Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked at the shock. I cannot believe that we are here and people are shocked. Every person--or, I don't want to offend anybody, but almost every person on the other side of the aisle--voted for the stimulus bill that had the provision in that protected, authorized, and allowed these bonuses. And today, they're shocked.

When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, they were then pictured with fig leaves. The bill they want to bring today isn't a fig leaf, it's a fig tree.

Now, Ross Perot, when he ran for President in 1992, he talked about the giant sucking sound. Well, today there is another giant sucking sound going on in Washington, D.C., and that's the tightening of sphincters on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as people are having to explain who put into the stimulus bill this provision of law. And specifically, it's title VII, section 111, paragraph 3(i), that basically said that the bonuses that were paid out that people are shocked about today were protected and would not be touched.

Now, I think people have to man up around here and admit responsibility. Mr. Speaker, how much more time do I have?

I am happy to yield my 1\1/2\ minutes to anybody on the other side of the aisle who can tell us who was in the room, who took out the Wyden-Snowe amendment that prohibited this executive compensation and inserted section 111, subparagraph 3(i). Anybody?

Who did it? Was it some staffer? We see a Senator on the other side of the Capitol blaming it on the Treasury Secretary. We see the Treasury Secretary blaming the Senate. And the last time I checked, the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't have legislative authority. He didn't write it. Who wrote it?

What I do know is that we told you, how can you give us 90 minutes to read a piece of legislation that's over a thousand pages long? You said, well, who needs to read the legislation? Well, apparently, today, when the chickens have come home to roost, and we have read the legislation and the Democratic majority and the Democratic administration authorized AIG employees--73 of them--to get over a million dollars, today they're embarrassed.

And their response? It's a typical Democratic response: Let's tax people.

It's unconstitutional what they want to do; it's wrong what they want to do. And if we let the majority of this House that does not believe in transparency, that made us vote on a bill after giving us 90 minutes to read it, that is now embarrassed by the firestorm that's been created and the finger pointing that they're now engaging in, we shouldn't be here.

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this much gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts since Homer penned ``The Rape of the Sabine Women''.

This is truly amazing. We are being asked to vote on a resolution today that says that the President is doing everything in his power to properly execute a program. Now, I wish I could vote ``yes'' because I happen to think that the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, is doing the best job that he can, but I can't answer that question. I can't answer that question. And I am going to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee if he will answer the question. This is the paragraph--hold on, let me get the citation--title VII, section 111, subparagraph (iii).

Somehow, when the bill left the Senate, it had the Wyden-Snowe language that said ``no executive compensation,'' and it taxed it. When the bill comes out of the conference committee, it has this paragraph in it that makes possible the bonuses that people are so shocked about today.

Now, I wasn't in the conference committee, I've been transferred to the Appropriations Committee, and so I would yield to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee if he would tell me--I assume he was a conferee--how did this get in the bill? I'll yield to anybody on the Democratic side. How did this paragraph get in the bill?

This paragraph said that the government could not stop the $170 billion worth of bonuses, and today we're taxing these bonuses at 90 percent and we're calling these people traitors. Come on. How did this stuff get in the bill? And if you can't answer the question, we can't vote on your resolution.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee because apparently I wasn't riveting enough when I was chatting before. And I'm happy to restate my question, and if the distinguished Speaker hasn't left the floor, she as well, I assume, had a representative in the conference committee.

My question was simple. These bonuses were not blocked as a result of this paragraph in the stimulus bill. Now, 2 days before we voted on it, every Democrat in the House voted to give us 48 hours to do it. You didn't do it. You gave us 90 minutes. You said 90 minutes is plenty of time. So I assume the Democrats read it. I assume the conferees who were in the room when this paragraph was inserted read it.

My question, Mr. Chairman: How did this get in the bill?

I have the same answer, but I'm glad at least we have now heard the question.

I want to thank our leader for giving us an hour to talk about something that happened today, this week, that really has us befuddled.

Mr. Speaker, I like a good mystery, I just finished reading another Agatha Christie last night, ``Black Coffee,'' and it wound up being the personal secretary to the manor and Lord, who poisoned him with cyanide.

But it took me until the last couple of pages until I figured it out that this Edward Raynor had in fact poisoned his boss.

Well, who would have thunk that we would have a real live mystery here on Capitol Hill. But we have one. And we're going to talk about a variety of things relative to AIG and the stimulus package and these bonuses that have been paid out that really have people's anger up, at least in Ohio--the phone calls I'm getting. We'll hear from other Members.

But here's what happened. A few weeks ago, the President of the United States indicated he wanted to put forward a stimulus bill and, unlike some commentators, I want President Obama to succeed. I think he's doing the best job that he can.

He entrusted the leadership of the House and Senate to write the bill. The bill was a little over 1,000 pages. I think it was 1,117 pages long. We were nervous because it was spending $1 trillion. When I say my Republican colleagues and I were nervous, it proposed to spend $1 trillion rather quickly. We asked early in the week before the vote, Do you think we could read the bill before you ask us to sign on to spending $1 trillion?

So we had a little motion here on the floor and every Member of the House--every Republican, every Democrat--said: You will have 48 hours to read this bill before we ask you to decide whether it's a good piece of legislation or a bad piece of legislation.

Well, it left the House, it left the Senate, and it went to a conference committee which, Mr. Speaker, I know you know, but others may not know; that's where we send some guys and gals over from the House, they send some over from the Senate. They get together, they work out the final product and then they bring it back to the House and Senate for a vote.

Well, something happened on the way to the vote in that we weren't given 48 hours to read the bill. We were given 90 minutes to read the bill. We made the observation that that's 90 minutes to read 1,000 pages, and a lot of us read pretty quickly, but that was a big challenge. So could you please not ask us to do this, because when you do something that quickly, somebody's going to be embarrassed.

That leads us to our mystery. Today, we had some legislation where there was a lot of gnashing at teeth and pulling of hair, saying that AIG are crooks, somebody called them traitors, so forth and so on, and they shouldn't have gotten these bonuses.

Well, when the bill left the Senate, there was an amendment in the bill offered by a Democratic Senator from Oregon, Wyden, and a Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, that said there were not going to be--if you took money for the bailout and you're an institution, you couldn't give these crazy bonuses to people. You couldn't give them $18 million, $20 million worth of bonuses. That seemed pretty reasonable.

