Troubled Assets Relief Program Targeted Assets Act of 2009

Mr. Chairman, just as in baseball, sometimes a player who made a great defensive play is first up. After his stellar role in the chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

In a spirit of cooperation, if the gentleman is short of speakers, I have a surfeit over here. I notice there seems to be a lack of interest over there. We can send you some.

Okay. I was trying to fill the gap over there.

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) who has been a very informed advocate for many of the industries that operate in his district.

If the gentleman would yield, yes, it is. Let me say that the language is better now because of the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and some others who called our attention to an inadvertently narrow definition.

Yes, recreational vehicles play an important role in the economy and in the people's quality of life, and they should be included.

Absolutely. If the gentleman would yield, I think that this is an important part of what the average American wants and needs and that this is part of the chain of employment, so I will be urging them to do exactly that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the most informed members of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield 2 minutes to one of our very thoughtful Members, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

If the gentlewoman would yield, what we say in here is, first, we have adopted in this bill the LaTourette amendment that the House did unanimously, to go back to the money already given and demand an accounting. That, we think, will put some pressure on them.

But more importantly, going forward we say that the Treasury may not make any capital infusions until they have made an agreement with the recipient bank as to what they plan to do with the money. And we expect that, in most cases, that will be re-lending.

We also make this point. The first chunk of money went primarily to the very large banks. They don't lend in the ways that the gentlewoman wants to see loans. One of the other things we're going to do is to increase funding to community banks in general, which we can trust. But even with those banks, the community banks in which we have confidence about how they're going to respond, we are going to insist that there be an agreement beforehand as to how they will use the money.

Yes, it does include credit unions.

If the gentlewoman would yield here, and I appreciate her forbearance here. It's probably beyond the scope of this.

I yield 1 more minute to the gentlewoman, and ask her to yield it to me.

This question is requiring accounting, the accounting standards require them to write down the assets. I think that's reasonable. The problem is that once that's done, too many things automatically flow from that.

There used to be a show called Truth Or Consequences. Our problem is truth and consequences. I don't want to dilute the truth, but I think we can have some flexibility in the consequences. The gentlewoman has given a very good example of that. It's an issue that this Financial Services Committee will be working on. I expect to have a serious hearing on this and consideration of it, and I know the gentlewoman will be helpful to us in putting this together and deciding how to respond.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

I will inform my colleague, I'm about to get the last speaker before I will close. So I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

If the gentlewoman would yield, yes, he does. And the purpose of this bill is not simply to confirm that the authority is there, but to say that we expect it to be used, and to demand that if it is not used we get a written explanation as to why not.

And I think it should be noted, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, the gentlewoman from California, earlier the gentleman from Virginia, most recently the gentleman from Illinois, really a fairly good geographic stretch, have all made the point that the municipalities have been the unfair victims of this financial crisis, and we do some things to help that in this particular legislation. We will be doing more. And I thank all three of them and many others who have brought this to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I will use our remaining time.

People may have a little difficulty reconciling the speech they just heard with the person who made it. The gentleman from Alabama last year voted for the 700 billion the second time, not the first time. He was in and out of the negotiations on it, told us he would participate, then was told he couldn't. He did finally vote for it.

We ought to be clear what's happened, and I understand the need to stay at a position.

The new deputy, the new whip of the Republican Party, was quoted in a publication here, Congress Daily, as saying that the gentleman from Alabama was allowed to keep his position as the ranking member because he'd agreed to engage me. Not, let me say--less I cause great problems given the obsessions on the other side--to become engaged to me. I don't want people to be confused. It was that he would engage me.

I did not yield to the gentleman.

And that's what you see. That's the only explanation I could give for this dodge and whirlish, frankly, pattern of activity I can't fully understand. Again, he did vote for it.

What we are seeing, I would say this, if you're listening to the Republican arguments today, this is the going away present to George Bush. Remember that the $700 billion was a major initiative of the Bush administration, insisted upon by Bush officials or Bush appointees: Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson.

At the request of the President--I put the ``President''; he's still the President--as an independent actor is the one who triggered this issue. If he had not done so and had waited a couple of weeks, no, we wouldn't be here today. We would have been following the regular order.

