Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in our Declaration of Independence, our forefathers declared that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The first was life, yet this bill would permit the public funding of abortions in a number of programs that would take an innocent life formed by that Creator within a matter of months, if not weeks or days.

The very first act of our government on this innocent and defenseless life would be to end it. Our forefathers could not comprehend such an outrageous act.

Let me close by saying that on this very day, March 21, exactly 61 years ago, Chaplain Peter Marshall prayed on the floor of the Senate: Lord, our God, help us to stand up for the inalienable rights of mankind, knowing that Thy power and Thy blessings will be upon us only when we do what is right.

May we so speak, vote and live as to merit thy blessing.

Madam Speaker, the United States is the largest economy in the world. We are bigger than our four next competitors, and we got there through personal freedom and individual choice. We didn't get there by government management.

Now, countries in Europe, we have heard a lot about the fact that they have government-run health care, but that is not America. We are distinct. We place our faith in the individual. We compete, but we don't compete with the government.

The Federal Government should not be given the power to make health care choices for you or your family or to force you, as a taxpayer, as a citizen, to pay for an abortion when it violates your values.

Let's listen to the majority of Americans. Let's start over. Let's have an American plan. Let's work on solutions that are consistent with our traditions of choice, freedom, and put our faith in the individual, not the government.

I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I want to commend him for his work on this legislation. I also want to commend Chairman Waters and Chairman Meeks for their work, and other Members who I think have worked in a bipartisan way for an excellent legislation and a very worthy legislation. I rise in complete support for the Debt Relief for Earthquake Recovery Act.

If you picked a country and a capital in a country anywhere in the world which could least deal with a devastating earthquake, it would be Port-au-Prince, Haiti. You could not visualize a worse scenario.

The immediate legacy, other than which you have witnessed on the TV screens here in America, is that there will be virtually a generation of orphans who have lost their parents. That alone would be a challenge for any country. Think of New Orleans and what a challenge that has been for our country. For Haiti, it is a monumental undertaking. And, quite frankly, it is hard to visualize in our lifetime seeing Haiti recover.

The human tragedy following that earthquake is overwhelming. As Haiti's citizens seek to rebuild, I think it is very important for us to stand with them and alongside them. And I commend the administration for their efforts since the earthquake. Many of our agencies are there. Many of our charities are there. Many of our church groups are there. Many of our NGOs are there: the Jubilee Act, Melinda St. Louis, her organization; Tom Hart of the One Campaign. I think those two organizations have done a wonderful job of highlighting the need not only in Haiti, but in many of the impoverished countries.

The first measure we can take--other than the efforts that we have witnessed, many American volunteers and government efforts--to ensure that all of Haiti's remaining resources are devoted to reconstruction and not to development loans that it is unrealistic to expect can ever be repaid, this legislation is a part of that step.

Haiti's impoverished condition dates back to its origins under French colonial rule, to 1804, 205, 206 years ago, when Haiti's citizens won their independence in a revolution similar to our revolution from the French colonial regime. France imposed a blockade and imposed and extracted a promise of $21 billion in reparations, and that is $21 billion in today's currency. That is greater than the debt incurred at that time by the United States, a much bigger government. So Haiti, when they were born as a country, they were immediately impoverished, and their enslavement continued. I will say that.

The amazing thing, if you look at that debt that the French imposed and you read about it, part of the debt was repayment for compensation for property, which included the slave population. I mean, that's amazing. That's amazing. That is something that we can't go back and do anything about, but we can certainly do something today. But when the French lost their ability to enslave that population, they extracted, because of their navy, a blockade and that debt.

With the country's economic productivity being drained, since its inception, to pay this enormous debt, which has never been paid off, never paid off because there were other debts added, economic development stifled since 1804.

Sometimes we say, Why Haiti? Why is it so poor? Why has it always been so poor? It never stood a chance.

In more recent times, and one would think that things couldn't get worse than that, Duvalier, under his dictatorship, was responsible for more than 40 percent of the additional loans to Haiti. I mean, think about loaning to a dictator who is suppressing his people. We have seen that in Africa and other places, and it is an absurdity that we ought to address in Haiti and we ought to address in other places because, in that way, countries that did that contributed. The brutal regime further despoiled the country by diverting funds borrowed for development to their own personal enrichment to bank accounts out of the country.

With this history, it is no surprise that Haiti was deeply impoverished since the beginning, their foundation as a nation. And this bill by Ms. Waters and others takes a very fine first step toward the goal of eliminating Haiti's uncollectible debts so that the country can begin, for the first time, really, the process of becoming self- sustaining, and they are going to need a lot of help.

The text to be considered says the Treasury Secretary should direct U.S. representatives at international financial institutions to work with their

colleagues to try to achieve cancellation of debt owed by Haiti to those institutions. Since any cancellation would take months to accomplish, it seeks suspension of debt payment services until the cancellation takes place. None of these institutions realistically expects Haiti to service its debt at a time Haiti is lying in ruins.

As a former Treasury Under Secretary before our committee last week said, it is a ``cruel hoax'' on both the people of developing countries and on the taxpayers of donor nations to pretend that even without an earthquake, Haiti, a country whose citizens subsist on a dollar or two a day, is ever going to be able to pay back billions of dollars in development loans.

The United States has always been a benevolent and caring country. Even during our current economic challenges, we have not lost our compassion. In fact, our present travails have, in some respects, I believe, given us a greater appreciation for the desperation and suffering of those facing challenges and hardships in Haiti, although theirs are much greater than anything that we are undergoing.

