Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1424) to amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1525, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1424) to amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, and offer the motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and add extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have limited time here, and I want to explain to the Members that I will be devoting most of my time to colloquy with Members who have serious concerns about this bill.

I believe this bill has a great deal more in it in a number of areas, including in particular avoiding foreclosures, than people have recognized. I at this point will insert into the Record under General Leave a letter from the American Banker, in which Sheila Bair, who is one of the best regulators we have ever had, who has been using her authority over the mortgages she inherited through the IndyMac failure to really provide foreclosure relief, and she says in this: ``The provision would allow the Treasury Department to provide credit guarantees and enhancements on whole loans.'' Ms. Bair said in an interview Thursday, ``They can have so much bigger bang for their buck.'' She asked us to put this in. We put it in. It may be obscure, but it in and of itself will lead to a great deal of help for people with mortgages.

What I will be doing, Madam Speaker, during this debate is yielding time for colloquies to Members who are seeking clarification of points in the bill, many of them involving what is very powerful language, although not everything we would have liked, to mitigate foreclosures. I will say that I have spoken to the people at the Department of Treasury, including yesterday morning the Secretary himself, and I will be making commitments today about how we believe this bill will be interpreted, and I will be making no commitments that I have not explained to the Treasury, that the staff of the Financial Services Committee which has done such wonderful work has not discussed with the Treasury. So we will be, as I said, working with Members to clarify some parts of this bill because I do not think it is fully appreciated that it has a good deal more in it for the foreclosure issue and some other issues than has been recognized.

[From American Banker, Oct. 3, 2008]

Bair: How to Get More Bang for Bailout Buck

(By Rob Blackwell)

Washington.--Of all the provisions in the bill designed to

stabilize the financial markets, one of its most potent is

not getting enough attention, according to Federal Deposit

Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

The provision would allow the Treasury Department to

provide credit guarantees and enhancements on whole loans. If

it were used, it would allow the government to increase

modifications and stabilize home prices at a much smaller

cost than buying the loans themselves, Ms. Bair said in an

interview Thursday.

``They can have so much bigger bang for their buck,'' she

said. ``You don't have an initial cash outlay, you can leave

them in the private sector, you can do the servicing in the

private sector, and you can condition them on some type of

modification protocol, which would get the mortgages

restructured faster.''

The provision, a single sentence in the 451-page bill, has

attracted little attention from analysts and industry

representatives. Instead, they have focused on the crux of

the bill, which would allow the Treasury to buy and hold up

to $700 billion of troubled assets.

The bill would give the Treasury secretary the power to

``use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate

loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.''

How that would work remains unclear. In theory, the

Treasury could guarantee certain types of loans--option

adjustable-rate mortgages, for example--and require lenders

that want to use the insurance to engage in loan

modifications first. If the reworked loan performed, the

government would never be involved, but if the loan later

defaulted, the government would take a certain amount of the

loss.

Though she is supportive of the $700 billion buyout

facility, Ms. Bair said the provision, added at the behest of

the FDIC, could provide a critical alternative.

``It will be another tool they have in their toolkit, and

it will be cheaper,'' she said. ``You can provide credit

support to $100 billion worth of mortgages with no up-front

cash outlay. The exposure would be less than buying those

mortgages directly.''

During her two-year tenure, the FDIC has moved from the

background to the forefront of the housing crisis. In the

past week alone it has handled the largest failure of all

time--the $309 billion-asset Washington Mutual Inc.--with no

cost to the government. It also invoked the systemic risk

exception for the first time in the agency's history to

facilitate a deal to sell most of Wachovia Corp. to Citigroup

Inc.

Ms. Bair said regulators had no choice but to use the

exception, which was created in 1991 and required the

approval of the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury.

``We all felt that preventive action was needed,'' she

said. ``It was a potential failure, driven primarily by

market confidence issues.''

Ms. Bair has also been working to help pass the bailout

bill. After the House unexpectedly defeated the legislation

Monday, lawmakers scrambled for provisions to bring more

Republicans on board. The most notable addition would

increase deposit insurance to $250,000 per depositor per

institution.

That provision would reassure nervous depositors that the

banking system is stable, Ms. Bair said, and it gets to the

heart of the problem: a lack of confidence among consumers,

bankers, and businesses.

``Raising the deposit insurance limit to $250,000 is

designed to address that problem

of public confidence,'' she said. ``Expanding that safety net

for a period of time, I think, will help with the Main Street

depositor and also provide help for banks.''

The coverage hike would take effect immediately and would

expire Dec. 31, 2009. The bill explicitly says banks should

not face a premium hike as a result. Analysts argue that

Congress would have to make the higher limit permanent. Ms.