But President Bush, at the request of President-elect Obama--but President Bush did it--triggered on Monday a 15-day period. We will have to vote early next week on whether to approve or disapprove the second TARP, and that was George Bush's approach.

So we're here because George Bush, at the request of President Obama, asked us to release the second 350, and we're here because George Bush asked us to do the first 700 billion.

I do not think in American history there has been as thorough a repudiation of a President by members of his own party, as we have heard from the Republican Party today and elsewhere. But they are entitled to repudiate their President. I salute their perspicacity.

What they are not entitled to do by logic is to say that because the President they supported, the President they campaigned for, the President they honored, because they are so disappointed with the way he conducted one of his major initiatives that this Congress gave him, that they will deny the new President these tools.

Now, I don't like the foreign policy of the Bush administration. But I don't think we should say that Mr. Obama cannot have a State Department.

The TARP is not an independent organism with a spirit of its own. It's a set of tools. There was apparently unanimity in the Congress that the Bush administration did not use them well, although the gentleman from Pennsylvania on our side and others have made the point that they did some good.

By the way, that's one of the interesting things on the Republican side. They have insisted, first of all, that the TARP did no good whatsoever; and secondly, that it succeeded to the point where we don't need the second half. If you read what some of them have said, that's what they said. Several quoted Mr. Kashkari as saying, ``Well, Kashkari, who's running this under George Bush, says things have been stabilized.'' Yeah. He says they've been stabilized in part because we've had this. So quote Mr. Kashkari who says this is worksome to argue that it should never have been done in the first place.

Now let me address this issue of this odd thing that says we should be independent, we should assert ourselves, and what should do? We should wait for the President to give us a plan. That's an odd form of assertiveness to wait for the President to give us a plan. I didn't want to do that. Most of the House does not want to do that, and we are here to tell the President what we think has to be done.

And the gentleman has engaged in one of the, I think, least persuasive techniques, a straw man. Yes, Mr. Summers did a letter, which he had up there. That is by no means the only indication that we will have. And in fact what we are getting is is a specific agreement from the Obama administration to the terms of this bill.

For example, on foreclosure--and the gentleman said, and I'm baffled by this, ``we don't know what he means by `foreclosure.''' Well, he said we need the facts.

You can subpoena someone to tell you what he knows. You cannot subpoena someone to be told things. You can subpoena information out of someone. You can't subpoena information into someone.

There is a concept from ancient theology, which I do not impute to anybody here in defense of the House rule, called invincible ignorance. But invincible ignorance is immune to facts. It is immune to logic and cannot be overcome. We have made very clear--the gentleman from California, who's technically on this--at least 20 billion to go into the plan put forward by Sheila Bair, a Bush appointee of the FDIC. That's very specific. It's not Hope for Homeowners. It's a separate plan.

Secretary Preston, a Bush appointee at HUD, has told us that there is, in the original bill, authority to buy home mortgages and that will work. So there is another specific: buy home mortgages that are in people's portfolios and reduce them, which we mentioned in the bill. The Sheila Bair plan.

Now, Hope for Homeowners, the gentleman is right. We passed Hope for Homeowners, and it was too constricted. It won't work. We constricted it some; the Senate further.

Now, by the way, when we were passing Hope for Homeowners, the Republican mantra was, ``This will cost us $300 billion dollars.'' Preposterous at the time. Now they are arguing, ``Well, it was too restrictive.'' They are right this time. They were wrong the first time.

Part of the reason it was too restrictive is that we were concerned about this argument that we were spending too much.

So we do propose here--and I hope in the recovery program--to fix Hope for Homeowners so we will have Hope for Homeowners, and we will work with the Federal Reserve to try to make Hope for Homeowners more workable.

So we are talking about three specific approaches: A more workable Hope for Homeowners, which reduces principal; the Sheila Bair plan, which reduces interest; and the Preston plan, which buys up mortgages. We also intend to use more money here through Fannie and Freddie.

