Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. With that, I will just have an update from the Cloakroom that on the Massachusetts race that the Republican candidate Brown has won and the Democrat has conceded with 53 to 46 percent on the votes. Thank you.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. My shot is just to be able to bring this issue to the floor and to the American public and to Members of Congress as well. As my opening comment was the importance of looking at the constitutionality of any legislation, or particularly this legislation--you probably recall this--I was not the first one to bring this issue up. Reporters were actually the ones who brought this up to our leadership here in the House and to the White House as well. I wasn't there when it happened. All I know is what I read in the paper. But when the issue of the constitutionality, whether it was the mandate provision that we are talking about principally here or the other aspects as well, my understanding from what I read in the press is when the reporter asked Speaker Pelosi about, Did you consider the constitutionality of this legislation, she just laughed it off and said, Of course not. We are not looking at that. My understanding is, likewise, when that question was posed to the administration, Did you consider the constitutionality of the health care bill, their answer was even more emphatic: no, we didn't look at that at all. That is so profound of an answer, to think that the administration would not look at the constitutionality of a piece of legislation that is going to impact upon personal choices of the health decisions of Americans and one-sixth of the economy as well. The Founders understood this issue as far as protecting our freedoms and our liberties and that you need a document in order to do so. One of our first Chief Justices, Chief Justice Marshall, famously observed that the powers of the legislature, here in the Congress, are defined and limited, as the gentleman from Georgia just enumerated the 18 powers in it, and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten in the Constitution as written. What he said was that the Constitution--I have a copy over here--was written because we want to put down the limitations on the power of the government to go and exercise authority over the public to a limited factor so the public still has some freedom and liberty at the end of the day. He continued on with that by saying, Should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishments of objects not entrusted--perhaps some of those list of requirements or ideas that this lady who called you from Alabama, was it--that she would like somebody to take care of her for her--should Congress under the pretext of executing its powers pass laws via accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the national government--this is where I yield back to you on the Federalism issue--it would become the painful duty of this tribunal--that meaning the U.S. Supreme Court--should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land. What does that mean? That means that Congress does not have the ability to say that something is constitutional just because we say it is. Congress does not have the ability of saying that something is necessary and proper just because we say it is. Congress does not have the ability to say something is providing the good and general welfare for the country and therefore is constitutional just because we say it is. We have a Constitution that is a contract entered into by the people of this country with their government defining what the authority is on the various levels of government, and we here as Members of Congress must live within the terms of that contract. We cannot go outside of the terms of the contract any more than any one of us can go outside the terms of a contract that we entered into when we buy a house or buy a car or enter a contract with some store or what have you. We are limited by what the Constitution does and says. That is what we are trying to ask that this administration keep in mind and what we are asking the Speaker to keep in mind as well when they bring forth a bill to the floor trying to do something that we all agree needs to be done, and that is to reform the health care delivery system in this country. But we would suggest that it be done in a way that is constitutional and protects the freedoms and liberties of the American people. And with that, I yield to the gentleman whatever time remains.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for laying it out so clearly to us. I will yield in just one moment to the gentleman from Utah. But before that, I think I'll be yielding to the gentleman from Texas, because at the beginning of this hour I promised we would bring periodic updates as to how this very important vote is occurring in the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I am trying to think of the quote. You can try to help me out here. ``States were created as the----''

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I can tell by looking at the proverbial clock on the wall at 8:30 that an important election that was just held today with the voting booths now closed just one half hour ago and the ballots all being collected in their boxes and brought to the appropriate places for counting, and we will see--potentially during the course of the next 60 minutes--just how that election should turn out. Just as an aside, for those who are with us here this evening taking part in this discussion on the constitutionality, or the lack thereof, the unconstitutionality of the health care legislation that's about to come before this House again, we will be interspersing some of the election results so we can keep everyone apprised of just how those elections are turning out. I mentioned the fact that the election was held today, and I'm sure there will be pundits on the air tonight talking about exactly what do the