Bair would not take a position, except to say the FDIC should

have the power to raise premiums if the increase becomes

permanent.

``It's a question for Congress,'' she said. ``It could be

destabilizing if they lift it in 2009, but the trade-off

would be that banks would have to start paying premiums.''

Overall, she said, she hopes the legislation will help ease

fears among financial institutions, some of which have become

worried about lending to each other.

``There is a confidence issue,'' Ms. Bair said.

``Originally, liquidity issues were tied to capital adequacy.

Now I think liquidity issues are tied to just uncertainty. .

. . We are asking Main Street to have confidence in the

banking system. Well, I would ask the banks to have

confidence in the banking system and lend to each other.''

She said a freeze on credit is only making the situation

worse.

``We acknowledge that some individual banks have

challenges, but overall they still have strong capital, and

they've built up their loan loss reserves,'' she said. ``We

shouldn't be freezing up and panicking.''

Though some have argued the bailout bill does not go to the

heart of the issue, Ms. Bair was unequivocal in saying she

thought the buyout facility would help the situation.

``The reason for the liquidity issue is you have an asset

on the balance sheet where the cash flow suggests one

valuation, but if you have to sell it, you will be taking a

steep loss because the market is seizing up,'' she said. ``So

we will be providing a vehicle for moving those assets off

balance sheet for a price other than a rock-bottom distressed

price. We are capable of letting the government hold the

asset for a while before it's sold which will help ease

downward pressure on asset valuations. It absolutely should

help.''

But she acknowledged some concern that the legislation did

not do enough to help struggling borrowers.

Ms. Bair was at the forefront last year in warning that

lenders and servicers needed to systematically lock in low,

starter rates so that borrowers could continue making their

mortgage payments on time. More defaults would lead to

increased foreclosures, which would cause further

deterioration in the housing market. Few took her advice, and

the housing market continued to sink.

If more lenders had modified loans, she said the situation

would still be bad, but not as dramatic.

``We were going to have these problems no matter what, but

I do think it would be less of an impact,'' she said.

But Ms. Bair said she did not understand why Congress is

not doing more to assist borrowers in the bailout

legislation. Lawmakers debated forcing more servicers to

engage in systematic modifications, but ultimately did not do

so.

``I don't understand it,'' she said. ``The borrowers here

that are losing their houses have been this politically

powerless group. From the get go, politically, for whatever

reason, they were put in a category of they got over their

head and were an unsympathetic group to deal with. That is

not the case with all of them.''

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I can affirm that. As the gentleman knows, the Treasury Department is in agreement with this, and we should be clear, this is one of the things that this House and the Senate added to the bill, the authority to buy equity. It is not simply buying up the assets, it is to buy equity, and to buy equity in a way that the Federal Government will able to benefit if there is an appreciation.

I thank the gentleman for this important clarification. He is absolutely right.

In implementing the powers provided for in the Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, it is the intent of

Congress that Treasury should use Troubled Asset Relief

Program (TARP) resources to fund capital infusion and asset

purchase approaches alone or in conjunction with each other

to enable financial institutions to begin providing credit

again, and to do so in ways that minimize the burden on

taxpayers and have maximum economic recovery impact. Where

the legislation speaks of ``assets'', that term is intended

to include capital instruments of an institution such as

common and preferred stock, subordinated and senior debt, and

equity rights. Also, it is the intent of this legislation

that TARP resources should be used in coordination with

regulatory agencies and their responsibilities under prompt-

corrective-action and least-cost resolution statutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of our leading attorneys in the House, who, representing the State of California, has a particular knowledge about much of what we are trying to do in this bill in the foreclosure area, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, ever mindful of the danger that George Bush will lead us down the road to socialism, we will be monitoring this very closely.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to a gentleman from Ohio who has been very seriously engaged on this issue.

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

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Financial Services, who has been very much concerned with the question of foreclosure, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

If the gentleman would yield back to me briefly, I thank him very much. He has been working hard on this, and has also not just professed this in general, but has made some specific suggestions.

Of the four points, two will take separate legislation, and I will work with the gentleman because I am in agreement with him on them, in concept. Two of them, however, are, I believe, able to be accomplished in this bill. I have spoken to the Secretary of the Treasury and, I believe, working together with the gentleman, we can make sure.

Let me just say specifically. Asset managers to support loan modifications will be very important for this success. The bill encourages the Treasury to consider the FDIC, which has been superlative in this regard, to play this role. Also, Treasury, under this bill, can buy virtually any mortgage asset, and we direct them to coordinate with the other agencies, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and to maximize modifications through the program we just adopted.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

We will expect the Secretary to use both direct assets and design--to provide special considerations for assets where HOPE for Homeowners or other programs have been used. In other words, we are directing the Treasurer to use his authority to maximize, exactly as the gentleman has proposed. We will continue to press the Secretary, and I believe we don't have to press too hard. He is ready to do this. And we will work with the gentleman on the other issues.

