Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will yield myself just 1 more minute. I can simply come to the floor and speak to what the experts have testified in committee with problems of language of this nature. One is, as I've already stated, experts have said that language like this would encourage the situation for borrowers to not do the right thing, that is, to call up their lenders and say, ``I have a problem, and I want to engage in negotiations to try to work out the loan.'' We know this is an ongoing problem, and that's why there's so many advertisements and like on TV right now to encourage people to do the right thing. This language would be counterproductive in that, so the experts say. And secondly, the lenders have come to the committee and testified before our committee that the longer the borrower remains delinquent, the less likely he or she will be able to cure the delinquency and avoid foreclosure. All this is really doing is prolonging what should be dealt with today. It's never to be put off to tomorrow what we should deal with today, and this language, unfortunately, does just that. With that, I reserve.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. We have done similar programs such as that in talking to the people in the district as far as working out, what have you. Again, the experts--this is the third point I could have raised before--the experts also tell us that a foreclosure moratorium, which in essence is what we're talking about here, will have the unintended side effect also of raising up the cost of mortgages in the future. So what this means is for that individual who may be able to work out a deal today because mortgage rates are, as we know, at historic low rates, if this has the effect of law--which is actually how the language is situated here--and the moratorium were to occur and mortgage rates were to go up, by the time they actually sat down with that facilitator at the bank and worked things out, they would find that the mortgage rates unfortunately, due to the economies of the nature of this bill, the rates are higher and they are at a disadvantaged situation than they would be today. Let's have the people encouraged to work out their mortgages today. Work it out with their banks. I'm sure both sides of the aisle want to use our offices to facilitate those communications as well when people have problems contacting their banks. I know my office works, and I'm sure your office does as well to try to get that contact with them. And let's do that to get it done today and not put it off until tomorrow.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield back.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the gentleman's initial amendment, and I think I appreciate the gentleman's intention of the subsequent amendment. Can the gentleman explain the reason why the gentleman is on the floor with the subsequent amendment as opposed to having proposed that amendment through the regular committee process?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, wasn't your amendment, I'm told, dated, though, just this morning?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will let the chairman speak during his time. So you're not aware, though? Reclaiming my time, I'm looking at it as January 15, 2009, 9:59 a.m., which would have been this morning.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. To the gentleman from New Jersey on the amendment that's actually before us I'm in general agreement with and also with the amendment that he proposed through his U.C., I believe that I also would be in favor of that as well. The general idea sounds basically like what we think alike on in how do you add that protection to the taxpayer and also to the little bank that's being bought out. And were we in a different situation where this bill actually was going to have the force of law and be signed into law by the President, there may be some expediency as far as necessary in order to get this thing through as we speak here today. But we have already heard from the chairman and the point has been made repeatedly that this underlying piece of legislation that we're talking about here today is not going anywhere, and that's a shame because there are a number of other provisions in the underlying bill that are important as is the provision that you're suggesting. What is disconcerting is that good amendments such as this and, quite honestly, some other good amendments from both sides of the aisle that I've heard about just literally as I'm sitting here talking to people didn't have the opportunity to go through the process and to be fleshed out, and I'm not saying your bill needed any more fleshing out, but needed to have a hearing and have experts on both sides of the equation give their 2 cents to. As I sit here right now, it sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure whether there might be some aspects of it from the banking community that they may say tweak it here or what have it there. That, of course, is the whole process of the committee process. And as you know, unfortunately, we didn't have a hearing. We didn't have a markup. And had we done that, I'm sure you would have been right there making that case and I probably would have been right there saying great amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I sure will.