election results mean up in the State of Massachusetts, not just for the State of Massachusetts, but for the country as a whole; and a number of them will be saying what I have said before, that it's not so much just looking at those two individual candidates, but what their respective parties stand for, and more specifically, what the President of the United States and this administration has stood for over these last 12 months and what his seminal program, his major issue, has been, and that of course is this health care, so-called ``reform,'' the imposition of new mandates and taxes and totally changing the health care configuration and how the delivery of it is done in this country. Some would make the case that what the election that just closed now 32 minutes ago in Massachusetts is about is whether or not the American public agrees with what the Obama administration has put forth as their major proposal is changing the health care delivery system in the United States or not. We will see the results, if not in the next 60 minutes, at least sometime tonight. More importantly, though, than what the outcome of that one election will be is what will Congress be doing with that legislation here in the House and in the Senate this week or next week or whenever they decide to bring back that issue for a vote, and we anticipate that they will. The fundamental issue, though--this is the one that we'll be discussing in here--is not some of the minutia of that health care legislation, not some of the small language that is buried within-- first in the thousand pages that came before this House that I would hazard a guess that probably just about no one on the other side of the aisle read thoroughly and had a complete comprehension of what they were voting on when they voted ``yes,'' nor clearly in the 2,000 pages that came forth in the Senate variation and version of that health care bill. It's not some of the minutia, not some of the small language, and not so much the details that should be the first question that any Member of Congress should be asking themselves when they're about to vote on that bill; but it's rather the fundamental issue of whether that piece of legislation is constitutional at all. In my pocket here is my wallet, and in my wallet is my voting card-- actually, I have it over here because we just finished voting a little while ago. And as you know, Madam Speaker, every time we vote, we put it in one of these little slots here before we vote red, green, or yellow. I always suggest to my colleagues that before they vote on whatever the legislation is, they should be asking themselves one fundamental question: Is the bill that they're about to vote on constitutional or not? Does the Constitution of the United States give us, as Members of this body, the authority to pass that law that we're about to vote on? We are all required, when we become new Congresspeople every 2-year terms, to raise our hands and to say that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, I was just in New Jersey earlier today where now-Governor Chris Christie did the same thing, raised his hand and said that he is supporting and defending not only the Constitution of New Jersey, but also the Constitution of the United States as well. We, as Members of this body, of the House of Representatives, do that every 2 years when we have the honor and privilege of being elected by our constituents at home; we come to Washington and say we will support and defend the Constitution. As an aside, there is one member of our delegation from Texas who has suggested that it should be a requirement that every Member of Congress and their staffs should read the Constitution at least once each term. Well, I'm not going to say that we have to mandate that; I think it would not be a bad thing for each Member to do it each term. I go through the Constitution on a regular basis, and I hope that other Members would as well. But we have all held up our hands and said that we are going to uphold it, so that is why I suggest to each Member that before they vote on any bill, that they ask themselves is that bill constitutional. Now, the health care bill that we're talking about here is far more sweeping than just about any other piece of legislation that I have ever dealt with in my short term here in Congress. And I think it is far more devastating and sweeping than any other legislation that we have seen in generations. It would impact upwards of one-sixth of our economic activity of this country. But far more important than that, it would impact our very fundamental liberties that our Founding Fathers intended that our Constitution was designed to protect. And so that is what our discussion is going to be tonight. And we will eagerly await the outcome of the election in the State of Massachusetts to see what the voters of that State would like to have their voices come in on. But I think the voices of that State will say, whether they support the nature or some aspects of this health care bill or not, I think all of those citizens of Massachusetts, as with the citizens of the great State of New Jersey would also agree with me, that whatever we do on health care in this country should at the very least be constitutional. Now, one of the primary aspects of this bill that I would suggest has a flaw in it with regard to the constitutionality of it is the health care mandate. And what is that? In the bill, for the first time ever, I would suggest, in the history of the United States, Congress is going to suggest that we are not going to try to be regulating activity, but we are going to try to regulate inactivity. For a long time now--well, basically, you can go back to the 1930s and the New Deal courts and FDR and the like--Congress has grown in its authority and had the Federal Government grow in its size as far as its reach of regulation and taxation of economic activity in this country. And so now you can see just about every aspect of your life