The United States, and let me stress this, if you don't hear anything else, if you are thinking about voting against this bill, hear this: The United States has forgiven all of its bilateral debt to Haiti. What we are asking is we are asking others to do what we have done. What we are doing with this is directing the Secretary of the Treasury to use his voice and influence to seek debt cancellation from others. Among them are Venezuela and Taiwan. By far, Venezuela is the largest bilateral creditor. Taiwan is a distant second. Forgiving the debt Haiti owes to multilateral agencies is consistent with our principles, and we can lead by example while we lend a helping hand.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this bill before us contains some minor changes to the bill that came out of the Committee on Financial Services, all of which I support. The changes don't add any cost. They don't change the intent of the bill.

Added at the end of original committee text is a section very similar to the bill that the Senate passed last week by unanimous consent. The section says the Secretaries of State and Treasury should support the creation and use of a multinational trust fund that could include and leverage any future U.S. aid to Haiti, and that aid ought to be in the form of grants, not loans, and that the Secretary of the Treasury should seek a speed-up in interbank transfers at the Inter-American Development Bank so they may be used in Haiti's recovery.

These are sensible steps, and I support the changes and I commend my colleagues who are also here in support of this very worthy legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would like unanimous consent for an additional minute on each side.

Madam Speaker, I now ask unanimous consent to yield our 1 minute to the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Hawaii and the gentleman from Kentucky, and the Education and Labor Committee for expediting this resolution, and for your kind words in support of the University of Alabama and its fine football team upon winning the national championship.

And Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the Congress for giving the Alabama delegation the opportunity to congratulate the University of Alabama and its football team for winning the national championship. All members of the Alabama delegation have joined with me and Congressman Artur Davis. I and he are the lead cosponsors of this resolution.

This is a celebration of the culmination of a very successful season on and off the field of play. And as I say, it culminated in the game between the University of Alabama and University of Texas, two teams that exemplify college football and college athletics at its best.

In the previous year, Alabama was undefeated, but then lost to Florida in the SEC championship game and Utah in the Sugar Bowl. Disappointing losses like that might tear some teams apart. Instead, it made the university's coaching staff and players even more committed and determined to put in the hard work and dedication needed to make it all the way to the top. The hard work started in spring practice and continued through the long fall schedule.

One important lesson is never allow your defeats to hold you back. Last week we honored Mark Ingram, who also has overcome challenges to win the Heisman Trophy. Alabama did this, they put the last two defeats of the former season behind them and dedicated them to the year ahead.

To make it to the national championship game, you must have the discipline to win in the regular season week in and week out. Alabama always came prepared to play to the very end, whether it was in the season opener against a talented Virginia Tech team, or against the demanding competition in the SEC, which many believe is presently the toughest football conference in the Nation, although I am sure some of my colleagues would debate that.

There were games won by comfortable margins, and there were close calls against the University of Tennessee and Auburn University. There was the return match-up with Florida, the defending SEC champion and the defending national champion, and its outstanding quarterback, Tim Tebow, in the SEC title game.

Each game and each victory was a building block towards the BCS championship game on January 7, where the team achieved its ultimate goal. The match-up in Pasadena was fitting because the University of Alabama and the University of Texas both have proud football histories, with legendary coaches, with coaches like Paul ``Bear'' Bryant and Darrell Royal.

The fans on both sides were avid and dedicated, who came out so to support their teams in great number and with great enthusiasm. But in doing so, they were very respectful and hospitable towards each other. That is the way college athletics should be. That is the way that things should be on the floor of this House. And we should all be committed to that. And I think that we are.

The game itself had inspiring personal stories. The quarterback for Texas, Colt McCoy, is a fine young man. When he was injured, his team took from his example and never gave up, fighting until the end. Alabama's quarterback, Greg McElroy, quietly played with two broken ribs. Alabama running back Mark Ingram, the MVP of the game and the first Heisman Trophy winner in school history, is a student-athlete of outstanding character and spirit. But it was a team effort. In the end, Alabama came out on top, and finished the season with a perfect 14-0 record, and its first national championship season since 1992, under Coach Gene Stallings.

There was another undefeated team, and that was Boise State University. And I congratulate coach Chris Peterson of Boise State. When someone said they should be invited to the White House together with the University of Alabama, he graciously said there is only one national champion, that is the University of Alabama, and they should be invited. So I congratulate Boise State University on their successful undefeated year, as do all citizens of Alabama.

The passionate fans in Alabama can be very proud of the way that their student-athletes have represented both the university and the state. I commend President Dr. Robert Witt and his administration, and Coach Nick Saban and his fine staff, for setting high standards on and off the field. And last but not least, we congratulate the alumni, the fans, and the students of the University of Alabama for their support.

But most of all, it was the players, the athletes, each and every one of them. Through their hard work, these players have earned the right to be called champions. We at Alabama salute them, are proud of them, and we appreciate the opportunity to honor them with this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I commend Mark Ingram. The whole State of Alabama is very proud of Mark and Flint, Michigan. The State of Michigan I know is very proud of their native son, and they should be. I commend Congressman Kildee for bringing this resolution. The State of Michigan has overcome many challenges, and I think it's fitting that Mark Ingram comes from a State that has overcome so many challenges.

I rise to recognize Mark Ingram as representing the citizens of Alabama. He is the first Heisman Trophy winner to ever win the award at the University of Alabama. Now, think about the University of Alabama, Bear Bryant, and the storied program at the university; yet he is the first recipient of the Heisman Trophy at the University of Alabama. Many names come to mind at the University of Alabama, many all- Americans; yet he is the first to accomplish that. And as Congressman Kildee said, he did so in his sophomore year.

