[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 30, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5291-H5297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TOPICS OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Critz). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you so very much for this 
opportunity.
  I've been here for the better part of this last hour and I've heard 
some astounding, astounding accusations and things that are purported 
to be fact. And I'm just going, What in the world is happening here?
  To think that the President of the United States is to blame for the 
blowout is the most extraordinary leap of logic you could possibly 
imagine. For the last 15 minutes, we've heard about the President 
didn't do this, the President didn't do that, the experts were not 
assembled.
  That's just not true. If you knew what was going on, instead of just 
flapping your lips, you would know that, in fact, shortly, very 
shortly, within days and hours after this blowout occurred, the best 
minds in America were assembled in Houston and in Louisiana to deal 
with this.
  The fact of the matter is there is a very, very good reason for the 
moratorium and, in fact, my colleagues on the Republican side here said 
the reason. They didn't know why this occurred. Was it human error? Was 
it a fact? Was it a problem on the rig? Was it a problem down at the 
bottom? They don't know. And, in fact, we don't know today, and that's 
why we have a moratorium. We have a moratorium because we don't know 
why this blowout occurred. We have pretty good evidence that the 
blowout preventer didn't work. We have pretty good evidence that the 
efforts of the various methods, the standard methods of dealing with 
the blowout didn't work. We don't know exactly why this well failed. 
And until we do know, we ought not be drilling in deep water because we 
certainly cannot afford another blowout.
  Now, in 2008, in the Republican administration, two T-38 jets crashed 
within 2 weeks. The United States Air Force put every one of those T-
38s on the ramp and said, You're not flying those airplanes until we 
know why they crashed. That's called a stand-down. It's called a 
moratorium. So we have a moratorium.
  BP's to blame for this. And I must tell you, I am just absolutely 
astounded by what the Republican Caucus put together that was actually 
announced by our colleague from Houston, Texas, the ranking member of 
the House committee, when he apologized to British Petroleum because 
the President demanded that British Petroleum put together a $20 
billion trust fund to pay for the damage.

                              {time}  2230

  The Republican policy is to apologize to BP for the President forcing 
BP to do what was right, that is pay for the damages. That's just but 
one issue. I wasn't going to talk about this in great length, but I am 
just coming off listening to my Republican colleagues here. We have to 
deal with the facts as they really exist.
  Joining me tonight is Congressman Ellison from one of the great 
northern States in the Midwest. And I think he wants to pick up this 
issue and maybe carry it a little longer.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman will yield, I do just want to take up 
this issue of the spill. It is an important issue. And you just 
mentioned the very frank and I believe honest comments of 
Representative Barton, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, in which he apologized to BP.
  Some people might be thinking, you know, well, he apologized for his 
apology, so, you know, why don't we just drop it. But it doesn't start 
with Mr. Barton, it doesn't end with Mr. Barton. It actually started 
with the Republican Study Committee, which creates policy, agenda, and 
talking points for the Republican leadership. And that's headed by a 
gentleman who is a Member of this body named Congressman Price, Tom 
Price. He is the one, with the help of the committee itself, not just 
by himself, who released a statement calling the compensation fund that 
you referred to to help compensate small business people put out of 
business by this spill, and people who live on the gulf, people who 
suffered, a shakedown. So this term political shakedown emerges from 
the very leadership of the Republican caucus.
  They say that President Obama is shaking down the British Petroleum, 
BP. And from that point, Price makes the statement, this is before 
Barton ever does, but Price says, ``BP's reported willingness to go 
along with the

[[Page H5292]]

