Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's all about priorities; and, you know, I welcome the debate that we're having here today. We asked that we not do this. We asked, at the Rules Committee, let's not do this bill. Isn't it better that we don't go spend $50 million right now? It is an island. By the way, every piece of land on the island is not beachfront property. The bottom line is that we are choosing because it's a priority to do this. It's a priority, and those priorities the Republican Party disagrees with. Additionally, the second bill that comes under this rule that failed to get two-thirds vote last week is the one we're talking about, H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act. And what this bill really does, as we've heard, is it authorizes but does not appropriate $50 million. If there is anybody in this body who believes that we're going to have a significant debate about the $50 million when it comes in a huge package of appropriations, they're wrong. This puts it in line to be a part of another massive spending bill. Meanwhile, as we go and buy new Federal land in the Virgin Islands, unemployment rate at 10 percent, that's problematic to me. Even more, Americans, lots of them, don't even have the opportunity to go visit this new $50 million purchase because economic climates are so bad. And you know, even if we weren't running a $1.4 trillion deficit and raising the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion in the next few weeks, there's still this backlog that we could prioritize and put the $50 million in to take care of the $9 billion maintenance backlog that we have in this country. And by the way, that's cultural. Lots of sites in this country are cultural that are national parks. And the priorities should be of existing decisions that we have made. I just think it's a bad way to go. But I think it represents exactly the mindset of the Democratic leadership: another good way to spend money, put a happy, smiley face on it, and talk about it's a really good thing for taxpayers. We're going to find out more when the National Park Service finally releases their study. We are going to find out what they would say. But the Republicans up in the room in the Rules Committee last night said let's wait. Let's not spend the money. Let's wait to find out what we do. And most of all, let's make this an open rule so every Member can bring their ideas down here. It's not going to happen. Party-line vote. So what today's legislation should show the American people is about this Congress' priorities: First, that the Democrats refuse--once again, nothing new--to work with Republicans on anything from water bills to national health care reform. Secondly, that jobs and the economy come second to the $50 million worth of taxpayer funds for beachfront property that most Americans will never, never, ever see. Mr. Speaker, Americans want jobs. They want fiscal responsibility by this body. They want us to work together on the issues and the problems facing this country. And I think they are seeing, once again today, after what was called the wake-up call last week, that we are not doing any of those. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority continues to serve initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment, more debt, and more taxation. This administration and the Democrat Congress promised Americans they would be serious about jobs, economic recovery, health care, cleaner energy, and better education. The list goes on and on and on. And what we see after 3 years, now entering the fourth, of Democratic leadership majority in this body is that they are driving our country to record deficits, record unemployment, record spending, and record inability to take responsibility for what they have done on their watch being the policy arm of this government. This rule does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability, either. And with this legislation, Congress only continues to increase Federal debt, slows down our economic recovery, increases the Federal burden and the financial burden placed on our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised Americans if Congress passed the stimulus bill that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent. That was a long time ago. They promised that it would save millions of jobs. Here we are 1 year later, record unemployment and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the package that was called the ``jobs bill,'' a $1.2 trillion stimulus package, and today in the papers we read about not only is it not working, it is doing what Republicans said at the time. It is going to add to unemployment and debt that will increase at an exponential rate. In June of last year, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-trade bill that would also raise prices on energy and goods and services for hardworking Americans across this country. In my home State of Texas, the average household would expect to pay more than $1,100 extra a year. No wonder--no wonder there is an outcry. Once again, part of a legislative package, an initiative, that would lose 1.38 million manufacturing jobs. They are in the middle of that right now. Somebody is going to have to stand up and take accountability for this, because it is happening on the leadership of the Democratic Party's watch. And today, despite these facts, we are spending more money and going to place America in a deficit position again. Mr. Speaker, in November this last year, the Democrat-controlled House passed sweeping health care reform that effectively diminished employer-based insurance and now is a part of a debate as we continue to lose jobs. It's time that the Democratic Party began working with Republicans if you want to bring jobs back. Mr. Speaker, the majority party is out of touch. They are out of touch with Americans. Their priorities on borrowing, taxing, and spending are killing our economy and ruining progress for job growth. I know, once again, today I, Republicans, are the minority party. All we can do is stand on the floor and talk. But we believe that the processes up in the Rules Committee are important. That's