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I'm not going to reconsider my objection for the underlying reason of amendments that I'm just seeing 10 minutes ago or less without having the opportunity to consider the ramifications that they may have. As good as they sound, as much as I think I 99 percent or so would support them had we gone through the process, I'm not going to withdraw my objection. But I will say this, that should the good chairman decide to do what I think is appropriate here, and that is to go forward with additional hearings and additional legislation and additional opportunities to direct the next administration on the $350 billion that he's about to get and who knows how many other pieces of authorization of dollars that he has, I hope that the chairman will actually afford all of us from both sides the opportunity to present this amendment and other amendments as well to go through and be vetted in the committee process and at which time I give my pledge to work from this side of the aisle with the gentleman to do all that I can to see that it facilitates through should the chairman actually give us that opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, but I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 3 minutes. I think the intention and the language of the amendment is good, and I support the amendment to the underlying bill. There are just two points I want to make. First of all, to the chairman, I support his comments the other day in committee when we had the Federal Reserve folks there when he said that he is going to be conducting hearings on the Federal Reserve come February. At that time I asked Mr. Cohen from the Fed if any of the provisions in the bill that we were looking at or discussing at the time, we didn't actually have the bill before us as a committee markup, would any of these provisions apply to the Fed as far as the way they conduct themselves in the future, and his answer was in essence no. What you are trying to do now is to at least put something in this legislation to apply to it. I commend the chairman for saying that we need to do a further investigation on the Fed on their expansive growth of power and authority and their use of it. With that said, my only regret is that this type of provision was not included in the first TARP, because, once again, as I have said before and others have said on the floor as well, we have already spent $350 billion. Now, it wasn't on an asset acquisition program, but that is what the initial bill was intended to be. The initial TARP was a program to buy up toxic assets from the banks, and had we gone through regular order at that time, we could have had language in the original TARP bill to say that language like this, full disclosure, regulation on how everything is performed and who the managers are and so on and so forth, could have been done in the first TARP 1. Unfortunately, that wasn't done. We rushed through the process at that time. We rushed through without a full hearing on it, we rushed through without a markup, and we were not allowed, and I assume the gentleman was not facilitated with, an opportunity to offer such language in the first TARP 1 at that time, not necessarily with regard to the Fed as here, but with how TARP 1 would spend the money and how TARP 1 would be looking for the same accountability. I will close on this, just saying I commend the gentleman here. I will support his amendment and hopefully look forward to working with the chairman in February to have those hearings with regard to the Fed to get this job done thoroughly. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Again, I support the gentleman's underlying amendment and will support the vote on it. But as I hear the chairman's comments, I am sitting here with regard to the idea that amendments were allowed, that this could have been done through TARP 1 through an amendment. I am sitting hear racking my brain. To the best of my knowledge, there were no amendments that were going through on the floor on this at this time, so the gentleman or myself would not have been allowed to do that, and I know that we did not have a hearing or a markup in committee on TARP 1, so there was absolutely no possibility at that time for the chairman to entertain either your amendment or my amendment or anyone else's amendment. Of course, we didn't have a markup, so there was not an opportunity for either one of us to confer.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. No, I will just close on my point. There was not an opportunity during the first go round with TARP 1. There may have been ideas discussed, there may have been ideas that were floated up and down and with the chairman's discussions with the White House and what have you as to which is the best way to implement TARP 1 and what have you. But to the best of my knowledge, there was no committee hearing, there was no markup, there was no avenue for us to make formal amendments during the regular course of progress during that sequence of time, and that is the unfortunate aspect of this. Yes, I support the amendment. Yes, I will be working with the chairman on the work with regard to the work with the Fed. But no with regard to the process we have gone through in the past; no with the opportunity of anyone from either side of the aisle to have an opportunity to enter amendments, discussion or otherwise in the committee meetings, since there was no markup, neither on the floor as well. Finally we are beginning to go in the right direction as far as allowing amendments, but we are still not going in the right direction as far as allowing full committee meetings. We still are not going in the right direction, where we would be allowed to have a full committee hearing on this, where we could have vetted this and the other ideas that had come before. The gentleman from New Jersey, for example, had what I thought was a good idea, and had we had the opportunity there to vet that through process, we probably would be standing right here now and supporting that and getting that in this bill as well. If this House would only go by the rules of the House and regular order, we would be doing better for the American public. We would be passing legislation that would be protecting the American taxpayer. We would be passing legislation actually providing for the transparency and accountability I think that both of us want, both on the original $350 billion and on this $350 billion. We have