White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is hard 
at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These 
actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been 
borne out of this administration's drive for greater and greater power. 
It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an 
environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed 
liberal agenda.'' So this is where the whole shakedown conversation 
comes.
  Then after that, Mr. Barton, following the party line, doing what the 
Republican Study Committee has said to do, says, quote, ``I'm ashamed 
of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it's a tragedy 
of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to 
what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion 
shakedown.'' Now, it goes on, but in this statement of apology from 
Barton I never heard--and maybe I will leave it to the gentleman--any 
sort of apology or sympathy for the people who live on the gulf, who 
make a living there, who send their kids to school there, and who now 
see their economic life ruined.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If I recall correctly, it's not only the extraordinary 
economic damage, 11 people were killed in this blowout. Eleven men who 
were working on that, who had families, who were trying to earn a 
living were killed as a result of it.
  Now, for BP, it wasn't their only accident. They have the worst 
safety record in the oil industry. So you are quite right, Congressman 
Ellison, that the issue of where the Republican Party stands on this, 
it's not just one member speaking out of turn. It was in fact the 
ranking member of the committee speaking on the talking points 
developed by the Republican Study Committee, which is the policy 
development committee for the Republican caucus in this House.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield back.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Please.
  Mr. ELLISON. It didn't stop after Mr. Barton made his apology, which 
seemed sincere. After that, Michelle Bachmann, our colleague, says to 
the BP president about the $20 billion escrow fund, she says, ``If I 
was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there, `We're not 
going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced.' And they 
shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have 
to pay for the perpetual unemployment and all the rest.''
  So I mean if you just contemplate that statement for a moment, here 
our friends on the other side of the aisle just got through talking 
about how it's BP's fault. That's what they say now. Right after the 
fund was developed by the President to make sure that victims of this, 
both economic and physical and others, had a basis of compensation, the 
Republican caucus's initial gut reaction, which is I think their most 
sincere reaction, is to say that it's a shakedown, it's to say we're 
not going to be chumps, it's to say that BP shouldn't have to pay 
unemployment.
  I mean it didn't stop there. Let me add one more before I hand it 
back to you. Our good friend Steve King, Congressman King from Iowa: 
``I think Joe Barton was spot on when he called it a shakedown.'' So 
then, no repentance, no remorse. Let me yield to the gentleman.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. The thing here, if you would yield for a moment, is 
where do you stand? With whom do you stand? What side are you on? We 
just heard an extraordinary rendition of falsehoods, in my view, from 
the Republican side here that somehow this blowout, this BP accident 
was the fault of the Federal Government. Hello. Well, the regulations 
that they were so excoriating are absolutely necessary to prevent this 
kind of thing from happening.
  In fact, the regulations that were relaxed during the George W. Bush 
administration allowed this company to proceed with minimum safety 
requirements. And we heard this talk about the governor of Louisiana, 
and a State that is heavily impacted and tragically impacted by this 
oil. What is their response plan? Pointing fingers at the Federal 
Government, which the governor is doing. And at the same time, what is 
the response plan for Louisiana? It's virtually nonexistent.
  The State of California, where I come from, we have a heavy duty 
response program that goes back 20 years. We make the oil industry pay 
for it. Does Louisiana have such a program? No, they don't. But they 
are willing to point a finger. Let's take a look. What is this?
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, if the gentleman would yield back, they do have a 
plan.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Really? What is it?
  Mr. ELLISON. Their plan is the taxpayers can pay for it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Ah, the taxpayers who they were so concerned about a 
moment ago. They don't want BP to pay; they want the American taxpayers 
to pay.
  Mr. ELLISON. Right. The GOP-BP bailout is that the American taxpayers 
should pay for the expenses associated with BP's failure to observe its 
own regulations and the catastrophic consequences that it caused. So 
that their plan is the taxpayers can pay because heaven forbid we ask a 
privately held corporation to pay for its own damages.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Is this the corporation called BP that had a $58 
billion profit last year?
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield, yeah, BP is well heeled 
and doing fine based on the profits they have made. So I would yield 
back.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Quite possibly they are so well heeled and have such 
big profits because they cut so many corners that resulted in the death 
of I think 13 people at their oil refinery in Texas, and another 11 at 
their rig in the gulf, the Deep Horizon situation, and who knows how 
many else around the world. This is the company with the worst safety 
record because they cut corners. It gives them a fat profit. Now it's 
time for them to pay.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield; if you observed the safety 
rules and regulations that are designed to save lives and save our 
natural environment, it may take you a little more time, and yeah, it 
may cost you a little money. Maybe you won't have that enormous, 
exorbitant profit, but you will make good money, and people will be 
alive so that they can go home at the end of the day, and we will be 
able to have a Gulf of Mexico that bears some resemblance to the way 
the good Lord intended it to be.

                              {time}  2240

  Right behind you are graphic photographs. I mean, look at that bird 
right down at the bottom.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. This mantra that started from the Republican Party, I 
think it was the Presidential candidate, if I recall correctly. It was 
called ``drill baby drill.'' And what we found out was that this drill 
baby drill results in ``spill baby spill.'' It is a terrible situation. 
It's not new, though; and it's not unusual.
  In the last 17, 18 years in the Gulf of Mexico in these shallow 
water, deepwater drilling operations, there have been 38 blowouts. None 
as catastrophic as this. But this is not a new situation. In the Indian 
Ocean, west of Australia last year, there was a blowout of similar size 
by one of the international drilling oil companies. And it took them 
even longer--I think it was over 120 days, maybe a little longer than 
that--to drill a relief well to finally stop that blowout.
  There was another major blowout on the Mexican side of the Gulf of 
Mexico several years back that resulted in a huge oil spill for a long 
time, and there was yet another off the coast of Brazil.
  This is not new. But what is new is the extraordinary damage that's 
taken place and the irresponsibility of BP in this particular case 
where they cut corners, where they did the least that they thought they 
needed, instead of maximum, to be prepared; they did exactly the 
opposite. And now we're faced with this catastrophic event.
  Our colleagues across the aisle were talking about nothing happening. 
In fact, numerous efforts have been made, unsuccessful to date. The 
capping, the effort to activate the blowout preventer, on and on and 
on. And hopefully in the next couple of weeks we will have one of the 
relief wells intersecting the existing well that blew out, and we can 
bring this thing to a stop.
  However, we need to recognize that as long as we drill, we will run 
the risks. And as we run those risks, we also commit even a greater 
problem for