A ``Sports Illustrated'' cover story called Mark ``the Pride of the Tide.'' He did set an Alabama single-season rushing record of over 1,542 yards. He led the Nation with 38 runs of 10 yards or more, and he caught 30 passes in addition to that. When the game was on the line, Mark Ingram was at his best.

What statistics don't measure and what Congressman Guthrie and what Congressman Kildee have properly emphasized is the person that Mark Ingram is. You know, in life, it's not so much your accomplishments on the field. It's what you do with that opportunity. It's what you do with that talent. And Mark's greatest asset is his spirit. He stands as an example for all young people of what can be achieved through hard work, through determination of overcoming adversity and putting others first.

In his acceptance speech, he put others first. He recognized his four competitors. He talked about how much he enjoyed getting to meet them, what fine young men they were; and we know that that's true. We know of Tim Tebow. We know of all that Tim has done off the field. He is an inspiration to all of us with his values and his spiritual commitment.

Prior to the Alabama-Texas game, Alabama fans who visited California had many conversations with the University of Texas fans. Both before the game, during the game, and after the game, the respect, the kindness, and the hospitality between those two teams and between their fans should be an example for all of us. There was such a spirit of friendliness. And Colt McCoy, many of us learned that he spends as much as 2 or 3 hours on certain days visiting children with terminal illnesses and with severe illnesses. What a fine young man. What a fine young man Tim Tebow is.

Mark Ingram is a better person because of the challenges of those young men and their examples. I think he will be a better example for others. And how wonderful it is that our young people can look to people like Mark Ingram, Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy to be role models.

I think the story that Mark has that is a little special is dealing with the family challenges. Mark has been a model of grace and loyalty. As a dean's list student, he has balanced his record on the football field with excellence in the classroom. He demonstrated his humility and his spirit of sportsmanship during his speech at the Heisman Trophy award ceremony. He thanked his teachers. He thanked his coaches. He thanked his teammates. And as I said earlier, he thanked his competitors and talked about what fine young men they were.

So today I think we not only congratulate Mark Ingram, but we congratulate Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, and college football for producing so many fine young men that are examples off the field as well as on the field. And college football is better because of Mark Ingram. It's better because of them. It's better because of people back in Flint, Michigan, the grandfather and mother and teachers who made Mark Ingram the person he is today. And he had the intelligence and the character to recognize them.

Mark was the most valuable player of the national championship game. Not only was he that; he was a Heisman

award winner, and he won the national championship. That is something that no other player has done, no other player in the history of college football. Matt Leinart of the University of Southern Cal was a Heisman Trophy winner, and he played for USC in the national championship game. However, he was not the most valuable player. As I said, the Alabama and Texas fans came together to support their teams, two storied programs. They were respectful of each other, and they are an example of the high plane that college athletes can reach.

The way that Mark Ingram has conducted himself and represented his team and the university is perhaps his greatest accomplishment. It is a source of pride for all supporters of Alabama football but also for Auburn supporters. I can tell you that we are all, in the State of Alabama and throughout the country, proud of Mark Ingram. From President Robert Witt to Coach Nick Saban to all citizens of the State.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we congratulate Mark Ingram for his achievements for his hard work. And it did take hard work; it was not given to him. He has earned every accolade.

Madam Speaker, let us honor of the memory of Officer Philip Davis, the first officer in the history of the Pelham, Alabama Police Department to die in the line of duty.

Officer Davis was performing his sworn duty to protect the public when he was shot and fatally wounded during a traffic stop on I-65 in Shelby County on December 3.

Philip Davis was a four and a half year veteran of the Pelham Police Department. He previously was an officer in Calera and with the University of Alabama Police Department.

Officer Davis was devoted to the law, his community, his faith, and especially his family. He felt that it was his calling to serve and protect others.

Pelham Police Chief Tommy Thomas said, ``He was an excellent police officer. He loved his job and we loved him.''

Shelby County District Attorney Robbie Owens said, ``Philip was a genuinely good, Christian person and dear police officer. We will all miss Philip. He was a good man.''

Pelham Mayor Don Murphy said, ``This was a very sad day for the City of Pelham and for law enforcement all across our nation. Philip was an asset to both the Police Department and the City of Pelham. His dedication, personality and commitment will be greatly missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his young family.''

Philip Davis was just 33 years old. Our sympathies and prayers are with his wife, Paula, and his two young children, Sarah and John.

In a close-knit community like Pelham, Philip Davis was a friend, neighbor, and role model.

The depth of the community's love for him was clear from the way citizens lined up in cars and along the streets during memorial services that were attended by more than one-thousand fellow law enforcement officials.

All law enforcement officers and their families live with a special burden every day. They know there are risks involved with every call, whether it is serious or seemingly routine. Yet our police officers willingly accept these risks in order to keep our communities safe. That is why our officers deserve nothing less than our highest respect and complete support.

The untimely death of any police officer is a loss not only to the immediate community, but to our nation.

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, which is not far from the U.S. Capitol, is our national tribute to the sacrifices that courageous members of the law enforcement community have made to keep us secure. The name of Officer Philip Davis

will be added to this memorial so that his legacy is properly remembered and cherished.

No words can adequately make up for the loss of a dedicated officer and devoted husband and father. But as an inscription at the Memorial reads, ``It is not how these officers died that made them heroes; it is how they lived.''

