Amending the Rules of the House of Reprsentatives to require a vote each year on whether to increase Members' pay.

Mr. Speaker, I see no drug addicts in here. I only see hardworking Americans--people who make things with their hands and who support their families and who make cars that have been noted as outstanding cars, not only in America but also around the world. So I support the bail in of all of these taxpayers, and I am gratified that this particular legislation does answer the question.

I would like to yield to the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, to ask him about this auto czar and whether or not they have the authority to prevent the relocation of these plants overseas to take jobs away from Americans.

Well, let me just say that this bill focuses on restoring the ability of Americans to make things. It protects the taxpayers with the ``car czar.'' It protects retirees. It protects the pensioners. It protects the families. It stops, if you will, this massive bonus program. It's interesting that my friends now say do the bankruptcy process, but when the poor mortgage holder was asking for a bankruptcy, the process of my friends on the other side of the aisle would not allow them to do so.

Bankrupt companies selling cars do not work. Let us stand for the hardworking Americans who make things with their hands, who design things with their intuitiveness and who bring to America the pride that built the middle class.

I am proud of this bill, and I believe we should stand strong to support them. It is good to give tools to the next administration who can make this right. For my friends who want to help the small businesses, join me in supporting the economic stimulus package for which we're going to vote to help Americans to restore their lives.

Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 7297. I would like to thank the Chairman of Financial Service Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I rise today with the confidence that our system of government is strong and the constitutional protections of our government will protect America while we reform America's automobile industry.

Leadership has worked without tiring to ensure that this bill contains language that will ensure the betterment of the American people. Our leadership should be thanked for working on this bill during long hours into the night, weekends, and busy days. We toiled long into the night to incorporate Democratic principles in this bill.

I have worked with leadership to offer language from the bill that I introduced on November 20, 2008. The bill is H.R. 7297, ``Emergency Automobile Industry American Jobs Protection Act of 2008.''

The ideas included in H.R. 7297 are important because they will continue to keep America's economy strong, ensure that jobs remain in America and that the automobile companies develop a definite plan for growth. My legislation is aimed at stabilizing the American automobile industry through jobs, dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships, and American automobile industry suppliers. H.R. 7297 requires that any loan funds distributed to the ``Big Three'' automobile companies should be conditioned upon these companies filing a certification with the Congress.

The bill provides that before receiving loan funds, the ``Big Three'' must certify the following:

(1) United States automobile jobs will not be decreased by relocation to foreign companies;

(2) automobile dealerships will benefit from the receipt of these loan funds, and that the ``Big Three'' shall further provide for the stability of such dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships; and

(3) United States automobile suppliers will also be supported by and stabilized by such loan funding.

The bill also provides that no loan funds should be used by the ``Big Three'' to allow them to relocate overseas if it will result in the loss of United States automobile industry jobs, dealerships, or suppliers. Lastly, the bill provides that the loan funds should be distributed to the ``Big Three'' to ensure their stability and to establish a long-term plan of growth for United States automobile dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships, and United States automotive industry suppliers.

In fact, it is because I am concerned and desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, that I offered amendments yesterday. To ensure that this bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the following amendments:

(1) Set aside $125 million (in fact the amount could been more) as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the absence of a bankruptcy provision;

(2) Add Sense of the Congress language that the Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring;

(3) Allow the courts to exercise rigorous judicial review and provide those courts with the

discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the courts determine that such relief would not destabilize financial markets;

(4) Create a new independent commission to exercise oversight over the current financial situation with enforcement powers;

(5) Allow criminal liability for persons or corporate entities that have engaged in criminal malfeasance;

(6) Bar persons/corporate entities found to have engaged in criminal malfeasance with malicious intent in financial markets from doing business with the federal government in the future.

The bill in context

Segments of the economy have the ability to be strong. America needs to employ its full, faith, and credit to back its commitments. I feel strongly that this bill should have set aside $125 million to help homeowners who are facing mortgage foreclosure. This is important because it is money that would have been used to help the aggrieved: Main Street.

It is important to note that all five big investments--Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have altogether disappeared or morphed into regular banks. Given this phenomenon, the question arises and no one has or can seem to explain: Is this bailout still necessary?

Dr. James K. Gailbraith, of the University of Texas, wrote in the Washington Post, on September 25, 2008, that the bailout is not necessary because the point of the bailout has been articulated as buying assets that are illiquid ``but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They are called `loans.'

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that.''

Deposit insurance presently is capped at $100,000. We should have considered raising the FDIC insurance cap, increased the amount of capitalization in the FDIC corporation, increased the amount of reserves in the Treasury Department.