Well, when it went into this meeting, all of a sudden that language came out and this language that I have put up on the easel here was inserted.

For those who want to read it, it's title 7, section 111, subparagraph 3, subparagraph iii.

Now, unlike the Wyden-Snowe language that said we weren't going to do it, this language specifically says that any bonuses, any executive compensation, any million-dollar golden parachute, any retention pay that was agreed to before February 11, 2009--guess what? It wasn't covered. So the bill specifically authorized the payment of these bonuses.

Well, as we warned, and we are not happy that our prediction came true, but there were some people this week that were embarrassed by that. So we passed a bill to tax these bonuses at 90 percent. Stupid idea. But we wouldn't even have had that discussion if somebody, somebody put this paragraph into the bill that specifically allowed the taxpayers of this country to go ahead and pay for these bonuses at AIG. So we do have a Who Dunnit.

From our social studies we know that there are 435 Members of the House of Representatives and there are 100 Senators. I had a piece of paper with the breakdown, and I've misplaced it, but I think after the last election there are 178 Republicans in the Chamber and there are 247 Democratic Representatives. Over in the Senate, there are 41 Republican Senators, 58 Democratic Senators, and we can clear somebody of this mystery already because the Minnesota Senate race has not resolved so we know that Al Franken or Norm Coleman didn't put this paragraph into the bill.

During the debate today I asked the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, if he did it. And he said no. So we're going to cross Barney Frank off the mystery list. Now we are down to only--well, let me say this. I didn't do it. So we are down to 533.

I'm joined by other Members here today.

Mr. McCotter of Michigan, did you put this into the bill?

Thank you very much. Let me get to Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Did you write this?

Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, did you write this?

Thank you, Mr. Cole. I think, as Angela Lansbury in Murder She Wrote, or Agatha Christie in her books, we're going to call that a clue. I think we have a clue and we're moving in the right direction.

Are there any other Members that want to say anything? Sir, do you want to identify yourself and indicate whether you wrote this?

You know what? We're getting someplace. So now, by my count, we only have about 525 people to go. I pledge to you, Mr. Speaker, that I will spend as long as it takes to identify who wrote the language.

We are making a little light of it, but it's not funny. Because what you have here on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, you have a Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee over there, and he says, Well, yeah, maybe I wrote it, but I only wrote it because somebody in the administration told me to write it.

Well, again, going from our social studies, we know for a fact that the administration can't write laws. This is the United States Congress. So somebody had to pick up a pen and scratch out the Wyden- Snowe amendment which would have prohibited these bonuses and then written this new paragraph--it's only about 50 words long--and inserted this. And somebody needs to own up to this because you can't have all the drama that we had on the floor today where: I don't know; this is outrageous; they're crooks.

Well, the person that wrote this let this happen. And that's why we find ourselves in our situation today. We have a lot more that we are going to talk about.

Now it's my pleasure to yield to Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cole. And thank you not only for your comments but also for the clue.

I know that other Members may be wandering around the Capitol giving tours or taking care of constituents, and just in case they didn't hear, Mr. Speaker, I will indicate that we are attempting to solve a mystery.

I have something called a Face Book, and the Face Book has a picture of every Member of Congress in the House and the Senate, and we are going to try to find out, if we can, and maybe others will be willing to help us, who put this paragraph in the stimulus bill that shielded the $170 million of bonuses that AIG paid to their executives after they got another $30 billion.

Parenthetically, I heard an argument, people have been beating up these executives as traitors and everything else. I have got to say, I kind of admire a bunch of folks that have bilked the taxpayers out of $175 billion and--but, anyway.

So what we are doing is we are crossing people off, and I think we are down to about 525 left. Any Member that wants to come and have his or her picture crossed out so we know it is not them, we are happy to do that.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter of Michigan.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his thoughtful remarks, and I thank him also because from Mr. Cole of Oklahoma we got a clue and now from the gentleman of Michigan we have a motive and, thankfully, also the name, ``The Mystery of the Hidden Hand.'' I think that is what we are going to call this thing, The Mystery of the Hidden Hand.

And, Mr. Speaker, just in case you need your memory refreshed, what we are talking about here is the fact that in the $1 trillion stimulus bill, which we were given 90 minutes to read and which we indicated maybe that could cause a problem, somebody might be embarrassed, language was removed by somebody, The Hidden Hand, that was put in over in the Senate that would have prohibited AIG from using taxpayers' money and paying out millions of dollars in bonuses to their executives.

Now, The Hidden Hand wasn't done with that, because that didn't accomplish his or her purpose--I think we have got to include women in this, too. It could have been a woman. The Hidden Hand then wrote this paragraph in this $1 trillion bill that specifically protected and said, ``Here is 30 more billion dollars of our taxpayers' money, AIG. And, you know what? This protects you. If you want to give out bonuses, $1 million, you go right ahead.'' And today, this Mystery of the Hidden Hand, we don't know who did it. But we are going to work it out.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to a new member of the House, Mr. Fleming of Louisiana. I have the Face Book, Mr. Fleming, and I have crossed you out. You are not The Hidden Hand. And it is my pleasure to yield to you for your observations.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for adding his thoughts to the mystery of the hidden hand.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time of the hour remains?

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned the freshman bill that attempted to get to the bottom of this, because sometimes the criticism, and I think it is legitimate criticism sometimes, is that the Republican party is the party of ``no,'' that we don't have any solutions and that all we do is say ``no'' around here.

The freshman bill is an opportunity, and it is a positive idea. Mr. McCotter and I and about 20 of our colleagues earlier this week introduced something known as a ``resolution of inquiry.'' And Mr. Speaker, if any of your constituents are looking for a project, maybe they could contact the Congress and say, ``support H. Res. 251'' which simply says, let's get to the bottom of this. Let's have Secretary Geithner come to Capitol Hill with his papers and with his documents, and maybe he, as the Secretary of the Treasury, can shed some light on the mystery of the hidden hand, how good language was taken out of the $1 trillion stimulus bill and bad language was inserted.

So that measure, H. Res. 251, has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Under the rules of this House, they have 14 days to report it out to the House.

