Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7321) to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1534, I call up the bill (H.R. 7321) to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this bill and include extraneous remarks and material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, we consider this bill in a context, a context framed by the report last Friday of a massive loss of jobs in the American economy. This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression.

We are facing a double hit, a credit crisis brought on by a variety of factors, but resulting now in a serious lack of confidence on the part of investors and a deterioration in the physical parts of the economy, which have combined to cause a serious, deep recession.

That is relevant because there have been suggestions that we could afford to allow the three domestically owned auto companies to founder, that there are other sources of automobiles, that they could be required to declare bankruptcy, to, therefore, not pay suppliers, to cut back substantially on money owed dealers, to reduce by large amounts the workforce and the compensation of the workforce, to take one of the major factors of the American economy and substantially reduce its economic impact.

I think that would have been a mistake in any economic period, but to contemplate the severity of that blow to our economic activity at this time is to invite further deterioration of an economy that has already deteriorated beyond what people expected and beyond what the American people ought to have to tolerate.

The bill is a limited bill. It is the product of a compromise, the terms of which were largely dictated by the President of the United States. I am struck, Mr. Speaker, by the lack of confidence that has been expressed on the Republican side of this House, not in the auto industry, but in George Bush and the people he has and will appoint.

The amount of money here, $15 billion, is a loan. It is a loan far more likely to be repaid than many of the much larger amounts that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, working with them, have advanced to Citigroup and AIG and the number of other entities.

It is $15 billion because the President said no new money, not even money from the $700 billion troubled assets fund, the TARP. This Congress voted a month or two ago, 2 months ago, to advance $25 billion to the auto industry to promote innovation, which everyone agrees is necessary. It wasn't just to the Big Three, it was to any applicant who was going to use this money to try to innovate.

The President said, to our dismay, he would veto any legislation trying to keep the auto industry out of bankruptcy that used any funds other than that $25 billion that had already been voted for that purpose. The Speaker, to her credit, resisted what I think was a strong temptation to engage in a dispute with the President that would have killed any effort to get legislation and instead, perhaps to his surprise, she agreed with him and said we would live with that constraint.

So the amount of money that is here is both in amount and, in short, exactly what George Bush wanted. This is an amount of money that George Bush told us we could make available.

We have made it available in a form that makes it overwhelmingly likely that it will be repaid. It is a loan with the American Government in a super senior position in terms of repayment and where there were some potential problems with that because of clauses in other agreements, heavy collateral.

So this $15 billion is very likely to be returned if the program fails. That's the worst case.

We will have advanced $15 billion, we will get it back in 3 months because disaster cannot be averted, but we are not willing to say that disaster cannot be averted without trying.

What this bill then says is the President of the United States, George Bush, shall designate an administration official to preside over a process of hard negotiation with all of those who have a share in this industry, the companies, of course, the bondholders, the workers, the suppliers and the auto dealers, and make it clear to them that if they are not willing and able to come together and reduce costs and put in place a program that makes it possible to envision a future in which more efficient cars are made and sold with a great likelihood of success, then not only will there be no more money than the $15 billion, but the $15 billion will have to be repaid.

Well, apparently my Republican colleagues, again, do not think that the Bush administration has within its ranks anyone capable, with all the help that they have been given, of beginning that process. Some have said, no, make them go bankrupt.

There is nothing about bankruptcy that cannot be accomplished within the framework we have said except the ability to unilaterally say ``no'' to this or that class of people who are owed money. All of the powers that you could accomplish in reorganization in a bankruptcy are given here, and the enforcement power is that the money will be withdrawn if this is not done and the entities will collapse.

We have provisions in here that make it impossible, if the Bush administration and then the Obama administration coming after them, say so to have money that was, in part, provided by the American taxpayer, used to finance activity in other countries. That doesn't mean American investors should never be in other countries. It does mean that taxpayer dollars made available in these circumstances shouldn't go to other countries. Then the question is, then, well, why the haste? We are hastily reacting to very fast-moving events.