Dr. Galbraith wrote, ``In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and the pull of strong national economic growth. The present slump is national, and it can't be cured by legislation alone. But it could be resolved in three years, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions, and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished.''

As I consider this piece of legislation, three of the themes that are consistent throughout it are (1) where is the enforcement; (2) who receives the first dollar; and (3) what is the disastrous and catastrophic event that will occur if this bill is not passed today? Because of the complexity of the nature and extent of the problems within the financial markets, I would rather that Congress carefully review and consider the right solution.

Congress should order the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Revenue Service to use their current powers and prevent the consequences with some extraordinary powers such as cited above regulating lifting the caps at the FDIC and allowing the SEC to suspend certain accounting practices, all this can be done without the massive bailout all at once.

This legislation was considered at 10:00 p.m. in a closed rule last night; debate on the rule immediately transpired with less than 10 members participating at approximately midnight. In less than ten hours, members are expected to have read, understand, and speak intelligently upon this complex piece of legislation.

When we consider the magnitude and extent of the financial problem, we must consider how America has gotten here in the first place. During the past Administration, America underwent a housing boom. Depressed housing markets around the country experienced unparalleled increases in price. Middle-class, working Americans sought to achieve the American dream by purchasing a home.

At the same time, banks and financial institutions were selling unsophisticated consumers unconventional and creative mortgage financing alternatives. Financial institutions were apt to qualify borrowers for more house than they could afford. Financial institutions were lending subprime mortgages and engaged in predatory lending. Adjustable rate mortgages, which had an interest rate that would adjust within 1, 3, or more years, became more common within the last 7 years. Interest-only names became common names within the first home purchaser's market. Borrowers who were considered a credit risk were allowed to purchase homes. The banks and financial institutions were not paying attention to a borrower's credit rating, their ability to pay, or a borrower's potential to default.

Present Financial Situation

According to Bloomberg, this morning stocks around the world tumbled, the euro and the pound plunged and bonds rose as governments raced to prop up banks. Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index plunged 4.31 percent to 17,876.41, and Tokyo's benchmark Nikkei lost 1.3 percent to close at 11,743.61.

Europe's Dow Jones Stoxx 100 Index declined 3.2 percent. MSCI Asia Pacific Index lost 2.7 percent after Dexia SA sank the most since it began trading 12 years ago and ICICI Bank Ltd. retreated to a two-year low. Futures on the S&P's 500 Index fell 1.7 percent as Wachovia Corp. tumbled 91 percent. Citigroup Inc. agreed to buy the company's banking operations in a transaction the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. helped arrange.

The British pound dropped the most against the dollar in 15 years and the euro weakened after European governments stepped in to rescue Bradford & Bingley Plc, Fortis, and Hypo Real Estate Holding AG.

So far, the $700 billion package to shore up banks hammered out by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and congressional leaders over the weekend failed to convince investors it will shore up banks saddled with growing mortgages losses. The crisis that began with bad home loans to subprime borrowers in the U.S. is threatening to push the global economy into a recession as consumers lose confidence as banks cut back on lending.

It is difficult to have a $700 billion rescue bill when the President failed to sign $60 billion to provide economic stimulus to working- class Americans.

In September, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers all filed for bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, AIG was taken over by the Treasury, and Washington Mutual was seized by regulators in the biggest U.S. bank failure in history. Financial institutions worldwide have reported more than $550 billion of credit losses and asset writedowns since the beginning of 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Even after the announcement of the rescue package, the worldwide markets are still declining. I fail to see the specific catastrophic events/consequences that the U.S. public will experience if this bailout does not occur.

I am cautious because I believe that we as members of Congress need to take the time to craft a real recovery plan for our economy, a plan that puts people first and addresses our multiple economic crises, including good jobs, affordable housing, health care, retirement security, infrastructure, and disaster relief (Katrina, Ike, etc.).

Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public spending cuts. I do not believe that this was prudent. Schools, fire departments, police stations, parks, libraries, and water projects are getting cut. The persons who are feeling the effects of this economic decision are the more vulnerable populations, the elderly, the children, and the working-class. Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is not the solution either.

It is clear that something must be done, but this bill does not provide the answer that America seeks.

Recently, Congress sent an economic stimulus package to the President that would have provided $60 billion in relief to middle-class working Americans. The President vetoed this bill. However, the Administration sends to us today this bill requesting $700 billion to bail out Wall Street.

I would offer that we need to restructure our present financial system. However, the kinds of reform that I believe are necessary are not included in this bill. For example, the Federal Reserve itself needs to be reformed. As members of Congress we should be looking at establishing greater oversight, preventing predatory practices and establishing public alternatives to the reckless privatized system that brought us the crisis in the first place. We need to prevent the victims of predatory lending from losing their homes and restrict lobbying by the financial sector.

