• This is a rush transcript from "Your World With Neil Cavuto," December, 16 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Meanwhile, send me a letter, minority party. Address it to the other party. But I digress. House Republicans today sending off a letter to the big guy.

    It reads in part — quote — "We are deeply troubled by your willingness to ignore the clear intent of Congress, which enacted TARP as a temporary measure designed exclusively to stabilize the financial markets." And we implore you to listen to Andrew Napolitano.


    CAVUTO: No, it didn't say that, but you get the point. The president says that he is very open to using some of that dough to pay for a $150 billion jobs bill. Republicans say that is a no-no and that is unconstitutional.

    My next guest disagrees.

    Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick joins me, a member of the Appropriations Committee.

    Congresswoman, worthy goal, worthy project, worthy effort though this might be in some eyes, this was not what TARP was intended for.

    REP. CAROLYN KILPATRICK, D-MICH.: TARP was intended to balance to bail out our banks. And we have done a marvelous job with that, I might add. Many of them are returning funds as we speak.

    And, as a result of that, this $150 billion jobs bill, which is sorely needed by our country, which will begin to repair the infrastructure, roads and bridges and the like, which will begin to people back to work, which is what America needs...


    CAVUTO: That might all be well and good, Congresswoman but that was not the intent originally of this money. It would be like sort of saying, if I am getting a project on A House, and, all of a sudden, I have paid that off and someone else comes over and says, why don't you use the leftover funds for this?

    KILPATRICK: Oh, wow.

    Let me just tell you this. I am an appropriator. I'm one of 60 people who sits on the United States House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution is the commerce clause. And it allows and sets up the Appropriations Committee, what they give out, as well as recisions. So, money that comes back in the Treasury is the authority of the Congress. It is constitutional. Article 1, Section...


    CAVUTO: But, Congresswoman, you are appropriating the rules to appropriate your needs. You're changing the rules as we go along.


    KILPATRICK: No, no, no.


    CAVUTO: No, no, no, ma'am, I am just saying this. And I will let you speak.


    CAVUTO: But you are saying that this money that was originally earmarked for the banks, though many were against it, including myself at the time, you can't just re-appropriate after the fact and say, better yet, why don't we use this dough for this?

    You just — when I did that playing "Monopoly," it was not good.

    KILPATRICK: This is not "Monopoly."


    CAVUTO: It is "Monopoly," because it is "Monopoly" money and it is not your money.


    CAVUTO: Congresswoman, it's not your money.

    KILPATRICK: Listen to me. Now may I speak?

    The Constitution of the United States, Article 8, Section 1, the commerce clause, gives the United States Congress authority over the people's purse, which is the Treasury. So, though we sent the money out earlier to help the banks, and they're beginning to stabilize, the money comes back into the Treasury. And the Congress, only the Congress, given authority by the United States Constitution, has the right to...


    KILPATRICK: ... major problem in our country.

    CAVUTO: Nowhere in the Constitution did it say, all right, if you have a trillion-dollar bank rescue, and they give all the money back, can you re-appropriate that money and give it to any pet cause a congressman or congresswoman deems fashionable.


    KILPATRICK: You are talking like a TV host.


    KILPATRICK: I tell you what it is, and you're speculating.


    CAVUTO: No, no, no.