A month ago it did not appear that the car companies would be in such dire straits. Car companies all over the world have been hurt by the credit crisis. Automobiles are paid for by credit. As credit has tightened up substantially, and as people have lost their jobs, there has been a greater than anticipated fall off in auto sales. Of course, the auto companies have made mistakes in the past, a lot of people in the industry have, including consumers.

But we find that the rapid deterioration in the general economy, it hasn't caused the problem for the automakers, but it has exacerbated them and greatly shortened our time horizon.

This bill is intended to keep them from going bankrupt between now and March 31. It does it in a way that will allow us to recapture the money if that effort fails. It does express the belief that, done properly, in conjunction with other things, things that could unstick the credit market, funds that we hope will be made available under the troubled assets program to auto dealers, who have a very real claim here, and we will be pushing for a program that will include them and funding be made available. Several Members of this House have spoken out strongly in favor of doing that.

We believe it is possible, and likely, that as the economy gets better, and as they continue the movements they have already made towards cars that are likely to sell and be more energy efficient, that we can survive this.

There are some Members who have consistently opposed any intervention, but this administration sent over $100 billion to AIG. Citigroup has been the recipient of very large amounts of money. I do not understand how people can have not made any effort to undo the administration's intervention with AIG, well over $100 billion, and then try and stop about one-seventh of that sum as a loan to the auto companies.

Yes, credit and finance are important, but the physical work done by working class and middle-class Americans in auto companies, in car dealerships, in the small businesses that are other suppliers, cumulatively, are just as important. To give up now on the auto industry would be to condemn the American economy at one of its most vulnerable periods in our economic history to a degree of further hurt, and the American people deserve better.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, December 10, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank: This is to memorialize the provisions

in H.R. 7321, the ``Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring

Act,'' that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Judiciary. In particular, there are several

provisions in section 12(d) and (e) that alter the normal

operation of the bankruptcy laws; section 19(c) provides the

annual cost-of-living salary adjustment for the federal

judiciary: and section 19(d) precludes private antitrust

suits regarding certain consultations between a covered

automaker and its employees, dealers, suppliers, and

creditors.

In agreeing to be discharged from further consideration of

the bill, in order that it may proceed without delay to the

House floor for consideration, the Judiciary Committee does

not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in

this or similar legislation. We also reserve the right to

seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any

House-Senate conference involving this important legislation,

and would ask your support if such a request is made.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request,

and for the cooperative relationship between our two

committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to note that I am surprised to hear my friend argue that the bankruptcy courts have more automotive expertise and engineering and finance and industrial policy expertise than is present in the whole Bush administration. I think he is too pessimistic about that and too much supportive of the bankruptcy process.

Second, I would also just recall the very thoughtful remark of our colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, who noted that those who thought bankruptcy was a disaster for mortgages appear to see it as a panacea for automobiles. Many of us fail to see how that transformation took place.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Detroit (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the dean of the House and a great expert over time on the auto industry, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we've gotten an imbalance of time here, so if it is all right with the gentleman from Texas, I would reserve and defer to him for another speaker or two to even out the time.

I would continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that my friend from Georgia apparently doesn't trust the auto companies to know what's in their own interest. He says that the provision in our bill that gives the administrator the ability to cancel a decision, which we have in there as protection against money being sent overseas, is way too interventionist, and instead, they'd be better off with bankruptcy. That's a choice they will be free to make under this bill.

This bill doesn't force anybody to apply for the money. Any company that thinks the provisions of this bill are too burdensome and too interventionist retains the full authority to run to bankruptcy.

I will say this. I yield myself 15 seconds. They think bankruptcy is a lot less attractive than the gentleman from Georgia. But understand, he says, protect the companies from this intervention which keeps money from being sent overseas. Let them go bankrupt.

None of them want to make that choice, but if they do, this bill leaves them free to do it. It doesn't force them to take the money. They still have the joys of bankruptcy which the gentleman from Georgia explained to them.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I would reserve again. We have got an imbalance that we created.

