing problems across the board and it is causing a devaluation of people's homes across the board. Therefore, everyone must pay higher taxes, increase spending to try to prevent the foreclosure problem.

Now, you raised some of the avenues of what we could do to address foreclosure, and I can go into them as well. But I just want to give some facts, and I can do it with a picture. It's not a cartoon like Ms. Foxx had over there, actually had a picture. This was actually in USA Today, and what does this chart show, yes, it's pretty neat. It shows county-by-county the number of foreclosure actions, defaults and notices on auctions and repossessions per 1,000. Basically, this is a chart to show you where the problems are in this country.

So as people look at this and they think to the rhetoric that we hear from the other side that, Oh, there are a lot of foreclosures. Yes, the rate has gone up in specific areas out here in California, Arizona, and certainly down here in Florida and up in your neck of the woods as well. But the vast majority of the country, fortunately, is not seeing the systemic problems of more than 60, more than 40, or even more than 20.

What does that mean? That changes the whole nature of the discussion as to how we go about fixing the problem. If the problem is in certain areas, then you don't need a specific blanket approach across the board in order to do it. You don't need to raise taxes on small businesses or families in my neck of the woods or in your neck of the woods to solve the problem.

You need to target some of the relief. More importantly, you need some of the Republican solutions, and I'll yield back to you on this, as the RSC, the Republican Study Committee, has already come out with, addressing capital gains, corporate taxes, section 179, and the like, as far as encouraging businesses and individuals to get their entrepreneurial spirit going again.

Those sort of things will address this problem in a way that will affect everyone and improve lifting up the prices again and getting it back to the marketplace where we want it to be.

So I just wanted to bring that one little chart to try to set the record straight as to where the foreclosure problem is in this country, how it is actually impacting only a segment of the economy, and what we need to do is address this in a widespread approach, as I'm sure you're addressing and I'm sure the gentleman from Georgia would also like to address as well.

I was just going to raise that point. As I am standing here listening to your facts, I'm looking down at the floor at the well and I see President Obama's budget and the three points that are a takeaway from tonight: Spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

It spends too much of our current hard-earned dollars that everybody has to work so hard to earn; it taxes too much on the American family and the small business and the farmer; and it borrows too much from our children and our grandchildren because they will be the ones who actually pay for all this.

On the spending side of the equation, I know it's hard to get your hands around some of these numbers sometimes. You just did when you gave the number. First it was 2 million, then it was 3 million, then it was 4 million jobs that this administration said they were going to save. Whichever number it is, if you add it all up and divide it out, you're right, it comes to around $300,000 per job that they're going to be spending to save.

But it's a heck of a lot of people in my district, and I'm sure even more down in Georgia, who would love to have a $300,000 job, even if it is only for a week, a month, or half a year. That's the type of job, by the way, that the government's creating---short-term job. These are not careers.

Once this job screwing in light bulbs, which was one, or painting a fence, or another, once that job is done, that job is done.

So on the spending side of the equation, and you were alluding to this point before, what it means is we are getting to the point where around over a quarter of all the growth and wealth of this country-- GDP, gross domestic product--all the growth and wealth, over 27 percent is going to be sucked right out of this country, across the borders, as my picture here of the

United States, and brought right here to Washington or this body and all the bureaucrats to spend however they want to.

Is that what Americans want--more than a quarter of the wealth of this country to be spent right here as opposed out of their own pockets?

And taxing too much. You hit the numbers before as far as the tax rates and how it's going to hit on the families and the budgets. And the last one on borrowing too much, the debt of this country, again, it's impossible to wrap your hands around these things, but the debt of this country, the public debt will reach 58.7 percent of the GDP this year, and eventually rise to two-thirds of GDP in a couple of years.

Last time it was like that was in early 1950s after the war, and what have you, and it's been on a steady decline ever since even then. Charts show it's a rocket ship going right back up again, all in the last 3 months and projected over the next 10 years.