in one way, shape or form having a little bit of a reach of the Federal Government into it as the Federal Government tries to regulate in one way, shape or form. But that is always in the area of activity. If you're in interstate commerce some how or other, if you're a trucking firm, the Federal Government is going to reach out and regulate your activity. If you're selling some sort of product either in your State or outside of your State, the Federal Government is going to try to come in and regulate that form of activity. If you're in any other form of business, in State or out of State, the Federal Government is going to try and step in in some way, shape or form, I would suggest, and try to regulate that activity. But never before since our Constitution was first created in 1787 has the Federal Government said we are now going to regulate inactivity. We are going to start regulating you even if you do absolutely nothing. Even if you just stay home, don't buy anything, don't do anything, we are now going to regulate your activity. And we're going to do that regulation in a more personal and profound nature than any other aspect that we've been talking about here on the floor in the last several months or years, and that is your health care and your health insurance. So in this legislation that the administration has proposed that has passed out of this House, that has passed in the Senate, and now is in some area of compromise on the other side of the aisle, the Federal Government, this administration says, can regulate inactivity. They can step into your house and say, because you are not doing something that the Federal Government believes you should be doing--what is that? buying insurance--we're going to penalize you and we're going to do that with a tax. We have never seen this before. And I would suggest that that is an overreach, a far overreach of what the Founding Fathers ever intended for this government, this Federal Government to be able to do. It is, therefore, a fundamental flaw, an unconstitutional flaw in this legislation. It is one of the main reasons why I voted against it when it came in this House, and it will be a continuing reason why I will vote against it if ever it comes back on the floor of this House again. Now, I see I have been joined by some of my colleagues from the floor who have spoken on the difficulties or the problems or the demerits of the health care bill in the past. As I said in my opening comments, there are a number of those areas that we can talk about with regard to the taxation aspect or with regard to the fact that you're putting the government--and I'm looking at a doctor now--between you and your doctor and other problems with this bill as well. There are a whole host of reasons why this legislation is bad as it impacts upon us as individuals and our health quality in this country. But as I said at the beginning, the most profound aspect of it is that it's unconstitutional, and it's unconstitutional because of this mandate. With that, I am pleased to be joined by Ms. Foxx, who would like to speak on this topic as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for joining us on the floor this evening and for her remarks for the last several minutes on this very most important issue. As the gentlelady who has come to the floor on numerous occasions in the past to speak to this most profound and fundamental issue, the protecting of our constitutional rights, I once again thank her. With that, I will now just turn to the gentleman from Georgia, who is familiar, I'm sure, with James Madison and ``The Federalist Papers'' where Mr. Madison said, ``In the first place, it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated powers.'' Congress, in other words, was not set forth free by our Founding Fathers to have unlimited grants of authority but, rather, certain prescribed ones. With that, perhaps you could help enumerate and share on that point on which Madison was so eloquently quoted 200 years ago. The gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his passionate statements and litany of facts with regard to the unconstitutionality of this underlying bill. And within all that, there is the question of: What does that mean to me? The unconstitutionality. What it comes right down to is this: That the Founders were profound and wise in their thinking in establishing the Constitution, and to do so not for their generation but for posterity as well, so that our rights and our liberties would be protected. And I think that is the case you were making.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. ``--laboratory of democracy'' so all of those experiments could go on. Instead, what we have are the States becoming the guinea pigs for the democracy because the States are being controlled by the Federal Government in a way that is not the way the American public would like to see it. So I thank the gentleman from Utah for, once again, joining us on the floor in an eloquent and educational format, as you always do. I appreciate that in a commonsense way that we can all understand it as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996--Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2010: 1. Project Name--Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Land Acquisition Project Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 2996, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2010 Account--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Land Acquisition Requesting Entity--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuse, 1547 County Route 565, Sussex, NJ 07461 Description of the Project--This funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will further consolidate refuge ownership and important habitat, increase recreational opportunities within the refuge, and maintain the water quality in the Highlands region of New Jersey. The national wildlife refuge system was created to ensure protection of ecologically