why we were there even last night trying to say this is the wrong thing to do and that $50 million more does matter. We cannot remedy the economic circumstances that we're in by increasing spending, not on national parks in the Virgin Islands and not on a $1.3 trillion health care bill that will destroy 5\1/2\ million jobs. Huge energy and health bills are going to raise taxes and kill jobs, and certainly raise expenses for States. And people over the last year, we've heard our constituents say that they want stability, they want us to work together, and they want us to focus on the things that would bring about a better tomorrow. I disagree with what we are doing again today, and I respectfully would say to the American people and my colleagues we should defeat this bill. It's the wrong direction. It's a bad idea, and the timing of this is very bad. Mr. Speaker, we are going to welcome the President of the United States tonight. I hope we listen to what he says. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for representing the Democratic Party today. I think that it's important as we approach today that the hopes and expectations of a Nation who tonight will listen to our President will be in our hearts and our minds. This country has had serious days in our past, and we are in serious days today. I don't think there is any problem bigger than a solution in this country. I do believe, however, and I have believed this, that when it comes to the economy, building jobs and working to create a better environment where America is competitive in the world, that it will require not just a basic sense of understanding marketplaces, but really, Mr. Speaker, of discipline, of seeing the problem for what it is. It is a problem that has been self-induced. It is self-induced by this body, who in the midst of the greatest expansion--and I remember just a few years ago with my friends who were Democrats, oh, all this money that this country has, we are not spending it the right way. The priorities are mixed. We should go spend more money and help people who do not have the advantages because this booming economy has not gotten to them yet. Mr. Speaker, I do understand that. I do understand that a lot. I spend a lot of time working with disabled people in this country. But what happened in that process was we flipped so far over to where we are now killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and that is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system, as a result of this Speaker and the policies of the Democratic Party, are pushing an agenda that would lose this country 10 million jobs. We are in the middle of that. The assault on employers is part of the political agenda. I get that. I think the free enterprise system gets that. But the American people have now caught on. And I think it's time, if we really want to talk about having jobs, jobs that can be competitive with the world, jobs that are not nickel-and-dime jobs or here today and gone tomorrow, that it will require a discipline and a philosophy of understanding how jobs are created and the free enterprise system and the decisionmaking. The decisionmaking is that this Congress needs to do at least three things: Number one, they need to make sure that we cut capital gains taxes so that people will invest in this country. They will invest in this country, and the creation of jobs will occur. Secondly, we need to make sure that we do away with, or greatly diminish, depreciation. Depreciation is government competing against the free enterprise system for money. And perhaps most importantly, or lastly, the death tax. The death tax because literally, after three generations, anybody who owns a family- owned business has to lose it. It's gone. It's gone from taxation from a Federal Government that is controlled by those who want to tax and spend and diminish that for the spending of the government rather than people who have jobs. So, look, I think we ought to take the responsibility today. I think, just like somebody going to a meeting and admitting that they made a mistake and they were wrong and they have a problem, being honest about the problem, the creation of jobs won't come through some trickery. It will only come from doing the things that business itself will tell you it needs: reducing capital gains on a permanent basis, reducing the problem that we have with depreciation, and lastly, the death tax. We don't have to take it to $1 billion or half a billion dollars. We could move it probably to $50 million or $60 million and stop the burden, the bleeding, that is happening where people are losing their land, their property, and their businesses. But it takes someone who understands that. I spent 16 years in the free enterprise system, 16 years where I never missed a day of work. I loved what I did. But I saw Washington as the problem. That's why I came to Congress. I still see government as being the problem. And here today, we give a lot of lip service to jobs, and people act like, well, I just really don't know what to do. The fact of the matter is the political agenda of losing 10 million American jobs, which we are in the middle of, health care, cap-and- trade, and card check are strangling this country. If we want to be honest about this, just like an alcoholic showing up at an AA meeting and admitting there is a 12-step process to coming back, we need to understand that we are taxing too much, we are spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and the debt is strangling this country. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? I yield back my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, due to unexpected circumstances, I am speaking at the funeral of a family friend back in my district today. As a result, I am unable to vote on the remaining Floor proceedings for the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173). In order to fully clarify my positions on the votes I will miss, I would have voted as follows: Kanjorski Amendment No. 51: ``no''; McCarthy Amendment No. 168: ``aye''; Peters Amendment No. 22: ``no''; Conyers/Marshall Amendment No. 201: ``no''; Schakowsky Amendment No. 209: ``no''; Minnick Amendment No. 88: ``aye''; Bachus Amendment No. 87: ``aye''; Motion to Recommit: ``aye''; Final Passage of H.R. 4173; ``no''.