I have heard from my constituents that they are not supportive of this bill. Many themselves were community bankers. One community banker, for example, wrote:

``I am a community banker who is deeply concerned about the recent developments on Wall Street and the bailouts that our government has undertaken. The great, great majority of banks in this country never made one subprime loan, and ninety-eight percent are well-captialized . . . we don't ask for or need a bailout.''

Little Relief for the Nation's Homeowners

Because of the way that the bill is written, few if any homeowners will get mortgage relief, which is why I offered an amendment that would give $125 million directly to the homeowners facing mortgage foreclosure. The bill does not contain any provision allowing the terms of a mortgage to be changed without the consent of all the investors who own the mortgage. Few homeowners will benefit. For example, the bill would not provide relief to the majority of homeowners. The bill does not contain any provision allowing the terms of a mortgage to be changed without the consent of all the investors who own the mortgage. The bill is little more than a Wall Street earmark and is not really a bill for homeowners.

Although the bill does not provide for parachutes for executives, the executives' compensation remains the same.

This is because the Treasury will chiefly purchase mortgage-backed securities which will make the federal government one of several co- owners of millions of mortgages. Whether or not any mortgages are modified will be determined by the loan servicer acting on behalf of all the various investors who own a piece of the mortgage. That is why Section 108(d) states in part, ``The Secretary shall request loan services servicing the mortgage loans to avoid preventable foreclosures.'' Congress has already requested all loan servicers nationwide to avoid preventable foreclosures, so an additional request from the Treasury is unlikely to change current behavior.

Republican Commentary

Republican critics of the bill argue that the bill rescues persons that lack financial responsibility because they were living beyond their means or that the bill helps minorities who did not exercise fiscal responsibility. There is simply no credibility to these arguments. As I have attempted to stress today, the mortgage foreclosure crisis affects all Americans. Financial institutions engaged in speculation on Wall Street that we now see has had a deleterious effect on Main Street.

Speculation, in a financial context, is the assumption of the risk of loss, in return for the uncertain possibility of a reward. Speculation is one of the main causes of various economic crises around the world. In fact, speculators have played a major role in the present crisis. The speculators were greedy.

Nonprofits such as ACORN, NACA, and Homefree USA, among many others, have long been waging consumer campaigns to educate borrowers about the various financial instruments. And, I am resoundingly grateful to them for their hard work. We cannot make them the scapegoats. These organizations have allowed persons who might not otherwise have the knowledge or the opportunity to purchase a home, the opportunity to do so in the right way. These nonprofits should be applauded.

Everyone deserves the economic dream of owning their own home. But the financial institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to assess the borrower's ability to pay for loans and purchase a home. It was the squandering of this responsibility and preoccupation with greed and avarice that has led us to where we are today.

There are substantial improvements in the present version of the bill compared to the Bush administration proposal. However, the bill as it is presently written does not provide the necessary relief to middle- class America. Frankly, the bill provides no panacea to our present economic woes. Our markets will have the full faith and credit of the United States. This bill has not sent a sufficiently clear message because it lacks enforcement.

There are provisions now that address accountability measures by requiring a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full, and requiring Congressional review after the first $350 billion for future payments.

Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and reform. One of the phases is to re-invest in the troubled financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another, reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan to guarantee that they will be repaid in full. The last is to reform how business is done on Wall Street. The current legislation provides for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit, provides sweeping Congressional oversight.

There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that yield greater protection to the American taxpayers and even to Main Street. The protection for taxpayers include the following:

(1) gives taxpayers a share of the profits of participating companies, or puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a company fails; and

(2) allows the government to also purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families.

For companies publicly auctioning over $300 million:

(1) there will be no multi-million dollar golden parachutes for top five executives after auction, although nothing prevents these executives from still reaping enormous salaries.

(2) there will be no tax deduction for executive compensation over $500,000.

However, with a ``pause'' we can help the financial markets and make America secured.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Rochester, the very distinguished and able Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and with that I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. We have a very, very serious economic crisis in this country, as we all know. The crisis is demanding decisive action on the part of this Congress. The American people are expecting us to take action to try to mitigate the suffering that is there today. But we also have to be very smart about what it is that we do. Hundreds of thousands of workers have already lost their jobs or on the brink of losing their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of families have already lost their homes or are on the brink of losing their homes. We have a profound responsibility to make prudent decisions that will help to spur new economic growth, create new good jobs for American workers, and to strengthen the vitality of our economy. We need to restore that strengthened vitality that has been there and we know is going to come back, and it will come back quickly if we do the right thing.