And health care issues, and we have a doctor here with us tonight, is obviously something we are all concerned about. We know too many people who are in small businesses who just say, I just can't afford to buy insurance for my employees. We know too many individuals who are not working right now, and they say they cannot afford to pay for the health insurance costs, not because doctors charge too much, and we have a doctor right here, but just because of the nature and the system that we have in place.

The system we have right now, again, to get back to the facts, we do not have a free market health care system in this country; we have a government-regulated monopolized system in this country. But we do agree, the three of us here, I believe, without putting words in your mouth, that we do have a problem with health care affordability for a vast majority of Americans, and we do need to address that. But you do not address that, as is done in President Obama's budget, which spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, by putting in placeholders of $634 billion, which we do not have today, which goes to point three, borrows too much, that $634 billion to pay for our health care today, which will basically come from our kids and our grandkids. We do not solve the affordability issue by simply spending more money and taxing more money. You do it by ways that I know the good doctor has addressed on this floor before, by reforming the system, getting out inefficiencies in this system, providing for the competition on various levels under the system, to basically overhauling the system to make sure that health care is available to every American citizen, young and old alike. We have talked about that on the floor before. We need to do that. Spending, taxing, and borrowing is not going to fix the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 125. This resolution calls on the central authority of Brazil to uphold the Hague Convention by facilitating the immediate release of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman.

June 16, 2004 was the day Sean Goldman was abducted by his mother, Bruna Goldman, and taken to Brazil. That day marked the beginning of a 4\1/2\ year struggle to reunite David Goldman with his son Sean. During those subsequent years, David Goldman tirelessly lobbied the Brazilian judicial system, sought international legal advice, and mourned the death of Sean's mother in August 2008. Recently, the situation was further complicated when Sean's step-father petitioned the Brazilian courts for custody of Sean and illegally replaced David's name with his own on a Brazilian birth certificate.

H. Res. 125 was introduced by my New Jersey colleague, Representative Christopher Smith, and I am proud to be one of the 57 cosponsors of this bill. This resolution urges the Brazilian government to uphold its commitment to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This multilateral treaty, developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law in 1980, provides an expeditious method for returning a child taken from one member nation to another. H. Res. 125 is of the utmost importance, as it not only calls on Brazil to display their intention to follow international law, but also brings a father and son one step closer to reunification.

It is imperative for us to support David Goldman's quest to be reunited with his son. H. Res. 125 will help us accomplish this goal and I thank my colleagues for joining me in voting unanimously for its passage yesterday.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Ellen Rozzell, former President of the National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices (NAPSLO), who passed away unexpectedly on March 3, 2009, while attending a NAPSLO conference in Palm Springs, California.

Mary Ellen was a respected, beloved leader. The President of Continental/Marmorstein & Malone Insurance Agency in Paramus, New Jersey, she began working in the insurance business with the Marmorstein Agency some forty years ago. Mary Ellen served as President of New Jersey Surplus Lines Association (NJSLA) from 1989-1990, and was named as NJSLA honoree of the year in 1992 due to her outstanding contribution to the New Jersey Surplus Lines Industry. She also served on the New Jersey Insurance Commissioner's Producer Advisory Council, and with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.

Her warmth, openness, honesty and good nature made everyone who met her feel immediately comfortable. These qualities served her very well in life, with family and friends, and in her remarkable career where she rose through the ranks with hard work and honesty. She was always prepared for the trials of life and business and the often difficult decisions required by both. She embraced responsibility, expected accountability and never failed those who depended on her.

All who knew her benefited by her example.

Her family has established the Mary Ellen Rozzell Foundation for AVM Research so that friends and colleagues might contribute to arteriovenous malformation research in Mary Ellen's name.

I extend my sympathy to her family and those close to her. She will be missed greatly by everyone she touched.

Mr. Speaker, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I say American taxpayers, American families, Americans are all hurting. They are getting pink slips. They are seeing job layoffs. They are seeing their wages cut. They are seeing their wages go down. They are seeing their income go down. And what do they see out of this House in Washington they are seeing spending going through the roof. They are seeing 10 percent increases on top of other 10 percent increases. They are seeing more than one-quarter of the Nation's growth and wealth all being sucked right into this Nation's Capital and spent in this city.