[[Page H5293]]

this planet, and this is as long as we can drill, we will be dependent 
upon oil, whether it is domestically produced or foreign produced.
  This oil is not only contaminating the ocean and the beaches and the 
marshes; it's also contaminating our atmosphere, and that carbon 
doesn't disappear. And it also leads us to more dependence upon oil. 
It's time for us to break that addiction to oil.
  Yes, use this catastrophic event to call our attention, to focus our 
minds on what we must do to break America's addiction to oil. This is 
not a new effort. We have been at this since the 1970s with the first 
oil crisis. We have yet to break it. In fact, we've continued the 
addiction. We must move away from this, and our energy policy must move 
us in a different direction.
  I know you've spent a lot of time working on these issues, and let me 
put up another one. As horrible as this spill is, we need to understand 
what the oil industry is all about. The oil industry has been operating 
in America for about 140 years, maybe a hundred. Since the turn of the 
last century, 1900, it really got under way. And for a century now, the 
oil industry--well, let me just ask a question because this is what 
this asks. Which of these industries receives the most Federal 
subsidies? Read tax dollars. Subsidies are tax dollars. You want to 
talk about taxes, my Republican friends? Where do your tax dollars go? 
Well, let's find out.
  It looks like solar panels, right? Okay. Do they get more? Do they 
get the most subsidies? How about windmills? Well, let's call them wind 
turbines, the modern word for them, wind turbines. This is an 
interesting one. It has been around for years. This is using the ocean, 
the waves and the ocean or the current in the ocean or even in the 
rivers. And this is an interesting one. This is really a brand-new one. 
And these are algae, algae-producing biodiesels. Or the oil industry.
  Now, my question to you, Mr. Ellison, is which of these receive the 
greatest subsidy, read tax dollars, from the public?
  Mr. ELLISON. Do we need a drum roll first, Congressman Garamendi? I 
think we know. I'm just going to take a wild guess. The oil industry.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You are a brilliant legislator and a fine arbiter of 
the question. It turns out you're right. It is the oil industry.
  And let's take a look at this.
  Our tax dollars: Where do they go? Let's see here. This side is the 
oil industry, and this is from 2002 to 2008. So we got some numbers up 
here for fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008. This is the oil and a 
little bit of the coal: $72.5 billion of direct subsidies, our tax 
money, being taken out of our pocket and given to the oil industry--
$72.5 billion in just 6 years.

  So where does it go? Let's see here. Traditional fossil fuels. Oil 
and coal. There you have it.
  Now, on the other side, renewable energy. Well, we have the corn 
ethanol industry, and they have received about $16.8 billion. And then 
the traditional renewables, these would be solar and wind and the like, 
about $12.2 billion. So taken together $29 billion for renewables in 
the same 6-year period that the oil industry received $72.5 billion.
  Now the question of public policy is this: What if we flipped this 
over? What if we flipped this around and we took the $72.5 billion and 
spent it on renewables and we can continue a little bit of the subsidy 
if they really need it, which they really don't--not if you have $58 
billion of profits. Doesn't seem to me they need much help. But, okay. 
We'll just flip it over, and they'll take $29 billion, and we give the 
renewable industry the $72 billion. What would happen?
  Mr. ELLISON. We would be a lot healthier. We wouldn't be burning 
hydrocarbons and spewing them into the air. Our planet would be 
healthier. We would see ourselves, our technology, and our creativity 
would blossom as we subsidize these renewable sources of energy. It 
would be a good thing.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It would be a very, very good thing. And most 
economists who look at the international markets and the next great 
industries don't look to the 19th century energy industry, coal and 
oil, as being the growth industries and where the jobs will be created. 
Those economists and futurists who look at these things tell us that 
the great energy industries of the future are the energy industries of 
this century, the renewables of all kinds. All that we had up here and 
even more than I had on that little chart. That is where the jobs will 
come there.
  And our policy ought to be to encourage those industries and those 
things, the wind turbines, the solar, even the nuclear systems and the 
rest, that they be built in America.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let's not forget about the efficiency. The fact is there 
are a lot of jobs to be had by retrofitting buildings and conserving 
the energy that we already have. A lot of jobs, a lot of putting a lot 
of people back to work in making homes and buildings energy efficient. 
And you put that together with renewable energy, that is an employment 
driver. That is an economic driver. That is an environment driver.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's bring this issue that you just raised right back 
to this Chamber in the present moment.
  We have voted here three times, I believe, on what are called 
programs for energy conservation. One of them was called cash for 
caulkers. We had the cash for clunkers, which really helped the auto 
industry. And we decided, well, let's try something, cash for caulkers, 
which is exactly what you talked about. It's about bringing about 
energy conservation. And in doing that, two good things happened: we're 
employing people. Taking our tax dollars. Get this back up here. We 
don't have conservation on here, but if we were to add conservation, 
taking our tax dollars instead of giving them to the coal and the oil 
companies, give it to men and women in the communities that are doing 
the insulation, doing the window caulking.