I yield 1 minute to another long-time distinguished expert in the field, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will take 30 seconds to say that my friend from Arizona says how can we assume that one bureaucrat would know more than the marketplace. Well, it's not harder to do that than to assume that one bankruptcy trustee would know more than the marketplace. Bankruptcy is a suspension of the marketplace. I am puzzled by this double standard here. Let's leave it to the market by appointing a bankruptcy trustee--a total abnegation of the concept of the market--and the appointment of a lawyer who is less likely, it seems to me, to have the expertise than the whole Bush administration might be able to find in industrial matters.

I yield 1 minute to the long-suffering and extremely patient gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

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

I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Well, I am personally prepared to close. I would not be allowed to, so I have several more speakers.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, who has been, as I can personally testify, the most ardent advocate in responding to this automobile crisis, Mr. Levin.

If the gentleman would yield, the answer is, yes, that clause does apply. We would want an automobile manufacturer to be able to use any of its existing unfunded credit facilities as a source of liquidity. So we clearly intend for the savings clause in the subordination provision of the legislation to cover unfunded committed credit facilities in effect as of December 2.

Let me inquire of the gentleman: Does he have only one speaker remaining?

Then I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I will now speak, and I will have one speaker after that. So when I'm through, it will be the turn of the gentleman from Texas to do his closing because I'm retaining one speaker after myself.

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Here is the dichotomy: Bankruptcy versus a piece of legislation which says to the administration--the incoming and outgoing--you do what you hope to accomplish in bankruptcy but with more flexibility, with a greater pool of people to call on.

We've heard mocked the notion that either this administration or the next would have within its ranks expertise in economics and industrial organization, and we're told, ``No, no. That doesn't work. Find a bankruptcy trustee.'' I think they get the worst part of that argument if they listen to it.

Beyond that, we have consumer marketing issues. The three companies are convinced--and almost every expert I talked to agrees with them--if they declare formal bankruptcy, their ability to sell cars is damaged. People buying cars want to know they will have a continuing relationship with an entity that will service the cars and make parts for the cars.

So this continuing longer term relationship makes bankruptcy far more of a problem for them than for an airline where your contingency was just to buy one seat and nothing further.

But again, the greatest illogic is to argue that somehow in the bankruptcy courts with a bankruptcy trustee, we were going to tie it to the lawyers. You get a far greater degree of expertise than either one of the two Presidential administrations could find within its ranks of economists and engineers and others. Therefore, we believe that our solution is the preferred one.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Barney Frank and his entire Financial Services team and committee for the outstanding work they have done with this very difficult situation for the last month or so. Thank you, Barney, and for the full committee. The Michigan delegation in a bipartisan way worked feverishly to make this happen. Thank you very much.

America is at a crossroads, a crossroads on whether America will be a first-rate country as we move through this century. Seventy years ago, my grandfather, as well as hundreds of others, came to this part of the country

from South Carolina to the midwest, to the manufacturing base of America, the base that built the middle-class in this country. Without the manufacturing, there would be no middle-class in America. Do we want to forsake that today? I hope not.

The American automobile industry is the military equipment builders of our country, from World War II and every war thereafter, building the tanks, the ammunition, the body armor and the like. It will be a mistake for us if we don't preserve this industry.

Three million-plus direct jobs with another 10 million from insurance, health care, security. You name it, those are 13.6 million Americans affected by this automobile industry. We must preserve it.

The middle class is dwindling as we speak. With all the problems America has, this is not the time to kill, if you will, the only manufacturing base we have left in our country. We already yielded the electronics industry. We yielded the fabric and the garment industry. Manufacturing is one of the tools that can keep our country alive. I hope you will vote today and save this most vital industry.

I mentioned my grandfather. I am the next generation after that. Because of the manufacturing industry, the automobile industry specifically, we have been able to send generations of young people who are now 40, 50, 60 years old to college, the manufacturing industry.

Vote for this bill. Don't do it wrong. Let's do it right.