The notion that nobody knows what we mean by mortgage foreclosure could be advanced seriously. I don't know whether that's a form of engagement that will satisfy the Republican leadership and the Republican Study Committee, to which the gentleman has to pay some attention; but we have very specific numbers, we have a commitment from the Obama administration, from Mr. Geithner, and from Mr. Summers that they will spend at least 100 billion of the 350 on mortgage foreclosure reduction. And if they can't, they will tell us in writing why they couldn't; and they will spend no less than 40.

Now you could not be more specific. The gentleman knows this. This isn't a line in Larry Summers' letter. What's the purpose of pretending that you don't know that we have this commitment to at least 100 billion, no less than 40, and 100 unless they can tell us in writing why it isn't done.

As far as the banks are concerned, we're very specific here. Well, one we passed the LaTourette amendment that Members here voted for. Apparently they thought it was meaningless. I didn't think it was meaningless. I thought a Republican Member, Mr. LaTourette, had a good amendment, and we made this part of the bill; and we have a commitment from the Obama administration to enforce it.

Now, it is possible that the Obama administration will break its word. It is not unheard of for administrations to break their word. We believe the Obama administration will abide by its commitment to follow this bill if it's passed.

I understand the skepticism on the Republican side because we're telling them that we have a commitment which we accept as valid from a new administration that they will abide by the bill as it passes the House. We haven't experienced where the bill could pass both houses and be signed and be ignored. So I understand their skepticism that a President will pay respect to a law.

But again, here is the fundamental flaw. They would visit the sins of the Bush administration on the Obama administration.

We still have a financial crisis, and yes, Mr. Kashkari said things have gotten better, but he didn't say this isn't necessary. Secretary Paulson thinks they're necessary, the Federal Reserve thinks they're necessary, the Obama administration thinks it is necessary to use the $350 billion wisely. We are putting limits here on how it could be used. And it is possible, and it's true.

The Senate doesn't plan to pass the bill they tell us now. That is often the case. It's the first time I've heard the Republicans say that's the reason for us not to do things.

But here is the point: We will pass this bill, I hope. We will then probably see the 350 made available, and I trust the Obama administration. But if they don't, hanging over their heads will be this bill in the Senate--and they don't plan to pass it now--but I believe its being there as a live option will make a difference.

As to participation, no, we haven't had a markup because we are not formally constituted. If President Bush had waited and asked for this in a couple of weeks, we would have had a regular markup. Instead, we've had a very open process, and we have elicited amendments. Oddly, some would argue that because we got over 70 amendments, that shows that Members were somehow unhappy. In fact, we have accepted the great majority of those amendments, including many of those offered by Republicans. Now, many Republicans didn't offer amendments, but those that did, we have accepted some and we put others in order.

So here is the issue that we come down to.

The Republican leadership voted for this bill--not their whole membership, but the leadership did. They were in, they were out; but they voted for it. They then saw their administration had administrated so badly that they've decided to punish the Bush administration by denying a vital tool to the Obama administration. It's like the story of the mother who says to the teacher, ``My child is very sensitive. So if he misbehaves, smack the kid next to him because that will impress him.''

Well, Obama is the kid next to the people who misbehaved. Don't smack him. Don't tell a new President who won an election largely in repudiation of your party's candidate that you're going to deny him this tool.

We think that if the 300 and--note the Republicans who opposed this haven't said that if the Obama people follow this pattern, it will be wrong. They took some shots at foreclosure. Some of the more conservative Members think we should do nothing about it. Most of them don't want to say that.

The question is this: Do we tell a new President that he doesn't have the authority, or do we give him the authority with a set of rules to which he agrees?

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

May I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

I temporarily reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we need that kind of speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have no other speakers and would like to reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Massachusetts has no further speakers and is ready to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, in September Congress rushed to approve $350 billion to prevent what we were told was a doomsday scenario, that Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke warned could bring down our financial system. They said, if we failed to act to stabilize our financial markets our banking system could cease to function. Very serious words. And we did act.

Now, just last week, we approved $350 billion with an option, if necessary, to commit another $350 billion. Just last week, in a letter to Congress, to Members on both sides of the aisle, we were told by Secretary Paulson, and let me quote, ``We have, in fact, met our original, stated objectives, which were to immediately stabilize the financial system by strengthening financial institutions, arresting the wave of financial organization failures, and establishing a basis for recovery.''