But rushing into an ill-conceived bailout of an industry that has not yet proven it has a viable plan to remain solvent and competitive with the help of the taxpayer dollars of hardworking Americans who are suffering today won't save a single job. It won't save a single job. And you can look across the spectrum of Democrats and Republicans alike who have made it very clear that they don't believe that there is a viable plan that has been put forward.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed bailout that is before us has led many Americans to rightly question where will this end? How many bailouts are there going to be?

We know that the American people are today suffering from what can only be described as bailout fatigue. How many billions of our taxpayer dollars will be spent? What guarantees do we have that the money will be spent wisely?

Congress first took action to reverse the economic downturn in October. We considered a bill that was intended to thaw the frozen credit markets and to allow the wheels of our economy to begin turning again. I was deeply skeptical of that bill, Mr. Speaker, but I did support it reluctantly when key provisions that we fought for were added, provisions that banned golden parachutes and ensured scrutiny and accountability for the program.

The reason for taking this action, as we all know, is very simple. Our economy cannot function if the credit markets don't function. This was not a matter of picking winners and losers. This was not a matter of caring more about workers in the financial services industry than workers in other industries.

The fact of the matter was that our credit markets had frozen up, and this was paralyzing our economy across the board. Failing to deal with the financial industry would have left our entire economy crippled, including the very auto companies that are now asking for a bailout. A failed credit system means no one can get a car loan. The financial rescue that we did in October was, in fact, an auto industry rescue.

What has been the impact of that bill? Mr. Speaker, we simply do not know yet. A $13 trillion economy doesn't exactly turn on a dime. And, as we all know, half of the money has been utilized so far.

We also know, based on very important questions raised by the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who is here, Mr. Frank, and Mr. Bachus and others, transparency in this whole process has been lacking.

I am joined with several of my colleagues in the Republican leadership in demanding that the Treasury Department provide clear answers on how taxpayer dollars have been spent. We are fighting to ensure that there is accountability every step of the way. This will be an ongoing process well into next year, and we may not know the full impact of this bill for many months to come.

It's quite possible that further responsible action to provide assistance will be necessary, but the bill before us today asks us to rush into a bailout for a single industry with billions more in taxpayer dollars on the line. It asks us to start picking and choosing winners in this very difficult economic time.

Mr. Speaker, we all have car dealerships in our districts. We all have thousands of constituents whose jobs are directly or indirectly tied to the auto industry. We know the figure of one in 10 jobs is tied to the auto industry.

But before we rush into a costly bailout, we have to consider a few things. First, we have to consider whether U.S. auto companies are prepared to transform themselves into an innovative and competitive industry. They made an attempt to answer this question in congressional testimony just last week, but they have a very long way to go. A nearly century-old industry doesn't transform itself overnight. We need a far more convincing plan from them on how they will do so in a matter of months.

Second, we need to consider our economy at large. Playing favorites with one industry over another is a dangerous game that won't necessarily put us back on sound economic footing. None of us wants to see autoworkers losing their jobs, but neither do we want to see workers in other industries lose their jobs. Our first and only economic priority should be pursuing a pro-growth strategy that provides new opportunity throughout our entire economy.

Finally, we have to consider the diverse and complicated landscape of the auto industry. The question of what is an American car used to be a very simple one. That's no longer the case.

Mr. Speaker, which is more American? The Ford built in Mexico or the BMW built in South Carolina? What about the Chevy built with Japanese parts and assembled in Canada? How do we pick and choose winners in a diverse industry that involves foreign investment, American workers and a global supply chain?

Is the Toyota plant worker in Kentucky less valuable to the U.S. economy than the Ford worker in Detroit? What about the auto parts supplier in Illinois that ships to Mitsubishi, Honda or Mazda, all of which create jobs right here in the United States of America?

This is a very complicated matter, and we must very carefully consider the consequences of our picking and choosing the winners and the losers. We certainly can't resolve the issue effectively by simply throwing money at our problems. Instead, we should be considering better alternatives, like creating tax incentives for car purchases, by enabling Americans to give the auto industry a boost so we can relieve the tax burden on families and help all workers in the industry.

Unfortunately, this rule, like so many of the rules that we have seen come forward in this Congress, completely shuts out the kind of real debate that we need. It's their way or the highway.

Unfortunately, their way offers nothing but wasted billions and false promises.

The American people want to know that we are working to restore our economy, but they demand that we act wisely, spend their tax dollars prudently and ensure accountability for every penny. This bill fails on all three of those counts.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for his very thoughtful statement.

I would say that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules just described that amendment as a Democratic amendment. She described it as the Sutton-LaTourette amendment, and so I suspect that----

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for leaving all the trivia to those of us on the Rules Committee.