Giving thanks to God, who is the power, force and director of my life, I thank the Democratic Leadership and my colleagues in the Michigan delegation for their continued hard work, objective analysis and hard questions for both automobile manufacturers and taxpayers. As an enthusiastic supporter of the automotive industry, I, along with the unanimous agreement of the Michigan delegation, seek a balanced, fair solution for American taxpayers, manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers to the automobile industry. A large part of that solution is this bill, crafted by Chairman Frank and Members of the House Financial Services Committee on which I once served. This bill will provide $15 billion in bridge loans to help struggling automakers survive while they prepare plans to restructure their companies to build more competitive, fuel- efficient, and technologically-advanced vehicles. This assistance will not only help manufacturers, but it will help the workers, the dealers, the suppliers and the 13 million jobs that are directly and indirectly affected by the largest industry in our Nation--the automobile industry.

In addition, this bill, which would amend current law, demands taxpayer protections such as limits to executive compensation, including a ban on so-called ``golden parachute'' payments, a prohibition on dividend payments over the life of the loans, rigorous independent oversight, and provisions for the government taking warrants and allowing the taxpayer to profit in any upside of the restructuring. This is a fair balance for both the manufacturers and American taxpayers. If the Big Three were to collapse, there would be a loss of personal income of close to $400 billion, with a combined loss of tax receipts of $156 billion, over 3 years, according to the Center for Automotive Research. With the interdependence of Mexico, Canada and the United States because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), this vastly underestimates the ultimate impact if the Big Three were to go bankrupt.

With the recent loss of more than half a million jobs in one month, in our Nation, Federal assistance to the automotive industry is needed immediately for our economic, military, and energy security and safety. A government-supported restructuring of the auto industry is urgently needed for our economic, military and energy security. General Wesley Clark recently wrote that ``some economists question the wisdom of Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative.''

This is an opportunity for Congress to do four things. One, it is an opportunity to get our country to energy security or energy independence. Two, it is a chance to ensure that, unlike our textile and electronics industry, to preserve and protect our manufacturing base, the last industry in which America still holds a slight but precarious lead. Three, it can be a way in which we get the manufacturers toward building the vehicles that Congress mandated that they build. Four, we can preserve the jobs and businesses of dealers and suppliers. In all of the discussions of saving the manufacturers, there has been little, if any, discussion to save the thousands of automobile dealers and suppliers to the automotive industry.

Congress has been advocating that our country become either energy independent or have energy security. Indeed, President Richard Nixon challenged that our Nation become independent on foreign oil in the early 1970s. Although the automotive industry is in a crisis, this is truly an opportunity to start a major reorganization and reprogramming of the entire automotive industry. In less than 2 years, General Motors will produce the first practical all-electric motor vehicle. This is a welcome opportunity, and is a development that all Americans should embrace. By being the first to produce a battery that can get hundreds of miles per charge, the United States can be the first in this manufacturing technology. This will create thousands of green jobs, clean up the air, and make us less dependent on foreign sources of fuel. This achievement is right around the corner, as GM is set to bring the Chevy Volt to market in less than 2 years. In less than 10 years, these batteries and fuel cells can be, and should be, built in the United States.

Second, we need to preserve the automotive industry as it is the base of manufacturing in the United States. Second only to the strong faith that Americans have in one another is the strength of our economy. Our modern economy was built by companies like General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. These are the companies that essentially built this country to victory in World War II and every military conflict we have had ever since. These companies not only built the tanks, the Jeeps, the trucks that support the women and men in our military, they often created the technologies that allow us to have navigational systems in our cars, brakes that last for thousands of miles, and protect our bodies in accidents. We cannot afford to lose this innovative intellectual property.

The auto industry has come to the rescue, once again, for our women and men in the military. The Humvee, the Stryker, and the mine- resistant ambush vehicles, and the like are built primarily in Michigan but entirely in the United States. As General Wesley Clark said, ``the lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.'' Our economy and our troops cannot survive the loss of the automotive industry.

Third, the manufacturers know what is at stake today. It is not only their individual survival, but whether our country suffers a recession or a depression. We cannot afford, at this perilous time in our economy, the shut down of any company. Any form of bankruptcy would tear what little confidence consumers have in the auto industry to shreds by decimating consumer demand and forcing thousands of suppliers who need the cash flow from the auto manufacturers into immediate default. This legislation would allow time and cash for the manufacturers to make the necessary and needed change in their vehicles, again mandated by Congress, for the long-term energy self- sufficiency and environmental protection we seek. This legislation does just that.