not done that, unfortunately, in the past, and, unfortunately, quite candidly, we are not doing that that here as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. What about the constitutional provisions as regards to that? Secondly, forcing companies that receive TARP funds to receive a government overseer on their boards. Amazing, a Congress that can't manage its own affairs is now going to have an overseer on corporate boards around this country. You know, an overseer today will become a suggestor tomorrow and eventually a dictator the next day. Thirdly, requiring $100 billion of the remaining TARP funds to be spent on the foreclosure mitigation program. This was not the initial reason that we did TARP. It was to get the credit markets moving again in this country. In closing, regardless of whether this measure passes or fails, it is almost certain that President-elect Obama will receive this request for the additional $350 billion with absolutely no strings attached or mechanism in place to ensure that the money is spent reliably. The House Democrat leadership failed when they passed the first bill of TARP, and they will fail when they give the authority to the President the second time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the ranking member. You know, Mr. Chairman, this debate and maybe this vote is an exercise in futility. Our distinguished chairman has already noted in various media outlets that he doesn't believe that this bill is ever going to become law. The Senate Banking Committee chairman has declared that he is not even going to bother drafting similar legislation, much less voting on it. So, you might ask yourselves, why is it that we are here today? As an aside, the chairman said interestingly enough the other day, just yesterday in committee meeting, he said, to quote Harry Truman, the job of the President of the United States is to get people to do things that they should do that they would do if they had half a brain. Well, the Bush administration will be out of office in a week. I would be curious to know from the chairman who he thinks in the next administration lacks that ability to do the right thing. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it's been reported that the chairman and the House Democrat leadership are really here today to try to provide political cover, in that sense, for their Members that they know this TARP Program is extremely unpopular with the American public and has wasted millions upon millions of dollars, and so this is a political cover to vote on this bill today. President-elect Obama said on Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ``I, like many, are disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded. There hasn't been enough oversight. We found out this week in a report that we are not tracking where this money is going.'' I agree with President-elect Obama. He is exactly right. There is a lack of congressional oversight, and that's been a concern of mine and many on this side from day one and even before the first TARP bill passed. I have taken the time to carefully review this legislation. But, unfortunately, when you think about the process that we have gone through here, as a whole, we have not done what is right. We call it regular order here, but for the folks at home, it just means spending the time that you should spend on a bill when you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. That means careful review, hold hearings, hold a markup on the TARP. Perhaps if we had done that, perhaps we could have foreseen some of the problems that we are talking about here tonight on the first bill. However, the first piece of legislation was cobbled together, and this piece of legislation was cobbled together as well and rushed. Chairman Frank released this draft that we have here before us just this past Friday. And now so it's less than a week that we are considering that exact same bill here on the floor. I agree with the ranking member when he said that he has not seen a compelling case to release the second $350 billion. In fact, I haven't seen any case presented as to why we should be releasing the second $350 billion or any plan to deal with spending that $350 billion. I have not seen any evidence that the original $350 billion ever achieved its stated purpose of stabilizing our Nation's financial system. And, if it did, as some have suggested, then why are we here today going forward with this legislation? You know, the young lady who spoke before me from Minnesota said, rightfully so, that the Department of Treasury willingly admits that they pulled that original $700 billion, that number, out of thin air, not based on any scientific or mathematical analysis. I have already indicated I did not support the original passage of TARP because I believe there were alternatives at that time to spending $700 billion of American taxpayer dollars. Now, after what we have seen with TARP and how it was handled, I certainly don't believe that we should waste an additional $350 billion as well. I will say this, while the chairman is making an effort to provide some oversight with this legislation, such as requiring banks that received the funds to disclose how they are spending it, you know, if you dig into this bill I believe that there are provisions in it that will have more harm than good at the end of the day. They will do more harm to the economic recovery that we are all looking for. I will give you a couple of examples. I have concerns with the retroactivity provisions that apply to institutions that have already received funds. What about contract law, what about the constitutional law?