With that, I am happy to yield a minute to my good friend from Livonia, Michigan, the Chair of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter.

Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? I never advocated bankruptcy.

Well, you concluded that, but I never actually said that.

I understand that chapter 11 is bankruptcy, but I am just saying that I have not advocated that.

Will the gentleman be willing to yield? I will be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to yield the gentleman 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, if I might, and I ask him to yield to me.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I believe this notion that you inferred I said do nothing is in fact discriminating against the domestic auto industry. It seems that people did, I am happy to say, listen to my statement.

I advocate taking action that would provide a tax credit to get people to the showroom so they can in fact purchase automobiles.

I believe we are doing that in fact by providing incentives to get people in the showroom.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my very good friend from Detroit on this issue.

I will say, Mr. Speaker----

Excuse me?

Okay. I don't know how much of my 30 seconds has expired, Mr. Speaker, but let me just say in response that we all recognize the gravity of this situation. We know how very important it is for us to deal with this, and I believe we would in fact be taking governmental action if we were to incentivize our fellow Americans to get into showrooms today so they would have the kind of incentive that is necessary to purchase automobiles. So we are advocating taking action.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 4 minutes, which I hope he will fill, to the gentleman from Indianapolis, my good friend, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, for his first floor speech since being elected our new Republican whip, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Richmond, Mr. Cantor.

I have absolutely no idea how many speakers we have left, but at this juncture, four, five, something like that, I would guess. How many speakers does my friend have left?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I would argue that those are, in fact, American cars, based on the description that we have here because no one knows exactly what an American car is.

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. And if the gentleman will yield.

As I've said, what is an American-made car? Is it, in fact, a Chevy that is built in Canada made with Mexican parts, or is it a BMW built in South Carolina?

And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the former Presidential candidate from Surfside, Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking colleague from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite).

I will yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, am I correct to infer that my colleague is the last speaker on her side?

Okay. Then I'll reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to proceed. I just wanted to know if the gentlewoman was the closing speaker.

Oh, I think you'll have the right to close under the rule. There is no doubt about that.

At this point, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from St. Joseph, Michigan, a hardworking member from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

I am happy to yield to my friend an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to our hardworking colleague from Tyler, Texas, Judge Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, I had a very thoughtful, eloquent, lengthy closing statement, and I now have 30 seconds. Okay.

Oh, then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1534 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1534.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1354 provides for consideration of H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.

Madam Speaker, once again we find ourselves meeting under dire circumstances: a shaky stock market, the highest unemployment rate in decades, the greatest financial crisis we have seen in generations.

Of all the industries that contribute to our economy, the automobile industry has been hit particularly hard. The steep decline in auto sales emerged this past summer when gas prices rose to record-breaking levels and the deepening economic recession further reduced consumer demand for automobiles. Now sales have fallen to the lowest rate in 25 years.

The global economic crisis has the American auto industry facing an unprecedented liquidity shortfall that threatens their viability. Should this industry continue its stark descent, or in the worst case scenario fail, it would have a devastating effect on our Nation's workforce as well as our overall prospects for economic recovery.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. automobile industry is one of the largest sectors of our economy. Auto companies directly or indirectly support over 4 million American jobs and provide nearly 1 million retirees with pension and health care benefits. In western New York alone, the auto industry supports over 12,000 workers and 13,000 retirees, and the failure of major auto companies could cause generations of auto workers to lose their hard-earned pensions and health care while causing the current livelihood of workers to lose their jobs. It would also threaten the auto suppliers, the dealers, and other related businesses, a domino effect that would certainly cripple our economy. Furthermore, if the auto industry collapses, experts estimate the U.S. trade deficit would grow by over $109 billion or 15.6 percent.

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, America cannot afford to let Detroit fail. The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing, and should it unravel, all the government's work towards stabilizing the financial markets would be in vain. It is in our country's best interest, as we work to pull ourselves out of this recession, to ensure that our auto industry remains viable and competitive.

For this reason Democrats have met this administration at the table to work toward a solution to stabilize this industry. The bill before us today is an important bipartisan step in helping to address the crisis that is afflicting not only the auto industry but American families from coast to coast.

Our goal with this loan package is to strengthen and to restructure the auto industry and to ensure viability before the crisis further impacts Main Street. Since talks began, Democrats have fought for key measures to protect the American taxpayers. When the automakers first requested funding, Democrats told them to come back with a plan to show us how they would restructure the industry in order to achieve the viability necessary to repay the loan. The package before us today now includes several key oversight provisions. By making $14 billion available in already appropriated loans, the bill will provide a needed boost to the overall economy.