                              {time}  2250

  As that is done, homeowners and renters see their energy bills drop.
  What happened on this floor when those bills came up? What is your 
memory of how the votes turned out?
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, I don't remember any ringing endorsement from the 
party opposite.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. My recollection is that the Democratic side said, 
Let's give people jobs. Let's use the public's tax money to employ 
people to do energy conservation. The Republicans, to a person, voted 
``no.''
  Whose side do you stand on? Are you going to take those tax dollars 
and continue to give them to the oil industry and to the coal industry 
or are you going to take those tax dollars and put people to work, 
achieve the energy conservation and allow homeowners and renters to see 
their energy bills go down?
  The Republican Party made a very clear decision on who they stand 
with. They do not stand with the homeowner. They do not stand with 
those who could get the jobs. Instead, they voted ``no'' on those three 
conservation programs that would put people to work.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, they stand with BP against the residents of the 
gulf and the businesspeople there. They stand with the oil and gas 
companies, with their subsidies, as opposed to standing with the people 
who want a clean, green future. They consistently stand against 
progress. I mean the thing that I find so astounding is that they will 
come down to the House floor and continue to repeat these things.
  Quite frankly, I am quite proud of President Obama for demanding that 
BP start an escrow fund so that we can have some relief for the people 
suffering such horrendous hardships on the gulf coast. I think it was 
an act of responsibility. It was what he should have done. The 
administration was responsive to this spill, and the administration did 
get engaged right away. The Congress is holding hearings right now to 
get to the bottom of what happened, to prevent it and to put policies 
in place to do something about it. Yet, all along the way, what we are 
getting are apologies to BP and, really, no help at all.
  We are not discouraged, though. Congressman Garamendi, you know very 
well that we are stout of heart. Every time we get a chance to do 
something for this economy, for consumers, for the environment, the 
Democratic Caucus is counted on to do it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You are quite correct.
  I am going to go through a list of specific things to help the 
economy,

[[Page H5294]]

but before I go to that, I think we ought to set the stage here. There 
was a lot of talk in the previous hour about deficits and where the 
deficits came from.
  Mr. ELLISON. Oh, brother.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, brother.
  Where did the deficits come from?
  Well, first of all, let's understand that public policy doesn't 
change the moment a President comes into office. There is the 
continuity of the previous years' policies that stay in effect for a 
while until those are changed. Even then, it isn't an immediate night 
to day. It takes a while for the policies to go into effect. So the 
charts that were shown earlier are just plain disingenuous, if not 
outright false.
  The George W. Bush administration came into office with a significant 
surplus that was created in the last 3 years of the Clinton 
administration. I think it was about a $500 million annual surplus that 
was projected to go on into the future. The George W. Bush 
administration, together with the Republican-controlled Congress and 
Senate, did four things that created the deficit that we have today, 
which the Republicans want to pin back onto Obama and the Democrats. 
Here are the four things they did:
  First of all, they instituted one of the largest tax cuts ever in 
American history for the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, not for 
the everyday workers--not for the people who are out earning salaries 
day by day or who are earning hourly wages--but for the wealthiest. 
That is fact one.
  Fact two, the prescription drug benefit for seniors was not paid for, 
and they specifically put in a provision that prevents the Federal 
Government from negotiating prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
  Fact three, two wars were started and paid for with borrowed money--a 
most unusual event. That is fact three.
  Borrowing money, reducing taxes, starting two wars. Right now, those 
wars have cost us well over $1 trillion, nearly $1.1 trillion.
  Fact four, the continuing escalation of health care costs, okay?
  Those are the four reasons we have the deficit today. Let me give you 
a fifth reason.
  The fifth reason is the crash of the American economy.
  Those all happened during the George W. Bush administration, and they 
didn't stop the day Obama came into office. We are now changing those 
policies. For example, the health care reform, which not one Republican 
in this House voted for--not one--will, over its lifetime, actually 
reduce the deficit because it reins in the cost of medical care. In my 
view, it's not enough, but nonetheless, it does that.
  Secondly, the other policies have been allowed to continue. Now, the 
tax policies of the Bush administration will expire. That will help. As 
for the prescription drug benefit, we are working on that. That was 
part of the health reform also. The wars continue. Fortunately, the 
Iraq war is winding down while the Afghan war escalates.
  So we have to understand how we got to this place we are today.
  How we got there were through the basic policies of the Clinton 
administration. It left a surplus, a continuing surplus, for the George 
W. Bush administration. Had they not changed the policies, it is 
estimated that, by the middle of this decade, we would have wiped out 
the American debt--period, gone, history--but, no, they changed the 
policies, and now we are saddled with this debt.
  The crash. The crash of this economy was caused by reckless action on 
the part of Wall Street, by reckless, irresponsible action on the part 
of Wall Street, basically driven by the grossest greed you could 
possibly imagine. There were all kinds of inducements to homeowners to 
engage in mortgages they could in no way possibly pay.
  I know that you are faced with this in your community. There was 
action taken on this floor not more than 5 hours ago--and we will be 
coming to that in just a moment--but share with us the experiences in 
your community about mortgages, about all of the problems of the 
housing industry, about the crash, and about what has happened in your 
community.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman will yield, that is so right. When you 
look at this whole financial crash, it is a chain of events, and it 
starts out in the neighborhood.
  There is something that we need to talk about, something called a 
``yield spread premium.'' What that is is the amount of money that 
somebody selling a loan can get if somebody steers you from a loan you 
may qualify for to a high-cost loan. So there are a lot of people who 
might have qualified for prime loans but who were literally steered.