I will yield myself 15 seconds to say that the gentleman can tell his brother-in-law, Hank Aaron, he hit .500 today, and that's pretty good in any league.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman of the Commerce Committee, very knowledgeable in these subjects.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, it is. And I believe, as he and I have discussed, that the danger to the purchase of automobiles is one of the great ones that we face here, and it is an important reason for moving this bill. Yes, I very much agree with what he just said.

If the gentleman would yield, I would say absolutely, because this is one which would have a double positive effect: It would help with the credit crisis, and it would help one of our most important industries in the United States from facing difficulties.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) has been one of the hardest working members of our committee, and I yield him 2 minutes.

If the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes. The bill fully authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to do that, and I and others, including the gentleman from Colorado, will be working to make sure that he does, and I have every intention to believe that they intend to.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) from the Ways and Means Committee.

If the gentleman will yield, I agree completely. It would be a distortion of the clear meaning of this provision, widely supported, to do anything else but, and we will work to make sure that happens.

I now yield 1 minute to the Chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, who has been very carefully watching this situation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

I now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I would note that one of those whose names would be listed is John McCain, who voted for this bill in the Senate. So Mr. McCain's name would be at the head of that list of the 20.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to our newest member, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

If the gentlewoman will yield, the answer is, absolutely. And I can tell you that I have spoken to the Treasury, to the

Secretary, to tell him that it is very important; that many Members will be voting for this bill only with the understanding that he will use that authority. And I believe he accepts that fact and will act on it.

If the gentlewoman would yield again, I thank her for prodding us because thanks in part to her efforts, this is going to be the best we can do. And I appreciate that.

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas, a member of our committee, very much concerned with improving economic literacy, Mr. Hinojosa.

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

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a former member of the committee who deserted us for better things.

I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, who has done as much as anyone in this House to try to stave off the foreclosure crisis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to an alumna of our committee who has been a dedicated defender of working class people, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, no Member of Congress in my memory has worked harder and more constructively to improve and pass a bill than the majority whip has.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Madam Speaker, I think I have the honor of speaking on behalf of the body in wishing our friend well.

I now yield for a unanimous request consent to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the committee.

And I will take 10 seconds to say, yes, I understand that this is not everything that needs to be done. We will be back next year to do some serious surgery on the financial structure. But at this point, we have the EMT function. There's an emergency, and we have to avert serious harm. This is step one.

Step two will be the serious work that we will do to prevent this from occurring.

(Mrs. Maloney asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

I want to express my appreciation to my very good friend

from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this moment, we are beginning the debate on this very, very important package. For the second time this week, this body will consider a plan to unclog our banking system and to unfreeze our credit markets. The plan before us today is similar to the one that failed to pass on Monday but with two very important and key additions.

First, it allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to insure larger bank deposits, which is absolutely essential for protecting our Nation's small businesses. Second, it extends a number of critical tax credits and protections that will reduce burdens on middle-income Americans, that will increase the use of renewable and alternative energy and, very importantly, that will promote job creation and economic growth for businesses, large and small. These are significant improvements, Madam Speaker, that make this a better bill, but the bill isn't the only thing that has changed since Monday.

The economic landscape has shifted as well, or more accurately, the landscape has become clearer. Prior to Monday's vote, we had a 3-hour debate. We heard from a lot of Members with dire predictions if there were a failure to act. I was one of those who expressed a deep concern for the economic consequences if we could not enact an effective rescue package. This was reasoned speculation but speculation nonetheless.

Today, we can act on more than speculation, Madam Speaker. As Monday's vote went down, it took the Dow with it. Anyone who watched CNBC's coverage saw a direct juxtaposition. One half of the screen showed this House floor. The other half of the screen showed the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. With each new ``no'' vote, the Dow lost points, and greater panic spread throughout the trading floor.

By the end of the day, as we all know, the Dow dropped 770 points, or $1.2 trillion. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: There was more than $1.2 trillion lost on that day, and as we all know, that was the single largest point loss in the history of our Republic.

The next day, as hope was renewed that there would be a second bite at the apple, a rebound began. It wasn't a full recovery of Monday's losses, but significant ground was regained on the hope that this rescue bill would ultimately pass.

Now, I know that deep and pervasive skepticism of this package persists, and I understand that skepticism very well. I, myself, am very skeptical about this package. I held a telephone townhall meeting Wednesday night, and a number of different points of view were expressed by my constituents. Those who oppose this bill explained their reasons very carefully, and I agree with every single word that they said. They said we should let the market sort itself out. They said that people must not be shielded from suffering the consequences of their own bad choices. They said that we should be considering alternative solutions based entirely on market principles. These are precisely my instincts as well, and I couldn't agree more, but I've ultimately concluded that this bill is a necessary evil.