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for leading this Special Order hour on this topic. And I was just being enlightened, honestly, by the comments and your wealth of knowledge on the issues. So I appreciate the chance just to spend a couple of minutes with you and a chance to talk about this topic. Today is Wednesday. Just this past Sunday I was back in my district, which is in the great State of New Jersey, and there I was honored to take part in a solidarity evening, a rally, if you will, for Israel, held in the Fifth District in the State of New Jersey. I would like to just spend a minute or two to share with you what was discussed and why I was there. Our allies in Israel, obviously, are going through a tremendous crisis at this period of time. That's why I was so encouraged that we had well over 1,000 people in the room, maybe even more. Besides the room we were in, I was told, there was another assembly area where it was on TV as well. All of these people across the region came together in solidarity for both the victims' families over there, as well as for the victims who have lost their lives in this recent conflict. The loss of life in this region is truly profound. As you know, when we have been on this floor on this issue, we are both tremendous advocates for the State of Israel, one of our key allies, our only allies in the region over there. As you say, it was last year that we were on the floor as well, on a particular resolution, I was sponsor of it, you were cosponsor of it as well, and there was a resolution at the time when the mortar attacks were picking up on the people in Sderot. There was a time that we passed that resolution overwhelmingly saying that the United States stood on the side of Israel and stood on the side of people of Sderot and the right to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the sentiments of that resolution were obviously ignored by Hamas. Instead, the number of rockets, instead of decreasing, increased it dramatically, the number of mortar attacks launched now from Gaza in the month of December. In the period of time just prior to that, Hamas, I think you were going into this a little earlier ago, their capacity to attack and bring violence on Israel has increased dramatically with the range, I saw the pictures you had up there before, of the mortars and rockets increasing from 20 kilometers to over 50 kilometers, I believe it is. Basically, if you add all the numbers up on the map there, it means that over 1 million Israelis and their lives, their families, their children, are now at risk of mortar attack. Even worse than that, Hamas' actions, I think, exhibit total disregard for innocent human life. Israeli civilians continue to be targets of those defensive actions. In addition, it's really a shameful use of Palestinians' innocent life as well because they are being used as human shields and it creates unnecessary victims of terror. This is a flagrant disregard of international human rights. It's a flagrant disregard for the rights of the innocent people, Gaza and Israeli residents as well. If Hamas really did care about the citizens they purport to represent, they should really cease all military activity, all military activities against Israel right now and look to international forces to achieve peace. So I have been pleased to be here in Congress and that Congress has not ignored the Israelis' plight, as you indicated just about 2 minutes ago, that we have had this resolution, they have worked on jointly on this to step up to the plate, and that is H.R. 34. Just to conclude, I commended President-elect Obama recently for expressing similar concerns that you and I are expressing right now, specifically for the people of Sderot. He did that just over a short period of time about a year ago when he visited Sderot last year. I think you and I join now in urging him to continue that effort to speak out, encourage him to demonstrate that unwavering support that you and I have for the people of Israel as a struggle against Hamas. I think if he takes a stand now on the Gaza issue as he did a year ago, as soon as possible, to eliminate any ambiguity concerning the resolve that the United States has to aid Israel, the President-elect really has an opportunity to strengthen our Nation's diplomatic hand and call for an end to the destruction of innocent lives. I urge him, as I am sure you do as well, to take that step immediately. But as I close here I try to remain the optimist. Despite all of the current challenges, I still believe that there is a potential for further progress. Israel has shown a willingness to pursue peace. Now if only the Palestinian Authority and the Arab governments make equal steps forward, we can achieve that lasting peace. Finally, now, Israel left Gaza a short time ago in the hopes of peace. Israel returned to Gaza to fight terrorism and hopefully they will now achieve that peace. I, again, commend the gentleman.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Korean-American Day, which was celebrated yesterday. Korean Americans have played an essential part in shaping our country into its current form. Ever since the signing of the first treaty between the United States and Korea, the Jemulpo Treaty in 1882, our two countries have engaged in an important relationship. In addition, Korean Americans have helped shape the United States into a powerful and influential Nation. The history of Koreans in America is a proud one. When Koreans first started immigrating to the United States, they worked in places such as farms and railroads. These were hard workers who came to this country to seek new opportunities and a better life for their children. At that time, they could not have imagined the amount of success Korean Americans would enjoy over time--nor how large their community would become. After years of steady immigration, which blossomed in the 1960's, Korean Americans became one of the top 5 immigrant groups to the United States. Today, there are about 1.5 million Korean Americans living across the country. In the past Congress, we passed several pieces of legislation to strengthen the U.S.-Korean relationship. The first was H.R. 5443, the U.S.