  Then you had another development, something called a NINJA loan--no 
job, no assets. Yet you could get money to buy a house. Then there is 
something called a ``liar loan''--now, that is a curious thing to call 
a loan--because it was stated income. You could just write down 
whatever you said your income was, and there was no verification of 
that income. Then, after you got into these loans, they had terms and 
conditions, like prepayment penalties, so that, if you wanted to get 
out of this loan and get a fairer loan, you really couldn't do it 
unless you paid somebody off down the line.
  So people got into these loans. They were being sold. The people who 
made those loans really didn't need to make sure they were well 
underwritten. It didn't matter if any of these folks could pay the 
money back, because they would simply sell that paper on the secondary 
market.
  Now, what was the effect in the neighborhood? The effect in the 
neighborhood was, once the housing values began to flatten and decline, 
people couldn't pay them. Once they couldn't refinance because they had 
negative equity in their homes, they couldn't make the payments, and 
they ended up getting foreclosed upon. It happened in neighborhoods all 
across this country. California, your State, was hit hard as well as 
Florida and Arizona. Yet, even in my State of Minnesota, we were hit 
very hard. People started being foreclosed on, and short sales began to 
happen. Property values began to decline, and neighborhoods began to go 
in the wrong direction.

                              {time}  2300

  And so there was a lot of difficulty right there on the front line. 
The front line was foreclosure of homes, abandoned properties, high 
grass, dead dogs. Expenses to the local government. Because if you have 
a house where people are paying property taxes, that's coming into this 
local government. But if you have an abandoned property, that's an 
expense to the local government. More pressure on local government 
budgets, intense difficulty, tough times on Main Street.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The gentleman is absolutely right. I know I see this 
in my own district, and in fact in my own neighborhood and in the 
families of my staff. We have on my staff families who have lost their 
home; who have had to do the short sale; who got into these mortgages 
that they couldn't possibly pay. They had these readjustments. All of 
those things. Now what was causing that? It was Wall Street. Wall 
Street was making it happen by creating these collateralized debt 
obligations, by the fancy financial manipulations. And why were they 
doing this? So they could make a big profit. And they did.
  Now, today, on this floor today we took up the Wall Street Reform Act 
and Consumer Protection Act. And it's very, very interesting how the 
Republican leader characterized the effort that the Democratic Members 
of this House and the Senate have made to address the excesses of Wall 
Street. This is the most substantial reform and adjustment of the 
horrendous Wall Street practices that took this country to the very 
edge of an extraordinary Depression. And yet our Republican colleague--
let me just get this chart because it is so interesting.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman will yield while you're getting the 
chart. You know, Mr. Speaker, Congressman, you would have thought that 
America didn't lose 2.8 million homes to foreclosure last year, 
listening to the Republicans. You have would have thought that Lehman 
Brothers and Bear Stearns and Freddie and Fannie and all these huge 
Wall Street titans didn't go down the tubes and cause a depressed 
market and hurt the economy. You would have thought that we didn't have 
10 percent unemployment. You would have thought that there was nothing 
but responsible behavior, and all of a sudden the Democratic Caucus

[[Page H5295]]

is just trying to take over the banking system. We were really in a 
magical world here on the House floor. But, thank goodness the House 
Democrats, led by Barney Frank and many others, were putting the things 
in place to preserve our economy.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You said something that caused me to pull up a chart 
that I wasn't going to use. The financial meltdown nearly bankrupted 
the world. Not just America, but the entire world's economy came very, 
very close to a total meltdown. What it meant to mom and pop back home, 
what it meant to their 401(k)s that instantly became 201(k)s was this: 
$15 trillion of wealth destroyed in the last 18 months of the Bush 
administration. Say whatever they want on that side but the fact is 
that's what happened. What's happened since then is we put into effect 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and we're beginning to see 
the stock market come back, we're beginning to see the wealth return. 
The fundamental problem still remains in the housing industry, and that 
we have to address.
  Once again, all of the legislation dealing with the mortgage markets, 
all of the effort to try to rebuild the housing industry has been done 
by the Democratic side. We have had no help from the Republicans. Just 
say ``no'' is their mantra. The result is that we push forward with 
great difficulty. The Senate is a major problem for us because you have 
the power of one senator over there that can stop things. But, 
nonetheless, we pushed forward with an effort to try to restore the 
housing markets with various plans and mortgages. And today it's time 
for us to come to what happened today.