Why can't we let the market sort itself out this time?

Because, Madam Speaker, the market didn't cause this mess. Let me say that again: While people say we should allow the marketplace to sort this situation out on its own, we should not do that because the marketplace did not create this mess. Government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made this mess possible. Government regulators failed to apply adequate oversight. Today, we are not experiencing market failure. Let me say that again, Madam Speaker: Today, we are not experiencing market failure. We are experiencing the inevitable failure of government attempts to manipulate the market. The Federal Government must now do its part to undo the damage and allow the market to operate freely once again.

Shouldn't we let people suffer for their own mistakes?

Yes, we should, starting with the Wall Street executives who exacerbated this problem. This bill bans golden parachutes for those who seek assistance, which is one of the things that consistently came forward from my constituents, but the problem with today's crisis is that responsible people who have followed the rules are suffering, too, not just those who behaved irresponsibly.

Madam Speaker, as you know very well, small businesses are losing their lines of credit. Families who have saved for a down payment for years are unable to get home loans.

Parents and students are finding it difficult to get loans for tuition. Those nearing retirement have seen their nest eggs evaporate as the stock market has fallen. Today's credit crunch is hurting businesses and individuals indiscriminately. It is bringing our engines of growth to a grinding halt and shutting hardworking Americans out of their dreams.

The Los Angeles Times, my hometown paper, yesterday chronicled this deepening crisis, declaring, and I quote, ``Credit Freeze Puts Business on Thin Ice.''

Madam Speaker, we know that our State of California is faced with very difficult circumstances as a State. We've heard that from our Governor. Small businesses all over California, as is the case in the rest of the country, are losing access to credit, getting forced into laying off workers and cutting operations. And they're looking for leadership from Congress. One business owner is quoted as saying, and I quote, ``Payrolls are getting harder to meet. Cash flow is extremely difficult. I'm getting the feeling that if we don't have a Federal deal, a lack of cash flow is going to bring everything to a halt.''

Now, Madam Speaker, today's bill is rightly called a rescue bill. But who are we rescuing?

Madam Speaker, as you know very well, we're not rescuing the fat cats. The fat cats can take care of themselves. Today we want to rescue the working Americans whose livelihoods are threatened by our current economic situation which, again, has been caused by bad government policy.

Finally, there is the question of why we must consider this particular bill and not alternatives. This is a very good question, Madam Speaker.

I've been a big proponent of having an open process that allows for other plans to be considered. And just last night, I've offered plans like the LaTourette plan and others at the Rules Committee for us to allow just that. But those amendments have been rejected by the Rules Committee and we have only this one bill before us. So our choice is very simple, pass this bill, or do nothing.

This is not a perfect bill. It is far from a perfect bill, far from it. But it is far better than the original Paulson plan. It includes strong bipartisan oversight, accountability, a ban on golden parachutes and a 100 percent guarantee that the taxpayers will earn back every penny of their investment. Those are critical protections that Republicans fought for and won for the American taxpayers.

This bill was improved further by the Senate, which added more protections and credits for taxpayers. We can accept this important but imperfect bill or, Madam Speaker, we can do nothing. We saw on Monday the consequences of doing nothing. Today we have a second chance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Concord Township, Ohio who has been working very hard on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield a minute to my very good friend from Alexander, Iowa, a very hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Latham.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the hardworking ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our very thoughtful colleague from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Ohio, in his newly established home in Bainbridge, Ohio.

Has the gentlewoman completed with her side?

Then I will just take a couple of minutes to close if I might.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we are obviously dealing with a very, very serious and challenging issue here. The American people are hurting, and they are looking to us for leadership.

I strongly support the statement that was just outlined by my friend, Mr. LaTourette, the gentleman from Ohio. And we sought to make his amendment in order in the Rules Committee last night; unfortunately, it wasn't made possible.

We are faced with a clear choice: either deal with the situation that we have, the bill that is before us, or do nothing at this juncture.

So, Madam Speaker, I am voting ``no.'' I am voting ``no'' to a bailout for Wall Street. I am voting ``no'' to golden parachutes for those bums who have gotten us into this situation. I am voting ``no'' to a blank check for Secretary Paulson. I am voting ``no'' to taxpayer funding for ACORN. I am voting ``no'' to allowing judges to reduce the value of our homes. I am voting ``no'' to mandating union leaders to serve on boards of private businesses. I am voting ``no'' to government manipulation of the housing market.