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for the time. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the precedents and traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.'' Mr. Speaker, I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take credit for them, because I did not write them. My staff did not write them nor did the Republican staff of the Rules Committee. In fact, so far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in this House of Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat-run Rules Committee, Mr. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. He spoke these exact words on the floor over 2 years ago regarding what he eloquently and accurately called a ``martial law rule,'' which is what we're being asked to consider here today. We're being asked to consider this outrageous process on the House floor today, yet the Democratic Party knows it's not the right thing to do. It was not right then and it's not right now. My friends on the other side of the aisle know it's not right, and that's why they spoke up at the time, and I agree with them. Last month, the Democrat majority barreled a 2,037-page health care bill through Congress forcing government-run health care on every single American. Today, in similar form, they are considering a 1,300- page Federal takeover of the financial services industry, 1,300 pages. This is simply another example of the government overstepping its boundary into the private market courtesy of the Democratic Party. This monstrous financial reform package includes provisions to extend TARP, make Federal bailout authority permanent, and allow bureaucrats to determine the types of financial products that will be made available to consumers and set the salaries of private sector employees. This bill does nothing to help create private sector jobs or to provide financial relief to Americans in these tough times, which should be Congress's number one priority. But not this majority. Over the past 3 years, America has witnessed a reckless multitrillion dollar spending binge by this Democrat-controlled Congress with more borrowing, more taxing, and more spending. The Treasury Department has reported the total deficit for fiscal year 2009 reached a record $1.4 trillion. This is nine times the size of the deficit when the Democrats first took control of Congress. Despite the Obama administration and congressional Democrats' promise that their trillion dollar ``stimulus'' plan would create jobs and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, the Department of Labor once again reported an unemployment level of 10 percent. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, the number of unemployed persons has doubled to 15.4 million people, and this is only what is being reported. It's time to stop the bailouts. It's time to get the government out of business industry takeovers, and it's time to stop killing jobs. Unfortunately, this bill we are considering today puts the American people on the hook once again for one of the greatest expansions of Federal Government in the history of United States while doing nothing to create jobs. The first major provision of this bill was best summarized by a Democratic Congressman, Brad Sherman from California, as ``TARP on steroids.'' It creates a permanent bailout authority for the Federal Government by assessing $150 billion in new taxes on American businesses that will ultimately result in higher interest rates and higher fees for consumers. Most disastrous, however, is that this tax, according to the minority on the Financial Services Committee will shrink available credit by as much as $55 billion and result in the loss of as many as 450,000 more American jobs in the financial services area. Congress should be focusing on doing things to create jobs, not to tax investors, the financial services, and destroy jobs. This is the core difference between my Republican colleagues and our friends the Democrats in Congress. Republicans believe it's time to allow business to pay back TARP funds, knock down TARP authority, and pay down the debt with returning the money to the taxpayer. Our friends the Democrats want to create a perpetual TARP-like fund, a bottomless treasure chest to continue their happy spending ways. In an effort to thwart this trend and to protect American workers from job-killing provisions in this bill, I introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee last night which would eliminate this legislation if the Government Accounting Office finds that the provisions of this bill would kill 1 million or more jobs. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my friends that are Democrats, were really serious about this, they would have made this amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, on a party-line basis, even when the facts of the case said if this bill is going to destroy a million or more jobs, every single Democrat said don't include that as a provision in this bill because politics are more important than policy in this House. I think we can all agree that protecting consumers is an essential role for Congress. Ensuring consumer safety is absolutely necessary for a successful, prosperous economy. Yet one of the most far-reaching provisions of this bill is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This CFPA is a classic example of the government's overstepping its authority into the free enterprise system simply to make government bigger and to further control the free enterprise system and free market. This massive new agency will be led by a credit czar, yet another czar, who will have unprecedented, unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers, impose fees on consumer products, and rule over financial transactions. The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers, reduce the number and type of products available to them, increase the micromanagement of financial services firms, greatly increase the confusion caused by conflicting consumer laws, and ensure the demise of American competitiveness around the world. In addition to the CFPA, this bill provides for the greatest Federal expansion of the Federal Reserve since the central bank's creation almost a hundred years ago. Mr. Speaker, Americans pride themselves on the free enterprise system, the free market, and choices. Yet Congress once again today will pass legislation that increases government control and interference in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choice, and dictates wages and projects as well as prices involved. In a time of economic recession, with record unemployment and record deficits, I think--and the Republican Party thinks--Congress should be enacting legislation to grow our economy and to help with the creation of jobs, not to destroy jobs. Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear; our Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system once again. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation because Republicans K-N-O-W what our Democrat colleagues are trying to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very interesting that my Democrat colleagues are saying that Republicans handed them this big mess, which they couldn't wait to get, and they have made it worse. They're acting like they made it better. They have diminished the employment in this country, they have raised spending 85 percent in the last 2 years, and they are making this problem even worse. They begged for a chance to get their hands on this. They're doing it the way they wanted, and it's making matters worse for this country. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Topeka, Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. SESSIONS. How much time is the gentleman willing to give me, 1 minute?

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the opportunity. The gentleman knows that the surplus was literally trillions of dollars, and that is always a guesstimate in the future of where we exist. The gentleman knows that on 9/11 of 2001 there was a surplus in this country. On 9/11 of 2001, this country was struck by a group of terrorists who intended to harm our financial economy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, this is what I was talking about. The gentleman said he would give me enough----

Mr. SESSIONS. I will answer the gentleman if he will allow me a full answer.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the way, the gentleman will be able to vote for Mr. Bachus' amendment, which says exactly the right thing to address this issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman for asking. In fact, I do have two further speakers who are expected. Neither are here at this time, but I intend to consume that time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman for providing such information, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. On Monday, my colleagues and I sent a more recent letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner, which was a followup to a letter that had been sent by many, many Republican Members of Congress to adhere to the December 31 TARP expiration date and to dedicate all returning funds to reducing the public debt. We had sent Secretary Geithner a letter on December 7, 2009, which spoke about how the original concept of TARP--the Troubled Asset Relief Program, that which we know as TARP--should be implemented and used. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, December 7, 2009. Hon. Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Geithner: As the December 31, 2009 deadline for the end of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) approaches, we urge you to adhere to this expiration date and decline to use your authority to extend TARP into 2010. As additional preferred shares are repurchased and dividends and interest are collected, we also urge you to dedicate all returned funds and other revenue to reducing the national debt. During a recent Congressional hearing you stated that you were working to ``put the TARP out of its misery.'' We support your intention and believe putting the program ``out of its misery'' entails nothing less than ending the disbursement of any remaining TARP funds on December 31, 2009. The purpose of TARP was to provide immediate support and emergency stabilization to the financial system. Regardless of whether we voted for or against TARP, we believe the financial system is now significantly stabilized compared with the situation from a year ago. While there will continue to be ups and downs as the economy recovers, the federal government does not need a dedicated support fund for the financial system. In order for the government to exit from the unprecedented interventions of the past year and a half, the government must first stop spending funds on more interventions. When TARP was enacted, the public debt limit was increased to $11.3 trillion. Since January, the national debt has increased more than $1.4 trillion, and Congress is now set to consider a debt limit increase of up to $13.2 trillion, the fourth debt limit increase since July 2008. Not spending the remaining TARP funds, $246 billion according to the last SIGTARP quarterly report, will reduce the already staggering amount our nation is borrowing. SIGTARP also reported repayments of $72.9 billion, $9.5 billion from dividends and interest and $2.9 billion in proceeds from sale of warrants, and we understand $45 billion more in repayment is pending. All of these TARP receipts and future receipts must be devoted to debt reduction rather than spent on further government interventions or other programs. While estimates vary on the final cost to the taxpayers from TARP, all estimates are that the taxpayers will lose billions of dollars and that there will be no profit from TARP. Ensuring every dime of income goes to debt reduction reduces the taxpayers' ultimate loss. The first TARP program, the Capital Purchase Program, offered taxpayers the greatest opportunity to recover their investment. Additional programs added to TARP, such as assistance to the automakers and AIG, carry much less assurance for the taxpayers, and the mortgage modification program will result