sensitive wildlife species and the Wallkill River NWR was added to the system because of the importance of the biodiversity along the river. Adding these 237 acres to the refuge would also meet the criteria of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by providing additional opportunities for public recreation, outdoor education and research, and by protecting open space and habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, in our rapidly developing state. Description of the Spending Plan--($1,400,000) The $1.4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in FY 2010 will further consolidate refuge ownership and important habitat, increase recreational opportunities within the refuge, and maintain the water quality in the Highlands region of New Jersey. The national wildlife refuge system was created to ensure protection of ecologically sensitive wildlife species and the Wallkill River NWR was added to the system because of the importance of the biodiversity along the river. Adding these acres to the refuge would also meet the criteria of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by providing additional opportunities for public recreation, outdoor education and research, and by protecting open space and habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, in our rapidly developing state. Total--$1,400,0000

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I yield myself just 20 seconds. To the chairman's comment with regard to our study, which, as he said, is simply a quantification of ideology, whenever he has an issue like that, I just think that that is an abandonment of originality because any time that we have a study or what have you, he just refers back to ideology. We would always ask the other side of the aisle, ideological or otherwise, we would be happy to see any study to support anything that is in this bill that will actually not harm our economy nor create hardships for the creation of jobs nor create hardships for creating increases to credit. We would like it, ideological or otherwise. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a man not of ideology alone but a man of facts and figures, a man on the right side of the issue.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Does the gentlewoman have other speakers?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I claim time in opposition.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chair, I guess here is an example of the old saying, ``Here we go again.'' The CFPA, an entity that we have already discussed both today and yesterday, is an idea of contracting consumer choice, putting limitations on the consumers' ability to buy products that they need and want, and all the time, but at the same time, causing a cost to the overall system of credit and jobs in this country. The additional cost to the CFPA has already been examined by outside organizations and has been seen to have a negative impact for this country to grow ourselves out of the economic morass that we find ourselves in today. Experts have said, and we have yet to hear anyone from the other side of the aisle refute these studies, nor, for that matter, when we asked the other side of the aisle earlier, from the gentleman from North Carolina, I believe, do they have any studies to refute these or to present the case that actually would go in the opposite direction, they said no or had no answer. Experts have shown that the CFPA alone would add a cost of credit to the system between 1.25 or 1.4 to 1.6, as I always say, about 1.5 percentage points to the cost of credit in this country. What does that mean? Even in the case of reverse mortgages, I guess it would apply that you would say that the cost of your credit, if you have a 6 percent loan now would go up to around 7, 7.5 percent. Just the act of borrowing will be made harder by the cost of the underlying bill. Now we see here with this amendment, if the CFPA was not omnipotent enough with their power to reach in basically every single corner of the economy of this country, now we are going to let them go even a little built further. Now I say all that with the understanding that reverse mortgages sometimes in the past have a history in certain cases--not all, certainly--of causing problems for our seniors, and that is certainly something that regulators need to and have the ability to take a look at. But this certainly is not the answer. This is crafted in such a way that would broaden the CFPA powers and hurt credit. One other point on this as well. When you are hurting the credit markets of this country, you are also hurting the opportunity to grow this economy with regard to jobs. I think that same study, as well, gave us a number around 4.3 percent reduction in the increase of jobs. What does that mean to you and me? Well, with unemployment around 10 percent, that means that we could be looking at an additional million people in this country who will not be able to get jobs. How does that help seniors? Seniors who may be working or not working, seniors who have people or other people in their families that are working, how does it help any senior or help anyone in this country if we are going to put more impediments and roadblocks in the way to this country growing again, to getting credit down again and getting unemployment back down from the 10 percent that we find ourselves in today? I stand opposed to this amendment and opposed to putting additional powers in the Federal Government and the CFPA and within the authorities that they have already. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I was just at the microphone a moment ago and speaking about the recognition that I think we have from both sides of the aisle that the CRAs, credit rating agencies, were part and parcel to the causes of the financial situation that we find ourselves in right now. During the time, I raised two out of probably three significant points on this and what we try to need to do when it comes to reform. I mentioned the fact that we need to reduce investors' reliance upon rating agencies. I mentioned, also, that we need to encourage investor due diligence, which sort of goes with it, if you are going to reduce reliance and they have to be more due diligent. The third point I didn't raise was that we need to have increased competition between the credit rating agencies. Unfortunately, if you look at the bill before us, actually, title V of the bill includes a number of provisions that will basically exacerbate the current problems within the industry and, as I said on the floor yesterday, that actually make it harder, make it more difficult for investors to actually get the information that they need in order to make those decisions that they have to before they invest. If you go back a couple of years, actually, if you go back 3 years, we passed the credit rating agency reform legislation--and it was about 3 years ago. The main focus of that reform back then was to do what? It was to try to increase competition between the various rating agencies. There are only about three major ones, but we were going to try to make smaller ones to get into the market with more competition. Maybe we could eliminate some of the problems I have already stated. That was just 3 years ago, and the reason then that I voted just a short time ago this year against the legislation that came out of committee, that was going to try to reform the CRAs, was because it did the exact opposite. It would basically decrease the competition in the industry. I think we need more competition. The reason that the legislation that came out of the committee, I thought, would decrease competition is because, well, it would have imposed a whole bunch of new liability on the CRAs, and it would just basically discourage them to get into the industry at all. That's maybe one of the reasons why in the committee's language there was a provision in it that says we are not going to let you out. Once you are an NRSRO, once you are registered, or recognized I should say, we are not going to let you out of it. They realize with all of this additional registration, with all this additional liability, no one would want to be a CRA anymore. The amendment that we have before us recognizes that problem, that we want to have competition, but if you have all of these additional rules, regulations, and liabilities on them, they are all going to flee. We believe that we can come to a proverbial middle ground on this. That is to say, allow those CRAs, credit rating agencies that are of the smaller size, that is net revenues of $250 million or less in a year, to be able to retain the ability to deregister. That's what the legislation does before us. With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the chairman's comments and look forward to seeing how this can be dealt with if this bill eventually does pass and goes over to the Senate and into the conference.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 4 minutes. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his amendment, but more than that, I should say I thank the gentleman for addressing this larger issue of CRAs for a number of months. I have claimed time in opposition just on the amendment because I think we can probably work this out in a different way. The gentleman and I worked for a long time trying to address the issue of the credit rating agencies because both of us realize that when you lay out the reasons why we are in this financial mess that we're in right now, we may disagree on this point or that point as to exactly how we got here, but both of us, I believe, came to the conclusion that CRAs played a huge, huge part to bring us to where we are today with this financial mess. And the reason it did was because so many people failed to exercise what we would call proper market discipline when they made their investments, whether that was a small investor, a middle-size investor, or even the so-called ``knowledgeable'' investors on Wall Street failed to use what, in normal times, they would inherently have inside of them to say, What is the proper decisionmaking that I should make before I make this investment or that investment? What risks should I take here or there? And why was that, though, is the question. Well, we looked at a whole bunch of things and we tried to come up with changes to the regulations of CRAs, the credit rating agencies, and we made a lot of changes that were improvements. But I think we came down to one point, that there was too much reliance upon credit rating agencies. Just because a CRA came out and said that on this particular security or this particular financial product that was rated AAA, regardless of what was actually in the package, regardless of the fact that maybe it was just a compilation of subprime mortgages with no likelihood whatsoever that they would ever be paid off, they got the AAA's seal of approval, and people invested in it. And, of course, the rest is history. We look at it, one of the reasons why we think they got the seal of approval and then why investors looked at that and said that was okay was because they had the seal of approval from the Federal Government. The CRAs were listed as NRSROs, Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. So the investor, large or small, sophisticated or not, said, Well, if the Federal Government is going to put its imprimatur on these organizations, on these CRAs by saying they are nationally recognized, if the Federal Government is going to put its stamp of approval, let's say their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on these entities, then they must be okay and the decisions they are making must be okay. So that is what led to their decisions. That is why, in committee, Ranking Member Bachus proposed a change to this. He changed it from ``nationally recognized'' to ``nationally registered,'' merely that these entities were registered. No seal