One in every 10 jobs in the United States is somehow linked to the automotive industry. After the purchase of a home, the purchase of an automobile is the largest purchase for the overwhelming majority of America's consumers. Michigan, specifically my home city of Detroit, has been the home of the automotive industry for decades. More than 13 million jobs are directly or indirectly rely on the automotive industry. The losses of the automotive industry have been massive. In 2005, General Motors, which is headquartered in my Congressional District, lost more than $5.6 billion on its North America operations alone, with Ford losing $5.5 billion during the same period of time. GM's share of the market, which used to be 36 percent in 1990, had shrunk to 26 percent in 2005. Ford's 1990 share of the market, which was 24 percent, was 17 percent 2 years ago. Production for Ford and GM has dropped 26 percent since 1999.

In the wake of these losses, Michigan and our country have lost a significant number of jobs. Both GM and Ford announced a series of plant closings in North America, with an estimated loss of 60,000 jobs through layoffs and early retirement buy-outs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 the automotive industry lost a total of 215,000 jobs, and stated that ``industry employment is headed downward and is not likely to recover for several years.'' This situation does not get any better for those related industries supplying automobile parts, providing insurance for automobiles, or selling vehicles wholesale or retail.

While domestic manufacturers are not entirely blameless for these losses, a significant factor has been the way in which China has

done business with the Big Three. One of the U.S./China Commission's conclusions, to which I testified 2 years ago, was ``the many subsidies provided by the Chinese government to the auto industry will quickly distort the nature of the market. This will be true especially in the United States, where markets are most open. The Chinese challenge to the U.S. auto industry is a significant assault on American manufacturing, and that assault is increasing in magnitude and in pace.'' Are we willing to concede to other countries, perhaps China, our manufacturing base?

Finally, I am worried about the health of automobile dealers and suppliers, specifically ethnic minority automobile dealers and suppliers. It is my understanding from experts in the field that up to 75 percent of ethnic minority new car dealers, if they do not receive financial assistance within 60 days, will fail. In a meeting two weeks ago with the Speaker and the House Democratic leadership, the manufacturers estimated that more than 700 dealers are expected to close their doors before the end of the year. In all of this discussion about helping the manufacturers, it is only fair that some of this help go directly to the ethnic minority dealers and suppliers who are the backbone of their communities and of the automotive industry. Ethnic dealers and suppliers are first generation dealers and suppliers and simply do not have the economy of scale of their majority counterparts. As we move forward with this legislation, it is my hope that we provide immediate assistance to those who most need it--ethnic minority automobile dealers and suppliers.

We face tough times. The automotive industry can succeed, with the help of Congress, once again. The automotive industry has made mistakes, and all of the manufacturers present will tell you that I have worked with them to improve their product, outreach, and business model. Here, in Washington, DC, it is often hard for legislators to truly appreciate how difficult life is for the rest of America. In Michigan, we face record foreclosures, unemployment and job loss from manufacturing. We must save the automobile industry for the future of not only the industry but for the state of Michigan and our country. We must not repeat the mistakes we made in giving away our textile and electronics industry to other countries. We must do all we can to retain this vital segment of America.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise in support of this important legislation and commend Chairman Frank for his persistence in bringing a very focused, disciplined bill to the floor and thank Mr. Bachus for his leadership as well.

As Speaker of the House, I am pleased to rise to quote another Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, a legend in our country, certainly in this Congress. He served here with great distinction, as many of us know from the history books and some of us saw as students, and he said the following. He said: When I was a child, I lived way out in the country. I'd sit on the fence on Sundays and wish to God that somebody would ride by on a horse or drive by on a buggy, just anything to relieve my loneliness. Loneliness, he said, consumes people. That's why I'm so glad to see that today farmers have cars. And he goes on to say what that progress meant in the life of developing a sense of community.