Mr. Speaker, the American people did indeed vote for a change. But this is not what they were hoping for.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 62nd commemoration of Taiwan's ``2-28 Massacre.''

On February 28, 1947, the brutal arrest of a female civilian in Taipei led to large-scale protests by the native Taiwanese against the repression of Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalists, who occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Forces after Japan's defeat in 1945.

During the following days, Chiang's government sent troops from mainland China to the island. The Chinese soldiers began capturing and executing leading Taiwanese lawyers, doctors, students, and other citizens.

It is estimated that at least 18,000 people lost their lives during the turmoil. During the following four decades, the Chinese Nationalists continued to rule Taiwan under a martial law system that lasted until 1987.

The 2-28 event had far-reaching implications. Over the next half- century, the Taiwanese democracy movement that grew out of the incident helped pave the way for Taiwan's momentous transformation from a dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalists to a thriving and pluralistic democracy.

In some ways, the 2-28 incident was similar to the ``Boston Massacre'' that occurred in the Massachusetts colony in 1770. Both events launched a movement toward full democracy and helped galvanize a struggle for independence.

I urge other Members to join me in commemorating this important historical event.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.

Project Name--Lower Saddle River, Bergen County, NJ

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Army Corps of Engineers Investigations

Requesting Entity--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--New York District Programs and Project Management Division, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278-0090

Description of the Project--Funds will be used to continue the Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) for this study. This project was authorized in WRDA 1986, and a full project was designed in the early 1990s, but was never built. Because the designs are somewhat now out- of-date, and many of the existing conditions have changed, the Corps is forced go back and reexamine portions of the original Feasibility Report.

Description of the Spending Plan--($526,000)

Engineering Redesign With Project Hydrology and Hydraulic

Continued Coordination with State and Federal Agencies for NEPA Compliance Plan Formulation Analysis with Economics Update Limited Project Management and Coordination Costs

Total $526,000

Project Name--Hackettstown Community Hospital Cancer Center

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Health Facilities and Services

Requesting Entity--Hackettstown Community Hospital, 651 Willow Grove Street, Hackettstown, NJ 07840

Description of the Project--The project's goal is to add a dedicated Outpatient Infusion Center, located within the Joan Knechel Cancer Center (Radiation Oncology). The addition of this service will help fulfill the goal to have a truly Comprehensive Cancer Treatment Center at Hackettstown Regional Medical Center. The funds will be used to purchase and install the specialized medical equipment and furnishings for these new services.

Description of the Spending Plan--($238,000)

*Federal Funds earmarked for Hackettstown Community Hospital (dba Hackettstown Regional Medical Center) FY2009 will be utilized for the interior build out of the existing space to become the new Infusion Therapy Center as part of our Comprehensive Cancer Center. Specifically, the funds will be used for the following purposes:

Permit Fees: $6,105

Contractor Supervision and Layout of Work Space: $33,855

Casework and Carpentry: $82,221

Roofing Work: $2,220

Doors, Frames and Hardware: $33,061

Aluminum Storefront and Glazing: $19,145 Acrylic Panels: $9,990

Painting: $16,117

Flooring & Ceramic Tile: $46,842

Fire Extinguishers and Cabinets (for Storage): $444 Total

Total $238,000

Project Name--Ramapo College Nurse Training

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Facilities and Services

Requesting Entity--Ramapo College of New Jersey, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, NJ 07430

Description of the Project--Funds will be used to purchase laboratory equipment related to Ramapo College's nursing program, which will be supported in their new academic building. Specifically, federal funding will be used toward purchasing nursing lab equipment, academic tutoring and nursing career mentoring programs.