I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to honor to life and service of Officer Philip Davis.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Let me say to the gentleman from Tennessee, let me explain the purpose behind the provision which your amendment seeks to strike. And I say that I would be glad to work with the chairman and with the Member at this time, striking the provision that I inserted in the committee that you objected to, and won't ask for a recorded vote.

So let me explain the background behind this amendment, and I think if we can all work together, I think we can make investors safer and make a better system.

If the body will recall, and the chairman, on December 12 of last year, about a year ago, Bernie Madoff was arrested for committing the largest financial fraud in the history of the country. It was a tremendous scam--a $65 million Ponzi scheme which defrauded nonprofits, universities, and pension funds, and wiped out the savings of literally tens of thousands of families and citizens.

Now, to do this, Bernie Madoff operated two separate entities: one was a broker dealer and one was an investment adviser. The fraud occurred with the investor adviser. That is where the fraud occurred.

The investment adviser was registered with the SEC. The investment adviser, Madoff's investor adviser, was subject to examination by the SEC, but I would point out to the chairman of the full committee and the gentleman from Tennessee they never examined the investor adviser. They never examined it.

Madoff operated a broker-dealer in the same premises and under the same name. And it was examined, was subject to examination by the SEC and by FINRA. I was saying let FINRA go ahead and examine the investment advisers, these dual operations where you have both. FINRA inspected the broker-dealer at least every other year, but the fraud didn't occur there; it occurred in the investment adviser.

FINRA lacked the authority to go in and examine the investor adviser. They couldn't examine it. And my provision I put in the committee said let them be able to, as they examine the broker-dealer, let them go in and look at the books of the investment adviser if you're operating a dual operation. Had they had the right, they would have gone in and they would have discovered this fraud. The SEC, which had the right, never did it.

Now, as I said earlier, maybe there's another solution. The SEC has said we don't want FINRA taking over our jurisdiction. What I'd like to say is, let's make sure the SEC starts doing their job. Let's make sure that they start examining these investment advisers. Someone needs to. The average investment adviser is only examined once every 10 years. Bernie Madoff's investment adviser was never examined. It's the kind of gap in regulation that causes disasters. It causes scams, it causes Bernie Madoffs of the world to get along for decades.

That is why I introduced this amendment, the provision, which we're now striking.

Now, going forward, we at least need to look at this. We need to know that there are 500 or 600 of these investment advisers and broker- dealers, dual operations. And we need to make clear that the SEC, somewhere, that they have the authority to examine both investment advisers and broker-dealers. If they want to perform that mission--and I know one thing the chairman has done; he has added more money for the SEC. I think that is part of the answer, but I think this committee, the Congress, as we go forward, needs to make sure they do their job. And there was a monumental failure of the SEC, and if they don't do their job or we find they don't and they have the resources, let's give it to someone else.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that, and I think that is a logical solution to that. And at this time I will support the gentleman's amendment to strike the provision. And as I said when I brought this provision up, I wanted to highlight the fact that this is how Bernie Madoff, you know, he got away with operating these two operations on the same premises, and we need to do the--the regulators need to do a better job, someone, of being able to look across those operations.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chair, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) just talked about we're not going to call time out. But, ladies and gentlemen, the American people are calling time out. They are ready to put this Congress and this administration and the Federal Reserve into timeout. The time has expired on bailouts. That's the message we are hearing all over America. Americans are saying no more bailouts, and they are saying no more bailout funds.

That's the primary difference between the Democratic plan and the Republican plan. Once and for all, we say no more bailouts.

The American people, quite frankly, don't care about the mechanics. They don't care about the details. What they do care is that they be treated fairly, and they not be obligated for a risk that they didn't take. That's our plan. It's that simple. If bankruptcy is good enough for American citizens, if it's good enough for small businesses, if it's good enough for 999 of America's corporations, it ought to be good enough for the largest ``too big to fail'' institutions, and that's the last thing we put to death with our plan. There won't be any more ``too big to fail.'' You take risk or you loan or allow people to take risk with your money, you lose; not the American people.

No more bailouts. No more bailouts. Vote for the Republican substitute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Chair, would you give the time remaining on each side.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Chairman, as I understand it, the chairman has one more speaker on his side so at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chair, I would like unanimous consent at this time to recognize our troops who are in the gallery today.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of the H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Juvenile Justice

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Department of Public Safety

Address of Requesting Entity: Post Office Box 1511 Montgomery AL, 36102-1511

Description of Request: Provide $150,000 for efforts to target the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of child sexual predators in the State of Alabama. Funding will be used for additional personnel and equipment. These funds will allow the investigation and prosecution of child sexual exploitation . The FY 1998 Justice Appropriations Act directed DOJ to create a national network of state and local law enforcement cyber units to investigate cases of child sexual exploitation; this funding will help the State of Alabama to fulfill that mission. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $225,000 will go toward permanent personnel salaries, $110,600 for fringe benefits, $75,000 for travel and training and $25,000 for equipment. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice Account. The Alabama Department of Public Safety will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Justice, Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Department of Public Safety