Mr. Speaker, what happens to the U.S. auto industry affects us all. The three car companies, for example, purchased $156 billion in parts, materials, and services last year. Supporting jobs in all 50 States, the bill preserves the jobs of 355,000 workers in the United States directly employed by auto industry and an additional 4.5 million Americans working in related industries.

The bill contains stringent taxpayer protections, including authorizing our government to take equity stakes in the company through stock warrants

so that taxpayers can benefit if the firms profit and if the value of their shares increases in the future. It contains strong, independent oversight provisions with oversight by both the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General overseeing the TARP financial rescue funds. It prohibits carmakers receiving loans from owning or leasing corporate jets, and it prohibits senior executives from receiving bonuses or ``golden parachute'' severance packages.

The bill requires the companies to restructure or repay the loans. To ensure the companies restructure to achieve viability, increase fuel efficiency, and reduce emissions, the car czar can require immediate repayment of the loan if the company has not made adequate progress by February 15 in developing a long-term restructuring plan. Companies will not get Federal assistance if they fail to submit an acceptable restructuring plan by March 31.

Importantly, the bill requires shared sacrifice. Auto executives, employees, labor unions, dealers, suppliers, creditors, and shareholders should and will all participate in the restructuring efforts.

The end result will be a vibrant and competitive U.S. auto industry that pursues the aggressive production of energy-efficient advanced technology vehicles and thrives in the 21st century global marketplace.

By insisting on transparency and accountability, Congress is ensuring that the auto industry is held accountable for this loan and that American taxpayers will get their money back.

We are grateful also for the work of Congresswoman Sutton of Ohio and Congressman LaTourette from Ohio, who has presented a good amendment pertaining to transparency to go along with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to take action today, not to simply save the automobile industry but to protect the millions of hardworking men and women across America whose jobs depend on it. We have a responsibility to take action for the line worker in Detroit who works hard every day just to put food on the table for his family or her family. We have a responsibility to the retiree who depends on the pension she earned or he earned through decades of hard work and now relies on it to survive. We have a responsibility to countless American families across this great Nation whose livelihoods depend on the auto industry whether they realize it or not. And unless we act, the well- being of millions will be on the line. From plants to parks, dealerships to driveways, and gas stations to grocery stores, what happens in the automotive industry impacts us all.

Mr. Speaker, we face some daunting challenges on our path to economic recovery, but this is a necessary step to build a brighter tomorrow. We know all too well the consequences of failure, which is why it's critical that we pass this package to help get U.S. auto manufacturers back on their feet so they can be competitive and viable in the years ahead. Revitalizing American automakers is not only essential to our economic and national security, it is vital to our fragile economy. And that is why the Democrat-led Congress is doing everything possible to ensure America keeps working and that government keeps working for America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has worked extremely hard on this bill, Mr. Frank.

I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.

Let me take 30 seconds, please, Mr. Speaker, to explain this is Mr. LaTourette's amendment. Mr. LaTourette brought it up. I mentioned Ms. Sutton's name. She is Mr. LaTourette's neighbor and his friend, and she talked to the Democrats about it to make Mr. LaTourette in order.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I will be happy to yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes of that time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I am pleased to give the gentleman another minute.

I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how many other speakers he has?

Two, I believe. And I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Like you, Mr. Dreier, I don't know. People come and go.

One moment, please, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am. I will close, but not yet.

Yes.

Mr. Dreier, I do have one more speaker. I don't know if you want to take the closing back.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge everybody to vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to see the great majority of Republicans deliver both orally and then, by their votes, a stunning vote of no confidence--but not in the automobile industry--in the Bush administration.

This is a bill that was brought forward in consultation with President Bush and his chief aides. The funding mechanism here is one that was insisted upon by the President. The amount of money and the source of the money complied entirely with the wishes of the Bush administration.

Now, one set of questions raised about this bill has to do with the administration of the TARP Program, once again, by the Bush administration. I believe that is too harsh. I believe we would have been worse off had we not passed that. Yes, I have some criticisms of it, but let's be very clear. This bill takes the Bush administration's proposal about how to fund this, and in turn gives to the Bush administration now, if it becomes law, significant power to begin the process of restructuring the automobile industry.

As I said, much of what we heard is a lack of confidence in this administration. Now, we were told that it's going to put a lot of taxpayer money at risk. My friend from California said don't pick winners and losers.

Well, may I ask then, Mr. Speaker, how we would characterize the decision to give well over $100 billion to AIG? Were they not a winner in this? If they were a loser, I should be such a loser at $100 billion. Six plus times as much money as being authorized here to be lent to the auto industries was lent to AIG.