Description of the Spending Plan--($190,000)

Nursing Lab Equipment (4 bed room with withal relayed equipment) $95,000

Nursing Lab Technology (4 Simulators) $95,000

Total $190,000

Project Name--Life Safety and Security Improvements

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Department of Housing and Urban Development

Economic Development Initiative

Requesting Entity--Christian Health Care Center

301 Sicomac Avenue

Wyckoff, NJ 07481

Description of the Project--These funds will go to improving Christian Health Care Center's life safety and security infrastructure which will serve the elderly and children who reside within and visit our campus every day. These upgrades will also serve local first responders, neighbors and our staff in the event of a true emergency.

Description of the Spending Plan--($142,500)

Lightning risk mitigation

(upgraded fire panels and installation of fiber optic cabling) $75,000

System upgrade to addressable capabilities

(wiring replacement between upgraded panels and patient rooms) $67,500

Total $142,500

Project Name--Intermodal Transit Improvements

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Department of Transportation

Bus and Bus Facilities

Requesting Entity--New Jersey Transit; Penn Plaza East,

Newark, NJ 07105-2246

Description of the Project--The funds requested in this application will support the efforts of NJ TRANSIT to improve intermodal transit facilities throughout the northwestern part of the state.

Description of the Spending Plan ($712,500)

Environmental work: $7,000

Design-in house work: $200,000

Design services: $30,000

Project Administration: $35,000

Insurance: $6,800

Construction: $433,700

Total $712,500

Project Name--Life Safety and Security Improvements

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Department of Justice COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Requesting Entity--Warren County Department of Public Safety 1024 Route 57 Washington, NJ 07882

Description of the Project--This project encompasses an upgrade to the radio network for all municipal police departments and county law enforcement agencies throughout Warren County. The county will be installing a new UHF infrastructure for those agencies within

Warren County. This will enhance law enforcement officer safety and security and also improve interoperability with other state and out of state law enforcement agencies. This request will cover the cost of mobile and portable radios in each vehicle and for each officer throughout Warren County.

Description of the Spending Plan--($1,250,000)

Portable Radios $100,000

Mobiles $25,000

Total $1,250,000

Project Name--Delaware Water Gap Land Acquisition

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

Account--Department of Interior

NPS Land Acquisition

Requesting Entity--The Nature Conservancy

200 Pottersville Road

Chester, NJ 07930

Description of the Project--Funds will be used to acquire and preserve a 91.5-acre tract of land within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA). This property is a primary target for preservation within the DWGNRA

Description of the Spending Plan--($1,000,000)

Cost of Land $900,000 (Appraisal, Hazards Assessment, Title and other closing costs) $100,000

Total $1,000,000

Well, I thank you for the introduction and thank you for yielding as well. I don't know if I can live up to the level as being more informed and better versed than many of my colleagues, but let me just try to make a couple of points here in the next couple of minutes.

You are right when you begin by laying out a little bit of a history. And when you do so, what it points out is that really we have been down this road before. Several months ago, we were right here on this floor debating a similar issue, when then Speaker Pelosi said that the sky would fall if we did not take immediate action in the stock market and the credit market and the rest. And of course, at that time we were talking about TARP 1, TARP 1, a spending of $350 billion, because we were in the midst of a crisis, we were told, a crisis that required that there be absolutely no alternatives considered. In fact, the Treasury Department said they looked at other ideas and immediately dismissed them. In fact, when we were not even allowed to have a markup or a hearing on it to consider alternatives, no, they had picked the right solution to the problem that we were facing in the fall and winter of last year, and that was their TARP 1 piece of legislation, and we had to rush it through this body, pass it and have the President sign it. And we did that over my objection, and I believe your objection, as well.

At that time we said it was going to solve the problem. But what was the end result? Of course, well, they said if we didn't do it, the stock market would drop about 1,000 points. But by gosh, look where it is now, several thousand points down. And the credit markets, I was just in my office earlier today, credit markets, securitization of housing in the commercial markets, are still equally tight as they were then.