in no recoupment for the taxpayers. The longer the remaining unspent TARP funds and revenue remain on the table, the more money that will be spent and not recovered. The emergency has ended, and TARP must end as well. The taxpayers understand the difference between ending TARP on December 31 and setting aside a portion of unspent funds as some type of reserve. They know the difference between devoting all repaid funds, dividends and other income to debt reduction and using just some of these funds for debt reduction and spending the rest. In the interest of our nation's fiscal health and the certainty for the financial system that comes with knowing the government is done with this intervention, we urge your consideration of our request and await your response. Sincerely, Randy Neugebauer, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Spencer Bachus, Mike Pence, Adam Putnam, J. Gresham Barrett, John P. Carter, Tom Price, Kenny Marchant, Pete Sessions, Wally Herger, Ron Paul, Joe Wilson. The bottom line is that the money which was debated on this floor, passed on this floor, passed by the United States Senate, and signed by the former President had a very clear understanding about the money that would be spent and about the money that would be returned. I believe that Secretary Geithner should respond to this letter to let this body know and to let these signers of this letter know how he intends to approach this TARP money that is being returned. There was a report earlier in the week that virtually 90 percent of this money had been repaid. Yet what we see in this bill is some $200 billion more in a permanent fund which would be established. You and I both recognize that $200 billion more going in behalf of and spent would simply extend our deficit. Our deficit in 2007 was $161 billion. The deficit in 2009 is $1.4 trillion. This is a nine-times growth since our friends, the Democrats, have taken control of Congress. Mr. Speaker, this country was not attacked like we were on 9/11. We have not had another Katrina. We have not had the things which have been natural disasters, which were dealt with by the Republicans in the majority. This is pure and simple spending that has taken place and that has been raised 85 percent in the last 2 years. To say that someone has laid that at the doorstep and has raised the deficit spending from $161 billion in 2007 to $1.4 trillion in 2009, and yet has blamed that on anyone else other than the people who voted for it, which is the Democrat majority, would be a misnomer. That is mismanagement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California, Congressman Royce.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, coming down to provide us an update on the reality of this bill. Mr. Speaker, we have been here arguing about deficits and who is responsible for what, and who is guilty of acting like a drunk sailor and who is spending money. The bottom line is that it is true, George Bush and Republicans during 8 years had some deficits. The largest was in 2008, some $415 billion. The first year of the Democrats' spending spree, over a $1.4 trillion deficit. Republicans seem to create jobs. Some 5.3 million jobs were created within this deficit that occurred. Our friends, the Democrats, massive unemployment, massive spending, massive deficits. Those are the facts of the case. This shows where we are headed, the American people know it, and that's why there is an outcry all across this country to stop what is happening, even today, with a bill that will lose 400,000 more jobs. Look, I get it. I know that the Speaker's political agenda, the three biggest items, health care, cap-and-trade and card check will not lose 10 million more American jobs. I get that, but so do the American people. The Republican Party is saying, let's not lose 400,000 more jobs with the passage of this massive takeover of the financial services industry. We don't have the votes to stop it, but there are a lot of skid marks in the concrete today to say we shouldn't be doing this. We don't have the votes to stop it, but we are saying let's be careful because we know, k-n-o-w, where you are headed. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think while it's important to provide consumer safety and security in the marketplace, our constituents are more concerned with the economy and the jobs. They see this as a massive government takeover, and the industry knows exactly what it is also. My friends on the other side of the aisle are simply looking for more problems so they can put their government takeover solutions in place. Week after week, we come to the House floor to debate bills, bills that kill our economy, diminish jobs and put us further into debt, whether it's cap-and-trade or health care. Now today the government takeover of the financial sector with the Barney Frank bill, we are talking about hundreds of thousands and soon to be millions of jobs at a time of record unemployment. We ask the Democrat majority to please just put a caveat in here that if this bill were going to lose more than 1 million jobs, let's not do it. The Democrats on a party-line basis have said, Look, pal, our agenda is more important than any facts of the case about losing jobs. The Republican Party is on the floor here today asking that we defeat this rule, defeat this bill, defeat the things which are going on which will encourage more borrowing, more taxing, more spending, record deficits, record unemployment, and, of course, making sure that the government wins every tie. We disagree with the Democrat majority. We disagree with the politics, the policies, and we disagree with the results. The Republican Party will be voting ``no'' today, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado yielding me the time, and I will use such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do admit, I know the gentleman was not here back in 2003, but on September 11, 2003, President Bush formally asked the Congress for legislation to regulate Freddie and Fannie, seeing a problem that was ahead. The ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Frank, had a quick response that said there is no problem. There