-Republic of Korea Defense Cooperation Improvement Act, which granted South Korea the same preferential treatment enjoyed by members of NATO. Another important bill passed in the 110th Congress was H. Res. 295. This legislation expressed appreciation to the Republic of Korea for its contributions to international efforts to combat terrorism. A final, integral bill was H.R. 1, which supported efforts to include South Korea in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, I trust that we will keep the Korean-American community in mind. Korean Americans play an important role in shaping American culture and Korean-American Day is a celebration that I am proud to recognize.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Again, I thank the gentleman from Utah for your comments. They are always insightful, and that's why I led off by referring over to your for those insightful comments. Now I will just make a couple of comments. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for leading this Special Order this afternoon, this Friday afternoon, as Congress goes back to their districts. As the gentleman from Georgia indicated earlier, this is an abbreviated session of Congress. I'm not sure why we spend 5 days in a week to do about 2-days' worth of work, but this gives us the opportunity to talk about an issue, of course, that is extremely important to the American public, something that they are looking to Washington to begin to address, albeit over an extended period of time and in discussion as opposed to legislation. I am just going to make three points while I'm at the microphone. The first point is: Who pays? The second question is: For what? The third point really goes into what the gentleman from Utah was referring to a moment ago: For how long? The first point of who pays: As for the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, who was just speaking previously, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio, I agreed with him on a number of his points that he was making with regard to the expansive powers of the Federal Reserve and the necessity for Congress to reexercise its authority in fiscal and in monetary matters and to address that issue. I did have a question for him or a concern with one point that he made. He said, right now, when it comes to infrastructure projects across the country, there is a great need, and I concur with that, and he raised the question or the statement: But they cannot be paid for by the local or State or--and I assume he also means--county or municipal governments right now. So he's inferring that, if they can't pay for it, somehow or other, the Federal Government can. You know, at the end of the day, when it comes to paying for any of our services, all of the money that we have comes out of our own pockets as taxpayers, whether you pay your local town tax or your county property tax or your State income tax and so on and so forth. It all comes out of our own taxpayer pockets. So it really doesn't matter whether you say the States or locals can't pay because, at the end of the day, come April 15, those same citizens will be paying the Federal Government for those very same projects. So as to the question of who pays: It's the American taxpayer who is going to be on the hook for those very same infrastructure projects whether local, State or county pays for it or whether some miraculously comes out of the Federal Government's Treasury as well. So the point is: Who pays? You do. The American taxpayer will pay for whatever this stimulus package may be whether it's $100 billion, $500 billion, $1 trillion. We're looking at right now a $1.2 trillion deficit as we speak, care of Senator Reid and Nancy Pelosi from the 110th Congress. Basically, that is what Senator Obama is inheriting, and it's on top of that that we'll be spending, maybe, another $1 trillion. Who will pay for that? Well, it is the American taxpayer. The second point is: For what? What will we be paying for--earmarks? Well, the other side of the aisle will say, no, there aren't going to be any earmarks in this, but mark my words; there will be things akin to earmarks, and I think that the American taxpayer is smart enough with this. It will be pork. Let me give you just an example. Again, the idea is, well, we'll pay for infrastructure, and that's all good when you talk about infrastructure being roads and bridges and water and sewer supplies and what have you. Well, let's see what some of the requests have already been to this new administration. Down in Florida in the city of Miami, they're talking about some great infrastructure projects such as a water slide, BMX dirt bike or trail bike trails, a beach museum. That's the type of infrastructure they're talking about looking forward to going back to the States. How about in the great State of Rhode Island where they're talking about such things as a polar bear exhibit or better soccer fields up there as well? That's the type of thing that your tax dollars will be going to. How about over in Vermont? They're putting in a request to spend $150,000 of your tax dollars to go to a more efficient street sweeping machine. Now, I'm sure they will be able to suck up a lot of the dirt and debris around the town a lot better with your tax dollars going into it. And isn't that really the problem, that this machine really will be sucking up more of our tax dollars as will this entire stimulus package? So what is this money going for? It will be going for all of the same sorts of earmark pork projects that you have seen and been dismayed about out of the Congress in the past but be magnified to the extent of $1 trillion. And the third point is for how long--and this is what the gentleman from Utah was making--for how long. We will go on for as long as the trillion dollars pork project will continue to be spent out of Washington. It will not really be making permanent jobs. The Obama