That was followed by TARP 2. It was just a week ago Wednesday of last week. We were again on this floor, and again we were told that we were in a panic phase, a crisis phase, if you will, and we had to vote on TARP 2. And what was TARP 2? TARP 2 was an additional $350 billion that would again go to now the new administration with no strings attached. And this is the rub that so many of my constituents are so angry about that basically we are just writing a proverbial blank check here, passing it off to the administration, they can use it for whatever they want, buy toxic assets, buy banks, nationalize the banks. If you saw Speaker Pelosi on TV the other day, she refused to use the words ``nationalization of the banks.'' But in essence she said that is exactly what they were doing, buying up the auto companies.

We could have our new Treasury secretary, if he wanted to, he could go out and buy a TurboTax for every American in this country so those people would be able to figure out how their taxes are done and make sure that they pay their right taxes. That is what we basically granted when we passed last Wednesday an additional $350 billion, again, over my objection, and I believe over your objection as well, when that TARP bill went through. And now here less than a week later, we are on the floor discussing an additional $800 plus billion, again because we are in a crisis, we are told, and if we don't move now, it will get even worse. And we were told, again, just as in TARP 1, as in TARP 2, no opportunity for hearing, no opportunity really for input, no opportunity for amendments and the like, so that we were in panic phase.

And with that, I would just like to refer you over to an article that was actually in today's ``Weekly Standard'' written by John Stossel, who I'm sure you're familiar with. The headline of that is, ``This Is No Time to Panic.'' And I think that is extremely important to consider. And it lays it out pretty well. The subheadline is, ``our economy has recovered before and we can do so again.'' And what he basically lays out here is just take your time, move in a careful and cautious manner, consider all the alternatives which you were not allowed to do in 1 and 2, and move appropriately and the economy will work its way through with appropriate action in Washington that takes all considerations and input to mind. We didn't do that in 1. We didn't do it in 2. And I think obviously we are not going to do it with the expenditure of $800 billion now.

So going forward, we should consider a couple of points. What do the economists say about this? What do some of their own members say about what is about to go on here? Well, the economists, let's talk about that. We had the President come and speak to us today in the Republican Conference, as you said, and I appreciate the fact that the new President came and said he would reach across the aisle and talk to us about these issues. Although I will add the caveat, each time we threw out some alternatives to him and said, well, we might want to improve the bill in this manner or in that manner, I believe for as long as I was in the conference, each time one of those alternatives was suggested to him, he said, well, I would disagree with you on those points, and I really can't accept that amendment or that suggestion as a change.

But I do still appreciate the fact that he would come and listen to our talks. While he was there, and other times as well, he said that all the economists side with them on the need for a spending plan right now as they have laid out. And in essence, it is sort of the same argument we have heard before where it says there is no economist on the other side. Well, there are economists on the other side. As a matter of fact, there are pages of economists on the other side of this issue who say that the right action is not the one that is being laid out in this stimulus package. The right action is not to put us deeper in debt. And it is not just economists outside of the mainstream. I can refer you, as well, to economists right in the Obama administration.

If you look to an article in the February 9 edition of National Review by Alan Reynolds, he quotes two economists. One is Peter Orszag, who of course is the new administration's head of the Office of Management and Budget. And also he makes reference to Douglas Elmendorf, who is the new Democrat head of CBO. So these are people within the Obama administration who, previous to coming into their administration, or the Democrat side of the aisle, I should say, disagreed with this approach to stimulus with regard to fiscal spending.

Let me just quote from the article with regard to Peter Orszag.

``Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin co-authored a 2004 paper with forecaster Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institute at that time, who has

now been tapped by the Obama administration to lead the Office of Management and Budget. In that report they argued that `budget deficits which will occur with this bill, decrease national savings which will reduce domestic investment and increase borrowing abroad.' ''

Big budget deficits, warned Rubin and Orszag, would ``reduce future national income,'' and this is the important part as well, risk a ``decline in confidence which can reduce stock prices.'' So that is his new OMB director raising those red flags. Democrats' CBO director said the following, and they warn that ``it is critical that efforts to fight a recession'' such as we are doing now ``do not end up increasing the long-run budget deficit and thus harming long-run growth.''

Elmendorf rightly noted that ``the idea that Congress should make legislative changes to tax and spending policies in order to counter the business cycle has fallen into disfavor among economists.'' So there it is right there.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I think when you said I would probably agree with you, I do agree with you.