of approval, no stamp of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, just that they had gone through the motions and had simply registered with the government as being a nationally registered statistical rating organization. That is why I think it made good sense to take away that seal of approval, and that is why I also believe that this legislation, this amendment in committee passed in a bipartisan manner out of committee. Now, I recognize that I am actually on the floor now, oddly enough, defending the actions of the committee here to a change. And I understand the potential problems, but I would suggest that perhaps other things could be done other than just stripping this out and going back to the way it was before. I would suggest that we leave it as ``nationally registered statistical rating organizations,'' and as we go forward through the process, if we find--maybe it's minutia, maybe it's not, as far as some States' regulations or other Federal regulations that refer to this. I bet you there is a better, simpler way to just correspond this back for existing contracts and what have you, and I would look forward to working with the chairman and the other committee's chairman to solve those problems in the future.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. There is that comment, and also there is the understanding that we are not talking about the other CRA. Although, if we could make a UC, and if we could put that as being a cause--no, I guess we can't do that. That's a bridge too far. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will just close by saying that I thank the gentleman for his support of the legislation, or no opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the very many, many months of working together on this issue and other issues as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, the American people have spoken loud and clear. They have spoken that they are opposed to more taxpayer-funded bailouts. The American people have said they are opposed to job-destroying legislation. The American people have said they are opposed to growing and expanding and increasing the size and spending of the Federal Government. The majority bill that we had before us earlier is a bill that fails on all counts to listen to the American public. There is no one on the other side of the aisle who can deny that their bill will continue taxpayer-funded bailouts. There is no one on the other side of the aisle who can deny that their bill will continue the destruction of jobs in this country. And, finally, there is no one on the other side of the aisle who can honestly deny that their bill will not create a more expensive, expanding government. Their bill will create bailouts, destroy jobs, and create a bigger government. Earlier the majority leader was on the floor and he was speaking in an amusing if not illuminating manner when he used a football analogy when he talked about the refs on the field. Under their bill, we will end up with a stadium with only refs on the field, maybe highly paid and highly charged with authority, bureaucrats and refs, but no players. There will be no players in the game any more. And, quite frankly, the American public will not be able to pay the ticket to admission to the stadium under their legislation. I also found it somewhat amusing that the only example of deregulation that the majority leader could think to was a piece of legislation that he actually voted for. And in fact that of course was not deregulation at all. So we have presented now a Republican substitute, a Republican substitute that listens to the American people, that provides the appropriate level of regulation. The Republican substitute will actually end taxpayer-funded bailouts. The Republican substitute will actually do so by making sure the responsible parties pay. The Republican substitute will end job-destroying legislation and practices and instead create a facility that will expand liquidity and credit in the marketplace so that we can create new and expansive number of jobs in this country. The Republican substitute will end the practice of growing and expanding the government as we have seen time and time again. Instead, the Republican substitute will make sure that we have a government that lives within its means. I stand here in support of the Republican substitute.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. What the gentleman from California is trying to do is trying to help investors and help the markets by providing this amendment. The SEC is currently examining this whole issue in studying this, and we should basically allow the SEC to continue with its evaluation and then come back to address the issue. Because what we're dealing with here is the fact that there's an exemption, and eliminating that exemption would be punishing not the CRAs, but punishing investors. What it will do is create an environment that will lead to more volatile and less accurate ratings. Something that none of us should be supporting. Right now there is an exemption for the NRSROs if they have the ratings included in the registration statements filed under the Act. This removes that. What would be the end consequence of that if this were to go through and this amendment were not to pass? Well, you would increase dramatically the time and cost involved with raising capital and thus make it more difficult for its issuers to do so. Moreover, some SROs may refuse to consent entirely, and what would that do? That would mean we would have even less information available to investors as they try to evaluate securities in the registration statement. At the end of the day without this amendment, this underlying bill will see to it that we have a higher cost of credit, a higher cost to do business and less jobs in the country.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And now, I shall yield my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from the State of Texas.