Sometimes when we engage in that type of legislative activity, we are told that we have got a lot of important things, we are very busy here in the House of Representatives, and we really don't have time to get to the bottom of the mystery of the hidden hand, even though that bill spent $1 trillion of taxpayers' money.

I just want to move to a couple of other charts. I want to keep the paragraph up just in case anybody, any Member should be watching and he or she wants to exclude themselves as the hidden hand, I want them to know what it is we are talking about.

Last summer, many people remember, Mr. Speaker, when the cost of gasoline was going through the roof. Thankfully now that the international situation has died down, supply and demand has taken over and speculators have been driven out of the market, people now in my district are paying about $1.89 for regular. But last year, when gas just kept going up--and again let me say this. I have consistently said that this is the second Congress, the 111th Congress is the second Congress where there are more Democrats in the House than there are Republicans. They are the majority party. And quite frankly, in the last Congress, I thought they should have been the majority party because we screwed up as Republicans, and we deserved a little bit of a wake-up call. And we are very proud of the fact that Congress created the first woman Speaker of the House since the founding of our country, Ms. Pelosi of California. But we were consistently told that we couldn't talk about how are we going to solve this energy crisis last year because we were too busy. We had a lot of other important things to do.

I used this chart last year, and it is going to segue into what we are doing this year when the last Congress started and Speaker Pelosi was named the Speaker. Gasoline was $2.22 a gallon. And so we weren't so worried about gasoline, obviously, but we had important work here, and we passed legislation, and I'm sure these folks and their parents are very proud, congratulating the University of California, Santa Barbara soccer team. We were too busy to do anything about gasoline.

Well, gas shot up to $2.84. I began to get some phone calls in my office--Mr. McCotter, I'll bet you did too--and so maybe we should begin to focus on gas prices. Well, no, we enacted, and we are very proud of this, National Passport Month. That is what they decided was the most important issue facing the country. Moving forward, gas goes up to $3.03. And so I know we are going to talk about gasoline today. No. We commended the Houston Dynamo soccer team. I think that we are all told in politics that you have to get the ``soccer mom'' votes. I think we were well on our way in that last Congress.

Gas goes up to $3.77, so I know we are going to talk about gas prices, how do we solve the pain at the pump. The most important issue of the day here in the Congress was National Train Day. I like trains. Gas goes up to $3.84. Well, we honor great cats and rare canids. And I have to tell you, I didn't know what a canid was when the bill came to the floor, but it is a dog. So we honored cats and dogs on that day when our constituents were paying $3.84. Gas goes up a little bit more to $4.09. You know we are going to talk about gas prices, right? No. We declared the International Year of Sanitation.

Then, finally, when gas hits $4.14, before it begins to come down, you know that we had to debate energy prices. We passed the Monkey Safety Act here in the United States Congress.

So you would think that we were chastened by that and perhaps in this Congress, when we have a financial meltdown and 16 Americans are losing their jobs every minute in this country, Mr. Speaker, people have had their 401(k)s wiped out, and so I know that maybe they didn't, you know, they were new in the majority, maybe they couldn't get things rolling. Now that they have 2 years under their belt, you know that we are going to deal with this financial crisis in a serious way.

This Congress started on January 6 of this year. That was the opening of the 111th Congress. And so we have been at it since January 6. We are now into the middle of March. And the stock market on that day was 9015. And then, of course, because I want to be fair to the new President of the United States, we get to, the stock market drops, and so maybe Congress could have acted in here, but certainly President Obama doesn't bear any responsibility because the next January 20, of course, we all know, was the date of the inauguration. And millions of people came, we were all excited, and we continue to be excited. The stock market then fell down after Inauguration Day to 7936. And the most important thing for us was to support the goals and ideals of national teen dating. Now, I have got teen-agers. I like teen dating. But when the stock market is going down, people are losing their life savings, clearly, we must have something more important to talk about than teen dating.

Well, here is a big drop from 7888 to 7114. And on that day, we have commended Sam Bradford for winning the Heisman trophy. Now, I'm sure that Mr. Bradford is an outstanding football player. I wish him a lot of success as he moves forward through his professional career. But, again, as the stock market has dropped by this time 1,900 points, maybe we can do something about the economy.

Well, then, it continues to go down. And not to be outdone, we had to pass the Monkey Safety Act again because when we passed the Monkey Safety Act in the last Congress, the Senate didn't pass the Monkey Safety Act, so we had to bring the Monkey Safety Act back to pass it this time. I don't want to make light of what caused that. There was a horrible situation in Connecticut where a woman had her face bitten off by a chimpanzee, and luckily she has now gone to the Cleveland Clinic, and she has had the first successful transplant in the country. That is certainly a serious matter. I don't have a problem with making sure that we have a Monkey Safety Act in this country to take care of that situation and others. But clearly, when the stock market has dropped almost 2,000 points, maybe we could do something else.

We run it out to March 3, and do you know what? Rather than helping people with the economy, we passed the Shark Conservation Act on May 3 as the stock market hit 6726. And lastly, the run-out to March 9, this was personally one of my favorites, because I didn't remember, I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when I was going to school. So when they said we are going to have Supporting Pi Day, I thought, yeah, I like French silk. I like all the pies. But it was mathematical pi, which we know is 3.1416. And as the

stock market goes down and approaches the mid 6,000s, the legislation, the most important thing that we could do here in the United States Congress was to celebrate and honor Pi Day.

Folks, listen, there is a reason we get the reputation back home sometimes that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I am not saying that all of these things aren't fine things. But when the economy is in the tank, when the stock market is dropping, when people are hurting, when 16 Americans are losing their jobs every minute, maybe, just maybe, we could do something rather than the Monkey Safety Act not once, but twice.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Michigan.

I thank my friend from Michigan.

The Speaker of the House spoke today very eloquently, and it is the whole issue of who gets Federal taxpayer dollars and what we require in return. The gentleman from Michigan has been one of the champions in the House relative to the auto industry. I happen to agree with you that we need to make cars in this country, just like we need to make steel in this country. But we told the auto manufacturers that if there was going to be Federal assistance, I didn't happen to agree with it, you did, but if there was going to be Federal assistance, they had to cram down the contracts of the people who worked in the auto plants. And I assume those are contracts. I assume they signed a contract they were going to make X dollars an hour, and the Congress and Democratic leadership and others said well, if you get some money from the taxpayers, you have to renegotiate those contracts.