is no problem. That's the last thing we should be doing. Their books are clean. They knew that everything was okay. In 2005, just the next session, legislation did pass and was filibustered in the Senate by Democrats, filibustered by Democrats. To say that the Wild West exists would be a misnomer in financial services terms. There were people who broke the law. There have always been people who break the law. But the people who broke the law knew that they were breaking the law and did so at the expense of other people's money. But if you want to talk about recession, let's talk about the recession that we are in right now after 3 years of Democratic control in this House of Representatives. Let's talk about 85 percent increase in spending that this body is going to take up a bill today to spend 85 percent more in the last 2 years by this Democrat-controlled Congress. So, I think that we should be very careful about trying to describe a problem when, in fact, someone else is adding to it and making it worse. Today we are going to consider a 1,300-page bill which will be a Federal takeover of the financial services industry. That is a heck of an answer. An hour ago, I discussed the flaws of the underlying bill, and now you will hear about a number of amendments that were shut out by our friends, the Democrats. They shut out Democrats. They shut out Republicans. They shut out bipartisan amendments. And here we have on the floor today this massive bill. I offered a cautionary amendment that would make this bill ineffective if the Government Accountability Office were to find that this bill would kill more than 1 million free enterprise jobs. I stood before the Rules Committee and said that if this bill kills more than 1 million jobs, let's not do it. Forget it. On a party-line vote, my friends in the Rules Committee, the Democrats, voted ``no.'' That's because we are more concerned about politics than we are about the American people, jobs, and the economy. Also, I offered two commonsense amendments that simply clarify that this bill would not create a bottomless fund for frivolous lawsuits by trial lawyers. The first amendment deals with giving shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation packages. My amendment clarifies that this new vote creates no new private right of action. Without this amendment, trial lawyers will be able to exploit a brand new opportunity to shake down companies for huge payouts. This is a commonsense amendment, and it was rejected by the Rules Committee on a party-line vote. Once again, the Democrats said no, no. The second amendment I introduced was to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits and simply clarifies that none of the new registration requirements for investment advisers of private funds shall be construed as creating a private right of action. This is a noncontroversial measure, or it should be, seeking to protect investors from frivolous lawsuits, and this, too, was rejected. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care more about creating a trial lawyer bonanza than protecting businesses, consumers, our financial systems and certainly the free enterprise system. In an effort to clarify the intent of the executive compensation provisions, I introduced an amendment that would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring full SEC disclosure about who is financing that purchase to influence votes on this new, congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution. Put simply, this amendment would provide shareholders with access to information about who is trying to influence a vote. Of course not. We would never want to do that. Trial lawyers would hate that. So the Democrat Party up in the Rules Committee, they got it. They complied. No. As Federal candidates, we are obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation, and amount given by our donors. We require this because public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. This is important. My amendment asks for the same disclosure so that shareholders know who is trying to influence a vote, what people, what organizations, what groups, what consumer advocates, the amount of money, and who is influencing this. Surprisingly, this amendment was also voted down. So much for transparency and the light of day. The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy and to sustain economic growth and job creation. This legislation does the opposite. It takes a one-size-fits-all approach to governing, undermining U.S. economic competitiveness and business growth. That's why so many business groups oppose this. This Democratic solution will only increase government intervention in the financial markets, ration resources, limit consumer choice, raise taxes, dictate wages, and kill jobs. Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear. My Democrat colleagues are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system while paving the road for trial lawyers and killing American jobs. I guess this is nothing new. We should get used to this. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is made up of a group of Members here in Congress who have various backgrounds, and one of them who I am getting ready to yield to came as a small businessman from a manufacturing firm that employed people, cared about their community and the families that worked therein. I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado keeps trying to search and search and search and find who to pin this on, this bad economy and the job loss. Well, I would direct the gentleman to something that we have known for a long, long time in this country. The answer is, pin the tail on the donkey. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Eden Prairie, Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, without challenging the gentleman's words on the floor, I challenge anyone to think that there would be $600 trillion worth of derivatives business that has taken place in this country. I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. SESSIONS. Good, I appreciate the gentleman. It sounds to me like you would like me to go ahead and take the time to close.