You'll recall back then that six of our largest institutions collapsed within a month or two.

Now, what began back in September as an emergency response to stabilize our financial markets has morphed before our very eyes into a string of taxpayer-funded bailouts. I don't think you've failed to notice that. I know the American people have not. Trillions of dollars in taxpayer-backed guarantees and loans have been extended over the past 5 months.

A week after Secretary Paulson announced that the September legislation had met its original goals, they came back again. The government and his agents and his agencies are ready and are anxious to dole out another $350 billion in, what I call, a grab bag of free taxpayer money.

But before the government and the new Obama administration can spend this additional $350 billion, they are required by law to submit a detailed plan, telling the Congress just how they intend to spend the taxpayers' money. They are required to tell us not only how they intend to spend it and what they're going to do with it, but they are to go into detail. I would think that means the purpose of each program, the amount of money, the recipients, the amounts, and perhaps whether AIG is included. How much is going to them?

At a time when Americans--our families, our constituents--are struggling to make ends meet and to make their mortgage payments, that's only fair. We need to be informed. It's a duty we ought to take seriously. We need the facts. We need all of the facts, not just some talking points, not just some broad suggestions. Not only do we need to know and to look at it as we require them to do, but the American people deserve no less.

We do know some things. We do know that special interest groups and their lobbyists are lined up to grab their piece of a very expensive, taxpayer-funded pie. They're calling on most of us, and have this week. They're ready. They're anxious. There is a sense of urgency there. They want a piece of the taxpayer.

We know for sure that Chairman Barney Frank's bill before us today isn't going anywhere with or without amendments. It's not going anywhere. The Senate has repeatedly indicated that they have no intention of taking it up, much less of passing it. Is that my interpretation? No.

Let me quote the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. ``Congress doesn't have time to take up Chairman Frank's plan to spend the money.'' We've had the Paulson plan. Now we've got the Frank plan. I guess we've got the Obama plan, but the Frank plan is never going to see the light of day.

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee came back. He was asked to clarify, and he again reiterated. He said, ``Trying to flesh out a bill form is really impossible.'' We just don't have the time to do it. We're not going to do it. It's not going to happen.

What about the detailed plan requiring the administration to tell us how they intend to spend these additional hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, which was a requirement that was essential in convincing Members to vote for the bill in September? We're not going to vote for it; we're not going to pass it unless we get attached to the request a detailed plan telling us where it's going, telling us who is getting it, telling us how much, giving us detailed terms.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we don't have that plan. Here is what we have. Here is what is attached to this request for $350 billion. All we have are these 322 words. Mr. Chairman, that's more than $1 billion per word. What did we get? We got a document that basically consists of six talking points, some of which sound good, but they are nothing that inform us or the American people as to how the money will be spent.

For example, here is what the plan says that was submitted on the request of the Obama administration. It will ``focus resources on measures that achieve goals in the most effective and efficient manner.'' That sounds pretty good. Let me repeat that. ``Focus resources on measures that achieve goals in the most effective and efficient manner based on current and forecasted financial market conditions.'' Do you know who that's going to? Do you know how much?

Here is another one. There aren't many words here, but here are another 10 of them: ``TARP programs should encourage broad participation.'' That's not even close to a detailed plan. Perhaps we're supposed to rely on the incoming administration to provide us with these details of how they will spend the money. After all, as I said, they've requested the current administration to send this request up. Here is the plan. No. No. The new team was going to change things, but apparently not. It's the same old, same old. They haven't attached a detailed plan required by Congress for the American people or for this Congress.

Although not here, instead, they've sent us a three-page letter with five more talking points. So I guess, maybe, you could take these, which are part of the thing we'll vote on and part of the five talking points they've sent. It was just one of their economic advisers who sent it.

What was the response to that little five-page letter from one of President-elect Obama's advisers? Well, the congressional Democrats said this: ``It fails to meet our standards.'' They said that they needed more details than the letter provided. They've not gotten it.