About 3 weeks ago we had a piece of legislation on the floor that really baffled me, and it was called the Cram-Down Bill. Even though we tried to get an amendment that said that you couldn't participate if you lied to get a mortgage, that bill basically said if you went to your bank and you lied on

the application to get a $100,000 mortgage, you weren't supposed to get it, you made up your income and you didn't talk about what you owed, the majority gave the judges of this country the ability to cram down that mortgage and say you don't owe $100,000 any more, you only owe $60,000.

So clearly if that is where we are going to go, if we are going to target people who make cars in this country and we are going to reward people who lie on their mortgage applications, it is obnoxious. Some people say what's the big deal, it is 50 words. What the big deal is we have said to the auto guys, cram down your wages. We have said to the mortgage holders, cram down your mortgage. But in the dead of night, the hidden hand inserted language that not only didn't prohibit the awarding of $170 million in bonuses to people, it protected those bonuses; and today, they are shocked. It is a little bit like the man who is taking a bath and throws his clock radio in the bathtub and says, I'm shocked. That's what we have here.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we have launched the mystery of the hidden hand. Again, the mystery of the hidden hand is somebody, and we just want that person to identify themselves so we can move on to something else. Somebody took out a paragraph in the stimulus bill spending a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that said that AIG and others, anybody who got taxpayer money, could not hand out excessive executive bonuses. The hidden hand removed it and inserted this paragraph in section 7700 that permitted and protected the $170 million of bonuses that people are now shocked AIG paid out.

We have established motive. We have identified a clue. Mr. Cole was kind enough to give us a clue, and we started with 535 suspects and we have winnowed it down to, well, we are down to about 524 now.

So I am going to bring the face book, Mr. Speaker, next week and every day to the floor, and I will seek out Members of this body and ask them if they are the hidden hand. If they didn't put this paragraph in, I am going to cross their face off. When I am done with the House, I am going to go over to the Senate, if they will let me over there, and I will ask the Senators: Are you the hidden hand? Did you foist this fraud upon the American taxpayer and then not have the courage to own up to it?

Mr. Speaker, we will be back. We will solve the mystery of the hidden hand. The taxpayers deserve no less.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I intend to vote ``no'' on the previous question on this particular rule. I don't have any big problem with the rule, but it is my understanding that Mr. Diaz-Balart will, if it is defeated, offer an amendment to the rule that will address a topic that isn't the subject of the GIVE Act, but the AIG bonuses.

Yesterday, the country was roiled by the fact that a company that has received $175 billion has handed out to 73 individuals bonuses of $1 million or more. Multiple pieces of legislation were introduced yesterday to put a stop to it. We see a lot of gnashing of teeth on the other side of the Capitol like, ``How could this happen? We didn't know it happened.'' We have some Senators introducing bills to tax these bonuses at 100 percent. But, Mr. Speaker, we know how this happened, and yesterday we filed legislation and Mr. Diaz-Balart's amendment would move the process along. In deference to the gentlelady who just spoke, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can consider the GIVE Act and we can also talk about the Nation's economy, which is critical.

But we know that when the stimulus bill was passed, there was an amendment offered, a bipartisan amendment, by Senators Wyden and Snow that would have said that if there are in fact these egregious bonuses--and think about it for just a minute. You run a company into the ground and participate in causing the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and you get millions of dollars in bonuses. I would like that job, and a lot of people that I represent would like that job.

There was a provision in the stimulus bill that would have said that if you give out these egregious bonuses, there is going to be an excise tax of 35 percent. It goes to conference. All of a sudden, that provision is then gone, and what is inserted in section 111, paragraph 3(iii) is that: No bonus that was agreed to or negotiated prior to February 11 will be subject to this restriction.

Does anybody think that the bonuses that were just given out that were the subject of a CNN report on January 28 was negotiated after February 11? It is ridiculous. They knew it was going to happen. They let it happen. And now that the public has somehow said we don't think this should happen, we have a lot of finger-pointing going on on Capitol Hill.

Yesterday, I filed a Resolution of Inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to hand over all of the documents leading up to why this transpired, why it was permitted to transpire. And we hear the Constitution being bandied about. ``We can't interfere with contract law.'' I am going to tell you, since the beginning of this Congress, the 111th Congress, if you are an auto worker, even though you had a contract to make X number of dollars to build automobiles in this country, we violated those contracts and said let's cram those down if you want to get Federal assistance.

If you lied on your mortgage application when you went to the ABC bank, and they gave you a $100,000 mortgage, and they said, ``you lied to get that mortgage,'' we just passed a piece of legislation that says, ``we don't care if you lied. If you get in financial trouble, we are going to cram down the mortgage, and you don't owe the bank $100,000 anymore.''

Clearly, those are contracts. We can mess with those contracts. We can mess with people that are working hard every day. We can mess with people that lend money so people can have the American Dream of homeownership. But we can't mess with 73 people who directed a company into near bankruptcy and needed $175 billion of my constituents' money and your constituents' money. But that is okay. We can't mess with those contracts.

Please defeat the previous question and support Mr. Diaz-Balart's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you and Members of the House the introduction of a resolution of inquiry regarding the payment of executive bonuses to employees of American International Group, AIG. It is H. Res. 251.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I, as well as many Americans across the country, are outraged at the unfurling of events surrounding this freewheeling company which helped to lead us into the financial disaster we now face.

To make matters worse, we find out this week that the administration was fully aware of the March 15 payment of $165 million in executive or retention bonuses for many months. Even more troubling is the fact that the one person who was in the dark about the pending bonuses, until last week no less, was our very own Secretary of the Treasury who was supposed to be masterminding our economic recovery and banking recovery.

It is clear from the media reports that AIG did not award these bonuses as a snub to the administration, but instead waited until they had the blessing of the Secretary of Treasury, who apparently believes he did his due diligence by berating AIG and then saying that there was nothing that he could do to stop the bonuses.

The fact that we are rewarding the very people who caused the largest corporate loss in history is astounding. Just recently, the Attorney General of New York has indicated that at least 73 AIG employees received bonuses in excess of more than $1 million, including nearly one dozen AIG employees who no longer work for the beleaguered firm.

Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs during this economic crisis, and most did their jobs well with great purpose and performance. There are no bonuses for them. Instead, they risk losing their homes, health care, and more. Meanwhile, AIG employees who engaged in risky, perilous behavior that brought our economy to the brink of collapse are rewarded.

There is a great deal of finger-pointing about how we got into this mess and what Congress and the administration is doing. Let me state just a few facts.

Since the beginning of this Congress, which is about 2\1/2\ months old now, only eight bills have been signed into law; and this week is like many others in the House, virtually no substantive legislative activity. This House, within 8 days of one person being attacked in Connecticut by a chimpanzee, rushed through legislation to make it harder to own chimpanzees. Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities? Here we sit, wringing our hands over how to curb bailout abuses, and what have we done to date to show for it?

Today, again, the House was deeply contemplating a series of noncontroversial bills under suspension, including two measures naming post offices, and approving a bill supporting Professional Social Worker Month. I like social workers, Mr. Speaker, but who in their right mind thinks that that should be a priority today or this week while the Nation is roiled in anger over these bonuses? We might as well tackle more chimp or monkey legislation.

Mr. Speaker, based upon the Nation's unemployment rate, which hit a new high of 8.1 percent in February, that translates into 16 Americans losing their job every minute. Americans are struggling to keep their homes. Two

hundred seventy-five thousand foreclosure filings were reported in January, with one home in every 440 receiving a foreclosure filing in February. This year, the stock market has plunged 1,750 points and is at its lowest rate since 1997. Millions of Americans continue to lose their retirement security. To date, AIG has received $200 billion in taxpayers' funds to keep the company afloat and recently suffered the largest quarterly loss of any corporation in American history.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. We cannot sit by and watch as AIG executives not only keep their jobs but are also rewarded for their actions.

Further, the administration needs to come clean on its discussions with AIG and approving these bonuses. Therefore, today I have introduced a resolution requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit to Congress all communications relating to AIG and its approval of these executive bonuses as well as the use of Federal infusion of taxpayer money. Americans deserve to know the full story, and this Congress must act to get it now.

The excuses on television are, ``Well, these are contracts. We can't mess with contract law.'' Mr. Speaker, recently we have told the Big Three auto makers that if they want Federal Government assistance, they have to cram down the people that work in their auto factories. Those are contracts. Recently, the House has passed legislation on mortgage relief that says that even though a bank gave you $100,000 to buy a house, if you got that house under false circumstances, we have to cram down how much you owe the bank. That is certainly contract law as well.

The notion that it is an excuse that somehow these contracts were entered into and we must honor them, and we have to pay $165 million to 73 people, is an abomination. We need to stop it. And I am asking for every Member of this House to cosponsor the resolution.

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

Requesting Member: Congressman Steven C. LaTourette

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Elementary & Secondary Education

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Partnership for Education

Address of Requesting Entity: 3441 North Ridge West, Ashtabula, Ohio 44005 USA

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $285,000 for academic enrichment activities across all seven Ashtabula County school districts. Partnership for Education is a 503(c) organization that was created in 1999 from the collaboration and commitment among local community and stakeholder support groups, primarily the Civic Development Corporation of Ashtabula County, the Ashtabula Foundation, the Ashtabula County Education Partnership, and the Growth Partnership Education Committee, to improve student learning and support professional development to help schools improve their planning and deployment capabilities. Approximately, $211,000 is for program implementation, $66,500 is for materials and supplies, and $7,500 is for auditing and program evaluation. The Civic Development Corporation of Ashtabula County has pledged $500,000; the Ashtabula Foundation has committed $75,000.

I thank the majority leader for yielding.

I just wanted to add on our side, in happier times--and I know you won't agree with me, but I define happier times as when the Republicans were in the majority--a number of us had the opportunity to spend very long evenings in the chair as the Speaker's representative, during the appropriations process in particular.

I know it won't come as a surprise to Members, but when you've heard that 50th speech on the National Endowment for the Arts or the 40th observation about whether or not an IUD is an abortifacient, you have some time on your hands when you're in the chair and you get to know people. And one of the people that you get to know is Gay Topper. Professionalism is right. And I tell Mr. Kildee, I found out she was a Democrat after about 10 years of being up there.

But you get to know people. You get to know people, and you also get to know the professionalism.

A lot of us think on each side somehow the Chair is rigged up there. Well, it is not rigged. I can remember a debate one evening when a Member, I won't name the Member, said, ``Hey, I want you to give me a minute like you just gave that Republican.'' And I turned to Gay and I said, ``Give the gentlelady the same minute you gave the Republican,'' and she did.

Gay, we are going to be a poorer institution without you, and I want to thank you on behalf of us during those happier times for your service.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Great Lakes Water Education STEM Project

Account: NOAA--Operations, Research and Facilities

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Great Lakes Science Center

Address of Requesting Entity: 601 Erieside Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 USA

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the development, hosting, and educational programming for Water: H2O Equals Life to provide STEM education to K-12 school children. The program will provide overnight educational camp-ins, teacher professional development, outreach, and quarterly day-camps that teach global water policy. Approximately, $250,000 is for the development of the Water Exhibition partnership at the Great Lakes Science Center; $250,000 is for design and content development. The Great Lakes Science Center is committed to contributing $250,000 to this project.

Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Austinburg Township

Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ashtabula County Department of Environmental Services

Address of Requesting Entity: 25 West Jefferson St., Jefferson, Ohio 44047 USA

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $700,000 for construction of a wastewater collection system in central Austinburg Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio, extending north, south, east and west from the intersection of SR 307 and SR 45. The Ohio EPA ordered the township to construct a public sanitary sewer collection system to eliminate unsanitary conditions followed by a County Health Department study that revealed numerous failed sewage disposal systems and high concentrations of fecal coli form bacteria in storm drains that flow into the Grand River, a major watershed of Lake Erie. Approximately, $10,500 is for wetland delineation; $616,000 is for installation of the collection system; $70,000 is for construction management, and $3,500 is for environmental review.

Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Madison

Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Madison Township

Address of Requesting Entity: 2065 Hubbard Road, Madison, Ohio 44057

Madam Speaker, I just for a minute ask the membership to pause for an announcement, and I will be very brief. I do see the dean of our Ohio delegation over there, Ms. Kaptur, and I know she will want to share in this news as well.