Address of Requesting Entity: Post Office Box 1511 Montgomery AL, 36102-1511

Description of Request: Provide $1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Public Safety/Alabama Bureau of Investigation Cyber Crimes Unit, Alabama Fusion Center and the University of Alabama at Birmingham will partner with Alabama District Attorneys Association in a multi-pronged approach to investigate

and prosecute financial cyber crimes within Alabama. Staff will be hired to conduct computer research and monitor the phishing sites, train law enforcement agencies in analysis and investigative techniques as related to phishing, and conduct analysis and investigation into leads generated by the UAB Computer Forensics Department. This project will protect citizens from predatory actions such as cyber scams. Not only will more criminals be brought to justice but the victims will have a better chance of recovering losses. This will help protect financial institutions against fraud and lessen potential demands on the FDIC fund. The project's total budget is $3,215,585. Specifically within the budget, for the Alabama District Attorney's Association $225,000 will go toward personnel, $154,334 for fringe benefits, $60,000 for travel, $75,000 for supplies, $237,100 for equipment and $150,000 for other expenses; for the University of Alabama at Birmingham Association $364,639 will go toward personnel, $65,659 for fringe benefits, $50,000 for travel, $51,000 for tuition and health insurance,$210,000 for equipment and $289,997 indirect costs; and for the Alabama Department of Public Safety $238,968 will go toward personnel, $103,981 for fringe benefits, $60,907 for travel, $50,000 for supplies, $200,000 for equipment and $80,000 for other expenses. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Ju Byrne Discretionary Grants. The Alabama Department of Public Safety will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus

Bill Number: H.R. 3288--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Department of Justice, Department of Justice, COPS-Meth

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama District Attorney's Association--Office of Prosecution Services

Address of Requesting Entity: 515 South Perry Street Montgomery AL, 36104

Description of Request: Zerometh is Alabama's reaction to the destructive force of today's meth epidemic. Its purpose is to expose meth and its deadly consequences to teens and young adults (12-24). The goal is to stop a potential first-time user from ever trying the drug, while encouraging everyone to look for the warning signs and support treatment. The funding will be used to purchase media and develop presentations. Meth use is a national epidemic that requires attention at all levels, but education will be the critical step to slowing down the rate of addiction to the powerful job. Zerometh has a distinctly federal goal in its mission to educate young people as to the dangers of Meth and the impact it can have on their life. The project's total budget is $1,000,000. Specifically within the budget, $830,000 will go toward advertising and media expenses, $50,000 for meth education presentations, $55,000 for administration and training and $65,000 for equipment, supplies and printing. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, COPS-Meth Account. The Alabama District Attorney's Association--Office of Prosecution Services will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

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

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for 3 minutes.

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

I rise in strong opposition to the manager's amendment. I think the manager's amendment illustrates the contradictions between the statements we've heard from the other side and the actual substance of the legislation. I just want to point out three or four conflicts between what it says and what they say it says.

The changes in the majority's $150 billion permanent bailout fund actually contradict the will of the majority of the Financial Services Committee by undermining the orderly and expedient resolution of failed firms. The body will recall, members of the Financial Services Committee, that we adopted an amendment in the committee that eliminated the conservatorship authority and limited the receivership to 1 year. Chairman Frank has basically said this is going to be a death panel; we're going to put these companies to death. And in committee, they were going to be given 1 year, but the manager's amendment comes back and extends the term limit for doing this to 3 years, 3 years in which these failed companies or counterparties or creditors won't be put to death, as the chairman said, but they will be subsidized out of this, I guess, $150 billion fund, or what could actually turn into another $50 billion if the Treasury asks the Congress to fund it with taxpayer money and adds an additional $50 billion.

This is another example of why we need the Republican substitute. Instead of picking which politically important firms we are going to let survive and which less connected firms we are going to let disappear and fail, in the Republican substitute, we utilize a fair, transparent, rules-based bankruptcy process to resolve and to liquidate these failed financial firms, not to keep them going at the expense of what could be billions of dollars. We think that the Republican alternative is the only real option for eliminating taxpayer bailouts.

The chairman of the Financial Services Committee is also fond of saying that this legislation puts an end to the too-big-to-fail policy, which led to the bailout of our GSEs, of AIG and of other financial firms. Despite this claim, the reality is quite different.

If you will look at page 45 of the manager's amendment, it specifically excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the dissolution provisions of the underlying bill. In other words, if they fail, they are excluded. We don't wind them down. Why?

Well, these two companies were at the center of the subprime lending problems that caused the financial market meltdown. Taxpayers have already pumped more than $100 billion into these failed GSEs, and they are likely to lose $300 billion more. It is unconscionable that we are going to exempt these two firms--our GSEs--from this dissolution authority.

Finally, the last aspect I will mention--and this probably is as disturbing as anything--we are raiding this TARP program, rather than ending it, for another $4 billion. The manager's amendment diverts $4 billion from TARP to a number of other programs that the law was never intended to support. TARP was intended to be a temporary plan to restore the health of the credit markets and to protect the economy from systemic risk caused by the collapse of firms that the government, really, allowed to become too big to fail.

We heard promises all last fall that the money would go back to the taxpayers. Instead, now we are talking about surpluses. We are talking about money that hasn't been used. It is almost like this is a ``walking around'' fund, and we're just going to take money out of it and use it on this pet project or on that pet project or on this good idea or on that good idea. Here is the first of those things, and it is $4 billion. Again, we are not giving it back to the taxpayers, and those promises made last September are now being broken.

The President himself has said that he is extending TARP until October 10 of this year. What he is doing is turning it into a permanent bailout agency, into a kind of petty cash drawer for politically favored interests. Here we see

the first one of those things--$4 billion. Part of it is $4 billion to help move this legislation across the finish line.

Let me close by saying we need to end TARP. That's the solution. We need to end it now. We need to require all repayments to go directly towards paying down the debt. That's the bottom line. End TARP right now. Require that all payments be used to pay down the debt. There is no surplus. There are only deficits and debts.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible breach of trust and this attack on our promises that we made last year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me say with AIG, the counterparties and creditors of the largest financial institutions were paid off dollar for dollar. I think we have all read that in the paper.