Before I describe the types of jobs that they may be creating with this so-called bailout of the economy, you have to ask yourself: what is the definition of a job? We have an idea when somebody says I just got a new job, they have a job, employment, a career that they will be starting next Monday and it will last not just through Monday afternoon but through the next year and as long as they perform their duties and services appropriately as to the requirements of their employer, that they will have a job.

There you go. But what the government means when they say they are creating jobs, and the Obama administration has given us different numbers as to how many jobs, 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs, we don't know how many jobs that they are creating, but a job is when an individual works at least one hour during the course of one week, and that means that they have created a job. So I could pay you to paint my fence in front of my house for an hour, and I just created a job. So we could be creating 2 or 3 million of these jobs under this proposal. But is that the type of job and the type of recovery that Americans are truly looking for?

As to what the nature of some of these jobs are, let's look at a couple of them. In Anchorage, Alaska, we have talked about building the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Here is street lighting. I guess that is putting in light bulbs. That is one job.

Intercom upgrades, someone is rewiring intercoms in buildings.

Bus replacement. I am not sure how that is getting a job.

Also in Anchorage, Alaska, and Alaska does pretty well under this bill, potentially. These are proposals coming from mayors across the country as far as job-ready projects that they can submit to the administration and say let's roll with these programs, Greenbelt Trail resurfacing. I guess that is a job that we are looking to spend money on.

Again street light retrofitting.

Landfill methane recovery project.

In Huntsville, Alabama, they are looking for money to replace bathroom fixtures, software purchases, and replace trolley buses.

Down in Pines Bluff, Arkansas, they are looking to buy a fire department ladder. I am not sure how that creates a job, but that is what the mayors are submitting to say they are ready to go, dollar ready, and spend this money getting it out the door.

With regard to that, I think the point should be driven home as far as when the money would be spent. The original CBO budget said that only a small percentage of the money will actually go out during the course of this year.

Yes, 7 percent.

Now the number on top of that that the majority has just come out with says actually, we are going to get around two-thirds of the money out in 18 months. Think for a second what that actually means. So 18 months from now will be July 2010. By July, we will be having our summer barbecue, and that is when the bulk of this money will be spent. That is not when we need to get the economy going, that is not when small businesses should be hiring new people, not a year or more from this summer, we should be hiring people today, we should be putting people back to work today. So the idea that the majority is saying is okay is favorable, spending money a year and a half from now as the best-case scenario is one that I think most Americans would have a problem with.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the many merits of that piece of legislation, I just want to reiterate another point as to how we got here and what we are getting from the other side.

As I mentioned before, the proponents of the bailout bill that we are about to vote on tomorrow would say that the economists are on their side and there are no economists on the other side, and I made the argument that there are a number of economists who support our view, that the way to go is just what you were laying out in the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act.

I should also point out that even within their own conference, there is growing realization that the way to get job creation going in this country is not by rushing a bill through this House without due deliberations, rushing a piece of legislation that is going to put our children and grandchildren in debt.

And so I just wanted to point out that our friend from the other side of the aisle and the chairman of the Capital Markets Committee in Financial Services, Representative Paul Kanjorski--who, by the way, just an hour or so ago was trying to make a positive amendment to the underlying bill and was rebuffed in the Rules Committee--this is what he had to say on C-SPAN with regard to his own party. He said, the Democrats, ``have lost our way, and that we shouldn't be pressed by any silly deadlines.'' He went on to say further, ``We need to take our time. And I guarantee you we're going to come back and we're going to have to have another stimulus on top of this. We're going to have another bailout for Wall Street because we are not doing things properly.'' He says, again, ``I think we lost our way in a way. We shouldn't be pressed by these deadlines. You know, what makes the President's Day holiday''--which is where they were initially aiming for--``so important for us to get out of town to get these things done?'' Which just goes to show that there are individuals from both sides of the aisle who realize that when you're talking about such sums of money and when you're talking about such a situation that we're in right now, that a solution is not to be found by rushing to judgment, nor is a solution to be found by putting all consideration to alternatives aside.