By luck of retirements and defeats and everything else, I now have the pleasant responsibility of being the Republican dean of the Ohio delegation. And some of you may have noticed that our colleague, Mr. Tiberi of Columbus, has not been with us for votes. Some were concerned that he was ill, something was going on.

I have the happy duty to inform the House that he and his wife Denice a week ago Sunday, are now the proud parents of triplets. Daniela, Gabriela, and Cristina are all doing well. Cristina is scheduled to be released from the hospital soon.

So if Congressman Tiberi looks a little tired and a little more worn- out than he has in the past, that is the reason. I know that the House will want to congratulate him and Denice and their three daughters.

The Speaker pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for one hour.

Madam Speaker, when you were a Cleveland Browns fan, there is no halfway. To be a Browns fan requires a lifelong devotion, an unflinching loyalty, a reverence for all those who came before. As a Browns fan, you come to accept that your loyalty will be tested often, and in ways you cannot fathom--the Drive, the Fumble, the stealth, dark-of-night move to Baltimore. Yet, the loyalty never wavers--mostly because the rewards and the memories forged on Sunday afternoons between fathers, sons, friends and neighbors are so powerful--even when they are few and far between.

One of pillars of the Browns recently passed: Dante ``Glue Fingers'' Lavelli. He played with Otto Graham, Marion Motley and Lou ``The Toe'' Groza and was coached by the legendary Paul Brown. He led the team to seven championships in the 1940s and 1950s. He was a gridiron star in his hometown of Hudson, OH, which is part of my district. He led his high school team to three straight undefeated seasons.

Dante Lavelli was a World War II Army veteran who missed most of college to defend our Nation, trading the Horseshoe at Ohio State for the beaches of Normandy. The famed receiver--nicknamed ``Gluefingers'' because he never dropped the ball--was enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton more than 30 years ago, where his 386 catches for 6,488 yards and 62 touchdowns are part of football lore. He loved one woman for more than 60 years, his beloved wife, Joy. He is survived by his wife, two daughters, a son, and four grandchildren, including Aaron Bill, who worked for me in Washington and now attends law school.

I want to submit into the Record a column written by renowned Cleveland Plain Dealer sportswriter Terry Pluto, who so eloquently captured the magic of a man who meant so much to his family, his community, the Browns and the NFL. The article was published on January 25, 2009, the day after Lavelli's funeral in Hudson, OH.

He was a man who put salt on almost everything, especially

a salad. He drank a huge can of ice tea each night and would

drive his grandchildren around, forcing them to listen to

polka music in the car.

Dante Lavelli was so much more than a Hall of Fame receiver

for the Cleveland Browns, as family and friends made clear

during his funeral at St. Mary's Church in Hudson on

Saturday.

Aaron Bill walked up to the pulpit with a comb as he

prepared to talk about his grandfather, who died Tuesday at

the age of 85.

``He was always trying to comb my hair,'' said Bill. ``He'd

tell me that my sideburns were too long, that I needed a

haircut. He wanted me to pull up my pants even when they were

as high as they could go.''

Yes, he's Dante Lavelli, ``Gluefingers.'' He was Dante

Lavelli, Mr. ``Clutch.'' He was Dante Lavelli, the receiver's

receiver, a player whose football personality was opposite to

so many of the self-absorbed types who play the position

today.

He's the man ``who never dropped a pass that he touched,

not in practices or games.'' So said great Browns coach Paul

Brown at Lavelli's Hall of Fame induction in 1975. He also

never did a celebration dance in the end zone, because he had

been there before--a total of 62 times in his 11-year Browns

career.

Lavelli caught all but 20 of his 386 receptions from Hall

of Famer Otto Graham. He also played games in 1956, his final

season, with a notebook and pencil tucked inside his pads so

he could sign up opponents after the game to join the new

Players Association that he helped assemble.

``When my father walked, the floor shook,'' said his son,

Edward Lavelli.

Or so it seemed.

He led Hudson High to three undefeated seasons in the late

1930s.

He played only three games at Ohio State before joining the

Army, where he was in the 28th Infantry.

The flag on his casket was a reminder that Lavelli was part

of the group of men who landed at Omaha Beach. He was in

Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of

1944-45, where the Allies lost an estimated 81,000 men.

In an interview with Scout.com, Lavelli said at one point

in the fighting, ``I spent three days in a foxhole.'' He also

said he prayed the ``Our Father'' constantly for three days.

After his football career, Lavelli had ownership interest

in a furniture store, in two bowling alleys and other

business ventures. He had been the oldest living member of

the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He pushed for recognition of

the 1948 Browns for their undefeated season, which had been

dismissed by the NFL because it happened in the old All-

American Football Conference.

As Father John Betters said in his homily, ``Dante Lavelli

truly was one of America's Greatest Generation.''

Lavelli was married for nearly 60 years to Joy, and spent

much of his later life in Westlake. His family members

mentioned how he loved to win at anything, from gin rummy to

golf to negotiating to buy a car.

Oldest daughter Lucinda said her father often offered this

advice: ``Save your money and get some rest.''

Or as grandson Aaron Bill said, looking up and speaking to

his deceased grandfather, ``I love you very much, and I'll

miss talking to you every day. And don't worry, my shoes

aren't untied. I wore loafers.''

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk that I am offering with my good friend Al Green of Texas made in order under the rule.

I thank the Chair for his wholehearted opposition to the amendment.

Basically a couple things. I want to thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for making this rule in order and give a shout out to Betty Sutton, my fellow Ohioan who is on the committee that advocated that this be made in order. And I don't know if the Speaker is still on the floor, but, Madam Speaker, you can now take credit that this was the only amendment offered. It's made in order. You have a complete open rule on this piece of legislation; so it's a day of celebration.

The way this came about is to date we have given away about $335 billion of TARP money, a bill that I opposed along with a number of my colleagues, and the intended purpose doesn't appear to have happened. People aren't being kept in their homes. People have to have perfect credit scores to buy a car, and they're using the funds, some banks, to buy other banks. In Cleveland, PNC will use $7 billion to buy National City Bank.