  Today, on the floor of the United States Congress, the most far-
reaching, most important revamp of the financial industry in this 
Nation's history since 1936 took place, and it was a vote on the Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In that very important piece 
of legislation there are several sections that deal directly with the 
housing market, outlawing--outlawing, making illegal the kind of liar 
loans, the kinds of revamp and mortgages that were the genesis of the 
problems. Also, in the housing market, holding brokers responsible. 
Holding them accountable. Holding the banking industry accountable for 
what it does and setting up a consumer protection agency.
  Now, this is something I understand. I was the insurance commissioner 
in the State of California, elected statewide twice--1991 to 1995, and 
again 2003 to 2007--and I built a consumer protection agency. It's 
absolutely essential. The capitalistic market is driven by profit 
motives. Now, wise companies understand they've got to take care of 
consumers. But the profit motive drove this Nation and this world right 
to the edge. You need a countervailing power. And the consumer 
protection agency in this bill would do it by setting out a series of 
regulations to protect consumers and allow consumers to speak out, to 
get assistance, and to get help. It didn't exist--only in the insurance 
marketplace--which was regulated previously by the individual States. 
But not in the financial and banking markets.
  Now when the Senate acts, which hopefully they will do in the next 
couple of days, we will have a bill going to the President that will be 
the most important reform of the financial markets in more than 80 
years now. It has to be done. Otherwise, we're going to slip right back 
to where we were. This is not big government. This is wise government. 
This is the kind of government that we need to set the boundaries.
  Think of it this way, Mr. Ellison. NFL football. Now you play that in 
Minnesota, don't you? What's that team in Minnesota?
  Mr. ELLISON. The Minnesota Vikings.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The Packers.
  Mr. ELLISON. The Packers, they're next door.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Okay. We've got the Packers playing the Vikings. They 
do that on occasion, don't they? Imagine that if the sidelines were 
erased and imagine if the referees were put back in the locker room. 
What would happen?
  Mr. ELLISON. I think you would have a lot of injured players. You'd 
have a really funny outcome. People wouldn't trust the outcome. Maybe 
teams would stop playing because they would believe that the rules 
didn't matter any more. And certainly you would give an incentive to 
the biggest cheap shot artists on the field, the people who are willing 
to do the dirtiest things--the clipping, all of those things--they 
would prevail.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I played football for the University of California in 
a bygone era, and of course we would never engage in such a thing if 
the referees weren't there. But that's the analogy of exactly what 
happened in Wall Street. The regulators were absent during the Bush 
administration. They simply left the playing field. The referees left 
the playing field. They put the rule books aside and it was Katie bar 
the door, because anything was allowed.
  This bill that we voted on today puts tough new regulations in place, 
regulates this market, and puts in place the referees, strengthens the 
Securities Exchange Commission.
  Mr. Ellison, please.
  Mr. ELLISON. I was just going to say, as an old football player 
yourself, didn't good refereeing make for a more competitive game? 
Didn't that allow competition to really flourish? You could find out 
who the better team was if you had a well-regulated football game. Is 
that right?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Absolutely true. Similarly, we have a well-regulated 
financial market, which we will when this bill is finally is signed, 
then we will. The point that I want to make is this, and that's why I 
brought this thing up: Where do you stand? Where do the Democrats 
stand? We clearly voted today for a major overhaul of the banking 
industry, the financial industry, and the mortgage markets, to put in 
place strict rules and regulations. That's where we stand--to protect 
consumers with the consumer protection bill.
  Where do the Republicans stand? Well, why don't we just quote the 
Republican minority leader, whose name I won't mention, but let's just 
say he represents the Republicans in this House. He is their leader.