Since the days when the Model Ts first rolled off Henry Ford's assembly line owning a car has been part of the American dream. I know when I was young and when the new models would come out it was a very festive occasion. It has been for a long time. I just haven't kept up with all the cars. But today, the American automotive industry is imperiled due not only to recession and a credit freeze, but because it has been on the wrong track for long-term competitiveness and job creation.

Today, we are considering legislation not as life support to sustain a dying industry but a jump start for an industry that is essential to our country's economies, economic health. One in 10 American jobs is linked to the domestic auto industry, and it is a key pillar in an American sector critical to our national security and economic competitiveness for decades to come.

This legislation is about offering Detroit, and America, a chance to get back on track. This legislation is important. It is built on four principles, and actually it comes down to a question of tough love, tough love for an industry whose success is essential to our economic success, whose jobs are important to our workforce, whose innovation is essential to our progress, and whose manufacturing and technological and industrial base is also essential to our national security.

There are four principles in the bill. First, when we ask taxpayers to put up money to fund this restructuring, we must have accountability to the American people. The President will designate a car czar to oversee the industry's restructuring. The taxpayers get a return on their investment or are first in line to be repaid. I thank Mr. Frank for insisting on that provision. No golden parachutes, bonuses, or corporate jets for executives. And the Government Accountability Office and the TARP, that's the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Inspector General will provide independent oversight to protect our investment. Accountability for the taxpayer.

Second, there must be shared sacrifice. Everybody, every party to the auto sector must be present at the table. Mr. McCotter rightfully referenced the United Auto Workers making concessions, but they shouldn't be the only ones making concessions. I've called it a barbershop: When one person gets a haircut, everyone must get a haircut. That means those who are shareholders, those who are bondholders must have a cramdown on what return they get on the dollar. Suppliers have to understand the realities of what the market is for these cars. Dealers have to be treated with the respect that all of these elements deserve but with the reality of what the real marketplace is and what the market for the cars are. The auto workers have made concessions already. Perhaps they must be expedited, perhaps they must do more, but everything must be a shared sacrifice, and if one element is going to make the sacrifice, they shouldn't be asked to do so unless everyone shares in that. And the executive suite, the management of the companies, they must be part of that sacrifice as well, and I referenced that in the accountability section.

Third, the auto makers must restructure or repay. The companies must restructure to achieve viability, international competitiveness, and they must do this with fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.

And this is important for our colleagues who do not support this bill because we share many views. This has to be a tough standard because otherwise we're just putting out money for more of the same, but that is not what this legislation is about nor should it be. If they do not, the car czar can require immediate repayment of a loan if the company has not made adequate progress by February 15 to develop a long-term restructuring plan. The company will get no more Federal assistance if it fails to submit an acceptable final restructuring plan by March 31.

The list again, accountability, shared sacrifice, restructuring, and fourth and finally, there must be a commitment to innovation and efficiency.

Green is gold. Green is gold. Making a commitment to innovation and fuel economy and better emission standards makes the automotive industry in our country more competitive. People will want to buy their cars.

The legislation calls for maintaining a half billion dollars of the innovation funding set aside to help the industry retool to build advanced technology vehicles that greatly improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions, and replenishing the remainder of the innovation funds in a matter of weeks.

Now, let me just say this. I have objected strenuously to using the green funds, the so-called 136 funds, because their purpose in our energy bill last year was very specific. It was for advanced, innovative manufacturing technology. In other words, it was for the retooling and making sure that companies had funds for them to research, develop, and benefit from that funding. The administration insisted that money be used instead for this restructuring period of time. I reluctantly agreed only with the idea that the money would be replenished, because without their advanced manufacturing technology, we are not going to have the progress necessary to compete internationally and domestically, for that matter. And most of that is about the environment. It's about the greening of the automotive industry.

I know the automotive industry can do it. Do you know, my colleagues, that in Europe this year the car that took first place in the ratings there was a GM Opel, a GM Opel, a General Motors Opel? Second place went to Ford Fiesta. Over 100 points behind them was Volkswagen. So these are General Motors- and Ford-made cars. Ranking just 1 point behind was Ford, 100 points or more behind was Volkswagen. These are American company-made cars in Europe that they have not chosen to sell in America.