This amendment is simple. Chairman Frank has had excellent oversight hearings, but the fact of the matter is the answer we are getting from Treasury is there's no way to track this, and they say the bankers come in and say, sure, we're going to spend the money the way we are supposed to, but nobody knows. It's inconceivable to me that we can't figure out where the money is going and they can't be made to certify that they're spending it for what we thought they would spend it for. So I called Chairman Frank, and I said can we get this done? And he said, well, find Al Green. And I called Al Green, and we worked together on a stand-alone bill. This may be the last day we're going to be here until the next administration comes in. I think we need to know where the 335 went before January 20.

So knowing this legislation was coming up, we drafted an amendment, Al Green and I, and we are going to introduce a stand-alone bill tomorrow, I guess. But it basically says that if you've taken $400 billion of TARP money, you have to certify on your quarterly report that you've engaged in new lending and show us how you've done it and if not, why not. And it's a reasonable amendment. I urge support.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to say that Mr. Green is hiding his light under a bushel basket. His assistance in the drafting of not only this amendment but also the stand-alone legislation was invaluable, and I appreciate Chairman Frank putting the two of us together.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

I don't have any further speakers, and I would just yield myself the balance of the time and indicate that I think it's a good amendment.

Listen, we were told, even though I didn't support the TARP Program, we were told, it was advertised as this money was going to free up credit, free up interbank lending, help people buy cars, help people who are subject to foreclosure stay in their homes. Just today, on the front page or in the business section of the Wall Street Journal, one of the companies that has received billions of dollars is now engaged in about $10 billion of speculative losses rather than doing the intended purpose.

All this amendment says is until the Obama administration gets in place, in fact, they have to file, on their report, on December 30, that if they took money, if they wanted to participate--nobody put a gun at their head and said you have to participate--but if you participate in the program, and you take billions of dollars from the taxpayer, you have to demonstrate that you are engaged in new lending. That's all there is to it.

In the brief amount of time that I have left, I would just ask the chairman a procedural question.

I think it's a good oversight vote that every Member would want to be recorded on. I am mindful of people wanting to catch airplanes. Do you think we should have a recorded vote on this or not?

Perfect.

I yield back the balance of my time, urge support of the amendment and thank Mr. Green for his help.

I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I actually moved to Bainbridge Township now, so nobody can find me.

Madam Speaker, this was a bad bill that we voted on Monday. It got a little better with some tax extenders, with the FDIC insurance, but it's gotten a lot worse, and it's gotten a lot worse because our friends on the other side of the Capitol just couldn't help themselves. They couldn't help themselves by larding this bill up with another $180 billion of tax giveaways.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I urge you to read yesterday's New York Times. There's a provision in here for $2 million for wooden arrows for children that apparently benefits a company in Oregon; and God bless any Oregonian that got it into the bill. And the CEO of the company says, we're waiting, and if we get it into the House bill and they pass it, we will be unpopping the champagne corks here, because this is a great deal for my company.

How am I going to tell the people back in Ohio that the champagne corks are popping in Oregon over a tax subsidy of $2 million for wooden arrows? $192 million for rum?

Madam Speaker, last night I took an amendment to the Rules Committee, and I asked one simple thing, to save half a trillion dollars, take the number down to $250 billion. I asked that the vote that when we come back, when the Secretary says he wants more money, make it a positive vote, not a negative vote that the President can veto, and I stripped the pork.

8 to 4 was the vote last night, Madam Speaker. Each of us represents about 600,000 people. 4.8 million people voted to deny 300 million people the vote.

There is not a rush. The Senate's in town. Let's do it right. We can save half a trillion dollars, and we can cut the pork. The pork doesn't belong in this bill. This is a financial rescue package.

We're being told that the economy is melting down. And the number, Madam Speaker, where did $700 billion come from?

The administration says we didn't have any data point. We just wanted to pick a really large number.

Come on. $700 billion--for NASCAR, rum, television and wooden arrows for children.

Vote ``no'' on this egregious rule and the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I can't address other Members, so I am going to make these comments to you.

I have heard a number of speakers on the other side say they wish they could have had other things, like the cram-down on the bankruptcy, money for ACORN and a lot of other things. The only way you are ever going to have that opportunity is to make our amendment in order and turn the negative vote in November into a positive vote. And any Member that thinks that if you vote for 700 and you go home and say, well, we really only gave them 350; no, you didn't. You gave them the full 700, because we have to say no to the additional 350. And if we say no, the President vetoes it, then it takes 290 Members to deny that $350 billion.

To the Democrats, Madam Speaker, I would say to you that make our amendment in order, come back on November 17, see how this program is working. And there is your opportunity, there is your leverage to go to your friends that want cram-down in bankruptcy and all the other things that their speakers are talking about. Give us the amendment; stop this overspending. The Secretary says he can only spend $50 billion a month. If we give him $250 billion, he still should have about $200 billion rolling around in his pocket when we come back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There is something in life called the Hobson's choice. And I never thought I would be here, and I think Dave Hobson who is retiring probably thinks it is named after him, but it is not. And what we are being told today is that we either give $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury because he says that is what is needed, in a plan that is untested, unworked; or, and if we don't just write this check, we are being told that all of our constituents are going to lose their life savings, their 401(k)s, their retirements. That is one hell of a choice, Madam Speaker.

And I come today with a big problem. The big problem is, where did the number come from? The number, Forbes Magazine last week, Treasury spokeswoman: It is not based on any data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number. Well, you know what: $700 billion is a really large number.

Last night we took an amendment to the Rules Committee, asked them to make it in order to stop this process, slow it down by a day. The vote was 8-4, along party lines. Eight Democratic members of the Rules Committee, who represent about 4.8 million people, told 305 million Americans we couldn't have a vote on that or anything else, including measures that are important to Democrats, such as bankruptcy and things of that nature.

This bill left the House and it went over to the Senate, and they larded it up: $192 million for rum. I guess we got the pirate vote in November. $100 million for NASCAR. $81 million for Hollywood. And my favorite, $2 million for wooden arrows for children. Now, I want children to have wooden arrows, but it doesn't belong in this bill.

And I have got to tell you, as a Republican I have never seen--I am finishing my 14th year--what just happened on the last vote. And we all know that folks back home don't pay attention to the rules. Twenty Republicans voted for the Democratic rule. If those 20 Republicans had not voted for that rule, we could have had an amendment on the floor, saving America $450 billion, which, as our friends like to tell us, is 4 years in Iraq, and we could have cut the pork.