A letter is not a law, and that's why the chairman brought this before the Congress. A letter is not a law, so he brought this bill, but then the Senate said forget it.

So, 3 months after the House has passed legislation, here we are without any clue as to where the money is going, with embarrassing consequences, and we are going to do it again. We are at it again. We have not learned a thing.

Chairman Frank and the Democratic leadership, you're again on the floor, claiming there is no time for careful consideration under regular order, with a 75-page bill that was introduced less than a week ago. No committee markup will ever be held on this bill. Why not? I don't know. I wrote the chairman. I said, ``Why can't we have a markup?'' I've not received a response, perhaps because a markup isn't necessary. Amendments aren't necessary. This debate is not necessary. Its only purpose is to grease the skids for congressional approval of yet another bailout. Oh, we got some conditions; we got some terms; we passed a bill to nowhere; we gave it our best shot. It didn't come from a committee, and it's going absolutely nowhere.

Someone talked about this wonderful opportunity we were going to have

today to define how this money was going to be used. Well, folks, a bill that is going nowhere isn't much of an opportunity. It has no legal effect. Where should the request for this $350 billion go? I say back to the current administration and to the new administration until such time as the American people and this Congress get the facts.

Why do they suddenly need another $350 billion? Is it another $350 billion sedative for the stock market to calm it for a week or two? Who exactly gets the money--what industries? under what conditions?

Mr. Frank has talked about foreclosures and mitigation. It's a worthy thing. Well, I looked to the Obama administration official and what he said about that, and he said, ``Hope for homeowners. Hope for homeowners.'' Now, Mr. Frank, the chairman, wrote, ``Hope for homeowners,'' and 13 lucky homeowners have received a mortgage or a mortgage workout, 13. I suppose and I believe that the chairman is going to work out a new mortgage program, but we don't know what it is. We don't know how much money is going to it.

The President-elect says he is going to change the bankruptcy laws. I wonder how. I wonder if we shouldn't get some detail from him. He says he is going to make some bold changes in how this money is spent. He has said that he is going to see that distressed homeowners and people who can't pay their car notes receive relief out of this money. I would invite you to read those three pages. Above all, he says he is going to change; he is going to change; he is going to change.

Do you know the one thing he didn't change? No details, no terms, no identification of recipients. He has certainly not been more transparent and accountable. He could have waited 5 days, and he could have filed a detailed plan, and he could have told the American people and this Congress before we voted exactly what he wanted to do, but instead, we get a bill that's not going anywhere, and we get to put some amendments in it. That doesn't sound like much of a change. In fact, it almost sounds like we're going backwards, because we're not going to pass any conditions this time, none whatsoever.

Who gets the money? Under what conditions? We and the American people are going to have to wait. Then I say we vote. We need to do what's right, not what's popular. We need to do what's right. We need to be informed. Yes, there is a sense of urgency, but there also should be a thorough debate, and we ought to know the details of the plan. To be informed, we need to know the facts, and we don't have them. That's the bottom line, and a bill to nowhere doesn't change that.

Mr. Chairman, there was a time not too long ago when it was the banks that loaned money to the people. Today, unfortunately, it's the other way around. Banks are asking the people to loan them money. They're asking our constituents, our voters--many of them struggling to pay the very banks that are asking again for help.

The President-elect says that he is going to see that more bold steps are made to inject capital into those banks. He is going to spread it out. He is going to give some of the banks money that didn't get the money before. He is going to change some of the terms. Now, I have not a clue--and neither do you--as to how, but let me tell you something, one thing, and I will close with this:

It is time that the banks started lending money to people, not the other way around. We, on behalf of the taxpayers and our constituents, can put a stop to this, and we can do it now. We can tell the current administration and the next administration ``no'' to yet another $350 billion blank check bailout. Enough is enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying.

I thank the ranking member.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this debate and maybe this vote is an exercise in futility. Our distinguished chairman has already noted in various media outlets that he doesn't believe that this bill is ever going to become law. The Senate Banking Committee chairman has declared that he is not even going to bother drafting similar legislation, much less voting on it.