Madam Speaker, I am voting ``yes'' to unclog our banking system. I am voting ``yes'' to increase protection for family and small business savings. I am voting ``yes'' to ensure that sons and daughters can have access to student loans so that they can get a college education. And I am voting ``yes'' to guaranteeing that taxpayer dollars are in fact going to be repaid and made whole. And, I am voting ``yes'' not to 1930s type of regulation; I am voting ``yes'' to 21st century regulation and oversight.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1525 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1525.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1525 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The rule will allow the House to concur in the Senate amendments to this bill and vote on the text of the bill that was adopted in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, today, this body meets under dire circumstances as our great Nation stands on the precipice of the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. Our stock market is fluctuating at an alarming rate, and our unemployment rate is soaring. Many of our financial institutions, some of which were deemed too big to fail, have failed or are close to collapse. Credit, even for the most creditworthy, is hard to come by. Our once robust and booming economy is on the brink of disaster, and that is why we have this bill before us today.

Like so many Americans, I have absolutely no interest in bailing out any fat cat executives on Wall Street. I stand firm in my belief and in solidarity with the American people when I say that corporate greed should never be rewarded, but the crisis we're facing today is much bigger than the corporate greed. It's bigger than Wall Street. It reaches beyond the Wall Street titans and directly into the lives of hardworking, middle class Americans.

Our savings--retirement savings, college savings for our children and investments in our future--are all at risk if this industry fails. The financial crisis threatens our ability to get a loan even if we have outstanding credit. The crisis threatens our jobs.

Without decisive action, most experts believe that our economic situation will only grow worse. Credit markets will freeze, and Main Street and all of America will suffer. Families living paycheck to paycheck will see their credit card limits slashed and their interest rates increased. Families won't be able to take out basic home and car loans, and employers may not be able to make their payrolls.

Take, for example, earlier this week when the body failed to pass a previous version of this rescue bill, and the country watched in horror as the Dow Jones plummeted more than 750 points. That dive, that single day in the stock market, cost our economy over $1 trillion, but when the stock market crashed, the majority of the $1 trillion that was lost did not belong to Wall Street giants. It came from the pensions of people who have retired or from people who have frugally worked for their entire lifetimes to save a few dollars for their families' futures.

It is for this reason that Congress must intervene. The bill before us is intended to rescue Main Street. By rescuing the financial institutions, we rescue the jobs, the savings and the ability to get a loan for each hardworking American. However, as we go ahead with this bill, we must be mindful of the road that led us to this crisis. After all, if we don't know what went wrong, how can we make sure it will not happen again in the future?

Like so many Americans, I am deeply disappointed by the Bush administration's reckless deregulation policies that wrecked our once booming economy. This President put incompetent people in charge of the Nation's most critical regulatory agencies. Transparency was lost. Business was allowed to regulate itself, and the total deregulation of the financial services industry ensued.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Cox just recently noted ``voluntary regulation does not work.'' I'll say it doesn't. Looking back in history, we saw that, when deregulation occurred in the last century, it led to bread lines and to Hoovervilles.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, well acquainted with the havoc wreaked by deregulation, said, ``We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals. We now know that it is bad economics as well.''

President Roosevelt led our Nation through that crisis by regulating the financial industry. However, deregulation proponents have removed FDR's regulations because, for them, big business comes first and knows everything.

That is why, when the administration handed Congress an ultimatum for a $700 billion blank check which lacked the very accountability and transparency that contributed to the problem, Democrat leaders said absolutely not. Over the past 2 weeks, we have insisted that the original rescue package proposed by President Bush and by Secretary Paulson be changed dramatically. As Democrat leaders negotiated plans to rescue the economy, we fought tooth and nail to make sure that any proposal included expanded oversight, transparency and an assurance that taxpayers will be reimbursed in full. That is what the proposal in front of us does today.

We have a three-part plan to reinvest, to reimburse and to reform. We will rescue the troubled credit and financial markets to stabilize and to reinvest in our economy, to insulate hardworking Americans, to reimburse the taxpayers for every dime, and to reform how business is done on Wall Street.

With this bill, we are standing up for all Americans by ensuring that there will be no help for Wall Street without help for Main Street. We are standing up for taxpayers by requiring strong, independent oversight, transparency and accountability for the money spent.

Even the General Accounting Office will be moving into the Treasury Department.

We are standing up for the working Americans by limiting excessive compensation for CEOs. We are standing up for homeowners, basically the crux of what happened here, by requiring the government to steer mortgages in danger of foreclosure to loan workout programs to prevent the foreclosures that are driving down home values all across the country. We are insuring more of the hard-earned money saved by families and by small businesses across America by upping the Federal protection of bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000.

I am proud to say that three House committees will begin oversight hearings very shortly. In January, with a new Congress and with a new President, we will be ready to reinstate the regulations so cavalierly removed by an administration which believed that the financial industry could regulate itself, leading us to the dire consequences we face today.