What this legislation does, it allows, in, quote, resolving this, it allows once again the creditors and the counterparties to be paid off. That is a bailout.

In AIG, it was a bailout of creditors and counterparties. That's what is provided for here.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, although I'm not opposed to the amendment as such, I am opposed to what the underlying bill does.

Chairman Peterson and I think most on our side have a disagreement with that underlying regulation. Unfortunately, the amendment is a step in the right direction, but we feel like even with the amendment substituting the original language that we still have our objections, and it's those objections I wish to speak on. Although we don't, or at least I don't personally, plan to oppose the amendment itself, as the gentleman from Oklahoma said, we do believe that it is some improvement.

But the regulation of the derivatives market created in the underlying legislation we think creates unnecessarily burdensome requirements on thousands of American companies that have used derivatives to manage price fluctuations and hedge against business risk, and they've done that successfully and safely.

The underlying legislation, even with this amendment in it, is going to empower our government regulators to institute what appears to be a fairly complex and sweeping new regulatory regime to govern, as I said, a sector of the marketplace that has functioned well and I think helped most American companies and has not contributed to the financial crisis but actually helped moderate it. And I think the derivatives market has allowed companies in many cases to insulate themselves from uncertain market conditions.

Several in the majority have alluded to the failure of Lehman Brothers as a reason for the needed reform of the over-the-counter derivatives market. And we do propose some reform, and I'm going to discuss those in a minute. The gentleman from New Jersey also discussed them. So there are some points on which we do agree with Chairman Peterson and even Chairman Frank.

But Lehman, I don't believe, can be used as an excuse to inject the government into a derivatives market that is used primarily by thousands of small and medium size and even large companies to hedge against business risk, and as I've said, have done that safely.

The reality is that Lehman's portfolio, including its derivatives positions, without any government assistance was unwound with relative ease. It was unwound. The real problem with Lehman's derivative business was the lack of segregation of collateral, a problem that is addressed by our Republican substitute.

The comprehensive Republican substitute we plan to offer provides a commonsense approach to oversight of the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace without what we consider an excessive overreach by the Federal Government and its regulators into the capital market, a theme that, unfortunately, we think is being repeated many times in this legislation.

The substitute promotes strong transparency of over-the-counter derivatives activities conducted by all market participants. It also addresses the two derivative problems identified by the majority and the administration, and that was AIG and Lehman. The isolated behavior of these two large corporations and a few others like them was, as I said, an isolated behavior, and that type of behavior would be detected under the Republican substitute, the trading activity and positions they took.

The Republican substitute also holds dealers accountable to improve operational inefficiencies with the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace, provides vital transactional information to regulators on a real-time basis, and ensures the Treasury Department cannot become a de facto regulator. Additionally, our substitute does not punish those Main Street end users of derivatives.

Finally, in conclusion, our substitute addresses another need in the derivative marketplace, which is to provide timely and accurate information to market participants and regulators in order to ensure market transparency.

Madam Chair, we have to curb abuses of the past and promote responsible approaches to oversee the use of over-the-counter derivatives. We all agree on that. However, we believe the underlying bill, even with this amendment, is fundamentally the wrong approach and is a very expensive way to address the problem.

So I urge my colleagues, even though we don't oppose this amendment, to oppose the underlying legislation. And this is just one more reason, and that is that we increase the cost of any end user of derivatives. As we said last night, John Deere said it would cost them about $1 billion. Cargill said that they probably wouldn't complete a new facility in Kansas City if we impose these costs.

Madam Chairman, the end users of derivatives are the ones that utilize these derivatives. And these weren't large, national companies. They were small businesses. They set the collateral requirements. They set the margin requirements, and they did so safely. They didn't cause the financial meltdown. They were the victims of that meltdown. And they established those collateral requirements and the margins. They did so in an appropriate way. In fact, you know, what the chairman said, the SEC and the CFTC ought to do this. You know, actually, they didn't act in a very responsible manner leading up to this meltdown last September.

Let me simply say this: Requiring greater margin and capital requirements on companies that never got in trouble leads to fewer jobs. It's going to lead to greater volatility in food and energy prices, and a loss of capital investments.

I'm just going to give you two pieces of testimony before our committee.

Steve Holmes of Deere and Company said, ``We have a number of contracts that extend well into the future. If these existing contracts are not permitted an exemption from clearing and collateral requirements, we would have to terminate the transactions at a significant cost.'' That would cost John Deere workers their jobs.

John Hixson of Cargill, Inc., said, ``For us, we've estimated it (collateral

requirements) would cost approximately $1 billion depending on market conditions--an additional amount of money we'd have to borrow. We've built a brand new oil seed facility. Our largest in the U.S. is in Kansas City. So we have to choose: whether you put the money in margin, or do you continue and build that plant? That's the type of thing we'd have to decide,'' marginal requirements or jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a great country, and I think we are all proud of our country. It is no small tribute to our country that people all over the world dream about coming to America. Our forefathers, they were either born here or they dreamed of coming to America.

America is not just a country; it's an idea, and that idea is about the individual. That's the basis of our country. It's not about the government. It's about the individual, it's about the citizen, it's about freedom, it's about choice.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill isn't the size of the bill. The problem with this bill is that it goes right to the heart and strikes a wound against the character of our country. It's the character and the culture of this legislation that is so wrong, and not the size.