Is there a certainty that the auto industry is going to pay it back? No, no more than there is with AIG. In fact, I think a little bit more. But AIG, that's not an industry, that's a company. That one company received over $100 billion.

I also disagree with those who would say, as apparently a Republican subgroup says, well, the way to deal with that is to take the wages that were bargained collectively over time by the unions in these three companies and drop them to some other level. I don't remember anybody saying, now, we have all agreed that CEO compensation and money for the top people should be restrained.

But the average worker at AIG makes more money than an auto worker. The average worker at Citigroup, the recipient, again, of a large amount of money, makes more than an auto worker. Does anybody remember Citigroup being told that as a condition of this money they have to get no more than a community banker would get? That may be a fair standard, but why is it only applied to blue-collar workers? Why is it that this insistence on leveling down the wages of people whose companies receive loan funds only applies to people who do this physical work?

I agree with the gentleman from California. There was a great reason to do the financial services bailout, because financial services are important, and I agree with him as well. That helps the auto industry.

People buy cars on credit. An occasional buyer will come into an auto sales room to buy a car with cash. He generally wants bulletproof windows and special getaway mechanisms. Most people are buying it on credit, and that's because, as we have said, not that they are too big to fail, but too interconnected. But so is the auto industry. The gentleman himself talked about the suppliers elsewhere. This is an industry that has an enormous nationwide impact.

But, finally, what are we doing here? We are lending them $15 billion. We are lending them $15 billion that is to be repaid, if by March 31 they haven't been able to persuade the new administration's appointee that they are making very fundamental changes. The bill says look for changes from the workers, but also from the bondholders and also from the suppliers and also from the dealers.

Let's not single out those who work with their hands as the only ones who might be accused of unjust enrichment, because they ain't rich. So that's the proposal, $15 billion if they can show that they are making these reductions.

By the way, we regret the fact that the President insists on taking money that we had set aside to help them become more innovative. We will replenish that. I think the Speaker deserves a great deal of credit for yielding in that way, but in a way that would protect this point.

But the $15 billion comes with super seniority or very serious collateral. On March 31, either this Congress will have to vote more money, there is no more automatic money, this Congress will vote more money, and we will have a chance to make changes in the bill if we think it's necessary, or we will have to repay the $15 billion with a great deal of seniority in debt preferable to any other debtor and with high collateral. Yes, we are acting quickly.

We are in a crisis. They were having problems. Like a lot of other entities in America, including the job market in general and banks, the deterioration has been more rapid than anyone had anticipated. And, yes, they now face the potential of financial collapse more quickly than anticipated.

If we had known in September what we knew today, we could have begun acting back then. What we are doing is an interim measure. Fifteen billion dollars is a short-term fix, $15 billion that will be repaid. It's not the hundreds of billions that we talk about with Citigroup or the over $100 billion that we talk about with AIG, it's a lot of money, but it's money that will be repaid. It gives us a chance, particularly the new administration and this Congress to figure out what can be done. If by March 31 it is clear that

pessimism has prevailed and nothing can be done, we will get the $15 billion back.

But, finally, as to the rule, my understanding when I went up to testify before the Rules Committee, I was told there was one amendment that had been offered by the minority, and it has been made in order, and I plan to vote for it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Well, I will now say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sorry I yielded for that bit of trivia. It was offered to me as the LaTourette amendment. I thought it was a Republican amendment.

You know, at a time when we are all trying to get out of here, why we would waste time on that kind of trivia I don't understand.

So let me say I believe that given that this is a short-term emergency, we will have time to reconsider. The consequences of defeating this bill would be disaster for an economy that is already in terribly indecent shape.

Will the gentleman yield?

Bankruptcy has been the primary argument I have heard as the preferred alternative from the Republican Members of the committee I chair.

Yes. I would have to demur from being the author. I do want to give equal billing to my coauthor, George W. Bush. But having said that, I do believe that we agree that the provision has exactly the meaning the gentleman says, to prevent a closure or anything else of that sort.

No, we vote on bills. They write them.

Yes, a bonus would be in addition to compensation, and it could be in Crown Victorias, or it could be in stock, or it could be anything else. And of course we do empower the administrator to be appointed by the President.

I did want to comment briefly. The gentleman from Virginia, apparently, once again, no confidence in the President. The President is given the power, under this bill, to appoint someone with great power, and he says things need to be done in a few days and apparently doesn't trust George Bush to do it.

But the answer is that the bill does empower those restrictions to be any kind of compensation.