                              {time}  2310

  So in an interview with a newspaper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he 
said that this bill was a nuclear weapon to kill an ant. I have got the 
exact quote here. Maybe I should just read that. I don't want to 
misquote him because what he said was so outrageous.
  Let's see. Oh, that's the Social Security which we ought to come to 
here in a moment. And Social Security, just touching on it, he said, 
``We ought to raise the Social Security age to 70 so we can finance the 
Afghan war.'' Oh, wait a minute. Did you really mean that, Mr. Leader?
  He said, ``This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon,'' when 
referring to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection bill. 
``Killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.'' Well, I'm sorry, but it is a 
clear indication of where the Republicans stand. They're clearly 
standing with the big banks. And on the Senate side, in the last 2 
days, the financial regulation to pay for this was going to be paid for 
by the big banks. But the Republicans in the Senate said, No, no, no, 
no, no. You can't make the banks pay for the regulation. You can't make 
the NFL football team pay for the referees. No, no, no, you can't do 
that. What you've got to do is to make the taxpayers pay for regulating 
the banks.
  Whose side are you on here? It's perfectly clear, when you look at 
all of these, whose side you are on. When the minority leader, the 
Republican leader, says, The effort to rein in Wall Street and protect 
consumers is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon, well, I'm sorry. 
Wall Street is not an ant. The five, six biggest banks control about 70 
percent of all of the financial markets. These are not ants. These are 
gigantic anteaters, and we're the ants that they're eating. So we've 
got to get this straight: Whose side are you on?
  The financial meltdown, the biggest downturn since the Great 
Depression, 8 million jobs lost. It's not an ant. This is my neighbor 
who lost his job. This is the homeowner who lost their home, and this 
is the unemployed person that's begging for our help in continuing the 
unemployment insurance because this economy has not yet turned around. 
These are very, very serious things.

[[Page H5296]]

  There are a couple of other things we really ought to get here. And 
if you can work with me on this, we talked earlier a little bit about 
health care reform. It's not Big Government. In fact, health care 
reform is exactly very similar to the reform in Massachusetts which was 
authored by a Republican Governor who went around this Nation taking 
great credit for it until it became a national model. This is really 
insurance reform. It's not a takeover of the health care industry, not 
at all. And it's not anywhere even close to socialized medicine.
  In fact, the public option is not in the legislation at all. It is a 
reform of the insurance marketplace. It's the kind of reforms that 
allow my 23-year-old daughter to stay on my health insurance rather 
than becoming uninsured. It's the kind of reform that allows the young 
baby that's born with an illness to be able to get insurance. It's the 
kind of reform for a 50-year-old individual who has lost their job to 
be able to buy an insurance policy at a reasonable rate. It's the kind 
of reform that ends the discrimination that every single woman in this 
Nation faces when it comes to getting insurance. If you were a woman in 
America prior to this health care reform, you had a preexisting 
condition that could, and probably would, keep you from buying a 
policy.
  Those discriminatory actions by the insurance companies are over as a 
result of this reform.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, as a woman, you certainly would pay a lot more 
than a man would of comparable age and condition. The fact is that 
there's a string between all of the things that we've talked to 
tonight. We started out talking about the oil spill. We moved on to 
talk about financial reform. Now we're delving into health care, but 
there's a string connecting them all. One is that the Democratic Caucus 
is consistently on the side of the consumer, of the investor, of the 
small business person. And the party opposite, the other caucus, is 
consistently on the side of the corporate giant, the huge well-moneyed 
lobbyist, and the people who stand to gain from the status quo. This is 
a consistent stream.
  And so you continually ask the question, Congressman Garamendi, Whose 
side are you on? This is a fair question. The question must be answered 
that the Democratic Caucus is on the side of the people. The party 
opposite is on the side of the powerful, the well-to-do, the large 
giant corporate entities. And this is something that I think Americans 
have got to try to put their hands around, that there is a party who is 
going to be the one to say, We're going to restrain Wall Street; we're 
going to make them play by the rules; we're going to enhance the 
functioning of the marketplace by making sure that there are referees 
on the field and not in the locker room.
  And this string is a consistency. It ties us together as a 
consistent, coherent theme and a message, that the Democratic Caucus is 
on the side of the American people.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very, very much for making that clear. 
You go through all of these pieces of legislation, and the Democratic 
Caucus is there. On the other side of the aisle, on the Republican 
side, they're standing with Big Oil, big banks consistently, and the 
big health insurance industry.
  Now, let me make this point perhaps more clear, and that is, the 
Republican minority leader not only said that we ought to take on this 
issue of Wall Street reform as though it was some sort of a nuclear 
weapon killing an ant. He also talked about health care, and he said 
that if the Republicans take control of the Congress after this next 
election, if they win enough seats after this next election, they are 
going to do everything they possibly can to stop the Patients' Bill of 
Rights and other health reforms.
  They are out to repeal the reform that Americans desperately need so 
they can get affordable health insurance. They want to kill those 
reforms. They want to turn back women's opportunity to get an insurance 
policy and say, We don't care whether you have a preexisting condition; 
you are at the mercy of the health insurance company. If they deny you, 
that's your problem. You shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place. 
If you are a 23-year-old, you will lose the ability to be on your 
parents' benefits.
  That's what the Republican Caucus wants to do is to repeal all of the 
efforts of consumers and to build into this system a method of keeping 
us healthy.
  So, okay, whose side are you on? There is a string here. There is a 
logic to all of this. One more thing--and I couldn't believe this when 
I heard this, and it just came, I guess, in the last day or two. Now, 
Social Security is an insurance policy. You and I pay into Social 
Security. As Members of Congress, a certain percentage of our pay goes 
for Social Security, and so it is with every other person in America 
who is working legally. They are paying into Social Security.
  Mr. Boehner, the Republican leader, has said that what he wants to do 
is to increase the retirement age from 65 to 70 and use the savings to 
finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And I'm going, Excuse me, wait a 
minute. That's my insurance policy. That's my mother's insurance 
policy. That is the insurance policy of the working men and women out 
there, and you want to take it away to finance the Afghan war. I don't 
think so.
  But that's once more sign, a signpost--we're following a path here--a 
signpost of where the Republicans stand. Big business, ending Social 
Security; and in fact, their budget, put out by the Republican Study 
Committee, their budget called for the end of Medicare, the 
privatization of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