Taxpayers should know that we push to ensure that the government receives shares of any company it provides with aid, and after agreeing to rescue AIG from filing for bankruptcy, the government received nearly an 80 percent share in the company. The action was reassuring enough to the market that people are now clamoring to buy AIG assets.

By making sure the government gets shares of companies we aid, we are working to revitalize this industry in a way that will benefit the taxpayers who are funding this rescue. By doing so, the New Direction Congress is standing up for swift action to ensure a more sound economic future for all Americans. We are absolutely committed to doing everything possible to ensure that America keeps working and that government is also working for America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts and a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

I have.

Madam Speaker, we have found ourselves again at a junction where we have found ourselves many times in these last few years, at the mercy of the Senate. We have the bill that they passed; and, unfortunately, if we were to open it again, we would probably be here for another 2 years trying to do this bill, because I think both sides have many issues that they would have preferred to see here. But nonetheless, we understand the emergency that we are under, what it is that we have to do.

I take great comfort and want to say again that three of the major committees having oversight over financial services will begin very shortly to have hearings not only to determine why we are in this position, but what we can best do in January in the new session to remedy it and make sure that it never happens again.

We are expecting very quick action from those three committees. We wish them well. And we want the Nation to know that we are not just leaving town and letting that go, but we will be working on this throughout the rest of this time.

With that, I want to urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and it won't be much.

Madam Speaker, a little over 20 years ago, I made my first speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Today could very well be my last speech on the floor of the House. I hope it's not. I hope we come back in a lame duck session to consider pending trade legislation, but this could be my last speech. And I had a real stemwinder prepared, Madam Speaker, but unfortunately, we only have 15 minutes of time that Ways and Means controls, and I have many more speakers than I have time.

So, with the Speaker's indulgence, I will submit my remarks for the Record.

Madam Speaker, on May 5, 1988, during Floor debate on a defense authorization bill, I rose as a freshman Member to address this House for the very first time, urging my colleagues to support an amendment in the name of fiscal responsibility. My very first words on the Floor that day warned of the dangers of the growing national debt. Over the two decades since, I've made scores of speeches and cast more than 11,000 votes in this historic chamber, representing the hardworking taxpayers of Louisiana to the best of my ability.

While I certainly hope we can return in November to complete action on our unfinished trade agenda, Madam Speaker, I rise today for what may be my final Floor speech as a Member of this body. As someone who has spent his entire career fighting for smaller government, freer markets, and greater economic liberty for all Americans, it is sadly ironic that I speak today in favor of a plan that, on its surface, appears to run counter to those principles.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, this proposal seems to undermine the very foundations of capitalism, upending the economic incentives that drive entrepreneurial risk-taking. In America, we rightly celebrate our freedom to succeed in economic ventures. But in America, we're also supposed to be free to fail in those ventures, without expectation of a bailout from fellow taxpayers.

By rushing in with $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to address the current crisis, I fear we are greatly increasing the moral hazard associated with economic risk-taking. I resent the level of government interference in the private market we see in this bill, and I hope it does not set a precedent that Congress follows in the future.

Despite my grave concerns about this proposal, Madam Speaker, the weight of the evidence says we need to act--not to bail out the Wall Street titans, but instead to stabilize the credit markets upon which Main Street depends.

Over recent weeks, I have listened carefully to experts on all sides of this issue, to constituents with a variety of strongly-held views, and to the voice of the U.S. Senate, which passed this emergency plan on Wednesday by a 74-25 vote. On balance, I am convinced that the Treasury Secretary needs to have appropriate authority to halt our Nation's slide into what could become a profound and extended economic downturn. If that were to occur and our financial markets were to collapse, I believe it could open the door to even more government interference in the private marketplace and to even less economic freedom for all Americans.

We must not let that happen. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks to our economy, and our freedoms, are just too great. The circumstances are exigent, Madam Speaker, and, in my judgment, we need to act now.

In addition to three tax provisions contained in the financial rescue portion of the bill--provisions dealing with the treatment of executive compensation, capital losses incurred by banks holding preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the tax exclusion for forgiven debt on home mortgages--the bill before us also includes the Senate's comprehensive tax extenders package. This is a positive development, Madam Speaker, because the Senate's tax package provides more than $107 billion in net tax relief to U.S. families and businesses.

With enactment of this bill, we will finally resolve the tax dispute that has divided Republicans and Democrats for the entirety of the 110th Congress, delaying action on the AMT patch and other tax extenders, including a variety of energy-related tax incentives.

Over the past 2 years, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent the tax increases that would result from the scheduled expiration of existing tax law. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that the House's paygo rules require us to find offsets for extensions of expired or expiring tax law.