The provision of the bill that gives the authority or the ability to veto any $100 million grade of investment or any $100 million impact decision includes the right to say ``no'' to a closure or to move the plant somewhere else, and it is primarily designed by us to ensure against the possibility that the taxpayer dollars being lent to them would be used to facilitate movement to other parts of the world where even the gentleman from California would agree that they would not be American.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I think, today, we realize that the well-intentioned road may lead to bankruptcy, not just for the automakers but, perhaps, for the U.S. Treasury.

Today, we have heard from well-meaning Members of this House that, unless we send $15 billion to the Big 3, the American economy will fail. I don't doubt their sincerity, but I do disagree with their conclusions.

Some of my constituents support the bailout, but most of them don't. As you can see from the picture next to me, the American citizens are hurting right now. The car in this picture is a Dodge Dynasty. By the way, this car has not been produced since 1993, so you can understand the angst of the car owner who realizes that his hard-earned tax dollars and those of his children and grandchildren are going for these bailouts. His message is very clear: Where is my bailout?

The bill before us today does nothing to address the real pain being felt by American citizens. Nothing helps to lower health care costs or to protect the mortgages on their homes.

I would also like to say that we had, again, a rush to judgment, a rush to bringing the bill to the floor, and we need to be concerned about that process. Please remember that Chrysler is a privately owned entity by a massive hedge fund firm in New York City. This hedge fund firm is not willing to invest one cent more in Chrysler, and yet we are asking our cash-strapped taxpayers back home to do it for them.

Like we saw with the last bailout boondoggle, there are not enough safeguards here. We have to remember, too, that the loan and the conditions that are attached to it do not correct the structural weaknesses at these companies. They merely postpone the consequences for a short while. They will be back for more and more and more.

This loan policy also continues the tragically flawed policy of picking winners and losers in this economy. Who is to say that the Big 3 are more worthy of financial assistance than are the small businesses that, like the owner of this car, are struggling every single day to survive and to make their payroll.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that ``the road to hell is paved with good intentions.''

Today that well intentioned road leads to bankruptcy, not just for the automakers, but for the U.S. Treasury.

Today we have heard from well meaning Members of this House that unless we send $15 billion to the Big Three, the American economy will fail.

While I do not doubt their sincerity, I must disagree with their conclusions.

Serving on the Financial Services Committee I have listened to hours of testimony from the automakers, their unions, and academic experts.

More importantly though, over the past few weeks I have heard from hundreds of my constituents about how best to deal with the American automakers.

While some of my constituents do support a bailout, the vast majority do not.

As you can see from the picture next to me, the American citizens are hurting right now. The car in this photo is a Dodge Dynasty. It hasn't been in production since 1993.

But his message to Congress is pretty clear, ``where is my bailout?''

the bill before us today does nothing to address the real pain being felt by American citizens.

Nothing in this bill helps my constituents create jobs, lower health care costs or protect the mortgage on their home. In fact this bill takes their hard earned tax dollars to fund yet another bailout.

I would also like to say that I resent the actions of the Democrat leadership and the White House for trying to ram this down our throats at the last minute before the holiday season, with the hope that the American people aren't paying attention.

Well, I have been paying attention, and here are some of my biggest concerns.

(1) Chrysler is privately owned by a massive hedge fund in New York City named Cerberus. If this hedge fund is not willing to invest in Chrysler, why should cash-strapped taxpayers do it for them?

(2) Like we saw with the last bailout boondoggle, this $15 billion today is likely only a down payment. If Congress is honest with the American people they will tell us that a vote for the bailout today is a vote for much, much more in the future.

(3) This loan, and the conditions that are attached to it, do not correct the structural weaknesses at these companies, it merely postpones the consequences for a short while.

(4) This loan continues the tragically flawed policy of picking winners and losers in the economy. Who is to say that saving the Big 3 is more important than propping up the 160,000 small businesses in towns like Clermont or Brooksville that could go under during this recession?

(5) The automakers lose money even when the economy is doing well and creating jobs. GM alone lost $39 billion in 2007. That followed a $10.6 billion loss in 2005 and ``only'' $2 billion in 2006.

(6) This is the best possible time to file for Chapter 11. Sales are at their lowest levels in decades, shareholder equity is already wiped out, and consumer confidence in the Big Three is already shaken. If bankruptcy means that consumers stop buying your brand, why not go through this now while sales are historically low and the explicit backing of the government is on the table?

Put simply, the American taxpayers were sold a bill of goods in the financial sector bailout, and have learned that we cannot trust the current leadership in Congress and the White House to do what is in their best financial interests in the future.

I ask that Members heed the wishes of their constituents and vote down the bill. Let's continue work through December and in the next Congress to put together a bill that protects taxpayers and provides stability in the American automobile markets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule and the bill.