So, you might ask yourselves, why is it that we are here today? As an aside, the chairman said interestingly enough

the other day, just yesterday in committee meeting, he said, to quote Harry Truman, the job of the President of the United States is to get people to do things that they should do that they would do if they had half a brain.

Well, the Bush administration will be out of office in a week. I would be curious to know from the chairman who he thinks in the next administration lacks that ability to do the right thing.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it's been reported that the chairman and the House Democrat leadership are really here today to try to provide political cover, in that sense, for their Members that they know this TARP Program is extremely unpopular with the American public and has wasted millions upon millions of dollars, and so this is a political cover to vote on this bill today.

President-elect Obama said on Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ``I, like many, are disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded. There hasn't been enough oversight. We found out this week in a report that we are not tracking where this money is going.''

I agree with President-elect Obama. He is exactly right. There is a lack of congressional oversight, and that's been a concern of mine and many on this side from day one and even before the first TARP bill passed.

I have taken the time to carefully review this legislation. But, unfortunately, when you think about the process that we have gone through here, as a whole, we have not done what is right. We call it regular order here, but for the folks at home, it just means spending the time that you should spend on a bill when you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. That means careful review, hold hearings, hold a markup on the TARP.

Perhaps if we had done that, perhaps we could have foreseen some of the problems that we are talking about here tonight on the first bill. However, the first piece of legislation was cobbled together, and this piece of legislation was cobbled together as well and rushed.

Chairman Frank released this draft that we have here before us just this past Friday. And now so it's less than a week that we are considering that exact same bill here on the floor.

I agree with the ranking member when he said that he has not seen a compelling case to release the second $350 billion. In fact, I haven't seen any case presented as to why we should be releasing the second $350 billion or any plan to deal with spending that $350 billion. I have not seen any evidence that the original $350 billion ever achieved its stated purpose of stabilizing our Nation's financial system.

And, if it did, as some have suggested, then why are we here today going forward with this legislation? You know, the young lady who spoke before me from Minnesota said, rightfully so, that the Department of Treasury willingly admits that they pulled that original $700 billion, that number, out of thin air, not based on any scientific or mathematical analysis.

I have already indicated I did not support the original passage of TARP because I believe there were alternatives at that time to spending $700 billion of American taxpayer dollars. Now, after what we have seen with TARP and how it was handled, I certainly don't believe that we should waste an additional $350 billion as well.

I will say this, while the chairman is making an effort to provide some oversight with this legislation, such as requiring banks that received the funds to disclose how they are spending it, you know, if you dig into this bill I believe that there are provisions in it that will have more harm than good at the end of the day.

They will do more harm to the economic recovery that we are all looking for. I will give you a couple of examples.

I have concerns with the retroactivity provisions that apply to institutions that have already received funds. What about contract law, what about the constitutional law?

What about the constitutional provisions as regards to that?

Secondly, forcing companies that receive TARP funds to receive a government overseer on their boards. Amazing, a Congress that can't manage its own affairs is now going to have an overseer on corporate boards around this country. You know, an overseer today will become a suggestor tomorrow and eventually a dictator the next day.

Thirdly, requiring $100 billion of the remaining TARP funds to be spent on the foreclosure mitigation program. This was not the initial reason that we did TARP. It was to get the credit markets moving again in this country.

In closing, regardless of whether this measure passes or fails, it is almost certain that President-elect Obama will receive this request for the additional $350 billion with absolutely no strings attached or mechanism in place to ensure that the money is spent reliably. The House Democrat leadership failed when they passed the first bill of TARP, and they will fail when they give the authority to the President the second time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I thank the gentleman.

I want to reiterate one point that was made earlier, and I think is maybe one of the most important points that has been made here today, and that is that we don't have another $350 billion. In fact, we didn't have the first $350 billion, and we had to go out and borrow that money from our children and our grandchildren in order to do something that nobody has really articulated what we were trying to do. We didn't have a plan. There was no accountability. But we went ahead and charged on the credit cards of our children and our grandchildren $350 billion, with the assumption we would do another $350 billion.