This comprehensive package--previously approved as a free-standing bill by the other body by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 2--represents a bipartisan compromise, much like the financial rescue plan to which it has been attached. It contains extenders provisions that are not fully offset--as many Democrats would prefer--but contains more offsets than many Republicans would like, including some on domestic oil and gas producers that I find particularly troubling.

It is certainly not a perfect package, Madam Speaker, but with adjournment looming, it is the only package that can pass both chambers and actually be enacted into law.

Specifically, this package will protect millions of middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the AMT in 2008. It provides more than $48 billion in tax relief by extending through

2009 various expired and expiring provisions affecting U.S. families and businesses. And it contains an $18 billion package of energy- related tax incentives, including the creation of a new tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles.

The package also contains a set of disaster-related tax relief provisions, including both nationwide tax relief and targeted tax relief for the victims of this summer's Midwestern storms and for victims of Hurricane Ike in Louisiana and Texas. Finally, the Senate's comprehensive tax package contains several non-tax provisions of significant interest to many Members on both sides of the aisle, including mental health parity and a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program.

All in all, this is a good, bipartisan package of tax proposals, Madam Speaker, and I think its inclusion improves the overall financial rescue package before us by providing important tax relief to our nation's families and businesses at a critical time for our economy.

So today, I will cast my vote for this economic stabilization plan, sobered by the reality that our failure to act could have unprecedented, catastrophic consequences for our country and the economic freedoms for which I've long fought as a Member of this great institution.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I want to first say how much I appreciate the very kind words of the gentleman from New York and appreciate very much the opportunity to have worked with him over the last couple of years. He has been more than gracious to me and to all the members of the committee, and so his words were heartfelt, and I very much appreciate them.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Nunes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a distinguished Member of this House, Mr. Wamp.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, certainly the tax portion of the bill today, represents a compromise. These extensions of expiring provisions of the Tax Code have been bandied about here in the House back, over in the Senate, back and forth all year long, including the patch on the alternative minimum tax. I'm gratified that we were able to come together to present the tax extenders in this package because I believe very strongly in the overwhelming majority of those provisions. I think they're good, sound tax policy. Members of this House have voted for all of them many times over.

So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this bill, especially for the tax extenders.

I rise in opposition to this bill.

The public is being led to believe that Congress has reconsidered its position because we have before us a better bill than we had a few days ago. It is the same bill plus hundreds of new pages for hundreds of millions of tax breaks. What does this have to do with the troubles of Wall Street?

Driven by fear we are moving quickly to pass a bill, which may produce a temporary uptick for the market but nothing for millions of homeowners whose misfortunes are at the center of our economic woes. People do not have money to pay their mortgages. After this passes, they will still not have money to pay their mortgages. People will still lose their homes while Wall Street is bailed out.

The central flaw of this bill is that there are no stronger protections for homeowners and no changes in the language to ensure that the secretary has the authority to compel mortgage servicers to modify the terms of mortgages. And there are no stronger regulatory changes to fix the circumstances that allowed this to happen.

We should have created a mechanism for our Government to take a controlling interest in mortgage-backed securities and use our power to work out a new deal for the homeowners. We could have done this. We should have done this. But we didn't.

Now millions of Americans will face the threat of foreclosure without any help. And the numbers will soon rise for a number of reasons. Not only because of the Alt-A, jumbo mortgages which will soon be reset at higher interest rates, but because the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is pushing up rates on adjustable mortgages and more than half of the U.S. adjustable mortgage rates are tied to LIBOR. Homeowner defaults will grow in significant numbers. Let's see if Congress will be as quick to help homeowners on Main Street as they were to help speculators on Wall Street.

Now the Government will have to borrow $700 billion from banks, with interest, to give banks a $700 billion bailout, and in return the taxpayers get $700 billion in toxic debt. The Senate ``improved'' the bailout by giving tax breaks to people in foreclosure. People in foreclosure need help paying their mortgage, they do not seek tax breaks.

Across our Nation, foreclosures continue to devastate our communities, people are losing their jobs, and the prices of necessities are skyrocketing. This legislation, just like the one we defeated last week, will do nothing to solve the problems plaguing American families or help them to get out from underneath the oppressive debt they have been forced to take on.

Unfortunately, there has been no discussion of the underlying debt- based economy and the role of our monetary system in facilitating the redistribution of wealth upwards.

It is not as though we had no choice but to pass the bill before us. We could have done this differently. We could have demanded language in the legislation that would have empowered the Treasury to compel mortgage servicers to rework the terms of mortgage loans so homeowners could avoid foreclosure. We could have put regulatory structures in place to protect investors. We could have stopped the speculators.