Individuals in this country ought to have the right to choose. They ought to have the right to choose their health care provider, their doctor. They ought to be able to make choices, health care choices, treatment choices between themselves, their doctor, their family, not the government.

We see with health care that this idea of the individual, this idea of choice, this idea of freedom to make those choices is under attack. We found that with energy that not the individual, the country, but the government determined that we weren't going to use coal, our most abundant source. We weren't going to use oil, that we were going to tax, that we were going to tax energy, we were going to discourage that. We are taxing health care in the health care bill.

In this bill we levy taxes. We have sanctions. People may still be able to make choices, but they will be discouraged or they will be taxed when they make those choices.

The decision about seeking the doctor of your choice or the decision about borrowing money or the choice about lending money or the choice about the terms of that loan, those ought to be choices between individuals; those should not be managed by the government.

Now, the chairman has brought this legislation before, and it is his legislation. I mean, his image and his imprint is clear on each and every page of this legislation.

I have not really seen such an individual drive legislation since perhaps the first lady, Hillary Clinton, brought her government-managed health care to the floor in the early 1990s. This is just simply another way of an attempt on the part of, really--and I think the chairman really has faith in the government and the government's ability to manage and the government's ability to make decisions, that he actually has a sincere faith.

In fact, members of this committee, members of this committee on TV this morning, and Democratic members, actually made references to Europe, the way they do things in Europe, the fact that the government is making these decisions in Europe. We are the greatest, as I said, the greatest country on the face of the Earth, and we didn't get there through government management. We didn't get there through government management of health care. We won't get there by government management of creditor or of lending or of other financial services. It won't happen.

We are the largest economy in the world. It's not the British economy, it's not the French economy, it's not the Chinese economy, it's not the Japanese economy. It's the American economy. How did we get to be the largest economy in the world, three times larger than the next largest economy, the Japanese economy, bigger than the Chinese economy, the Japanese economy, the British economy and the French economy put together? We got there with faith in the individual, not in the government.

That is what's wrong with this bill. You can clearly look, and nowhere is it more evident than in this bill that not only do we not have faith in the individual and in individual responsibility and an individual's right, sometimes, to take risk, but we also give individuals the right in this country to succeed. But when you do that, unlike in other countries, you give them the right to fail.

This bill clearly establishes a bailout fund. It says when the largest companies in this country, when the largest companies in this country, when they fail, we are going to establish a $150 billion fund, a permanent fund, a permanent TARP.

The Democratic gentleman from California, Mr. Brad Sherman, said TARP on steroids, and where do you get this money from? Well, actually, it's 200 billion, 150 you get, not from the companies that are failing, but from their competitors who are succeeding. You transfer that money to those companies that have taken risk they shouldn't have taken. You take it from those companies that didn't take those risks. That's not competition; that's socialism.

Now, you can call it what you want to, but it's socialism. It's government managed. It's not what America is about.

This is not about a crisis that occurred last September. This is not about the continuing bailouts that started with the Federal Reserve, an independent body, but continued and have grown in intensity under the Obama administration. But there is enough fault to go around.

But can we not agree on one thing, that it is time that we allow people in this country to succeed, and we allow them to fail? Isn't it time in this country that we decide that there is no more ``too big to fail,'' because if you make that determination, you make the determination, as we have over the past year, that there are thousands of small businesses and medium-sized businesses and companies that were too small to save.

That's not fair. That's not what America is about. It is not about taking from people who pay their mortgage.

No matter what the circumstances of those who failed to pay their mortgage, it's not about transferring money from one to the other. That's not about America. It might be about charity, it might be about neighbor helping neighbor, but that is not what this country was established about.

So let's not use the crisis that we have experienced this past year to create the calamity of a government-managed country where the individual, where freedom, where choice is a thing of the past.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Gutierrez came to the floor, and he made a point that we want to avoid what happened in AIG, but, in fact, I think he reminded the body of a very important thing, and that is what did happen in AIG. Large counterparties and creditors were bailed out. And whether you call it a permanent bailout authority--as we do--of $150 billion, or as the gentleman of Illinois says, a funeral fund of $150 billion, and it is used to bail out creditors and counterparties, now, isn't that what happened in AIG? Isn't that what the gentleman from Illinois and the chairman of the committee say they want to avoid? Yet they create a fund to bail out large counterparties and creditors. And in AIG, they bailed out 12 large counterparties, 10 of them foreign banks, 2 of them Wall Street firms.

They didn't bail out any cities. They didn't bail out any counties. They didn't bail out any community banks. And over 1,000 were owed money. And they are creating another fund to do exactly that.

I see my time has expired.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, when I joined the Army, they sent me to Fort Lewis, Washington; and one of the first things we did there was get in line to get our hair cut.

We noticed on the wall there were pictures of four different haircuts, and they told us to choose one of those haircuts, get a number, and give it to the barber.

We thought this was going to be pretty good. So we all gave him that number for the longest haircut. We all gave our numbers to the barber, and he cut all our hair off, every one of us. The numbers meant absolutely nothing.

When we got back to the barracks, we knew who was in charge. We knew who was making the decisions, and it wasn't us. The Army was making all the decisions.

Just like thinking you're going to get the haircut you choose, we're promised the right to choose under this bill. But the reality is, just like the Army, when the government's in

charge, you're not. This bill is about a new government bureaucracy making all the choices for us.

We're Americans. America is about freedom. Freedom is about making choices. And given the choice, I'll always put my faith in the individual, not the government.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I rise today in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that this bill moves up the effective date on the underlying credit card bill, and that credit card bill is not a major bill. Unlike the health care bill, unlike the climate control bill, or the cap-and-tax bill, and unlike the systemic regulation bill, this bill addressed one thing and one thing only, and that was credit cards. We passed it 5 months ago. When we passed it, there were all these prophecies of wonderful things that were going to happen to consumers.