Something is wrong with this picture. We know that in Latin America the flex-fuel cars for years have been sold. They were American-made cars, made by American manufacturers. Millions of them. But the industry chose not to advance them here because they made more money off of SUVs and the executive compensation and bonuses were tied to SUVs. Something is very wrong with this picture.

So what we are saying here is let everybody come to the table. Everybody get a haircut. Everybody has got to get a trim, maybe a big trim. Only then can we restructure this so that we have a competitive industry looking to the future, as Sam Rayburn looked to the future when he was so excited about seeing cars for the first time, bringing the American people together, American cars that have always been part of the American Dream.

So I'm optimistic because I see us with two choices: One is the automotive industry is on the brink, and some are advocating bankruptcy. Some of the people advocating bankruptcy will make money off that bankruptcy. But that takes us down to a deep pit that over a long period of time is detrimental to our economy, harmful to our workers, and certainly does not make us more competitive internationally.

Instead we have listened to what the companies have had to say. We said you're not going to see any money until we see the plan. We've seen the plan. It was better than what we saw before. Much more needs to be done. This affords a period of time with half of what they asked for. But we want to see performance, we want to see milestones by certain dates that they are

making this progress. And we want to see a change in mentality in the executive suite in Detroit.

What a great community, what a great State, Detroit and Michigan. They have been part, again, of the manufacturing part of the American Dream. We want to throw a lifeline for success. We do not intend to afford life support so that we just have to revisit this issue again at the same status quo.

So if you're upset with how the Big Three executives have operated, if you're upset about the fact that we are not competitive internationally, if you're upset that the taxpayer dollar has to be used to be committed to this, you should be very pleased with what this legislation does because it captures your frustration with it all. It sets us on a new path to viability, and it is a test, and we will soon see in a matter of weeks if the executive suites in Detroit are willing to make the choices. Certainly there needs to be retooling of the plants. Certainly there has to be renegotiating of the contracts. There may have to be reconsideration of the management of these companies if they cannot live up to the standard of this legislation and prove themselves worthy of the taxpayers' dollar that is being placed there.

So I think that on both sides of this issue we have a great deal of common ground. I just happen to come down on the side of giving a chance, this one more chance, to this great industry, optimistic by March 31 that we will all celebrate the new path that we are going down, but certainly ready, certainly ready to admit if that does not happen because unless it is absolutely clear in the minds of the people that we are talking about, the executives, the shareholders, the bondholders, the suppliers, the dealers, all of whom I respect, and the workers, who are a very high priority for us, unless it is clear to them that concessions and serious concessions must be made or else the alternative is almost unthinkable, they will not make the necessary concessions in some cases.

I salute the United Auto Workers for stepping up to the plate, for being the model, for leading the way to say we respect this industry, we want to advance it, and we are willing to take the lead in making those concessions.

So this is an important day in the life of America when the Congress speaking for the people, who are rightfully unhappy about all of this money going to companies that are supposed to be in the free market and be competitive, but nonetheless understanding what is at risk for all of us. As keepers of the taxpayers' trust here, if bankruptcy were to occur, the additional cost in unemployment insurance and food stamps and the safety net and the revenue foregone in our tax situation, locally, State, and nationally, would exact much more of a toll than the amount of money that we would be putting forth here.

So again I salute Mr. Frank for his leadership.

And may I say that at the end of the day yesterday, the legislation that you have before us is the legislation that we conceded on several points to agree to the White House language. This is bipartisan in its nature, and it is the legislation that we said we would go forward with in a bipartisan way that the President would sign. Others have made other changes, adjustments, whatever it is. They say on the Senate side they need this and that. But we operate in good faith. We agree to concessions. And we would hope that the White House would keep its word that it gave us last night about this legislation and encourage the Senate to follow suit and the President can sign the bill so the message will be clear to the markets and to the American people, to the workers and to all concerned with this great industry that we want to share in that sacrifice as well and we stand willing to do it by voting ``yes'' on this important legislation.

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.