The issue here, and the reason it is so important, and I am frustrated and I do not understand, this isn't the only money that we have committed. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, have guaranteed billions and billions of dollars, and we are getting into the trillions. A recent Wall Street Journal article said that we could possibly be already in this at $6 trillion. Now, even in Texas that is a lot of money.

But the question here is that it is not just this $350 billion that we are talking about. The other side is putting together a proposal right now. It is a stimulus package. The new administration is going to bring that any day. We don't know what that number is, but it has been reported anywhere from $800 billion to $1.3 trillion. Again, we don't have that $800 billion or $1.3 trillion.

So when you add all this together, we are talking about in the next few weeks here committing $1.5 trillion of the American taxpayers' money with no plan, with no measure of what has happened to all of these unprecedented things we have done.

Then the last point I want to make here is it is unprecedented, the amount of interference and injection that we have put the Federal Government into companies all across America, and the markets are trying to figure out what to do with this new player in the marketplace. And the question is, there was no exit strategy, so at some point at time somebody is going to blow the whistle and say okay, it is time to quit doing all of this government interference, hopefully sooner rather than later, and then the question is what is going to happen to the markets as the government begins to exit this? What is going to happen when all of these guarantees begin to expire, when all of these loans that we have made begin to come due, all of these investments that we have made in these companies start to have to be paid off? And the problem is that we are doing that all on a rapid fire basis with no clear direction.

Now, the American people deserve for the United States Congress that they just recently elected and we were sworn in, they deserve for us to look and deliberate and make sure that if we are going to mortgage our children's and our grandchildren's future, that we at least do it in a way that we can look them in the eye and say we believe it is in their best interests that we do that; that we are looking at the effectiveness of the program, we are looking at how people are spending that money, and we have a plan on how we are going to end this at some point in time. Unfortunately, none of those exist today.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members of Congress to stop and reflect. Let's vote this bill down and let's look and be accountable to the American people. They deserve it.

My colleague is easily impressed, but thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, we have to back up a little bit and remind ourselves what we are debating here. We are debating a bill that amends the TARP provisions. It doesn't grant $350 billion to anyone.

There is no money attached to this bill, and I actually agree with many of the comments that have been made about the past 350 and the potential soon to be $350 billion. I have the same concerns they do. I may fall on the different side of the issue because, for me, I voted for it, not because I loved it, but because to me it was the only way to save the economy.

I think some of it's working. I agree that I have the same concerns about the lack of reporting that has been done to us, that this administration has not told us how effective it has been. I agree with those concerns, but that's not what we are debating. The bill before us is an improvement on the bill that we passed, and those other concerns should be directed when we get that other bill, hopefully within the next few days, and I may actually join you when the time comes, don't know yet.

It depends on whether this bill gets passed. It depends on what the new incoming administration says about this bill that's currently before us.

But let's not forget how we had the last one. Many of us tried to add some of these provisions the last time. We were told by the current President that if those things were added he would not sign the bill. He would veto it and let the economy go down the tubes. We were told by some of our colleagues in the other body that they would not go along with it.

So we were stuck with the situation. You either save the economy or do nothing.

I actually respect those of us who did nothing. I wasn't sure that my vote was right. I am still not sure, as I stand here today. And anyone who is so certain that they know exactly how to fix this economy, well, good luck to you and God bless you, because you are much more certain than most Americans.

Most of us are doing the best we can with the knowledge that we have. I wish I could sit here today and say to you that the hearing we had a few weeks ago in Financial Services provided me all the information I needed to make a thoughtful judgment on whether the next 350 should go forward.

Instead, I was told we are not going to look at the individual institutions. We don't care what they do. That is an insane statement. No one can agree with that, yet that's what we were told.

I have some belief and some faith that the new administration will feel differently. I believe this bill sets forth clear or at least clearer definitions of what must be in the report, clearer definitions of how the money should be used.

I haven't heard one reason to vote against the bill that's before us. I have heard reasons to vote against potentially the next 350.

But let's focus on the bill that's in front of us. I would like to hear one reason why we shouldn't specify better reporting, that we shouldn't strengthen oversight, that we shouldn't clearly state that this Congress wants something to be done directly about mortgage foreclosures. I haven't heard that.