We Republicans stood on the floor of this House, and we said there needed to be changes in this bill. We said, if this bill passed in its present form, which it did, that the cost of credit would increase for consumers. We said there would be limits placed on their credit lines.

Sure enough--and I take no pleasure in saying this--5 months later, after President Obama signed this legislation, the so-called Credit CARD Act, into law, credit tightened. Consumers every day are facing notices in the mail that their credit rates are going up from 6 and 8 percent to 20-something percent. American Express and others have said they're going to start charging $100 fees. These are so-called unintended consequences. As a result of this legislation, we're seeing many consumers facing the cancellation of their credit cards, millions in fact. Regrettably, those warnings have come true.

Small businesses, which rely heavily on consumer credit, are also feeling the credit crunch. They're the main creators of jobs in our country--small businesses. They need credit. According to the National Small Business Association, 79 percent of those small businesses which were surveyed just recently said that credit card lending standards have tightened dramatically in the last few months and that their credit lines are being decreased materially.

The new credit card restrictions are exacerbating the economic crisis and the loss of jobs, and they are causing the shutdown of a key source of financing for small businesses and, therefore, job creation.

Small businesses are the engine of our economy. They're the number one job creators. Of all businesses, they rely the most on credit cards and on credit lines from those credit cards. We shouldn't have restricted their ability to obtain credit. They need it to expand and to create jobs.

This original bill came at just the wrong time. We could have stopped the abusive practices; but at the same time, we went beyond that and restricted the ability of credit card companies to protect themselves from people who didn't pay their credit card bills. That's really the essence of why this bill is not working, because we protected those who didn't pay their credit card payments. They're who are protected. We did some other good things, but we did that; and that was a mistake.

Now, don't take my word for it as to the fact that this present legislation--and let me say this: it's very unlikely. This is sort of a charade because, I think, most of us realize that this legislation is not going to be enacted into

law. It's December 1 now. I mean, it takes effect December 1. The Senate, I don't think, will even pick it up by December 1. Maybe they will. Maybe they will.

If they do, I think the warning of Chairman Bernanke is appropriate. When asked about the feasibility of enacting the provisions of the bill we're now considering, here is what Chairman Bernanke said--and Chairman Bernanke is often quoted by the Members on the other side of the aisle:

The board continues to believe that, given the breadth of changes required by the Credit CARD Act and its regulation, card issuers must be afforded sufficient time for implementation to allow for an orderly transition and to avoid unintended consequences, compliance difficulties, and potential liabilities.

Well, we've seen those unintended consequences: no credit cards where people had credit cards and a country in which we had the most ability to have credit cards and the choices in credit cards at the lowest interest rates. That is beginning to change before our eyes.

All of us share the goal of protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices and of ensuring that cardholders receive useful and complete disclosures so that they have sufficient time to pay their cards and so that they aren't subjected to double- cycle billing, but we must be careful. Let this bill be a lesson to us, in trying to protect consumers or the government's intervening into these practices, that we do not impose new costs on them or on the U.S. economy as a whole. Just like the Speaker Pelosi health care plan we may consider later this week, this bill limits choice; it rations credit; it decreases costs; and it strangles innovation.

According to recent studies, as many as 114 million Americans will lose their current health insurance coverage under the Democrats' health plan. Now, that's even more serious than the few million who have lost their credit cards under this legislation. Likewise, several million consumers will lose their credit cards or will see their credit lines severely restricted by this legislation.

If there is one common denominator in Congress this year, it's the substitution of the government for the individual: with the stimulus, with the multiple bailouts, with the climate change legislation, with this credit card bill, with financial reform, and now, later this week, with health care. Instead of you making the choice, the government is making the choice for you.

The United States of America is the world's largest economy. It's three times larger than our closest competitor, Japan; and it's larger than the economies of Japan, China, Germany, and of Great Britain combined. We got there through innovation. We got there through choice. We got there through competition. We got there through individual initiative and responsibility, not through government control and management.

As we've seen time after time, when you substitute a government- controlled and -run program for individual choice, the cost goes up and the quality goes down. When it comes to health care, there is nothing more important than quality and choice. Given the choice, I'll always place my faith in the individual, not in the government; and this time is no different. It is no different with the credit card legislation. It is no different with the health care legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying many of my colleagues in this body, both Republicans and Democrats, are going to come in and they are going to vote for this legislation today. They are going to do so really, many of them, because of the underlying legislation and the animosity and the bad feelings it has created with the American people, who are seeing their credit lines limited and their interest rates raised. The American people are upset, and this bill is an attempt, I think, almost to cloud why those interest rates are going up.

We need to help families, we need to help businesses that are struggling in this economic recession, and we need to create jobs. And, as we said 5 months ago, that was exactly the wrong time to saddle them with additional fees, higher interest rates, limit their credit lines and add significant new compliance burdens to our community banks. That was true 5 months ago on credit cards. We have seen the unintended results.

We are going to vote on health care. Those results will be even more serious and more drastic. You will see a greater cost of health care. You will see a diminished quality. You will see rationing of care. We warned about unintended consequences 5 months ago. Those warnings weren't heeded. We are warning again, but this time we are dealing with a far more serious issue, and that is the quality of health care in America, the affordability of health care, and the ability to get services in this country that are not offered in other countries.