This bill represents an utter failure of the democratic process. It represents the triumph of special interest over the triumph of the public interest. It represents the inability of Government to defend the public interest in the face of great pressure from financial interests. We could have recognized the power of Government to prime the pump of the economy to get money flowing through out society by creating jobs, health care, and major investments in green energy. What a lost opportunity! What a moment of transition away from democracy and towards domination of America by global economic interests.

Years ago, in a Cleveland neighborhood, I saw a hand-scrawled sign above a cash register in a delicatessen. The sign said: ``In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash.'' The sign above the Speaker's rostrum reads ``In God We Trust,'' but today we are paying the cash to Wall Street.

It is not as if we had no other choice but to pass this bill.

[From Ohio.com, Oct. 3, 2008]

Foreclosure Victim, 90, Apparently Shoots Self

(By Phil Trexler)

At the age of 90, Addie Polk found herself in foreclosure

this week, about to be forced from the home she's lived in

for nearly 40 years.

So, with a gun in her hand, the Akron widow apparently shot

herself in the chest Wednesday afternoon as deputies were

knocking on her door with eviction papers in hand.

While a nation reels in financial crisis from years of

mortgage abuse, Polk is recovering at Akron General Medical

Center, awaiting word on where she will live when she's

released.

Meanwhile, city leaders say Polk has become Akron's

``poster child'' for victims of predatory lenders.

``I think this is a case where we need to step in and help

this lady if she is so desperate to shoot herself because she

can't pay her mortgage,'' Akron Councilman Marco Sommerville

said.

Court records show Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent

mortgage just four years ago for $45,620 with a Countrywide

Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls. She took out a line of

credit that same day for $11,380.

Her La Croix Avenue home was appraised by Summit County in

2004 at $31,230.

The Countrywide branch did not return a call for comment

Thursday.

Polk essentially owed the same $45,000 when the Federal

National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) filed for

foreclosure on her home in 2007. Fannie Mae assumed the

mortgage from Countrywide.

Following foreclosure this year, Polk's six-room, 101-year-

old home was bought by Fannie Mae at sheriffs auction for

$28,000.

Her house now belongs to the lender.

Summit County sheriffs deputies say Polk ignored multiple

notes and letters leading up to Wednesday's eviction. She

also ignored the foreclosure action filed in court.

It wasn't until Tuesday that she called the sheriffs office

in disbelief. The next day was eviction day.

``I'm positive she believed the deputies were going to come

in, clean out the house and set her and her things on the

curb, because they did that decades ago. But that's not what

happens nowadays,'' sheriffs Lt. Kandy Fatheree said.

``I'm sure she had to be thinking back to the Great

Depression when people were set out on the street. She had to

be scared to death.''

Deputies Dave Bailey, Jason Beam and Don Fatheree went to

the home about 1 p.m. Wednesday to meet with a Fannie Mae

representative and escort Polk from the house. They said they

had no idea the woman was 90 years old.

The deputies' knocks were unanswered, and they were about

to leave because the Fannie Mae representative failed to

show. Then, they heard a banging noise coming from the home's

second floor.

Next-door neighbor Robert Dillon heard it, too. More bangs

followed.

Dillon borrowed a neighbor's ladder and climbed through

Polk's second-floor bathroom window and walked into her

bedroom. She was lying on her side, a gun next to her on the

bed.

``I'm thinking to myself, `Why does Mrs. Polk got a gun?'

'' Dillon said. ``After looking around, I touched her

shoulder and saw the blood and I said, `Shucks, she done shot

herself.' ''

Dillon, 62, shouted to the deputies, who alerted Akron EMS.

Polk apparently shot herself more than once with a small-

caliber handgun, police said.

Polk and her late husband, Robert, a Goodrich retiree,

moved into the home in 1970. He died in 1995, but Polk

continued to live independently, but alone, still driving her

late model Chevrolet to the grocery store and church.

She appeared to be struggling financially, Dillon said, but

he said she never spoke of the foreclosure action looming for

more than a year.

She had no children of her own and few visitors, he said.

``She didn't need no help. She got around good,'' he said.

It is unclear how Polk used the loan money. Dillon said he

didn't notice any work being done on the property, and

deputies said her front porch was soft from years of neglect.

``Where'd the money go?'' Dillon asked.

Sommerville said he is working with the city and the county

to assist Polk with housing, once she is released from the

hospital.

He said the city has been awarded more than $8 million in

federal grants in the wake of the mortgage crisis to help

cope with the crush.

Sommerville said Polk's fate humanizes the problem for the

rich and poor. And he urged those facing foreclosure to seek

assistance through various local and county agencies.

``It's a sad situation,'' he said. ``She's the poster child

for this foreclosure crisis we are facing.''