administration talks about wanting to create 3 million new jobs, 80 percent of them they hope to be private sector jobs. That means, of course, 20 percent of them will therefore be public sector job. I can do the math in my head. That comes out to be around 600,000 new public sector jobs, which is around 50 some-odd percent if he threw the postal service out of the Federal Government as we exist right now. Where will those jobs be in a year from now or so after this project is spent? They will be out. So if you have got one of those good paying jobs, those jobs will end, and so will this program. So who pays? The American taxpayer pays. For what? For more pork. How long will it last? Only as long as this largesse out of the Federal Government lasts. What we need in the end--and I can conclude on this and yield back to the gentleman from Texas--is a program that will create new jobs, that will create jobs that will be new careers for individuals in this country, jobs not on the public dole but in the private sector. How do you accomplish that? By creating a private sector jobs initiative to incentivize the private sectors to take their literally trillions of dollars that are on the sidelines right now and to invest them into the economy, to invest them into the creation of new jobs. And if you do that, that will move the economy forward. The banks will be more than willing to lend again because the individuals out there will have jobs to be able to pay back their loans, and we will be reestablishing the strong economy that this country was known for for decades and for centuries as well. That is the direction we should be going for. And that's why I thank the gentleman from Texas for leading this talk in this special hour tonight on how to really stimulate the economy and how to really create jobs for this country.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for that and for the insightful comments. Maybe I should just begin with the gentleman from Utah for his comments with regard to the economy and the stimulus. The gentleman from Utah.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia and appreciate his taking the lead on this Special Order hour this afternoon.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments she made. I know a number of other individuals would like to make some remarks. Let me just be brief, the gentlelady actually made four excellent points. One, she made the point that with regard to the idea of whether government can be the solution to all the problems, is there a rush to judgment? Yes, there was a rush to judgment with regard to what we did last year with the spending of $700 billion on TARP. Today, there sounds like there is a rush to judgment, what may be going on in the spending that we may be doing in the future. Now, Barney Frank said the other day, a week ago, he said these were artificial deadlines that were being set, whether we are talking about TARP or the auto situation or now the spending going forward, the sun still rose tomorrow, to quote Barney Frank. The sun will still rise tomorrow with regard to our economy as well. We should not set artificial deadlines. The gentlelady also made an important comment when she said it's the people's money that we are dealing with here. We have to always remember that. It's the taxpayers' dollars. So we must be careful how it's spent. Also, within that subset of the comment, it is the nature of politics that it will be political decisions, as opposed to market decisions, that will direct the forces of the dollars. We should allow market forces to direct it. Thirdly, she made a great point, which I was going to make as well, oversight, past and future. Oversight. We didn't have oversight in the past. It doesn't sound like we are going to have a heck of a lot of oversight going forward. Even if we do have a little modicum of oversight right now, a hearing or two on this billion, trillion dollars that we are about to spend, just as with the housing situation, it is impossible for the Federal Government to manage all these dollars going forward. Likewise here going forward, it will be impossible to manage it. Finally, she made a good point as well, and I will close on this, market, heal thyself, is what she said. Likewise here, whether it's the credit market, the financial market or the unemployment market, we can allow the private sector, with the assist of the government getting out of the way for the market to heal thyself in those situations as well in the appropriate manner.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Because she worked with me on the issue that we are talking about here, that your comment is only to break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy. You have to couch that in the correct terminology as to what government can do and what they shouldn't do. We came to the floor, what was it, several months ago now, 2 months ago now, I guess, time flies, when we were dealing with can the government solve the problem out on Wall Street? Can the government solve the problem with regard to all the banks? Can the government solve the problem with regard to the crippling lending situation that was going on in this country at that time? And we heard, or we were told by the White House just down the street, and some folks from leadership right here, and the legislative body--but, absolutely, government can do it, and they can do it with taxpayer dollars, $700 billion. I will use the word ``scheme,'' they called it a ``plan'' at the time, that government would solve the problem. A few of us, not enough, a few of us came to the floor at that time and said, you know, maybe government just can't solve that problem by saying that we have the only answer to do it. One of the people who joined us with that fight was the gentlelady from Ohio. And I would like her to address those issues again why they couldn't solve it in the manner they were suggesting.