That's why I commend the gentleman from Georgia to making reference to the RSC, the Republican Study Committee, proposal. Because what this does is to make a realization that the failed policies of the past, as far as economic policy of saying that we can spend our way into a new paradise of the economic situation, history does not prove that. If you think about the Great Depression--which a lot of people are now referencing right now--some of them from the other side of the aisle will make that argument and say, well, what pulled us out of the Depression they'll say was FDR. And I know our new President makes reference to himself with regard to FDR, besides Lincoln. But the other side of the aisle will say that the way to get out of this doldrums is do additional spending such as the New Deal, and that's what they're talking about today is another New Deal.

But if you actually study the history of the Great Depression--and I know there is much dispute as to how we got into the Depression in the first place, but I will commend the gentleman from Georgia to an article written by Robert Higgs which makes the case very well that going into the Depression, there is question as to how we got into it, not so much into question is how we got out of it. And how we got out of it was an opportunity by the private sector to make decisions on their own to invest as they wanted to invest, hire people how they want to be hired, and to do so without excessive control by the Federal Government.

And I'll bring this all around to your point of why the RSC's bill is so important. During the Great Depression you had the FDR, the Roosevelt administration, setting up a whole alphabet soup of new agencies to regulate the economy. During the Depression, you had excessive government expenditures in various sectors of the economy, all of which made the private sector basically say, we're going to sit back for a little while. We're not going to invest anything because tomorrow, where I invest over here, the government may start regulating in such a way that I can't make a profit; or tomorrow, if I

decide to invest over here, the government may decide to subsidize my competitor, so I will not be able to make a profit.

So during that time, during the Depression, the investor groups or individuals stayed on the sideline. And it wasn't until the Great Escape, when the Roosevelt administration began to back off, that investors began to get into the market again. The legislation you refer to, the RSC bill, would go in the direction of what came after FDR and during what we call ``the Great Escape,'' allowing for the investor class to say I'm going to invest again. And why are they going to do so? Just because of all those great things that you listed right there. Section 179 expensing. An investor is going to say, I can start investing tomorrow. I can buy this new machine, this new factory, this new truck, or what have you, to hire new people because I can expense it today.

I will yield to the gentleman.

It looks like the time is coming to a close. And it just makes me think, as someone else said earlier today, there is a culture of arrogance, I believe, in the Nation's Capitol when the thought is that the bureaucrats and the Representatives here in this House know how to spend the money better than the people back at home. There is an arrogance to think that there is elitist--whether it's here or some administrative agency--that they are somehow imbued with special qualities, that their action of spending a dollar will generate more wealth for this country than if you and I or our constituents spend a dollar.

And of course we're not really only spending a dollar, are we? We're talking about billions and trillions of dollars. And if this $5 bill was actually a $1,000 bill and I put it right here, how many would I need of those to have a million dollars? Well, I would need four inches of these stacked up here to give to you and then say that you would be a millionaire. And how many of these, if these were $1,000, would I have to have stacked up here in order to say go out tomorrow and spend a trillion dollars--which is just about what the other side wants to do? I would need to have this stack go 63 miles into the air, into the space. That's how much money we're talking about spending. And the arrogance is that we somehow think that we know how to spend it better.

How much money are we talking about here? And I will close on this. If you took all the money that Congress or that Washington ever spent on the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe and added that to all the money that this country used to buy the Louisiana Purchase some time ago, and you added that to all the money that we spent in this country to the race to the moon, and you added that to all the money that we had to spend to get us out of the savings and loan crisis, and then you added to that all the money that we spent on the Korean War, and then you added that to all the money that FDR spent on the New Deal, and then you added that to all the money that we spent on the invasion of Iraq, and finally, if you added all the money that we spent on the entire Vietnam War, all those things together would not equal what the other side of the aisle thinks that they know how to spend better than the American taxpayer. And I think the American taxpayer knows how to spend it far better.

With that, I yield back to you for closing comments.