Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time this morning. And I would yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. The structured rule does not call for the open and honest debate that we really had been promised years ago by our Democrat colleagues to have an open, honest debate on the issues that are before this country. But once again, time in and time out, here we are without an open rule. Mr. Speaker, it's my intention today to discuss the dangerous precedent that this legislation sets forth on the future of business in America and the stranglehold that government will have over the free enterprise system. Additionally, I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee last night, and I will discuss those here today. One would ensure this legislation would not create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and the other would provide for the necessary transparency and disclosure for shareholders. Both were rejected by the Democrats of the Rules Committee and eliminated from debate on the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, government takeover of the free enterprise system seems to be a common theme with this Democrat Congress and with the Obama administration, a theme that has led to record deficits and record unemployment. This underlying legislation has masked itself as a bill to restrict CEO pay by giving shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation. Yet in reality, it gives the government broad authority to review and determine appropriate compensation for every employee of a financial firm. This legislation empowers the Federal Government to set unprecedented standards for annual shareholder votes while providing broad government authority for regulators who will have guidance to implement this and give authority to them over the free enterprise system. We all agree that we need to curb abuses of the past and to promote responsible approaches to executive compensation. But this bill provides unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system. It is the wrong solution. The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy's ability to sustain economic growth and job creation. This legislation does the opposite by legislating a one-size-fits-all rule for public companies that discourage private firms from going public. This will limit U.S. companies' access to the capital markets and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. This legislation allows financial regulators the authority to determine wages for all employees, not just CEOs, officers, and bankers, but everyone. The rank and file of community banks, minority banks, and credit unions could all have their compensation determined by unelected Washington bureaucrats. This perception undermines the confidence in corporate America and unfairly taints the vast majority of U.S. companies. In an effort to provide the clarification necessary to ensure the intent of this legislation is not to create a bonanza for trial lawyers, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee. The amendment would have clarified that this legislation simply creates no new private right of action in our courts, nor would its passage make a compensation committee's decisions to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders subject to any existing private right of action. Without this amendment, trial lawyers will be able to exploit a new opportunity to shake down companies for huge payments by challenging any action deemed non-compliant from this non-binding vote. This is a commonsense amendment that should have been considered on the House floor today, and it should be in the bill as law. My second amendment would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring a full SEC disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence votes on this new congressionally mandated non- binding shareholder resolution. Put simply, this amendment would provide shareholders with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote. As Federal candidates, we're obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation, and amount given from each of our donors. We require this because the public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. My amendment asks the same disclosure so the shareholders know what people, what organization--whether they be labor unions, environmental groups, consumer advocates or simply a normal citizen of this country. We need to know who is spending money on influencing this new mandatory, non- binding vote. Americans pride themselves on free enterprise choice and a marketplace that works for all of us; yet today Congress will pass legislation that increases government intervention in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choices, and dictates wages and prices. In a time of economic recession with record unemployment and record deficits, Congress should be enacting legislation to assist our economy. Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear. This administration and this Congress are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system. Mr. Speaker, this Congress should be doing things to encourage employment, to encourage people to go back to work, to encourage competitiveness, to encourage our country to be prepared tomorrow; not to have record unemployment, not to spend more money for record debts, but to give America and the free enterprise system the chance and opportunity it deserves to flourish in America. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, they refuse to protect all Americans in this legislation from trial lawyers benefiting from their tax dollars, and they also voted in the committee against transparency and accountability. Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we have many, many, many real problems to deal with that require leadership and dedication to ensure the future of this Nation. We need to provide for jobs, encourage economic growth and spur innovation and prosperity of this Nation, not to hamper the free enterprise system. This is, without question, further government control and muzzling of the free enterprise system. Some argue that this legislation is about executive compensation; but in reality, it continues to be the government takeover of the free enterprise system. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this structured rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to preempt a common protest by the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts, and let my colleagues know that this motion will not ``kill the bill.'' In fact, it will not even send it back to committee. We have the authority right here, right now to provide for the appropriate transparency and accountability just by passing this motion. The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought before the House today forces every publicly held company to bear the cost of administering a toothless, non-binding shareholder vote on pay packages during every proxy vote. This motion to recommit would improve this interventionist legislation by providing sunshine and transparency for shareholders so that there is full disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence a vote on this new, congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution. Let me give an example of a substantially similar disclosure requirement that every Member of this body understands because it's already a current practice: As Federal candidates, we are obligated to disclose to the FEC the name, occupation, and amount given from each of our donors. We require this because public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. My motion asks for the same disclosure so that shareholders know what persons or organizations are spending money to influence the new mandatory, non-binding vote. The purpose of this motion is not to impede the ability of organizations to influence the vote. If they hold shares in stock, they will be able to express their opinion. The point of the motion is to simply provide voters, in this case shareholders, with access to information about who is spending money and what are they attempting to influence with their vote. My motion tasks the SEC with setting a de minimus level of spending and with collecting important information about anyone or any organization that spends over that amount to influence a vote, including who is spending the money, what they are spending the money on, and how much they are spending to influence the votes of other shareholders. This motion provides an appropriate level of transparency for shareholder elections. If we believe that voters deserve this information, we should also give to shareholders this same level of transparency. Once again, I would like to make it clear that this legislation will not ``kill the bill,'' as its opponents might claim. It will not send the bill back to committee to fix its current lack of transparency because it allows it to be done right here, right now. I encourage all my colleagues to support this commonsense motion to improve transparency for shareholders about who is trying to influence their votes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity for you to recognize me.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his help.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Murtha. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this committee, as well as the Rules Committee, has been very open to receiving information about the current status of hyperbaric oxygen treatment as an opportunity for us to learn more about how we will help our returning veterans and those who have been injured in conflicts around the globe. This body has worked very closely with not only Secretary Gates, General Casey, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, but also with their designee, General Lori Sutton, who is working very closely with the Congress to make sure that we pay attention to the head trauma injuries of our soldiers as they engage in trying to help the United States win the war on terror. I want to personally thank not only the gentleman, Mr. Young, and the gentleman, Mr. Murtha, but also the appropriators, Mr. Wamp and Mr. Edwards. I would also like to thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for not only making this amendment in order, but also the words of support that have been expressed on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, but also the Rules Committee. I thank both these gentlemen for accepting my amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Last week I came to the House floor to discuss how this Democrat Congress is bankrupting America. They continue to force massive spending through this body that has led to record unemployment and record deficits for America. Well, they're set to do it again this week with health care reform. Three years ago, Massachusetts set out to accomplish universal coverage just like what the Democrats want to do for all of America. So far, the facts are plain. Insurance prices are higher than expected, safety net hospitals are struggling more than ever, doctors cannot keep up with the increased demand, and some people without insurance still cannot afford care. The State legislature is already exploring options for rationed care to control health care spending, which, in Massachusetts, is 25 percent higher than the national average. This is a dangerous precedent to follow. Many in Massachusetts are still uninsured, costs are skyrocketing, and the State is going bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, not a good prescription for America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding me such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's just go to the words that people have. Republicans cut taxes and employed people, 5.3 million new jobs. The Democrats put their spending plan on the floor and said we would have jobs and more jobs, and we don't. So regardless of what the gentleman talks about with all these big tax breaks, they worked. They employed people. People had jobs. And in the scheme of things, Mr. Speaker, that's good for all of us. So I will stand behind those tax cuts that employed this country, as opposed to unemployment, the highest unemployment in 26 years, by our friends, the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, today I stand about this structured rule, and I stand in opposition. My friends on the other side of the aisle, for the first time in the history of the Republic, have shut down the appropriations process by placing an extremely restrictive rule on every single appropriations bill that has come to the floor this year. Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin has set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills which has forced this Congress and the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every Republican's and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues, and they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion. I ask, once again, Mr. Speaker, what is the majority afraid of? Why are we doing this for the first time in the history of this Republic? Why won't they allow for the open and honest debate that they called for just a few years ago? In order to operate under the needlessly short debate that my friends on the other side of the aisle have forced Republicans to pursue, my colleagues and I offered 12 amendments to ensure that a thoughtful and constructive debate could take place. We helped manage ourselves before we came to the Rules Committee. Yet what happened? Only four were made in order, while the Democrats had seven of their offered amendments rolled right into the manager's amendment. This Democrat Congress, in unprecedented fashion, continues to reject and silence the American public and to muzzle Members on the floor of the House of Representatives, not allowing their voices to be heard on the people's floor. Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is my intent to focus on this huge increase in spending over last year's level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that continue to kill jobs and lead to record deficits; that is, kill jobs and record deficits under control of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat-held Senate, and President Barack Obama. This is their policy that we are debating on the floor today. This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $10.6 billion, increase above the current year's spending levels, and that's excluding the $126 billion in stimulus funding that these programs have already received. Since 2007, funding for programs under Labor, Health and Human Services and Education have increased a whopping 93 percent. This bill does not represent a commitment, or any commitment, to fiscal sustainability. We simply cannot keep doing this. But, here we are again today. It will cost us jobs. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to ask, where are the jobs? With this legislation, Congress only further slows down economic recovery and increases the financial burden being placed on our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The Obama administration promised Americans that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent, that they would create and save millions of jobs if Congress simply passed the stimulus. Here we are, months later, with a record 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, and 2 million Americans have lost their job since the passage of this massive $1.2 trillion stimulus plan. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Earlier this month, when discussing the stimulus, Vice President Biden said the Obama administration misread how bad the economy was. The Obama administration got it wrong when it came to $1.2 trillion of taxpayer spending by this Democrat Congress. The American people can no longer afford for this Democrat-controlled House, Senate, and White House to get it wrong. Where are the jobs? Last month, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap- and-trade bill that top White House economic advisers had suggested could actually cost up to $1.9 billion, raising prices on energy, goods and services for every American, an increase for every American back home, between $1,200 and $1,600 a year. Additionally, this legislation would kill up to 2 million manufacturing jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask again, where are the jobs? Oh, we are beginning to find out that they are in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, next week, this Democrat-controlled Congress wants to pass sweeping health care reform that effectively will kill employer- based insurance marketplaces and force 114 million Americans into a government-run program, a program where government bureaucrats will be choosing what doctor-and-patient relationships will be and what procedures will be covered by that doctor. This $1.2 trillion package raises taxes on individuals and small businesses that do not participate in the government plan, and up to $818 billion will be the cost, which, according to a model developed by the President's own economic adviser team, will result in 4.7 million employees losing their job. Mr. Speaker, we ask, once again, where are the jobs? This is economic insanity. The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have. But that is exactly what Ms. Pelosi and this Democrat majority is doing. Mr. Speaker, we ask, once again, where are the jobs? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. Mr. Speaker, we would ask, where are the jobs? Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released a Monthly Budget Review that states that the Federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion during the month of June. As of June 30, the national debt stood at $11.5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, we will ask again, where are the jobs? Especially at a time of deep economic recession, Congress should be promoting progrowth policies that reduce spending, increase job growth, and give Americans confidence. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The deficit has increased $1.7 trillion, or 1,000 percent, since the Democrats took control of this House of Representatives 3 years ago. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? It has gone from a $162 billion fiscal deficit to a projected $2 trillion this year. Mr. Speaker, we ask, where are the jobs? In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way out of this country's economic recession. Our Democrat colleagues need to get a handle on this out-of-control spending that, once again, they are bringing to the floor of the House of Representatives today to pursue an ever-growing American government size. Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in government spending. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Huge energy and health care bills will raise taxes and kill jobs. Mr. Speaker, the American public understands this. They know that the Republican Party has better ideas, and that's why we're on the floor of the House of Representatives today. I encourage a ``no'' vote but will, once again, ask the question, where are the jobs? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm saddened that the gentleman from Wisconsin believes that if I bring up a question about jobs, that that's political. It shouldn't be. It's not on our side. It's just a fact of the matter. We don't know where the jobs are. We were promised these jobs. Secondly, it's good for me to learn that now I know who runs the Rules Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because I thought that the chairman of the Rules Committee did, but I found out now it's run by the Appropriations chair. At least I know that answer today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, Mr. Burton.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this floor is home to lots of people and to lots of ideas, but once again, we see from a senior member of the Democratic Party the words ``fiscal responsibility'' attached to this Congress. Incredible. Secondly, we heard, ``and let's take the bank profits out of the equation.'' Once again, the dialogue from this floor is really to bankrupt this country and to kill the free enterprise system. I see it firsthand right here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, the ranking member of Education, Labor and the Work Force, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the Republican Conference chairman (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tarkio, Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the gentleman, Mr. Flake, makes a point that it's a shame that we have to come beg the Rules Committee for what for 229 years has been appropriate on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. King.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are on the floor today asking the question, where are the jobs and what about the process of the ability to come and talk on this floor about issues and ideas, ideas that these Members have. I was reminded again today in looking at Congress Daily dated Friday, July 24, and while it was talking about health care, it's really a philosophy, and they're quoting the House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York. And I will quote what's in here: We can do anything up there in the Rules Committee. We can do anything. What that really means is they can do whatever they want to do. Evidently Speaker Pelosi really does run the Rules Committee. We can do anything up there, even muzzle all of the Members of this floor. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this horrible rule, the muzzle rule, and allow for an open rule. There is no question that the rule the majority brings forth today will only submit the dangerous precedent the majority set earlier this year. Every single appropriations bill. It will only damage bipartisanship and, really, the nature of this body. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can allow free and open debate on the appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of Americans, or perhaps more than that, just the Members of Congress who come here and do this work every day. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress need to get this. Every single one of us can say ``no'' to the way this body is being run and just put us on a different course, a course that we have had for all these years. We recognize what open and honest and ethical government is. And today, we had Members of this body come to the floor and talk about openness, about ethics with the gentleman, Mr. Flake, and about the ability of this body to run as it has in its entire history. We Republicans don't understand why this big change. We do understand why we are in a deep recession. We do understand President Obama has an economic problem because he has helped create that, and we do understand Obama economics are about destroying the free enterprise system of this country on behalf of government. What we don't get is why can't Members of Congress openly debate this issue. Vote for it and have openness and ethics at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote ``no.'' 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, over 6 months ago, my Democrat colleagues and the Obama administration told the American people that if we passed the $1.2 trillion stimulus package, it would create jobs, halt the growing unemployment rate, and turn our economy around; yet here we are today with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate--the highest in 26 years-- and a record $1.1 trillion deficit that is growing and expected to be $2 trillion by year's end. And yet this administration and Democrats want to push through another $1.2 trillion health care package, a health care package that, according to the President's own economic adviser, will result in 4.7 million people losing their jobs. Just a few weeks ago when talking about the stimulus package, Vice President Biden said for the Obama administration, Well, we just guessed wrong. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people can really afford for this Congress or this administration to guess wrong again. We need to make sure that we find the jobs in this country, not tax and spend.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I also rise in opposition to how my Democrat colleagues continue to shut out Republican voices on the floor of the House of Representatives in virtually every committee here in the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle have set an historic precedent by shutting down the amendment process once again today in order to accomplish legislative business during the appropriations process, and Republicans disagree with this. Madam Speaker, you will continue to hear of our opposition, and the American people will hear the same. Chairman Obey has set an arbitrary time line to finish the financial year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every single Republican and Democrat chance to offer amendments on the House floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by my colleagues, and they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion. What is this majority afraid of? Why won't they allow for an open and honest debate that has happened for hundreds of years in this body? Why won't we have open rules on appropriations bills? Because of this historical new restrictive process, as part of my committee assignments, I had to go to the Rules Committee on Wednesday night just to offer three commonsense amendments. Not one was made in order for the debate today. Two dealt with allowing the same restrictions and opportunities for Federal Government employees and for private contractors. In a time of record deficits by this Democrat Congress, Congress should find a better way to deal with the American taxpayer for the success of this country and for jobs. Instead, they chose to ignore these amendments and ideas. My last amendment would have required this Obama administration to post any interaction or communication with General Motors as a public record. Since the American public was not consulted before the takeover of GM, they should at least be able to monitor now how their tax dollars are being spent. Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing the Financial Services Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is my intent to focus on the huge increase in spending--no surprise--over last year's level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that have intruded into the private sector. It is my idea to talk about how they will continue killing jobs and how we will continue having historic record deficits and to discuss the new Democrat priority of using TARP dividends for more housing handouts instead of using that money to be repaid to the taxpayer. This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion, increase above the current year's spending levels, and that is excluding the massive stimulus funding. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently stated, Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal stability, in the long term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the budget is on an unsustainable path. This bill does not represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. With this legislation, Congress only further slows down and impedes our economic recovery, and it increases the financial burden placed on our children, grandchildren and on our future. With the facade of fiscal sustainability, the Obama administration is posing sweeping financial reforms that will further stretch rather than help the banking industry. The Obama regulatory plan calls for large, interconnected companies to pay a heavy price by limiting companies from mixing banking and commerce. This potentially forces companies like General Electric to spin off its largely lending subsidiary, GE Capital, and turn it into a bank holding company with more regulations, less revenue and less loan capacity. Once again, this is the Democratic plan to kill private sector jobs and to further encumber and harm economic recovery. Madam Speaker, what kind of precedent is this administration and Congress setting by forcing regulation on successful businesses while completely avoiding responsibility and transparency in their own spending habits? The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what this Democrat majority is doing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office released a monthly budget review which states that the Federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion, and this was reached during the month of June. According to the CBO, that is $800 billion more than the deficit record through June 2008. The bottom line is that the United States is looking at a possible $2 trillion record deficit for this year alone, a long stretch from the group of people who talked about fiscal insanity just before the election. I think we know what the truth is. The Democratic Party is tax and spend. Especially at a time of deep economic recession, this Congress should be promoting pro-growth policies that reduce spending and increase jobs. Unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle consciously continue to tax, borrow and spend their way into record deficits. The CBO estimates that unemployment benefit spending is more than two-and-a-half times what it was at this point last year. The current unemployment rate is now over 9.5 percent, which is the highest level in 26 years, and their own budget estimates say it's going to rise. Madam Speaker, with record deficits and growing job loss, you would think that this majority would want to bring the national debt down and try to curb spending. But nope, not going to happen. Not with what's on the floor again today. Last month Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank dropped a bill and held a hearing that would redesignate dividends from TARP funds to two housing slush funds. This would take the $6.2 billion in dividends paid back to the American people and would create a brand new spending program. It is unconscionable that any dividend received would be redistributed in new spending projects rather than returning it to the taxpayer. Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow and spend money that not only they do not have, but the American public knows that it comes out of jobs and economic recovery for this country. Madam Speaker, how is this economy supposed to bounce back with this Democrat Congress forcing Americans to pay for a failed trillion-dollar stimulus package, a bailout for those who defaulted on their own mortgages, a bailout for those who abused their credit cards, a bailout for corporate America's bad decision making, a new national energy tax, and a possible $1.5 trillion health care package that will force 120 million Americans out of their current health care coverage? When does this malaise stop? Where are the jobs? Why are we spending more and more money simply to get more unemployment? Madam Speaker, it should be asked on the floor of this House, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that were promised by Speaker Pelosi? They evaporate again today. In closing, Madam Speaker, I will continue to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we simply cannot tax, we cannot simply spend and borrow our way out of the country's economic recession that comes from the Democrats running the House, the Senate and the presidency. Madam Speaker, the misery index of this country continues to rise under the leadership of the Democratic Party, and rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending. Americans back home are tightening their belts, and the U.S. Congress should be doing the same. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question to amend the rule to allow for an open rule. I reserve the balance of my time.