                              {time}  2320

  That's their policy. If that's what the public wants, then those 
folks are going to win this election and they're going to come and 
they're going to control this House and they're going to try to do it. 
I think this would be a serious problem for every American. Medicare, 
Social Security privatized? I don't think so.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I want to say that, 
in my opinion, Social Security is one of the greatest pieces of 
legislation this country has ever seen, and so is Medicare. These 
programs are very important because they signal that we really are in 
this thing together and that we're not going to let our seniors descend 
to the level where they're eating dog food or making choices between 
medication and a meal. But it's going to require an aware population to 
get it, that, you know, there are real things at stake here, big things 
at stake here.
  And the question keeps being asked: Who's side are you on?
  Why don't you go through some of those critical things?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's just go through this. Who's side are you on? 
Democrats supporting jobs and bills. We talked about the Cash for 
Caulkers and other programs and the jobs bill, every single one of them 
opposed. No jobs bills.
  Unemployment insurance. People are losing their unemployment 
insurance because of the Republican Party. What are they going to do? 
The economy hasn't come back. They're going to lose their jobs. They're 
going to lose their home. We're going to start another downward spiral.
  We talked about the health care effort. Not one Republican voted for 
the health care bill. Excuse me. One in this House. One Republican 
voted for the health care bill.
  Wall Street. We talked about Wall Street reform. Republicans vote 
against it; the Democrats vote for it.
  We talk about the Consumer Protection Agency. The Republicans are 
opposed to it; the Democrats support it.
  We talk about small business reforms which are in this bill and in 
other bills. The Republicans consistently vote against small business, 
the increase of the Small Business Administration.
  We can go back through the major bills that this House has voted on. 
The American Recovery Act, known as the stimulus bill, Republicans 
voted against it.
  You look at the energy and climate to break our addiction to oil. 
Democrats vote for it; Republicans vote against it.
  You look at the Wall Street reform and the Consumer Protection Act. 
Democrats vote for it; Republicans consistently and in en bloc vote 
against it.
  You talk about the gulf oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 
The Republicans blame the government and want to apologize rather than 
the instigator of the problem, BP.

[[Page H5297]]

  On Social Security, the Republican leader wants to extend the age to 
70 in order to get Social Security.
  You talk about health care reform. We've discussed that already. The 
Republicans vote against it. They want to repeal it. They get into 
power in this House, they're going to repeal the reforms.
  And unemployment and jobs, every single jobs bill they vote against. 
Every effort we have made to put people to work, whether it was in 
transportation--and that is in the American Recovery Act--or in the 
current jobs bills, keeping teachers employed, we want to employ 
teachers. They talk about the next generation, yes. But you don't 
educate that next generation, we're in trouble.
  All of these things add up and it is, as you say, there's a string, 
there's a path, there are road signs here. Who's side are you on?
  The Republicans have consistently sided with Big Oil, big health 
insurance companies. It's time for us to recognize the difference.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, I just want to say the gentleman, I think, is 
absolutely right. And I just want to say this as I think we're coming 
down to the final moments.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We are.
  Mr. ELLISON. Look, the Republicans had their chance, and we are still 
reaping the bitter fruit of what their leadership has brought this 
country. They had 12 years between 1994 and 2006 in the Congress, and 
then they had 6 years with a Republican President. In that time, they 
did nothing about reforming Wall Street, though they had two Houses and 
the Presidency. They didn't do anything about reining in these banks. 
They didn't do anything about reforming regulation. They did nothing on 
health care.
  And now they have the audacity to want to say, We want the wheel 
back. Yeah, we drove the car into a ditch, but we want the wheel back. 
We want to drive again. And you know what? It just can't happen.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The final point is this: In the 8 years of the George 
W. Bush administration, about a million net jobs were created. In the 
last 8 months to 9 months, more jobs have been created than in the 
entire George W. Bush administration. Now, that's a fact. Read it any 
way you want.
  We're on the right road here. We want to continue that path.
  Mr. Ellison, thank you so very much. And it's good to know that the 
Packers are your team.
  Mr. ELLISON. No, the Vikings. I like the Packers, but more, I like 
the Vikings.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. But remember, in an NFL football game, you need a 
referee, and on Wall Street, you need a referee also.

                          ____________________