As John McCain says, and sadly, for those 20 Republicans and those who aided and abetted them: we will make you famous, and you shall know their names. Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, this has been one heck of a day here on Capitol Hill. As a matter of fact, it's been one heck of a week.

About 13 days ago, the Secretary of the Treasury came down to Capitol Hill, said that our markets are a mess, Wall Street's a mess, and if we don't give him $700 billion immediately, it's going to be a big problem. And we take that seriously.

But then there was a little investigation, and they asked the Treasury, Where did you come up with the number $700 billion? Well, they answered it last week in Forbes Magazine, and here's the Treasury spokeswoman's quote: ``It's not based on any particular data point. We just really wanted to come up with a really big number.''

Well, they succeeded. Seven hundred billion dollars is a really, really big number. It means really, really big things to Americans.

A lot of us, because the Treasury Secretary also indicated that he could only spend $50 billion of your money a month, we had an amendment last night and we said let's make it a lot less. Let's save half a trillion dollars, and let's give him some money. If he's right, he can rescue the economy and everything will be all right. We're going to put in place some reforms, and we will come back on November 17 and we will figure out whether it's working or not. That sounded like a pretty reasonable plan to a lot of reasonable people.

But that didn't happen. People who watch the House know that everything that comes to the floor comes to the floor pursuant to a rule. And the Rules Committee voted on that proposal last night, to save half a trillion dollars. And they voted ``no,'' 8-4. And, sadly, all 8 were members of the Democratic Party.

Each of us represents about 600,000 people. So 4.8 million people basically, through their representatives, denied 305 million Americans the opportunity to have a vote, to take 10 minutes and take a vote about whether or not we could save half a trillion dollars and perhaps not give the whole $700 billion of tax money to the Treasury.

Then the bill left the House, and it went over to our good friends in the Senate, who, of course, are very fiscally conservative. They're wiser than we are because they have 6-year terms; we only have 2-year terms. And do you think that they just were happy sending it back to us at $700 billion? No. They sent it back to us at $850 billion, and they added such wonderful things like $192 million for rum.

Now, listen, I like rum. And it may be some of the Senators were nervous that they were losing the pirate vote. I don't know. But there's $192 million for rum, $100 million for NASCAR. I like NASCAR, but what's it doing in this bill saving the treasury? There's $81 billion to Hollywood and $2 million for wooden arrows for children.

Now, listen, all of these projects might be okay. They don't belong in a bill when the administration is saying that we need to act now or else the economy's going to melt down.

But, you know, some of my friends back home say, well, 3 weeks, okay, if it's an emergency. What have you guys been doing?

Well, we had in August a little discussion around here, and I don't know how Mr. McCotter from Michigan feels, but my constituents were not really happy when gasoline went to $4 a gallon. And I'll bet we were probably talking about that and that's why we couldn't get to the economy.

Well, this Congress started in January of 2007. Gas was $2.22 a gallon. People said that's high, but, okay, I can get by. So the Congress got together and we decided--actually, it was the Democratic majority that decided that the most important thing that we could discuss on that day was congratulating the University of California at Santa Barbara soccer team for their championship. I like soccer. That's important. I'm sure their parents are real proud. But gas is $2.22.

Well, then it goes up to $2.84. And people say, well, sure, I'll bet now you're going to try to figure out an energy policy for the country. Well, on that day we declared it National Passport Month. And I know that everybody in America, when they filled up their gas tank at $2.84 a gallon, said, well, I know it's expensive but at least it's National Passport Month.

Then gas went up to $3.03. And we have all been told that we have to get the vote of the soccer moms to be reelected. So we tried that again. When gas was at $3.03, we commended the Houston Dynamo soccer team because we really like soccer.

Well, gas goes up to $3.77. Surely now your elected representatives in Washington get the picture, that we're going to vote on gas. We declared it National Train Month, folks. National Train Month.

Well, then it goes up a little higher, $3.84 a gallon. Your Congress, thanks to the new majority, figures the most important issue is the Great Cats and Rare Canids. And for those of us who don't follow this, canids are dogs. So basically we were voting on foreign aid for cats and dogs rather than dealing with energy.

Then it goes to $4.09. The first time in my history I paid over $4 for gasoline. Well, we're going to act on your behalf: We declared it International Sanitation Month because we really felt your pain.

It crested $4.14 on June 17 of this year. You know that the United States Congress was grappling with energy prices. You know that the United States Congress had to be grappling with this meltdown of the economy. The majority party that day decided that the most important issue facing America was the Monkey Safety Act.

Now, folks, you deserve better than the Monkey Safety Act. You deserve lower gas prices. And, folks, you deserve a better bill than you got today.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Chairman Frank, for noble work in being handed really a pile of garbage and trying to make it better. Sadly, I cannot endorse the legislation he has worked so hard to bring today; and say this mess is not of his making.

Our leader, Mr. Boehner, appointed about 14 of us to do a working group to find an alternative to $700 billion, thinking that $700 billion is a lot of money.

And our recommendations had a number of principles. One is that the people that made the mess should clean up the mess. Thankfully, that was the insurance program which Chairman Frank and the Democrats have acceded to. And it also dealt with CEO compensation in the bill, which I am happy to see.

But there were three market reforms that could have taken this bill from $700 billion to maybe $100 billion, and it is what the folks that have been calling me asked for. Some have already been talked about on the floor, and that is the mark to market. And basically, to give an example, if you are a bank and you have a million dollar building in your portfolio but because the real estate market isn't doing so well, the bank examiners have come in and they have said your building is only worth $400,000 today. You haven't sold it. Nothing has happened to it. You are still collecting rent on it, but you have taken a $600,000 hit on your balance sheet. That has a doubled-edged effect in that now that you have a reduced balance sheet, you have to squirrel more cash so you can't make loans to people wanting to engage in business, people wanting to buy homes. It is fake.

The latest figures that I have seen indicate that this mark down by the bank examiners has taken $500 billion of assets down, with the multiplier effect of about $5 trillion that is not available.

We could double the FDIC reform and do the FDIC reform which I believe the chairman supports. And not one American has lost one penny in an FDIC-insured account of $100,000 or less. We could make it $200,000.

Lastly, the principle was that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for this. Private money should pay for this. Repatriate offshore funds from American corporations, and we could fix this problem.